Compare LG CordZero A937 Cordless Stick Vacuum vs BLACK+DECKER Powerseries Extreme Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

Ease of use was generally strong, though not enough to offset reliability and clogging complaints for dissatisfied customers.

Ease of use is a strength overall, with reviewers calling it easy to operate, smooth to use, and convenient.

Carpet pickup was strong overall, including high-pile, shag, and general carpet tests.

High-pile performance is poor in the lab review, with only 24% debris pickup reported.

Kid-friendliness was poor in evidence involving playdoh and larger household debris that still required broom-and-dustpan cleanup.

Kid-friendliness received one strong positive test, with a reviewer saying it passed a kid-use test.

Debris illumination was criticized because customers expected a headlight or dirt-revealing floorhead at this price.

Debris illumination is a standout strength, with reviewers saying the lights revealed missed dust and lit the cleaning path well.

The missing headlight/LED feature was a recurring disappointment for customers.

LED/headlight feedback is strongly positive, with reviewers repeatedly calling the lights bright, helpful, liked, or a favorite feature.

Small-space suitability was weak because the tower needs side clearance and loses usefulness in tight slots.

Small-space suitability is strong, with several reviewers calling it good for small apartments, quick tasks, and tight areas.

Filtration was praised in some reviews, but one detailed test criticized the vacuum for failing dust containment.

Filtration is the clearest weakness: multiple reviewers reported failed smoke tests, unsealed canisters, poor dust containment, or little filtration despite one light-use demo seeing debris trapped in the filter.

Storage was a tradeoff: the tower hides tools and can be freestanding, but several reviewers found it large or space-hungry.

Storage is a major strength because reviewers repeatedly praised the self-standing design, compact storage, and upright convenience, though one noted it can be tippy.

Clogging was one of the clearest weaknesses, especially with cereal, fur, fluff, and narrow intake paths.

Clogging evidence is split: one review warned the brush can jam on cords or tassels, while another praised no clogs or stuttering in debris tests.

The compressor and bag system drew praise for extending capacity, but the small bin and bag cost/capacity were common caveats.

Bin feedback is mostly negative, citing small capacity, tricky removal, weak sealing, and one reviewer calling the cup terrible.

Area-rug handling was positive where reviewers said flatter rugs and fringe did not stall or jam the vacuum.

Area rug handling is mixed, ranging from a good rug crumb test to sticking or difficult pushing on certain rugs.

Emptying was highly polarized: many loved the dust-free auto-empty tower, but others found it slow, messy, or unreliable.

Emptying and mess control are mixed-negative, with repeated complaints about tricky removal, flying dust, dropped debris, or awkward emptying despite a few easy-empty mentions.

Hard-floor hair pickup was weaker in customer evidence, particularly for dog fur on tile or wood floors.

Hard-floor hair pickup is mixed, with one reviewer praising dust and hair pickup while another said the Extreme struggled on wood laminate hair.

Stuck resistance was mixed: it handled flatter rugs well, but customer reviews reported the vacuum getting stuck in the base station.

Stuck resistance has a negative rug-related finding, with the low head sticking to certain rugs or becoming hard to push.

Above-floor and upholstery cleaning were strong, with reviewers praising couch, fabric, tight-spot, and pet-hair pickup.

Above-floor pickup is mixed: handheld and crevice use were praised, but one review found base suction below average for handheld tasks.

The tool bundle and attachments were generally valued, though some customers objected that certain accessories were sold separately.

Accessory coverage is mixed: some reviews liked the pet and crevice tools or extra attachments, while others criticized the limited attachment set.

Hair-wrap resistance was mixed: some tests and users saw little wrap, while long-hair tests found major tangling.

Hair-wrap resistance is highly mixed: some reviewers found it anti-tangle or jam-free, while others reported poor tangle resistance or hopeless wrap.

Onboard storage was one of the tower’s best-liked features because tools are hidden, organized, and close at hand.

Onboard tool storage has one positive mention for the crevice tool mounting to the base and being ready quickly.

Crevice pickup was a strength in test evidence, especially pulling sand or flour from hard-floor grooves.

Crevice and groove pickup has one strong positive mention for reaching tight edges and corners.

Large debris intake was one of the weakest areas, with cereal, Cheerios, and food pieces clogging, scattering, or getting pushed around.

Large hard-floor debris handling is inconsistent and often weak, with several reviews describing snowplowing, pushing, breakage concerns, or kickback despite a few positive quick tests.

Fine dust and small-debris pickup on hard floors tested well in controlled reviews.

Fine hard-floor pickup is mostly positive in tests involving sand, fine debris, or light hard-floor cleaning.

Tool changes were described as intuitive and easy, with attachments clicking on and off without much friction.

Tool changes are mostly easy, especially the crevice tool, though one reviewer found the main dustbin/body connection less smooth than the accessory.

Cordless convenience was a clear positive, with users valuing the lack of cord for easier day-to-day cleaning.

Cordless convenience received a positive use-case mention for house and car cleaning.

Hair pickup from carpets was positive in testing, with long strands removed from the floor.

Carpet hair pickup is positive, with reviewers reporting above-average or pretty good hair pickup on carpet.

Packaging feedback was positive in the customer evidence that mentioned it.

Packaging received one positive mention, with the retail box and packaging described favorably.

Runtime was mixed: dual batteries and medium-mode life helped, but turbo runtime and advertised claims disappointed some reviewers.

Runtime is context-dependent: low-power or swappable-battery use can be adequate, but high-power runtime and charging speed drew limitations.

Maintenance was mixed: washable filters and easy parts helped, but clogs and frequent filter washing hurt ownership.

Maintenance is generally positive because filters are washable and easy to rinse, though hair and dustbin mess still require attention.

Hair-channel clogging was a clear pet-home problem, with fur getting stuck and requiring manual clearing.

Hair-removal channel evidence is negative, with a lab review saying long hair had to be manually cut away and removed.

Innovation was strongest around the auto-empty tower, which reviewers framed as unusual or bleeding-edge for stick vacuums.

Innovation is positive for the price, especially self-standing storage and AutoSense-style features that reviewers considered rare or absent on more expensive vacuums.

Heavy-duty suitability was weak for pet-heavy or kid-heavy homes because customers reported clogs, weak pickup, and the need to use other tools.

Heavy-duty suitability is weak, with reviewers saying it is not right for heavy-duty cleaning and lacks power for larger messes.

Pet performance was polarized: several reviewers praised pet-fur pickup, but customer reviews repeatedly reported fur clogging and weaker results in homes with shedding pets.

Pet evidence is mixed but generally favorable for hair pickup, with praise for pet hair handling and a strong caveat that filtration/sealing can matter for pet households.

Overall opinion was highly mixed: several reviewers loved or recommended it, while others refused to recommend it because of hard-floor, reliability, or support problems.

Overall opinion is mixed-positive: most reviewers recommended it for budget or quick cleaning, while one lab-style review could not fully recommend it beyond tight-budget use.

Versatility was strong overall because reviewers used it across mixed floors, quick cleans, attachments, handheld cleaning, and mopping.

Versatility received a positive multi-surface mention across hard floors, carpet, upholstery, and clothing lint.

Under-furniture reach was good thanks to low-profile and lay-flat handling.

Under-furniture pickup is consistently positive thanks to low-profile movement and the ability to reach under beds, furniture, and tables.

Low-pile carpet pickup was acceptable but reduced by larger cereal-type debris.

Low-pile or general carpet pickup is generally good for smaller debris and surface pickup, but not consistently deep or premium.

Weight was mixed: several reviewers called it light, while customer reviews criticized the unit or head as heavy.

Weight is mostly positive for handheld and general use, though some reviewers found the Extreme heavier or above-floor use more tiring.

Handling was mostly positive: reviewers highlighted light wrist feel, maneuverability, tight-corner control, and low-to-ground movement.

Maneuverability is consistently strong, with reviewers praising easy steering, nimble handling, low weight, and under-furniture movement.

Long-term durability was a major weakness in customer evidence, with reports of suction loss, motors dying, and units failing early.

Durability impressions are cautiously positive, with reviewers describing sturdy pieces, solid construction, and no failure after extended test abuse.

Floorhead design was a common flaw, especially the low or poorly designed head that pushed larger debris instead of taking it in.

Floorhead design is mostly praised for carpet performance and agitation, though the broader evidence shows it can create hard-floor tradeoffs.

Build quality evidence was mixed-to-negative: some saw premium construction, while customers reported weak plastic, broken tabs, and poor build quality.

Build quality is better than some budget rivals but still budget-grade, with praise for sturdiness alongside caveats about cheaper plastic.

The design was widely considered sleek and attractive, though one reviewer criticized the tower as heavy and clunky.

One reviewer liked the modern-looking colors and design.

The handheld conversion was useful for finer control, tight areas, cars, sofas, and stairs.

The handheld conversion is useful for upholstery and handheld tasks, with one reviewer specifically saying it passed the handheld test.

The low-profile floorhead helped reach under beds and furniture.

Low-profile design is strong, with reviewers noting it can lie or go completely flat under furniture.

Setup and unpacking were described as straightforward by customer reviewers.

Setup evidence is limited and mixed, with one reviewer struggling for a week before figuring out the battery insertion.

Value was mixed: some reviewers called it worth the cost, but many felt the high price amplified missing features, failures, and repair hassles.

Value is one of the strongest themes: reviewers repeatedly framed it as affordable, budget-friendly, or very good for the price, though value depends on accepting compromises.

Noise feedback was mostly positive, with several tests and users calling it quiet or less annoying than rivals.

Noise impressions vary from manageable to louder than average, with one review calling it quieter at lower settings and others noting elevated noise.

Stair use was supported by lightweight handling and handheld-style cleaning, especially with smaller attachments.

Stair feedback is mixed: some reviewers found it usable or better with the detachable configuration, while others said it was less maneuverable or lacked a small powered stair setup.

Comparative performance was mixed: LG impressed in some user comparisons but lagged behind Dyson, Samsung, or Tineco in several tests and reviews.

Comparative performance is mixed: it beats some budget rivals in build and airflow and matched one Dyson carpet test, but other budget models were said to perform better overall.

Debris blowback/scatter was a problem on hard floors and with loose debris.

Airflow blowback is a real hard-floor caveat, with one lab test reporting rice blown away and another quick test noticing some kickback.

Reviewers and tests split on raw suction: some found it excellent or surprisingly strong, while others measured only average airflow or said it was weak in real use.

Evidence is split: several reviewers measured or praised strong airflow and pickup, while controlled testing also found weak suction or below-average suction versus stronger cordless models.

Ownership costs were a mild concern because bags and refill accessories were described as expensive or extra-cost items.

Ownership-cost evidence is limited and slightly negative because replacement filters were described as costlier than a compared Kenmore option.

Smart and app features were not a major selling point; reviewers often called the app unnecessary or unreliable.

Smart/automation evidence is positive where AutoSense is tested, with reviewers saying it adapted to surfaces and offered higher-end-style floor detection at a budget price.

The lock-on power button was praised, but the long-press process for maximum suction was criticized.

Controls are generally positive for simple speed selection and power modes, with the main caveat that there is no digital display.

Battery feedback was mixed: dual batteries were a major advantage, but turbo/runtime complaints appeared in tests and customer reviews.

Battery and charging are a strength because reviewers liked the removable/swappable Black+Decker battery system, even when charging speed or high-power runtime drew caveats.

The obstruction shutoff behavior was criticized when users reported false obstruction errors or shutdowns during cleaning.

Medium-pile and general carpet test evidence is strong, with multiple reviewers reporting very good pickup or above-average deep-clean performance.

Hard-floor seal evidence is negative, with one lab review calling the cleaner-head seal relatively weak and linking it to inconsistent results.

Odor control was a negative in customer evidence, with the auto-empty/dust-bag process described as producing an unacceptable smell.

Scratch resistance evidence was negative where small debris dragged along wood floors and scratched them.

The liquid system was limited: reviewers noted water-only use and customers criticized the mop attachment when it failed or performed poorly.

Mopping residue/streaking evidence was negative where customers said the mop moved dirty water around.

The mop water controls were viewed as useful enough for choosing water output, but evidence was limited to basic water-level use.

Cyclone performance was praised for helping sustain suction and keeping the pre-motor filter cleaner.

Edge cleaning is mixed: one reviewer found it left debris along walls, while another praised the crevice tool for baseboards and tight corners.

Mopping was mostly secondary: useful for light spot cleaning, but several users found it unimpressive or gimmicky.

The self-emptying cycle was a standout feature when working, and some customers described it as essential.

Dock and auto-empty reliability was a significant concern in customer reviews, especially base failures within months.

Support and warranty feedback was strongly negative overall, with repeated complaints about slow repairs, poor communication, and unresolved failures.