The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic offers above average but not high end humidifying power at a fairly average price. That makes it a fairly good choice if your bedroom is slightly above average size. However, it is fairly difficult to clean, so you'll have to factor that into your decision making. If you don't need the extra power of the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic you can save some money on the much easier to clean Honeywell HUL520B. On the flip side, if you're looking for power the more powerful and much easier to clean Levoit LV600HH often sells for not much more.
Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic Review
Pros: Good humidifying performance
Cons: Somewhat difficult to clean
Manufacturer: Everlasting Comfort
Compare to Similar Products
Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic
$56.95 at Amazon
$89.99 at Amazon
$29.99 at Amazon
$63.07 at Amazon
|Pros||Good humidifying performance||Powerful, accurate humidistat prevents over-humidification, convenient remote control, easy to clean||Inexpensive, easy to clean, easy to use||Easy to clean, self-regulating evaporative humidifying||Powerful, inexpensive|
|Cons||Somewhat difficult to clean||Somewhat on the expensive side||Not the most powerful, no advanced features||Requires replacement filters, filter can get moldy if left unattended for too long||Hard to clean, cannot be used on carpet|
|Bottom Line||Good for mid-sized bedrooms in arid climates, as long as you don't mind a little cleaning effort||A powerful model with all the bells and whistles you could want, perfect for those looking for high-end performance||The perfect budget model for smaller (<150 square foot) rooms||Cheap up front but expensive in the long run, good if you like the simplicity of evaporative humidifying||Lots of power but hard to clean|
|Rating Categories||Ultrasonic||Levoit LV600HH||Honeywell HUL520B||Honeywell HCM-350||TaoTronics TT-AH001|
|Humidifying Performance (35%)|
|Ease Of Cleaning (35%)|
|User Friendliness (15%)|
|Operating Cost (15%)|
|Specs||Ultrasonic||Levoit LV600HH||Honeywell HUL520B||Honeywell HCM-350||TaoTronics TT-AH001|
|Weight||3.3 pounds||4.9 pounds||3 pounds||9.6 pounds||3.5 pounds|
|Dimensions||13.25" x 11.4" x 6.8"||11.3" x 7" x 10.5"||8.5" x 8.5" x 9.5"||18.6" x 10.4" x 13"||12.2" x 8" x 5.25"|
|Tank Capacity||1.6 gallons||1.6 gallons||0.5 gallons||1 gallon||1.06 gallons|
|Estimated Lifetime Cost||$98||$159||$56||$203||$101|
Our Analysis and Test Results
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic offers decent all-around performance at a reasonable price, but it is somewhat difficult to clean. If you don't mind cleaning, it may be a good option. If you're already dreading the weekly cleaning required by a humidifier, this isn't the models for you.
Not a standout in any one of our tests, but not a poor performer either, the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic ended up towards the middle of our humidifier scoreboard. For more on how it fared in each of our individual tests, see the sections below.
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic earned an above average score of 7 out of 10 in our humidifying performance testing. It took 40 minutes for this machine to get our 150 square foot testing room up to 45% humidity, and at the 3-hour mark it maxed out at 63.5%. This put it right between our Editors' Choice winner and our Best Buy winner in terms of performance. If you've already tried a small humidifier and found it doesn't have enough power to get your room to the desired humidity, the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic may be a decent choice. However, the TaoTronics TT-AH001 is more powerful and actually less expensive than the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic (though keep in mind the TaoTronics can't be used on a carpeted surface).
Ease of Cleaning
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic wasn't our favorite model to clean. It earned a 5 out of 10 in our ease of cleaning testing. Its water tank opening is 2.75", allowing for smaller hands to get in for scrubbing, but those with larger hands will have some difficulty. The Machine itself has lots of grooves where mold could hide and take hold, and that requires some diligent scrubbing to keep clean. The instruction manual also doesn't give any guidance for doing any sort of anti-mold soak. At the end of the day it took us about 20 minutes of scrubbing and rinsing to feel that the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic was adequately clean.
We felt the Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic was about average when it came to user friendliness. Our biggest complaint was the water tank. The 2.75" opening was large enough to prevent spills, but the lack of any sort of handle makes it awkward to hold the tank while it's being filled. The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic's controls are super simple, with just a single dial that adjusts the mist level, and a single button that turns the LED night light on and off. This machine lacks any advanced features like an off timer or humidistat. That means you have to remember to turn the unit off when you leave for work. This is one of the few humidifiers we've come across that does have an essential oil slot, so it can double as a diffuser.
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic is relatively inexpensive to own and operate. We calculated an estimated lifetime cost for this machine of $98. This is very low, but not quite as low as the $56 dollar figure of the Honeywell HUL520B. The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic lists for only $59 and uses 0.015 kWh of electricity per hour to operate. It does not require any replacement filters, just a thorough weekly cleaning.
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic is only really a good value if you need above average humidification power, you need to place your humidifier on a rug, and your budget is $60. If you have hard floors, the TaoTronics TT-AH001 is only $48, much more powerful, and has more bells and whistles. If you don't need above average humidification the Honeywell HUL520B is only $30. If you are willing to spend more than $60 the Levoit LV600HH is, in our opinion, the best humidifier you can get and usually sells for about $90.
The Everlasting Comfort Ultrasonic is a good all around humidifier, but it doesn't shine in capacity. This limits our recommendation of this machine for only very specific situations (see Value section above).
— Max Mutter and Steven Tata