Compare Eureka Airspeed Ultra-Lightweight Vacuum vs Amazon Basics Upright 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 rated highly in the positive owner review, which called the vacuum easy to operate.

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 suitability was weak; a reviewer suggested spending more if shag carpet is part of the home.

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

Filtration was consistently judged poor, with reviewers reporting particle leakage, no HEPA-style containment, and smoke escaping from the body.

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

Accessory support was criticized because the included tools were limited and nonstandard, making additional accessories difficult to find.

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

Tool changes were praised in one hands-on review because the hose was easy to remove and attach.

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 mostly negative, with several reviewers calling it basic, a missed opportunity, or not recommended, while one owner liked it.

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

Emptying was polarizing: one owner called it very easy, while another warned the dust was hazardous and messy.

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

Fine debris on hard floors was a major weakness, with reviewers describing sand or debris being scattered or kicked back.

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

The bin was viewed positively by one reviewer for straightforward emptying, but another criticized the bagless design as inconvenient for apartments.

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

Maintenance requirements were a drawback in the technician review because bagless use meant frequent upkeep.

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

Small-space suitability was limited to a very small, carpet-only apartment use case.

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

Hose length and reach were criticized by two reviewers as short or limited.

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

Medium-carpet evidence was mixed: it could pick up some sand and felt clean in one review, but other reviewers called carpet cleaning lackluster or below average.

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

Under-furniture pickup was poor because the machine did not get particularly low.

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

Versatility was mixed to poor: one owner liked using the wand for different tasks, while testing sources found the vacuum unsuitable across common surfaces.

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

The floorhead seal on hard floors was weak, with debris scattering instead of staying contained for pickup.

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

Tangle resistance was mixed: the comparative test saw some wrap, and a later test reported longer hair tangling around the brush roll.

Onboard tool storage was praised as convenient and nicely designed.

Onboard tool storage was praised in the owner review.

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 hair pickup was a relative bright spot, with reviewers saying it handled pet hair well, though filtration concerns limited its pet-readiness.

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

Heavy-duty suitability was low because one reviewer framed it as a temporary, budget stopgap rather than a long-term workhorse.

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

Above-floor pickup was mixed: one owner liked the suction through the tool setup, while another found the hose use inconvenient.

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 was the clearest strength, with nearly every source calling the vacuum very light or emphasizing its low 8-pound range.

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

Low-pile carpet pickup was one of the better areas, with reviewers calling fine-debris pickup decent or better than expected.

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

Cord management was praised in one owner review because the onboard cord storage was easy to release.

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

Hair pickup on carpet was generally decent to strong, though one review still saw some pet hair movement or sticking.

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

Large debris intake was weak, especially on hard floors where rice was thrown around and bare-floor debris pickup was only passable.

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

Debris prevention was weak in the technician review, where pet hair was observed sticking in the cyclone assembly.

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

Noise was a clear weakness in the comparative test, where the Amazon Basics was measured as nearly as loud as another noisy budget upright.

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 sharply on suction: one found good suction in casual use, while multiple tests called hose suction, airflow, or measured vacuum strength weak for the category.

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

Comparative performance was poor, with reviewers pointing to better options or slightly more expensive alternatives.

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

Edge and wall pickup was weak in the comparative test, where rice remained near the wall.

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

Airflow blowback was poor, with one reviewer describing sand being kicked back on hard floors.

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 a recurring weakness, especially the fixed height, low gates, and limited design features.

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

Low-profile design was poor because the vacuum did not get very low.

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

Price is the product’s core appeal, but reviewers repeatedly warned that the low price comes with major performance compromises.

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

Assembly was consistently easy, with one test noting it was nearly ready out of the box and another calling setup straightforward.

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

The foot controls were strongly liked in the hands-on review.

One reviewer liked the color, giving the design finish a modest positive note.

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

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

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

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

Crevice pickup was very poor in the comparative test, where the vacuum barely made progress lifting sand from a groove.

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

Packaging received a positive environmental note for mostly cardboard packing.

Its small body was noted as a possible storage advantage, though the evidence supported compactness more than strong stand stability.

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

Stair cleaning was only moderately supported: the wand and light body made it possible, but not positioned as especially convenient.