Reviews You Can Rely On

PUR Classic FM-2000B Review

If you are looking for a good faucet mount water filter, we feel you should look elsewhere
PUR Classic FM-2000B
Credit: PUR
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Price:   $25 List
Pros:  Extracts chlorine
Cons:  Doesn’t make water taste, didn’t really remove lead or salts, mediocre flow rate
Manufacturer:   PUR
By David Wise and Austin Palmer  ⋅  Apr 12, 2018
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
36
OVERALL
SCORE


RANKED
#11 of 11
  • Lead Removal - 25% 1
  • Chlorine Removal - 25% 8
  • Salt Removal - 25% 1
  • Taste - 15% 4
  • Flow - 10% 5

Our Verdict

Delivering one of the worst scores of the group, the PUR Classic FM-2000B didn't deliver any particularly impressive performances and was bested by other products in every single one of our tests. It is rather inexpensive, but other products that cost only a fraction more performed far better, making us very hesitant to recommend the PUR for your water filtering needs.

Compare to Similar Products

 
PUR Classic FM-2000B
Awards  Best Buy Award    
Price $25 List$180 List
$139.95 at Amazon
$30 List
$19.99 at Amazon
$27 List$32 List
$22.99 at Amazon
Overall Score Sort Icon
36
72
53
42
41
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 Extracts chlorineInexpensive for an under the sink filter, removes tons of lead and chlorineInexpensive, removes tons of chlorineRemoves chlorine, relatively inexpensiveDid well at removing chlorine, easy to dispense
Cons Doesn't make water taste, didn't really remove lead or salts, mediocre flow rateFiltered water didn't taste amazing, didn't remove minerals wellDidn't do well in our lead or salt removal testsDoesn't impress at removing lead or dissolved saltsDidn't do well in the lead, salt removal metrics
Bottom Line If you are looking for a good faucet mount water filter, we feel you should look elsewhereIf you are set on an under the sink filter and are shopping on a budget, this is the perfect choiceIf you are set on a faucet mount filter, then the SAFF-100 is your best betSurprisingly, we found this printer to be a big disappointment and performed quite poorly on the wholeOverall, the Ultramax didn't impress us all that much
Rating Categories PUR Classic FM-2000B APEC WFS-1000 Brita SAFF-100 Brita Everyday Pitcher Brita Ultramax
Lead Removal (25%)
1
10.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
Chlorine Removal (25%)
8.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
7.0
Salt Removal (25%)
1
2.0
1
1
1
Taste (15%)
4.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
Flow (10%)
5.0
9.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Specs PUR Classic FM-2000B APEC WFS-1000 Brita SAFF-100 Brita Everyday Pitcher Brita Ultramax
Model FM-2000B WFS-1000 SAFF-100 OB03 Pitcher
Replacement Schedule Lasts up to 3 months Every 12 months Every 100 gallons or 4 months Brita Standard (White) Filter: every 40 gallons (about 2 months) Brita Standard (White) Filter: every 40 gallons (about 2 months)
Replacement Cost Basic:
1 for $13
2 for $22
Stages 1-3 for $40 1 for $19 Standard: 1 for $7, 3 for $15 Standard: 1 for $7, 3 for $15
Pure Water to Waste Water Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gallons Per Day (GPD) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NSF/ANSI certified for lead removal Yes No Yes No No
NSF/ANSI certified for organic contaminants removal Yes No Yes No No

Our Analysis and Test Results

The FM-2000B finished very near the bottom of the group, only really outperforming the Nanan Healthy Faucet. The Brita SAFF-100 — another faucet mount filter — did quite a bit better and only costs about $10 more. The ZeroWater Pitcher is one of the best filters that we have seen to date and only costs about $15, making it very, very difficult to recommend the PUR when there are other alternatives that are so much better for only a slight increase in cost.

We weren't impressed with the PUR.
We weren't impressed with the PUR.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Performance Comparison


To really compare and contrast the abilities of water filters, we bought the top products available on the market today and tested them head-to-head in a variety of water purification challenges. Our results for the PUR are described below, highlighting what it did well and where it fell flat.

This model didn't do all that well at actually filtering, making it...
This model didn't do all that well at actually filtering, making it hard to recommend.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Lead Removal


To assess how competent the PUR is at extracting lead from water, we mixed up a tank of water with very high lead levels, then had the PUR attempt to clean it. We took samples of the water supply before and after, then sent them off to a lab for analysis, as we lacked the equipment here to measure it. Unfortunately, the PUR didn't do particularly well, earning a 1 out of 10 for its poor showing. This filter only removed about 60% of the lead, leaving the water with levels around 0.91 ppm — well above the 0.015 deemed suitable for tap water by the EPA.

Chlorine removal is the only group of tests that the PUR performed...
Chlorine removal is the only group of tests that the PUR performed above average in.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Chlorine Removal


We did a similar procedure for this test, making two different batches of supply water with different levels of chlorination, then had each filter attempt to de-chlorinate it. We used both indicating test strips and a TDS meter to read the chlorine levels in the water, finding the first test's supply to have about 1300 ppm, while the second's supply was between 20-50 ppm. The PUR did much better at extracting chlorine than lead, meriting an 8 out of 10.

The FM-2000B delivered a decent performance for the highly chlorinated water, dropping the levels to just over 20 ppm, to where our test strip just began to turn green. For the less chlorinated water, the PUR pretty much removed all of the chlorine, with the test strips failing to read anything.

This filter again did very poorly when we evaluated its mineral...
This filter again did very poorly when we evaluated its mineral removal performance.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Salt Removal


The PUR couldn't maintain its performance into this metric, earning a 1 out of 10 for its pitiful performance. We used table salt as our sample salt, dissolving it in the test water supply until it reached significant concentrations, then attempted to filter it with the FM-2000B.

The levels remained unchanged, registering at about 445 ppm on our meter both before and after filtration.

We found the filtered water produced by the PUR to be quite unsavory.
We found the filtered water produced by the PUR to be quite unsavory.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman

Taste


For our taste tests, we ran some very foul-tasting water through each filter, to see if they could successfully mitigate the chlorine bleach and salt that we added to the supply. We also ran already cleaned and filtered water through each, to see if the filters added any unpleasant tastes. The FM-2000B did a slightly below average job, earning a 4 out of 10.

This filter didn't handle the poor tasting water very well, with our panel detecting distinct notes of both salt and chlorine in the filtered water. However, it did do a little better with the clean water, failing to add any unsavory flavors while filtering.

Flow


Last, we ranked and scored the flow rate of the PUR. We did this by timing how long it took each one to fill up a 1-quart container and scoring off of that. The PUR did about average, earning a 5 out of 10 for its time of 30 seconds — a little over three times the 9 seconds it took the unobstructed faucet.

Value


While the PUR won't break the bank, it isn't an amazing value, as there are other filters that cost about the same and perform much better, giving you more bang for the buck.

Conclusion


Overall, we weren't terribly fond of the PUR FM-2000B, finding it to be far inferior to the majority of the other products that we tested and would suggest you consider other options, rather than purchasing it.

David Wise and Austin Palmer