Compare Bissell CleanView Compact Upright Vacuum vs Kenmore Intuition Bagged Upright Vacuum

Ease of use is strong thanks to the light body, simple controls, and easy everyday handling.

Ease of use was generally strong, with reviewers praising pushability and simple operation, although some mechanisms needed getting used to.

Storage is a strength; reviewers repeatedly described the vacuum as compact and easy to store in tight spaces.

Upright stability evidence was negative in the technician review because tugging the short hose could tip or move the machine.

Crevice pickup is weak; the vacuum struggled to lift sand from a deep groove.

Crevice pickup evidence was very positive in Vacuum Wars, where Kenmore performed significantly better than the Shark.

Cord management is positive, with one reviewer saying the cord wraps neatly around the back.

Cord management evidence was negative, with Vacuum Wars criticizing the stiff cord hook.

Filtration is a limitation because one reviewer specifically noted the lack of HEPA filtration.

Filtration was one of the strongest themes, with sealed HEPA-style bags and lower dust exposure praised, though the technician review questioned the small exhaust filter.

Maintenance is a strength because reviewers liked the washable filters, easy cleaning access, and low-effort upkeep.

Maintenance evidence was mixed-to-negative, mainly because the wand, bag mechanism, cord hook, and brushroll required extra effort.

Small-space suitability is one of the clearest strengths, with reviewers pointing to apartments, dorm rooms, and compact storage.

Small-space suitability was mixed: one technician saw it as more apartment or condo sized, yet also said the design still did not make sense for his own apartments.

Carpet hair pickup is a strength, with reviewers reporting most hair collected and one pet bedroom test filling the canister.

Carpet hair pickup ranged from good in Top Ten Reviews to mediocre or roller-sticking in TechGearLab and the technician review.

Low-pile carpet pickup is usable but not effortless, with evidence of good results after extra passes.

Low-pile and general carpet pickup was a clear strength, with lab and tester evidence showing high collection rates and single-pass debris pickup.

Hard-floor large-debris intake is inconsistent, ranging from strong rice pickup in one test to poor results on big piles and hardwood.

Large-debris hard-floor intake was mixed, with bigger gates and hard-floor pickup praised by Vacuum Wars but snowplowing and dragged debris noted in other tests.

Medium-carpet pickup is mixed: one test left sand behind, while another reviewer liked its basic carpet cleaning.

Medium-pile carpet evidence was excellent, including perfect deep-clean scores and strong user praise for deep cleaning.

Weight is a major strength; reviewers repeatedly called it light, portable, and easy to carry.

Weight evidence depended on model and context: several reviewers called the BU4020/BU4022 light, while older or loaded variants were described as heavy or heftier than expected.

Hard-floor hair pickup was praised in the pet-hair buying-guide review as part of its multi-surface pet-hair cleaning.

Hard-floor hair pickup evidence was average, with TechGearLab saying it pulled up a fair amount but did not dominate the pet-hair test.

Area rug handling is positive in the buying-guide review, which said the suction covers carpets, area rugs, and hard floors.

Area-rug handling was mixed: reviewers praised rug cleaning, but thick carpet and shag rugs could be hard to push or struggle.

Pet-readiness is mixed: reviewers saw useful pet-hair pickup in small spaces, but one comparison warned it is not ideal for households with lots of pets.

Pet-focused evidence was mostly positive, with reviewers praising pet-hair pickup and allergy-friendly use, though separate hair-wrap evidence shows pet hair can still collect in the roller on some models.

Cord length is mixed: one reviewer found the 23-foot cord easy to use, while another called the cord relatively short.

Cord length was generally considered good, often around 30 feet, though one technician found the usable cord length closer to 25 feet with the holder attached.

The included wand and small tools were praised for hard-to-reach spots, narrow places, and above-floor cleanup.

Most reviewers liked the included accessories, especially turbo, pet, upholstery, and combination tools, but the technician review criticized the tools as an afterthought.

Maneuverability is adequate rather than exceptional; the lack of pivoting was said not to hurt handling too much.

Handling evidence was mixed: many reviews praised lightness, swivel steering, and obstacle-course movement, while heavier variants and stair carrying drew criticism.

Hair-debris flow was positive in the comparative test, where collected hair reached the canister without clogging.

Clogging and debris-prevention evidence centered on the BU4050 hair eliminator, which was praised for tackling hair accumulation.

Heavy-duty suitability is weak because reviewers cautioned against large homes, huge messes, and homes with many pets.

Heavy-duty suitability evidence was negative from the technician review, which said the narrow path and design were not meant for a full house.

The bin is easy to remove and use, but the compact dust cup can require more frequent emptying.

The bag system earned praise for capacity, dust control, and allergy usefulness, but the technician review argued the bag size and sealing lagged competitors.

Hose length is only average; a comparison said the difference versus the turbo hose is not huge but still noticeable.

Reach evidence was mixed: some reviewers liked the longer wand or hose, while the technician review strongly criticized the short, stiff hose.

Emptying is generally easy, with reviewers describing hassle-free bagless use and simple debris release.

Emptying and mess control was mostly praised for dust-free, no-touch bag disposal, but one technician said the bag did not seal up well.

Overall opinion is positive for small-space, budget use, but reviewers consistently frame it as simple rather than premium.

Overall opinion was mostly favorable for carpet-focused buyers, value, and filtration, though the technician review was sharply negative about design and build tradeoffs.

Versatility is a strength for routine home use, with reviewers citing rugs, carpet, hard surfaces, and above-floor cleaning.

Versatility was a major strength, with reviewers praising lift-off use, wand reach, mixed-surface cleaning, and broad cleaning roles.

Above-floor pickup was praised through the extension wand, especially for furniture and hard-to-reach areas.

Above-floor and upholstery evidence was generally strong, with lift-up use and upholstery tools praised for stairs, sofas, and pet hair.

Comparative performance is mixed to weak: one roundup did not recommend under-$100 vacuums, and another preferred the turbo variant for varied floors.

Comparative evidence was positive in Vacuum Wars, where Kenmore beat the compared Shark in head airflow and pickup tests.

Blowback or scatter is a weakness on larger hard-floor debris, where debris moved to the sides.

Airflow blowback evidence was positive in one technician test because the front exhaust did not blow pet hair away.

Noise is a consistent weakness; reviewers described it as loud or very noisy, even when they liked the cleaning power.

Noise evidence was mixed: Consumer Reports described it as less noisy than the Oreck but still middle-of-the-road, Top Ten Reviews found it surprisingly quiet for its size, and one technician called it a screamer.

Ownership costs look low because reviewers highlighted washable filters and bagless upkeep as money-saving.

Ownership cost evidence was mixed: bags and filters add recurring expense, but one technician argued bagged machines can cost less to run than bagless designs.

Suction drew mixed but mostly positive evidence: several reviewers praised power for routine cleaning, while one comparative test called it weak versus larger, premium uprights.

Reviewers repeatedly praised strong suction and airflow, especially on carpet, though one older-model review framed the power as part of broader cleaning performance rather than flawless all-surface results.

Edge and baseboard cleaning was reasonably good in the wall-rice test, though not flawless close to the wall.

Edge and baseboard hard-floor evidence was decent but not perfect, with one lab review saying head-on wall pickup worked better than parallel passes.

Build quality was framed as acceptable for the price, close to related Bissell models but not clearly premium.

Build-quality evidence was strongly negative in the technician review, which called the quality unacceptable at higher prices.

Floorhead design is mixed: reviewers criticized inefficiency and no brush shutoff, but one liked the raised agitator behavior when upright.

Floorhead design evidence was negative in the technician review, mainly because the cleaning path was narrower than most vacuums.

Controls are a strength, with multiple reviewers praising the foot controls or simple power access.

Controls were praised for practical brushroll and wand/lift controls that make switching modes straightforward.

Setup is very easy, with reviewers saying it comes mostly assembled or is very simple to put together.

Assembly evidence was positive, with reviewers describing parts that lock in and quick setup from unpacking to full assembly.

Value is strong overall, with reviewers calling it affordable, well positioned, and worth the budget price despite limitations.

Value evidence was generally positive because reviewers saw strong carpet performance and extras for the price, but recurring costs and higher-price build concerns tempered the score.

Design comments were generally positive, with reviewers noting rose-gold styling, a sleek package, and chrome accents.

The lift-up or lift-away pod design was widely praised for above-floor cleaning, though the technician review felt it served little practical purpose.

Low-profile cleaning was weak because reviewers said the bin and bulky body made cleaning under furniture difficult.

Durability and longevity evidence was limited but strongly negative from the technician review, which said the machine did not meet older Kenmore quality standards.

The bag-full indicator was consistently liked as a helpful touch that prevents overfilling or unnecessary checking.

High-pile carpet pickup was strong in TechGearLab testing, with an outstanding average and easy pushing.

Debris illumination was praised where reviewers said the LED lights made dust, brush area, or hard-to-see debris easier to spot.

Dual-motor evidence was limited to one review, which credited the system with effective cleaning performance.

Hair-removal maintenance was a recurring weakness because the brushroll did not pop out and was hard to clean.

Hair-wrap evidence was the most consistent concern, with multiple reviews reporting tangles, wrapped long hair, or pet hair stuck around the roller.

Fine-dust hard-floor pickup was mixed: some reviews praised hard-floor debris pickup, while Forbes and TechGearLab said hard floors lagged carpets and fine flour was challenging.

LED headlights were consistently praised as useful for spotting debris and lighting the brush area.

Innovation evidence was positive but mostly feature-oriented, with no-touch bagging and uncommon features for the price presented as differentiators.

Onboard tool storage was mixed: some reviews liked organized onboard storage, while the technician review said tools did not lock in and bumped off.

Tool-change evidence was negative in the technician review, where a non-locking attachment came off during use.

Under-furniture pickup was a weakness because the dust-bin position, bulky body, and bed clearance limited reach.

Stair-cleaning evidence was split: lift-up designs were praised for stairs by several reviewers, while the technician review found the hose and balance awkward enough to feel risky.

Support evidence was split between praise for a five-year warranty in BU4020/BU4022 coverage and criticism of a one-year warranty in the 31140 review.