Stiftung Warentest tests 13 vacuum robots - only two models are "good"

Household - Stiftung Warentest tests 13 vacuum robots - only two models are "good"

Robot vacuum cleaners are an ideal addition to the household - an opinion shared by Stiftung Warentest. However, when it comes to keeping the place clean single-handedly, the expensive devices with a mopping function are particularly weak. Candidates without a mop are out of the running anyway, as they simply run over stains on the floor. The current comparison shows when a robot vacuum cleaner still pays off and which model you can choose without hesitation. (You can view the entire test here for a fee).

Unlike last year, one of the most expensive devices is no longer the best. If the test winner at the time, the Roborock S7 MaxV Ultra, had taken part again, it would once again have come first in terms of marks. Its successor had a harder time in the current test: The Roborock S8 Pro Ultra, currently priced at 1111 euros, only achieved a "satisfactory" (3.6). The comparatively poor score is the result of several downgrades. The testers complained about the inadequate pick-up of short animal hair and an extremely unclean mopping result. However, the experts consider the suction power of the fallen test winner to be good, as well as the handling and navigation.

A solid vacuum mopping robot for under 450 euros

The only robot with a mopping function to achieve a "good" rating in this important sub-discipline is the Shark RV2600WSEU, currently priced at 440 euros. It vacuums and mops "well", but is weaker on carpets and struggles with long hair, which can hinder the appliance's operation comparatively quickly. This also affects the cleaning of the appliance, which is why the robot only achieves an overall rating of "satisfactory" (2.7). Nevertheless, the Shark is a recommendable offer for the current price.

The two robotic vacuum cleaners with a "good" rating are not equipped with a mopping function. If you believe the testers, you should probably take this job into your own hands anyway. According to the test, the Vorwerk VR7 has the best suction power. The rating of "good" (2.1) makes it one of the best appliances to have completed the Stiftung Warentest course to date. With a sub-rating of "very good" (1.3), no competitor was able to beat the appliance in terms of suction power on hard floors. The Vorwerk is also the only robot that cleans carpets "well" according to the testers. The Vorwerk robot is currently only available with a cleaning station for around 1000 euros.

Price-performance winner among robot vacuums does not exist (anymore)

The second robot with a "good" (2.4) is the Neato D10. The experts attest to this appliance's good suction power, satisfactory performance on carpets and solid, albeit average, results in terms of practicality and handling.

The Neato would therefore theoretically have been the price-performance winner, but it has a huge catch. This is because Stiftung Warentest lists the appliance with a "purchase price paid by us" of 289 euros. According to the manufacturer, the foundation claims that this is a discontinued model with remaining stock in stores. These remaining stocks do indeed exist - but their price is a far cry from what Stiftung Warentest has calculated. The Neato D10 is only available at a completely overpriced price of up to 1000 euros or second-hand from around 480 euros. The really low price of 289 euros comes from a discount campaign in the spring - the device is therefore hardly interesting in terms of price, as it is already above the price of a Shark vacuum-mopping robot as an old product.

Due to their collective weakness when it comes to vacuuming carpets, but also their mediocre performance when mopping, Stiftung Warentest sees all robots merely as a supplement to manual cleaning, for example with handheld vacuum cleaners or squeegees. If you really want to clean your carpet down to the pores, you can hardly avoid buying a powerful hand-held vacuum cleaner with a rotating brush.

You can view the entire test here for a fee.