The world's most in-depth and scientific reviews of tech gear

APEC WFS-1000 Review

If you are set on an under the sink filter and are shopping on a budget, the WFS-1000 is the perfect choice
Best Buy Award
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Price:   $180 List | $136 at Amazon
Pros:  Inexpensive for an under the sink filter, removes tons of lead and chlorine
Cons:  Filtered water didn’t taste amazing, didn’t remove minerals well
Manufacturer:   APEC
By David Wise and Austin Palmer  ⋅  Apr 12, 2018
  • Share this article:
Our Editors independently research, test, and rate the best products. We only make money if you purchase a product through our links, and we never accept free products from manufacturers. Learn more
72
OVERALL
SCORE


RANKED
#6 of 12
  • Lead Removal - 25% 10
  • Chlorine Removal - 25% 10
  • Salt Removal - 25% 2
  • Taste - 15% 5
  • Flow - 10% 9

Our Verdict

While this isn't the best overall water filter that we have tested, the APEC WFS-1000 is by far the best value of the under the sink filters that we have seen to date. This filter delivered exceptional showings when it came to filtering out lead and chlorine, though it struggled a bit when it came to minerals. It also didn't produce the best tasting water that we have seen. Regardless, it is an overall solid water filter that allows you all the conveniences of a permanently installed under the sink filter without completely breaking the bank.


Compare to Similar Products

 
This Product
APEC WFS-1000
Awards Best Buy Award Editors' Choice Award Editors' Choice Award Editors' Choice Award  
Price $180 List
$136.36 at Amazon
$35 List
$28.70 at Amazon
$38 List
$34.50 at Amazon
$200 List
$186.80 at Amazon
$260 List
$189.95 at Amazon
Star Rating
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pros Inexpensive for an under the sink filter, removes tons of lead and chlorineFantastic at removing impurities, makes great tasting water, inexpensiveGreat contaminant removal, fairly inexpensiveGreat at removing both lead and chlorine, makes great tasting waterPerformed well in our lead removal, chlorine removal, and salt removal tests
Cons Filtered water didn’t taste amazing, didn’t remove minerals wellSmaller capacity, takes some time to refill and refilterSlow flow rateMediocre flow rate, priceyLow flow rate, pricey
Bottom Line If you are set on an under the sink filter and are shopping on a budget, the WFS-1000 is the perfect choiceDoing a fantastic job in most of our tests, the ZeroWater combines an amazing performance with an even better priceThe ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug is the best bet for anyone who wants a little more filtered water on hand than the standard pitcher providesThe best filter for permanent installation that we have seen to dateThis relatively expensive under the sink model was outperformed by products that cost much less
Overall Score Sort Icon
100
0
72
100
0
94
100
0
93
100
0
91
100
0
90
Rating Categories APEC WFS-1000 ZeroWater 10-Cup... ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug iSpring RCC7 APEC Essence ROES-50
Lead Removal (25%)
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
Chlorine Removal (25%)
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
Salt Removal (25%)
10
0
2
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
0
9
10
0
9
Taste (15%)
10
0
5
10
0
9
10
0
9
10
0
9
10
0
9
Flow (10%)
10
0
9
10
0
5
10
0
4
10
0
5
10
0
4
Specs APEC WFS-1000 ZeroWater 10-Cup... ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug iSpring RCC7 APEC Essence ROES-50
Model WFS-1000 10 Cup Pitcher RCC7 Essence ROES-50
Replacement Schedule Every 12 months 18,000 mg of disolved solids; 1-40 gallons 18,000 mg of disolved solids; 1-40 gallons Stage 1 - 3 every 6 months
RO every 2 - 3 years
Post carbon every 12 months
Stage 1, 2, 3 Pre-Filters Every 6 - 12 months
Stage 4 RO Membrane Every 2 - 4 Years
Stage 5 Carbon Post-Filter Every 2 - 4 Years
Replacement Cost Stages 1-3 for $40 2 for $30
4 for $40
8 for $90
12 for $115
16 for $150
2 for $30
4 for $40
8 for $90
12 for $115
16 for $150
2 year supply for $100 Stages 1-3 for $27
RO for $45
Carbon for $10
Pure Water to Waste Water Ratio N/A N/A N/A ~1:3 ~ 1:5
Gallons Per Day (GPD) N/A N/A N/A 75 50
NSF/ANSI certified for lead removal No Yes Yes Yes No
NSF/ANSI certified for organic contaminants removal No No No Yes No

Our Analysis and Test Results

The WFS-1000 finished in the middle of the group overall and was outperformed by the most of the other under the sink filters: Home Master HydroPerfection, iSpring RCC7, and the APEC Essence. The WFS-1000 is on par with this trio when it came to extracting chlorine or lead, but fell far short in our mineral removal test. However, the WFS-1000 is much less expensive, ranging anywhere from $20 to $350 cheaper, making it a much better value.

The WFS-1000 offers a great performance at an even better price  making it a solid choice when shopping on a budget.
The WFS-1000 offers a great performance at an even better price, making it a solid choice when shopping on a budget.

Performance Comparison


To rank and score these products in our quest to find the best possible water filter, we researched all of the top products, then bought all of the most promising to test side-by-side. We conducted several different tests, divided up over five weighted rating metrics, with the results of the WFS-1000 detailed below.

This filter delivered a top-tier performance at removing lead in our tests.
This filter delivered a top-tier performance at removing lead in our tests.

Lead Removal


Comprising a quarter of the overall score for each filter, we evaluated how well each filter did at extracting lead from water for this metric. The APEC WFS-1000 got off to a strong start, removing essentially all of the lead and finishing in the top-tier of water filters.


We contaminated our experimental water supply with lead until it was significantly higher than the EPA acceptable level of 0.015 ppm — about 2.3 ppm, according to the results of the water quality lab. When we ran this water through the WFS-1000, it reduced the concentration to around 0.012ppm — about 1.25 times less than the EPA standard. This calculates out to a reduction of about 99.48%.

The WFS-1000 again earned top marks for its chlorine removal prowess.
The WFS-1000 again earned top marks for its chlorine removal prowess.

Chlorine Removal


Moving on from lead, our Chlorine Removal metric is also worth 25% of the final score. We followed a similar procedure as our lead test, using chlorine bleach to spike the concentration of the isolated supply, then testing the concentration of the filtered water using chlorine test strips. The WFS-1000 again delivered an exceptional performance, putting it right at the top of the group.


Differing from the lead test, we actually conducted two different trials for this metric — one with extremely high chlorine levels, on the order of 1000 times the level in a swimming pool, and one with more moderate levels, on the order of 5-10 times as much as a pool. The WFS-1000 did an extremely good job in both tests, dropping the concentration to around 0 ppm, or at least low enough that the test strips failed to indicate anything. We found this to be particularly impressive, as the high concentration test had far more chlorine than these products should ever come close to encountering through normal use.

This filter performance dropped considerably when it came to extracting minerals  earning one of the lowest scores of the groups.
This filter performance dropped considerably when it came to extracting minerals, earning one of the lowest scores of the groups.

Salt Removal


Unfortunately, the WFS-1000 couldn't maintain its strong performance through all of our impurity removal metrics, delivering an exceptionally lackluster performance and finishing near the bottom of the group in this test.


We used standard sodium chloride (table salt) as our contaminant, mixing it into our water supply until we measured levels of around 445 ppm, according to our TDS meter. The WFS-1000 barely made a dent in this, failing to remove even 10% of the salt and leaving the filtered water tasting so salty that it was close to undrinkable.

This filter also didn't do terribly well in our taste test.
This filter also didn't do terribly well in our taste test.

Taste


After the WFS-1000's somewhat shoddy performance in the previous metric, we didn't expect much from it in our Taste metric, as this also involved filtering out salt. We weren't wrong, with the APEC earning a 5 out of 10 for its mediocre showing in this metric, which accounts for 15% of the overall score.


However, this filter did deliver a decent showing in the first component of this metric. We ran pure water through each filter, then had our taste-testing panel try each one to see if there were any undesirable flavors imparted on the water. The majority of our panel rated this water from good to excellent, with no detectable unsavory flavors imparted.

For the second test, we ran heavily chlorinated and salted water through each filter, again having our panel rate the results from each filter. The water produced by the WFS-1000 was exceptionally salty and not really something that anyone really wanted to drink.

The APEC doesn't have a very high flow rate and is definitely slow enough to be a bit irritating.
The APEC doesn't have a very high flow rate and is definitely slow enough to be a bit irritating.

Flow


For the last test, responsible for the remaining 10% of the score, we timed how long it took for each filter to produce a quart of water. The WFS-1000 finished on a high note, having one of the highest flow rates of the group.


This filter took 15 seconds to fill the container, only about 6 seconds longer than the standard faucet.

Value


This filter is an exceptional value, giving you the most bang for the buck of all the under the sink or faucet models, earning it the Best Buy Award.

Conclusion


The APEC WFS-1000 does a great job of pulling lead and chlorine from your water, without pulling out too much cash from your bank account. It's not the greatest option if your water is full of minerals that you would like to remove or if you are shopping on a tight budget. If that is the case, then you should definitely look at a water filter pitcher instead.


David Wise and Austin Palmer