The Woder 10K-Gen3 delivered an overall unimpressive performance and thoroughly failed to distinguish itself in our tests, making us hesitant to recommend it. While it is the least expensive of the under the sink models, it also gave the worst performance of this type of filters. However, it does have a few redeeming traits, doing a decent job at extracting chlorine from the water supply and having one of the highest flow rates of the group. Unfortunately, it is quite hard to overlook this filter's lackluster performances in our lead and mineral removal metrics, as well as our taste test.
Woder 10K-Gen3 Review
Pros: High flow rate, removes chlorine fairly well
Cons: Doesn’t really filter out lead or salts
Compare to Similar Products
$99.84 at Amazon
$27.99 at Amazon
$183.43 at Amazon
$189.95 at Amazon
$136.36 at Amazon
|Pros||High flow rate, removes chlorine fairly well||Fantastic at removing impurities, makes great tasting water, inexpensive||Great at removing both lead and chlorine, makes great tasting water||Performed well in our lead removal, chlorine removal, and salt removal tests||Inexpensive for an under the sink filter, removes tons of lead and chlorine|
|Cons||Doesn’t really filter out lead or salts||Smaller capacity, takes some time to refill and refilter||Mediocre flow rate, pricey||Low flow rate, pricey||Filtered water didn’t taste amazing, didn’t remove minerals well|
|Bottom Line||This under the sink water filter won’t break the bank, but doesn’t filter all that well either||Doing a fantastic job in most of our tests, the ZeroWater combines an amazing performance with an even better price||The best filter for permanent installation that we have seen to date||This relatively expensive under the sink model was outperformed by products that cost much less||If you are set on an under the sink filter and are shopping on a budget, the WFS-1000 is the perfect choice|
|Rating Categories||Woder 10K-Gen3||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||iSpring RCC7||APEC Essence ROES-50||APEC WFS-1000|
|Lead Removal (25%)|
|Chlorine Removal (25%)|
|Salt Removal (25%)|
|Specs||Woder 10K-Gen3||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||iSpring RCC7||APEC Essence ROES-50||APEC WFS-1000|
|Model||10K-Gen3||10 Cup||RCC7||Essence ROES-50||WFS-1000|
|Replacement Schedule||Up to 10,000 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
|Every 12 months|
|Replacement Cost||1 for $49||2 for $30
4 for $50
8 for $90
12 for $120
16 for $160
|2 year supply for $100||Stages 1-3 for $27
RO for $45
Carbon for $10
|Stages 1-3 for $40|
|Pure Water to Waste Water Ratio||N/A||N/A||~1:3||~ 1:5||N/A|
|Gallons Per Day (GPD)||N/A||N/A||75||50||N/A|
|NSF/ANSI certified for lead removal||No||Yes||Yes||No||No|
|NSF/ANSI certified for organic contaminants removal||No||No||Yes||No||No|
Our Analysis and Test Results
The Woder finished in the middle of the group, right behind the BRITA SAFF-100. However, the SAFF-100 is far superior at extracting lead and chlorine from water. Neither of these filters did very well at extracting minerals from the water or made water that tasted particularly great. The SAFF-100 also usually retails for about a third of the cost of the Woder, making it much more desirable in our opinion.
To decide which water filters are really worth our recommendation, we conducted extensive research, then bought all of the filters that had the most potential to test side-by-side. The results of the Woder are explained in the sections below, comparing how this filter did against the rest of the other models that we reviewed.
The 10K-Gen3 didn't get off to a good start with this metric, delivering a substandard performance and earning a 4 out of 10 for its efforts. We evaluated this by running water with very high levels of lead through each filter, then sending the filtered water off to an independent lab for analysis.
This lab found that our supply water had lead concentrations of around 2.3 ppm — significantly higher than the 0.015 ppm deemed allowable by the EPA. The Woder removed about 93% of the lead, but failed to meet the standard, with lead levels about 10 times higher than the allowable amount in the filtered water, as measured by the lab.
The Woder 10K fared much better in our chlorine removal tests, earning a 7 out of 10 for its solid performance. We made two batches of chlorinated water, one with very high levels of chlorine and one with much more moderate levels, then used indicator strips as well as an electronic meter to assess how much chlorine each filter removed.
The Woder didn't do very well with the highly chlorinated water, with the test strips still maxing out when measuring the filtered water. However, the Woder did remove all of the chlorine from the less chlorinated water, with the strips failing to indicate anything.
Unfortunately, the Woder's performance plummeted in this metric, with this filter failing to remove any of our sample salt. Consequently, this filter earned a 1 out of 10 for its abysmal performance. We used table salt, dissolving it into the water supply for our filters until our meter registered levels of about 445 ppm. After running it through the Woder, we measured the filtered water, finding that the concentration remained unchanged.
The Woder continued its lackluster performance in our taste tests, delivering a mediocre showing in each of the assessments in this metric, earning it a 4 out of 10.
For the first test, we used already purified water for the supply of the filters, then had a panel taste the water after it had been filtered by the Woder. This was to see if the Woder added any unpleasant or unsavory flavors. It did, making clean water taste a bit stale and generally unpalatable to our water tasting judges.
Next, we made a batch of exceptionally undrinkable water using chlorine bleach and salt, then ran it through the 10K-Gen3. It did improve the flavor a decent amount, but definitely didn't render the water drinkable.
For the last metric of our review, we judged and scored the flow rate of each filter. The Woder actually had one of the highest of the group, earning it top marks and a 10 out of 10. We conducted a time trial with each filter to see how long it took to fill up a quart container. The Woder only took about 12 seconds — just a little bit more time than the standard faucet's 9 seconds.
While this is one of the least expensive under the sink filters we have tested, it isn't an amazing value, as it doesn't really filter anything besides chlorine all that well.
The Woder 10K-Gen3 isn't really our favorite filter and we are a bit loathe to recommend it. It is a little too pricey to be a good budget buy and was thoroughly outmatched by other filters that cost far less. It also lacks the filtration prowess to be that good of an option on its own merits.
— David Wise and Austin Palmer