Shark Wandvac Review

The Wandvac finished at the back of our test group. While it does clean difficult-to-access areas and picks up pet hair a bit better than some, it simply costs too much for us to be able to recommend.

Performance Comparison

The Shark Wandvac.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Dust & Dirt

Initially, we began by comparing and scoring how well each portable handheld vacuum picked up the most common household messes: dust and dirt. These tests are responsible for one-fifth of the final score, and the Wandvac scored averagely, though below many others in our lineup.

The Wandvac picks up dirt just fine.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

The Wandvac took a bit longer than average to clean up flour from a plastic sheet in our dusting test, hampered by its exceptionally small brush. This brush also leaves streaks while dusting, so you have to go over each area multiple times.

The Wandvac has a brush that flips out of the crevice tool.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

The soft bristles on this brush struggled to clean up dirt or mud that had dried in place, with this vacuum doing one of the worst jobs at cleaning mud from linoleum in our test. However, the soft bristles do let you clean in the corners or on small ledges fairly easily.

The Wandvac feels more like a light duty hand vacuum.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Tough Messes

Next, we continued our evaluation of the Wandvac by seeing how it did with some even tougher messes, as well as the amount of air its motor can move. This vacuum could suck up mini-wheats cereal without any tools attached, which is about the largest particle type it can handle and is average for these products.

It doesn't take long to fill up the small bin on the Wandvac.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

The Wandvac performed slightly above average when we challenged it to remove flour from a sample piece of low-pile carpet — like the kind you would find in a car. It removed a decent amount of flour with either the bristle or crevice attachment, though it left quite a bit leftover in the fibers unless we really scrubbed with the bristle brush and did a ton of passes.

The Wandvac (ION W1) struggled some in the flour test.

Credit: Austin Palmer

It struggled a bit more at removing crushed-up oats from the same type of carpet or a couch cushion. The Wandvac kept sucking down to the couch cushion and left plenty of oat fragments and dust behind. It also left plenty of oats behind on carpet and would even fling some to the side while cleaning, making an even bigger mess.

The Wandvac didn't do so well with crushed oats.

Credit: Austin Palmer

We then measured the airspeed of each vacuum by attaching it to our sealed wind tunnel with an anemometer to compare airflow. The Wandvac did quite poorly, only registering an airspeed of about 827 FPM — the lowest of the group.

Hard-to-Reach Areas

The Wandvac did a little better in this metric, based on how well it cleaned out a sliding window track and on how far it could reach into a 1.25" and 3" gap — similar to what you would encounter cleaning under a piece of furniture or between the seat of your car and the center console.

The Shark doesn't do much well, but it is quite good at dusting cracks and crevices.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

The Wandvac is great for cleaning loose debris out of the narrow slot of a sliding window, quickly and easily emptying it of all the oats that we had filled it with. It also has a decent reach, able to effectively clean 13" into a 3" tall slot, which is quite far for these products. Its reach was reduced in a narrower slot, only able to reach 4" into a 1.25" tall gap — typical for these vacuums.

The Shark has a surprisingly long reach in larger gaps, but fares poorly in smaller ones.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Battery Life

These handheld vacuums are all battery-powered, so our next metric dealt with the maximum runtime you have to clean with each. We awarded points for how long each vacuum stayed on when starting with a totally charged battery. Unfortunately, the Wandvac didn't really impress here either. It didn't even last for 10 minutes, dying after 9 minutes and 45 seconds. However, it does recharge quite quickly for these products, only taking 2.5 hours.

The Wandvac has spots on its charging base to store attachments.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Convenience

This metric looked at the ease of organizing and storing all the different tools and attachments, each vacuum's sound and noise level, and the ease of emptying the collection bin. The Wandvac again earned only a mediocre score, though it earned some points for being particularly lightweight, weighing about half as much as most other products.

The Wandvac has a sleek look.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Surprisingly, this device isn't that much quieter than some of the other larger products and has a higher pitched whine that can be quite vexing. The different tools also aren't integrated, so some caution must be exercised not to lose them. The dust bin is very easy to empty, popping open as soon as you hit the switch. This is a good thing, as the dust bin is extremely tiny on this vacuum, so get ready to empty it often.

The bin on the Wandvac handily flips open helping to keep your hands clean.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Pet Hair

Our final tests focused on how easily the vacuums could clean up after our furry friends. We spread out donated pet hair on a couch cushion and on a carpet and assessed how much each vacuum picked up to determine scores. The Wandvac got 99% of the hair from the cushion using its upholstery brush — we found this to be far more effective than its standard brush — and the vast majority of it made it into the collection bin without becoming tangled up on the brush. It did almost as well on the carpet, but it left behind a bit more, and a decent amount remained trapped on the brush rather than making it into the collection bin.

The Shark did decently well with pet hair.

Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Value

The Wandvac is a terrible value based on our testing, pairing poor performance with a high price tag.

Conclusion