Best Water Filter of 2021
$31.97 at Amazon
$37.09 at Amazon
$175.00 at Amazon
$445.55 at Amazon
$199.95 at Amazon
|Pros||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||Great tasting water, excellent at removing lead and chlorine||Performed well in our lead removal, chlorine removal, and salt removal tests|
|Cons||Smaller capacity, takes some time to refill and refilter||Slow flow rate||Mediocre flow rate, pricey||Very pricey||Low flow rate, pricey|
|Bottom Line||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||The HydroPerfection is a fantastic product but is prohibitively expensive||This relatively expensive under the sink model was outperformed by products that cost much less|
|Rating Categories||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug||iSpring RCC7||Home Master...||APEC Essence ROES-50|
|Lead Removal (25%)|
|Chlorine Removal (25%)|
|Salt Removal (25%)|
|Specs||ZeroWater 10-Cup...||ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug||iSpring RCC7||Home Master...||APEC Essence ROES-50|
|Model||10 Cup||Pitcher||RCC7||TMHP||Essence ROES-50|
|Replacement Schedule||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
|Filter Set changed annually
RO changed every 3 - 5 years
|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||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||Filter Set for $130
RO for $100
|Stages 1-3 for $27
RO for $45
Carbon for $10
|Pure Water to Waste Water Ratio||N/A||N/A||~1:3||1:1||~ 1:5|
|Gallons Per Day (GPD)||N/A||N/A||75||75||50|
|NSF/ANSI certified for lead removal||Yes||Yes||Yes||N/A||No|
|NSF/ANSI certified for organic contaminants removal||No||No||Yes||N/A||No|
Best Filter Overall
ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher
The highest performer in our review is the ZeroWater 10-Cup. This model managed to outperform filters that cost ten times as much, removing impurities with ease in our testing. It performed especially well at salt removal. It also impressed in our taste test, enhancing the flavor of our contaminated water without imparting any bad taste.
We were disappointed with this pitcher's limited 10 cup capacity. Once the water is filtered, it pours quickly, but filtering itself is somewhat slow. Still, this is our favorite filter tested. It excels at its intended task, and the price is very agreeable, to boot.
Read Full Review: ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher
Best High-Capacity Option
ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug
If you need a larger volume of water but still want the same great performance that the ZeroWater 10-Cup delivers, the bigger capacity of the ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug might be right for you. This jug features the same filter utilized in the 10-Cup model, so you can be sure you'll get a matching execution of contaminant removals like salt, chlorine, or lead. Our panel all confirmed that the water from this filter has an excellent taste, and there is no negative taste imparted from the filter, either.
Due to the 23-Cup Jug's increased capacity, it's intended to be kept stationary in the fridge or on the countertop, rather than carting around like you would a pitcher. The filtration time is slow, and having to continuously hold the button to maintain water flow is somewhat annoying. Regardless, it's one of our top recommendations for anyone who needs more filtered water than a pitcher provides and isn't ready to leap to a large, expensive under-the-sink option or sacrifice performance with a filter mount.
Read Full Review: ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug
Best Under the Sink Filter
If you need a much larger capacity than a pitcher, consider the iSpring RCC7. This under-the-sink filter does an admirable job in our sodium removal assessments and delivers a fantastic performance in our lead and chlorine removal tests. This filter makes the water taste crisp and clean without imparting any negative flavors.
However, in terms of the initial outlay and the cost of replacement filters, this product is definitely on the pricier side. It's a much larger system that will eat up a non-trivial amount of space under your sink and has a much more involved installation process. It also has a relatively average flow rate. Despite all of this, it is still our first choice when it comes to under-the-sink water filters, making it an excellent option for someone who wants clean, great-tasting filtered water on tap at all times.
Read Full Review: iSpring RCC7
Great Value for Under the Sink Filters
If you're still set on an under-the-sink filter despite the initial sticker shock of the iSpring, then consider the APEC WFS-1000. The cost is quite a bit less and has only a slight drop in performance when compared to the iSpring, making it an excellent option if you are shopping on a budget. This model has an exceptionally high flow rate and does a great job of removing both lead and chlorine from the water.
Unfortunately, this model does a poor job of extracting sodium from the water, and the filtered water it produces didn't perform great in our taste test. Though it doesn't impart any bad flavors in pure water, we definitely could taste residual traces of salt and chlorine in our contaminated water test. This filter also takes time to install and will take up a decent amount of space under your sink. However, we still think the WFS-1000 is an excellent choice for those trying to save some cash on an under-the-sink filter, so long as you don't mind some salts in the water.
Read Full Review: APEC WFS-1000
Best Faucet Mount Filter
While the BRITA SAFF-100 didn't distinguish itself overall, it is our favorite option of the faucet mount variety. It did very well at removing chlorine and has a mediocre flow rate.
However, this filter is a disappointment when it comes to extracting lead or salts from the water. It also missed the mark in our contaminated water taste test. Regardless, if you aren't interested in a pitcher or permanent under-the-sink system, it's a great value pick and the best option we tested of its kind.
Read Full Review: BRITA SAFF-100
Why You Should Trust Us
We purchased each water filter in this review ourselves. We did not receive any free or sample models from manufacturers. We have been testing water filters for over a year now, even going so far as to build a custom testing rig with an isolated water supply to control the contaminants going in and out of the system. Our testing team of Austin Palmer and David Wise have tested well over 200 home and kitchen products, and along with David's formal training as a mechanical engineer, brought these experiences to the table when designing our testing procedures.
The bulk of each filter's scores are based on how well they removed various contaminants and other impurities. Since some of these tests exceeded our technical abilities, we sent samples of the tainted supply and the filtered water off to an independent water quality lab for precise analysis to determine how well each filter did. We also used a total dissolved solids (TDS) meter and chemical indicator strips to determine how well each filter performed. We had a panel of judges rate and rank each water's taste for the taste metric, determining if it added any unpleasant tastes to clean water and assessing how well each filter removed unsavory compounds. Finally, we measured how long each product took to dispense and filter a quart of water for our flow metric.
Related: How We Tested Water Filters
Analysis and Test Results
Our review is divided into five weighted testing metrics: a trio of impurity removal tests, a taste test, and a water flow rate test. Each rating metric is weighted based on its overall significance and is composed of various subtests.
Related: Buying Advice for Water Filters
Surprisingly, our overall winner, the ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher, is an excellent value. Not only did this product have one of the lowest prices of the entire group, but it also delivered the best score overall. If this one is still too expensive, the BRITA SAFF-100 is a few bucks cheaper, but this reduction does come with a substantial drop in performance. If under sink filters are more your style, then the iSpring RCC7 or the APEC WFS-1000 Super Capacity are fantastic options. The RCC7 performs a little better, but the APEC is a better choice if you're seeking a better bang for your buck.
Then it's best to leave all of these products behind. While under the sink or faucet-mount filters aren't suited to the backcountry, filter pitchers are designed to improve the taste and quality of already-potable water, not to render lake or stream water safe to drink. That task is better left to a water filter specifically designed for the backcountry. To ensure the filter you are considering is up to the task you have in mind, we recommend that you always consult the manufacturer's specifications.
Our Lead Removal metric accounts for 25% of the total score for each filter. To score each unit's performance, we measured the percentage of lead that the filter removed from the water. We dissolved lead shavings in vinegar and hydrogen peroxide, then seeded the isolated water supply tank until it reached a concentration of 2.3 ppm — well above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) legal limit of 0.015 ppm for drinking water. We then ran this contaminated water through each filter and collected samples to send to a local lab for testing.
Receiving perfect scores for their fantastic performance, the ZeroWater Pitcher, the ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug, the Home Master HydroPerfection, the iSpring RCC7, the APEC Essence, and the APEC WFS-1000 all tied for the top spot. Each of these products dropped lead levels in the filtered water well below the safe limits defined by the EPA, removing at least 99% of the lead from the contaminated water.
Unfortunately, the remainder of the filters failed to reduce contamination to a level below the acceptable amount. The contender that came the closest in our test to the EPA level was the BRITA SAFF-100. This pitcher filter reduced the lead levels to about 0.066 ppm — still over four times the acceptable level.
The Aquagear reduced the lead level considerably but still left it about nine times higher than what the EPA considers safe. It is worth noting that we added this filter in a subsequent update, and its initial lead level was much higher than many of the other models, so it still removed 99.0% of the lead in our tests. Accordingly, we did award it a 9 out of 10 for its performance in this metric.
The BRITA Pitcher and the BRITA Ultramax reduced lead levels to 0.38 ppm. These models use interchangeable filter cartridges, so we used the same results for both products, resulting in exceeding the acceptable level by about 25 times for the BRITA products, which earned these filters a poor score in this metric.
Finishing at the back of the group, the PUR performed very poorly. It reduced the lead concentration to 0.91 ppm, a whopping 60 times more than the EPA level. Consequently, the PUR earned the lowest score possible of 1 out of 10 for lead removal.
Next, we looked at how well each filter did at removing chlorine, which is also worth 25% of each model's total score. We conducted two tests to assess each filter's performance: a chlorine torture test with incredibly high levels (about 1370 ppm) and one with more moderate levels (20-50 ppm). For reference, the typical swimming pool has 1-4 ppm. We used chlorine bleach to spike the levels in our supply and measured the concentration using chlorine test strips. These strips use a color scale to show the approximate ppm, but the differences between filters were significant, making it relatively easy to score their performance.
Again, we had a large group of products tie for the top spot, with the APEC Essence, the WFS-1000, the iSpring RCC7, the ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher, the ZeroWater 23-Cup Jug, and the Home Master HydroPerfection all earning a perfect score.
All of these filters removed virtually all of the chlorine from the water, with the test strip failing to indicate any color in both our moderate and torture chlorine test — an incredibly impressive feat, given the extremely high concentration of chlorine in the supply water for the torture test.
Behind this top tier, the BRITA SAFF-100 and the Aquagear both merit a 9 out of 10 for their excellent performance. While SAFF-100 removed all of the chlorine from the 20-50 ppm supply water, it left some residual chlorine after the torture test — in the range of 10-20 ppm.
The Aquagear matched the performance of the SAFF-100 in the mellower chlorine removal challenge, removing all of the chlorine to the point that both the meter and the test strips registered 0 ppm. However, it did even better than the BRITA with the chlorine torture test, dropping the level to below 10 ppm.
The PUR FM-2000B removed all chlorine from the lower concentration supply. However, our test strips indicated over 20 ppm remaining in the water from the high concentration supply after running it through the filter.
The BRITA Everyday Pitcher and the BRITA Ultramax each received a 7 out of 10. According to our chemical test strips, these filters did reasonably well at removing the chlorine when the supply was only moderately chlorinated, with the pair of BRITA filters dropping the concentration to 1 ppm. However, when we ran the high concentration supply water through them, these models left a concentration of well over 20 ppm behind, exceeding our test strips' maximum range.
Like our other two impurity removal metrics, dissolved salt removal is also responsible for 25% of the total score. We used a total dissolved solids (TDS) meter and standard table salt as our sample salt to measure the concentration. We found that this meter would tend to give us slightly different results each time, on the order of plus or minus up to 20 parts per million (ppm), so we conducted multiple trials for each filter and took the median result to determine scores. Our supply of water began with a concentration of about 445 ppm, with many filters struggling substantially in this test.
Meriting a perfect score for their unparalleled performance at purifying water with dissolved salts, the ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher and the 23-Cup Jug performed best out of the entire group. These filters completely extracted all of the salt in our test, with our TDS meter showing a reading of either 0 ppm or 1 ppm.
Next, the iSpring RCC7 and the APEC Essence both earned a 9 out of 10. These filters removed the bulk of the dissolved salt, leaving concentrations of about 21 ppm and 16 ppm, respectively — over a 95% reduction from the supply!
The Home Master HydroPerfection is the only final filter that did well in this metric. This under-the-sink filter earned an 8 out of 10 for its efforts, reducing the salt concentration to around 49 ppm.
The APEC WFS-1000 proved to be a bit of a disappointment, delivering very poor performance. This water filter earned only a 2 out of 10, reducing the salt concentration by about 40 ppm, putting it around 405 ppm in total.
Rounding out the back of the group with scores of 1 out of 10 are the BRITA SAFF-100, the BRITA Pitcher, the BRITA Ultramax, the Aquagear, and the PUR. These filters all have activated carbon filters, which typically aren't designed for removing dissolved salts, though there are a few that will with multiple filtration cycles. None of these five filters reduced the concentration of salt at all (the reductions we did see were well within the variation of the TDS meter).
After our impurity removal triad, we moved on to what most people will immediately notice when using these products: taste. Taste carried 15% of the overall score. To assess each filter's performance in this metric, we made a batch of foul-tasting water by mixing a decent amount of salt and chlorine into our supply tank. We then ran this water through each of the filters and had a panel blind taste and score each water. Additionally, we ran pure water through each filter and repeated the process to see if any filters degraded the water's taste.
Some familiar contenders claimed the top spot, with the ZeroWater 10-Cup, the ZeroWater 23-Cup, the HydroPerfection, the iSpring, and the APEC Essence all produced superior-tasting water. This group of filters removed any taste of chlorine and salt, producing clear, crisp, and refreshing water. They also failed to impart any taste on the pure water, leaving it untainted.
The Aquagear Filter Pitcher didn't perform quite as well. Still, it made the nasty chlorine/saltwater taste significantly better by removing most of the chlorine taste, but the taste of salt was still quite prevalent. However, it did well in the second test by leaving already clean water tasting fine, although some of our judges did note that the filtered water tasted a bit more "bland" after it went through the Aquagear.
Slightly redeeming their earlier lackluster performances, the BRITA Everyday Pitcher and the BRITA Ultramax earned a 6 out of 10. These models didn't impart any negative taste on the pure water, but neither could completely remove the gross taste of our tainted supply of water. Our tasting panel didn't think that it necessarily tasted bad but unanimously agreed that something just didn't taste quite right.
The APEC WFS-1000 and the SAFF-100 both showed a mediocre performance. This pair also didn't degrade pure water, but left behind a noticeably undesirable taste with the chlorinated salter. The water samples weren't quite undrinkable but were well on the way there.
The FM-2000B had a substandard performance. It left behind distinct traces of chlorine when filtering the tainted water — to the point where none of our testers felt that they would continue to drink the water. On top of that, it also imparted what our panel felt was a slightly funky taste to the pure water.
Our last metric focuses on each filter's flow rate and is accountable for 10% of the final score. To score each product, we timed how long it took to fill up a quart container, assuming each filter had the maximum amount of filtered water ready, essentially emulating what would occur if you went to fill up a coffee carafe in the morning. This would mean the filters had all night to filter water in the case of the under-the-sink models or assuming you topped off a filter pitcher before you went to bed. However, we did consider if we needed to filter more water before a quart could be dispensed.
The APEC WFS-1000 earned a 9 out of 10 for its exceptionally high flow rate. It only took about 15 seconds for the APEC to fill the test container. The Home Master HydroPerfection took around a minute and a half — 84 seconds — to fill the quart container.
The SAFF-100, BRITA Everyday, iSpring, PUR FM-2000B, Aquagear Filter Pitcher, and ZeroWatcher Pitcher all earning a 5 out of 10 for flow. Being pitchers, the ZeroWater 10-Cup, the Aquagear, and the BRITA Everyday have exceptionally high flow rates, but all three take a decent amount of time to filter new water. If you need more water than what is currently in the tank, expect to be waiting for a while.
The ZeroWater 23-Cup, the BRITA Ultramax, the BRITA SAFF-100, and the PUR all just have reduced flow rates for faucet filters, taking about 24, 25, 30, and 34 seconds to fill a quart container, respectively. The iSpring is the slowest of this group, taking 35 seconds to accomplish the task.
Finishing last, the APEC Essence has the lowest flow rate of the overall group, taking 38 seconds to output a quart of water.
Hopefully, this review has been helpful in your quest for cleaner, tastier tap water. Whether you are searching for a new pitcher, an under-the-sink model, or a faucet-mount filter for your home, there is a model out there for you and your family. However, we think it's important to reiterate that these products are designed to remove contaminants and improve the taste of already potable water and shouldn't be used for camping or backpacking water purification purposes, which is best left to a backcountry-specific filter.
— Austin Palmer and David Wise