BRITA Ultramax Review
Pros: Did well at removing chlorine, easy to dispense
Cons: Didn’t do well in the lead, salt removal metrics
Compare to Similar Products
$25.92 at Amazon
$31.62 at Amazon
$37.09 at Amazon
$175.00 at Amazon
$199.95 at Amazon
|Pros||Did well at removing chlorine, easy to dispense||Fantastic at removing impurities, makes great tasting water, inexpensive||Great contaminant removal, fairly inexpensive||Great at removing both lead and chlorine, makes great tasting water||Performed well in our lead removal, chlorine removal, and salt removal tests|
|Cons||Didn't do well in the lead, salt removal metrics||Smaller capacity, takes some time to refill and refilter||Slow flow rate||Mediocre flow rate, pricey||Low flow rate, pricey|
|Bottom Line||Overall, the Ultramax didn't impress us all that much||Doing a fantastic job in most of our tests, this filter combines amazing performance with an even better price||This filter jug is for anyone who wants a bit more water on hand than the typical model and also impressed in our impurity removal metrics||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|
|Rating Categories||BRITA Ultramax||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug||iSpring RCC7||APEC Essence ROES-50|
|Lead Removal (25%)|
|Chlorine Removal (25%)|
|Salt Removal (25%)|
|Specs||BRITA Ultramax||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug||iSpring RCC7||APEC Essence ROES-50|
|Model||Pitcher||10 Cup||Pitcher||RCC7||Essence ROES-50|
|Replacement Schedule||Brita Standard (White) Filter: every 40 gallons (about 2 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||Standard: 1 for $7, 3 for $15||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
We did like the dispenser on the Ultramax, as water keeps flowing once you open it and you don't have to keep holding it open like you do with other models. However, we didn't think this even came close to redeeming its otherwise lackluster performance in our tests.
To test and score the lead removal abilities of each filter, we ran lead-tainted water through each product, then took samples of the filtered water and the contaminated supply and sent them to a water quality testing lab for precise analysis. This accounts for 25% of each filter's final score, with the BRITA Ultramax, unfortunately, scoring below average.
The Ultramax removed about 83.4% of the lead from the contaminated supply but the filtered water still had lead concentrations that were significantly higher than what the EPA considers a safe level.
Next, we moved on to assessing the dechlorinating skills of each filter, which also makes up 25% of each product's total score. The BRITA Ultramax did quite a bit better in this metric, earning an above-average score.
In this metric, we used chlorine bleach added to the supply as our contaminant and measured the before and after concentration with chemical test strips. We scored each filter's performance in two separate tests: one with extremely high levels of chlorine (1300+ ppm) and one with more moderate levels (20-50 ppm).
The Ultramax didn't do very well with the heavily chlorinated water, with the test strip continuing to max out after filtration. However, it did drop the chlorine levels to around 1 ppm with the moderately chlorinated supply.
The Ultramax's performance dropped again in our salt removal test, which is equivalent to lead and chlorine removal in importance, also accounting for one-fourth of the final score. We measured the concentration of dissolved table salt with a TDS meter before and after filtering, with the BRITA Ultramax delivering one of the worst performances of the entire group.
This filter pitcher essentially failed to remove any salt, with the concentration only dropping by 4% or so according to our meter.
Our taste testing process is twofold. First, we ran purified water through each filter and tasted it to make sure the Ultramax isn't adding any unsavory flavors. Second, we ran some very unpleasant tasting water through the filter — flavored with chlorine and salt — to see if this pitcher from BRITA could make it taste a bit better. We had a panel of judges rate the taste of the water before and after to determine scores. The BRITA did a little better than average in this metric — worth 15% of the total score — compared to the rest of the group.
The Ultramax did improve the taste of the salt & chlorine water by dechlorinating it but still left it tasting solidly salty. However, we did like that it didn't impart any negative taste to clean water.
We focused on the flow rate of each water filter for this final metric, which is responsible for the remaining tenth of the final score. We awarded points based on the time it took the BRITA to filter and dispense a quart of water. It was a little on the slower side in our tests, earning it a fairly lackluster score.
This pitcher took 34 seconds to fill up a quart container if it was already full but takes just over four minutes if you need to wait for it to filter more water.
The Ultramax isn't too expensive but overall scored quite badly in our tests, so it isn't the best budget buy we have seen.
While we did find a few things to praise about the BRITA Ultramax, it overall failed to impress. It can remove chlorine from your water but based on our tests but didn't do well with salt or lead. It's not the worst we have seen but we vastly preferred similar models that perform better at roughly the same price point.
— Austin Palmer, David Wise, and Jenna Ammerman