Compare Eureka Airspeed Ultra-Lightweight Vacuum vs Bissell CleanView Swivel Vacuum

Ease of use was split: simple controls and setup earned praise, but a lab review found the minimalist design less user-friendly in practice.

Ease of use was positive in value-focused reviews, but one lab review found tight turns and height adjustments frustrating.

Hard-floor seal performance was weak in one test, where debris kicked backward from under the head.

One technical review praised the squeegee-style seal for improving hard-floor contact and crevice pickup.

Large-debris handling was a weakness in tougher tests, where Cheerios or rice were pushed or plowed instead of cleanly collected.

Clog-related evidence was favorable overall, with reviewers noting no hair clog in one test and praising the suction blockage indicator.

Hard-floor large-debris intake was weak in multiple tests, with snowplowing and scattered debris noted.

Large-debris hard-floor intake was one of the most inconsistent areas, ranging from near-perfect rice pickup to repeated complaints about cereal, Cheerios, and scattered debris.

Onboard tool storage was praised as convenient and nicely designed.

Onboard tool storage was mixed, with one review praising easy storage and another warning an unstored corner tool would likely get lost.

The wand and hose changeover drew a caveat because one reviewer warned users not to forget reconnecting the tube properly.

One reviewer found the hose and attachment connection easy to take apart and reassemble.

Handling was one of the most mixed areas: the vacuum is light, but several reviewers disliked the non-swivel head and carpet resistance.

Maneuverability was often praised for swivel steering and easy steering around furniture, though one lab review found tight turns difficult.

Hard-floor fine debris results were highly inconsistent but mostly negative, with repeated reports of sand or grit being kicked back or scattered.

Fine-dust hard-floor pickup was mixed but mostly positive, with strong small-debris results in two reviews and weaker hardwood suction in another.

Pet-readiness was divided: one lab-style review found pet hair performance poor, while a family-use review said regular vacuuming solved their cat-hair problems.

Pet-owner positioning was a consistent strength, with multiple reviewers praising pet-hair tools and pickup, though one lab review said pet-hair benefit was limited by cleanup hassle.

Reviewers liked the dust bin size and easy-empty canister, describing it as sizable, big, and slow to fill.

The bin drew mixed feedback: reviewers liked the high-capacity or bottom-empty design, but one owner felt the usable fill line made it seem small.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed, with one reviewer impressed by a clean brush roll and other testing finding tangles with long hair.

Hair-wrap resistance was weak in lab and review evidence because hair accumulated on the non-removable brushroll and was difficult to clean.

Dust containment evidence conflicted, with one review criticizing the unsealed system while another found it unlikely to worsen sensitivity issues.

Filtration was a repeated weakness because the vacuum lacks sealed HEPA filtration, although one review liked that the bottom-empty tank reduced dust escaping during emptying.

High-pile and thick-carpet feedback was notably better, with one lab test scoring above average and another reviewer praising deep carpet pickup.

High-pile carpet evidence was mixed: several reviewers praised hair or debris pickup, but some noted large debris or sand still required extra work.

Cord length received positive comments from reviewers who called it decently long or nice and long.

Cord length was generally adequate, with owners praising the 27-foot range while one review noted it was a few feet shorter than average.

Carpet hair pickup was split, ranging from untouched pet hair in lab testing to several reviewers reporting easy cat-hair pickup.

Carpet hair pickup was one of the most consistently praised areas, with multiple reviewers describing excellent pet-hair removal from carpets.

Emptying was consistently praised as simple, quick, and easy through the release-button canister design.

Emptying was mostly easy and hygienic according to several reviews, though one owner still found stuck hairballs and the usable capacity frustrating.

Tool feedback was mixed: reviewers liked having a wand or basic tool set at the price, but another called the included attachments very basic.

Accessories were generally viewed as a strength, with praise for the attachment set and floor-to-ceiling usefulness, though one reviewer considered the basic brush merely ordinary.

Low-pile or standard carpet results ranged from poor lab performance to very strong owner demonstrations, making this a mixed attribute.

Low-pile carpet performance was positive in the detailed reviews that tested it, especially when adjusted to the right surface setting.

One review found some versatility through the wand for furniture and ceilings, but only in a qualified way.

One detailed review summarized the vacuum as solid and feature-equipped enough to cover multiple cleaning jobs.

The vacuum was broadly praised as lightweight, although two reviews noted that carpet suction or awkward handling can make it feel heavier in use.

Weight feedback was mixed: one review found handle weight lighter than average, another owner found it lightweight, and a third called it heavy and bulky.

Reach was mixed: one reviewer liked the hose for counter-height cleaning, while others wished the wand or hose were longer.

Hose reach was mixed: one review liked its quality, another said the Dyson reached much farther, and others found the hose adequate but not long.

Above-floor cleaning was mixed, with one reviewer finding the dusting tool decent and another finding upholstery cleaning ineffective.

Above-floor and upholstery performance was mixed: some tools worked well on upholstery and stairs, but the turbo tool could stall or feel underpowered.

Cord management received a positive mention for the wrap hooks keeping the cord tidy.

Cord management was praised across several reviews, especially the rewind model and cord clip, though the simple non-rewind model was also considered workable.

Maintenance feedback was mixed, with one review frustrated by a non-removable brush roll and another liking how simple filter access was.

Maintenance drew split feedback, with some reviewers calling it easy and low-cost while others criticized brushroll hair removal and belt clogging.

Reviewers framed it as an entry-level or simple-task vacuum rather than a serious long-term heavy-duty cleaner.

Heavy-duty suitability looked limited, with reviewers positioning it for simple messes and cautioning against very hairy dogs or demanding cleanup.

On ordinary fitted carpet, reviewers described pickup as pretty good in short demonstrations.

Medium-carpet evidence was sharply mixed: one test gave it a perfect deep-clean score, while another comparison found it struggled with embedded sand.

Under-furniture cleaning was criticized because the vacuum was not good at getting under surfaces such as beds.

Under-furniture cleaning was a weakness because the fixed canister, high head, or handle angle limited reach.

Overall opinion was split between strong budget praise from video reviewers and a much harsher lab review that placed it near the bottom.

Overall opinion was polarized: several reviewers were impressed by the value and pet performance, while one lab review gave a poor overall recommendation.

Controls were consistently described as simple, especially the foot-style power control and basic operation.

Controls were a weak point in several reviews, with complaints about close-together pedals, bending to adjust height, and confusing foot buttons.

Durability impressions ranged from plasticky but maybe serviceable for a few years to one family calling it tried-and-true after a year.

Long-term reliability was a concern in one owner review, which highlighted complaints about units dying quickly.

The low-profile design was weak because one review said it was not good for cleaning under surfaces.

Low-profile design was mixed: one owner liked cabinet clearance, while another test said the taller brushroll head limited under-furniture reach.

Build quality was polarized, with one review calling it plasticky and others saying it felt high quality or did not feel cheap.

Build feedback was mixed: one test found the construction acceptable after heat checks, while two owner-style reviews described plastic parts as flimsy or cheap-feeling.

The floorhead drew mixed reactions: the brush roll impressed at the price, but the no-height-adjustment/basic design caused snowplowing and poor debris behavior.

Floorhead design was mixed: one comparison praised head efficiency, while other reviews said clearance or head height caused debris-plowing and under-furniture limits.

One owner-style review said assembly and setup were very easy.

Assembly was mostly considered straightforward or easy, but one comparison noted this model required more assembly than several competitors.

Value depended heavily on price: some called it one of the best cheap uprights, while others said full list price made it less compelling.

Most positive reviews framed the vacuum as strong value or budget-friendly, but one lab review argued that cheaper alternatives cleaned better.

Only one reviewer evaluated noise directly and praised the vacuum as quieter than other vacuums they had used.

Noise impressions were mixed: one comparison measured it as the least noisy in that lineup, while another review called it a little louder than average.

Edge cleaning varied sharply, with budget testing saying it missed edges and one demonstration saying it cleaned right to the edge.

Edge and baseboard cleaning drew both praise and criticism, with reviewers liking edge tools/brushes but some tests showing missed or scattered debris near walls.

In one standardized pickup test it was acceptable but clearly not among the best performers.

One review positioned it as a more capable step above an entry-level Bissell model due to added range, tools, and motor power.

Reviewers generally found the AirSpeed strong for its size and price, with measured airflow and repeated praise for suction, though one budget roundup still placed it below pricier uprights.

Reviewers split on suction: several praised it as powerful or strong for the price, while one test found hard-floor suction mediocre and another described it as only somewhat above entry-level.

One reviewer praised the included second filter as a nice ownership touch.

Maintenance cost was viewed positively in one detailed review because the cyclone/filter design was said to prolong filter life and reduce replacement expense.

One budget test criticized blowback from an unsealed system, saying fine dust and dirt could return to the room.

Cyclone performance was praised for maintaining debris separation and supporting deeper cleaning with lower maintenance costs.

Stair usability was supported by the extension tools and mini motorized attachment, which reviewers found useful for stairs and pet-bed cleaning.

Area-rug performance was praised strongly in the dedicated rug test.

Crevice pickup was weak in one comparison, where the vacuum gave up after limited sand removal.

Hair-removal channel issues were a repeated complaint, especially around the non-removable brushroll and belt area where hair could clog.

Hard-floor hair pickup had both praise and caveats, with good pet-hair claims but lab and roundup reviews noting weaker hardwood effectiveness.

One review said the vacuum did not scratch floors even when it underperformed on hardwood pickup.

Small-space suitability was a consistent bright spot, especially for dorm rooms, first apartments, or simple apartment cleaning.

Surface safety with attachments was a concern because reviewers warned that the always-spinning brush could damage floors or carpet while using tools.