This page contains affiliate links. Learn more.

Our Verdict (Best For)
The Aquagear pitcher performed well in our 2025 filtration lab test, with no odor and a much-improved water taste, but the 2024 results were mediocre and some taste remained. It isn’t NSF/ANSI certified for contaminant reduction, but it is 3rd-party tested to 100% filter life (but mostly for easier-to-remove organics). The pitcher is easy to set up, refill, and maintain, and we like its comfortable handle, and large capacity (fewer refills) that still fits in the fridge. However, we had issues with the lid falling off, the cover of the spout sticking and causing water to spray while pouring, and needing more force to push the too-small priming assembly up against our faucet during setup. The upfront price is slightly above average, but it’s backed by a lifetime warranty and includes a pre-paid recycling program for used filters. Overall, we think there are better pitcher filters out there.
The Aquagear pitcher is designed for use as a drinking water filter and can purify both tap water and properly disinfected well water.
As usual, we’ve tested the pitcher with our own hands:
- Hands-on experience: We assembled, primed, used, and maintained it.
- Filtration effectiveness: Across 2 independent test rounds, we sent unfiltered and filtered tap water samples to professional laboratories for analysis to determine real-world contaminant reduction. Each round used a different pitcher, water supply, and lab. We also reviewed NSF/ANSI certifications and other available test data.
- More testing: We conducted taste and odor evaluations as well as filtration speed tests.
- All other product aspects: We considered initial and long-term costs, warranties, additional features, frequent customer complaints, and more.
To learn more about our testing procedure check our editorial guidelines.
Contents
Final Rating: /5.00
FiltrationFiltration score combines our lab results and taste testing with NSF/ANSI certifications and 3rd-party contaminant reduction data.: /5.00
Usability: /5.00
CostsCost scores reflect overall value for money rather than price alone.: /5.00
| Type: | Water Filter Pitcher |
| PriceNo short-term sales. (Sep 16, 2025): | $69.95 |
| Yearly CostEstimate is based on rated/claimed filter life and 300 gallons annual water consumption. No short-term sales. (Sep 16, 2025): | ~$125 (Save 20% With Filter Subscription) |
Final Rating: /5.00
What We Like Most
- Achieved solid results in our 2025 lab testing.
- Filtered water had a much better taste and no odor (2025 test).
- Third-party testing for dozens of impurities and to 100% filter life but limited in regards to contaminant types mostly covering “easier-to-remove” organics.
- BPA-free.
- Clear setup directions including illustrations and a QR-linked tutorial video.
- Larger feed and filtered water capacity means fewer refills are required.
- Large enough to fill 40-oz bottle in one refill while still fitting in fridge shelves and door.
- Interior finger indentations on plastic handle make it particularly comfortable.
- Easy to refill.
- Easy to maintain.
- Filter media is claimed to be made in the USA.
- Backed by a lifetime warranty.
- Pre-paid recycling program for used filters.
What We Don’t Like
- Achieved mediocre results in our 2024 lab testing.
- Filtered water was odor-free but had some remaining taste (2024 test).
- No NSF/ANSI certifications for contaminant reduction.
- The filter flushing/priming assembly was too small so we had to push it up against our faucet with force (may be difficult for some users).
- On-demand filtering takes patience.
- Cover of pour spout often gets stuck or pops out of place, causing water to spray while pouring.
- Lid can be hard to remove and re-align, and sometimes comes off when pouring.
- No filter life indicator.
- Slightly above-average upfront price (compared to other pitcher filters)
- Third-party customer complaints about taste issues, slow filtration and clogged filters, and general design flaws.
How the Aquagear Compares to…
13 Other Water Filter Pitchers
In this video, Sara explains why the Aquagear did not become one of our top picks among the 14 water filter pitchers we tested.
Please note: Our full guide on the best water filter pitchers is available here.
Video Chapters + Comparison Sheet
- Link to Comparison Sheet
- 00:00 – Intro
- 00:33 – What’s New
- 01:10 – Our 14 Pitchers
- 03:00 – Top Pick: Clearly Filtered
- 12:21 – Runner-Up: Culligan (and ZeroWater)
- 23:20 – For Usability: Epic Pure
- 26:22 – Budget Pick: Brita Everyday Elite
- 28:07 – Hard Water: Waterdrop Chubby
- 28:57 – Bacteria & Parasites: LifeStraw
- 30:16 – Seychelle RAD & Aquagear
- 32:03 – LARQ Pitcher PureVis
- 33:35 – PUR Plus 11-Cup
- 35:09 – Summary
Full Analysis of the Aquagear
Filtration: /5.00
The Aquagear water filter pitcher scored 3.07/5.00 for filtration. How? It achieved solid results in our 2025 lab testing, improving upon the mediocre 2024 performance. In our 2025 test, the filtered water also had a much better taste than our tap water. In 2024, there was some taste remaining (no odor in either test round). And finally, while the pitcher doesn’t have any NSF/ANSI certifications for contaminant reduction, it does have third-party testing for dozens of impurities to 100% filter life; however, it’s limited in regards to contaminant types, mostly covering “easier-to-remove” organics.
1. Lab Results: /5.00 (2025) & /5.00 (2024)
Remember that our before vs after lab comparison is not an exact science. It’s informational and subject to variability, inaccuracies, and interferences caused by natural fluctuations in water quality, accidental contamination, human error, instrumentation issues, and more. Furthermore, our lab-testing is limited to those contaminants present in our water supplies and at their respective concentrations. As such, it can only give us a general idea for how effective a certain water treatment product might be.
In our 2024 and 2025 lab tests comparing an unfiltered and a filtered tap water sample, the Aquagear pitcher could remove 9 undesirable impurities and contaminants to below the minimum detection level (so essentially to 100%): chlorine, bromodichloromethane*, bromoform, dibromochloromethane*, chloroform*, copper, iron, manganese, and barium.
The following substances remained in our water:
- Boron – showed no reduction in 2024 and only 5% in 2025.
- Lithium increased by 100% in 2024 (not present in 2025). Lithium was detected near the analytical detection limit (0.01 ppm) in 2024, so this percentage change reflects a minimal absolute difference and could also represent natural fluctuations. We don’t expect the Aquagear filter to add lithium to the water but it may not reduce it, either.
- Strontium was reduced by 17% in 2024, which is very poor. In 2025, it was reduced by a moderate 50%.
- Nitrate was reduced by 20% in 2025, which is very poor and much lower compared to the 100% reduction in 2024.
- Fluoride increased by 28% in 2024. However, it’s unlikely that the Aquagear adds fluoride to the water, as there’s no fluoride-based filter media. Such a large increase is also unlikely to be the result of natural variability. That said, our 2024 fluoride test method is known to be susceptible to alkalinity interference, with higher alkalinity producing artificially elevated fluoride readings. Because the filtered water showed increased alkalinity, it’s possible that this apparent fluoride increase is not real. At the same time, we don’t think the Aquagear is effective at fluoride reduction. All of this was confirmed in our 2025 testing, where we used a different lab method to measure fluoride (we consider this method to be much more reliable compared to 2024). Here, the Aquagear reduced fluoride by a very poor 10%.
- Uranium was reduced by a poor 29% in 2024 (not present in 2025).
Finally, hardness increased by 114% in 2024 and by 156% in 2025. These increases might actually be the pitcher releasing ions from its ion exchange resin and should subside quickly. That said, the Aquagear still might not be suited for protecting your kettle and/or coffee maker from limescale buildup.
Aside from contaminant reduction, we found zinc (0.01 ppm) in our 2024 filtered water suggesting potential leaching. However, zinc is merely an aesthetic impurity which only becomes relevant (e.g., impacting water taste) at a much higher level (5 ppm) than detected in our sample per the EPA secondary standards. Also, at first glance, our lab findings seem to contradict Aquagear’s third-party test data which claim the reduction of zinc by 99.99%. This apparent discrepancy may be explained by differing test conditions: Aquagear evaluated zinc removal from feed water spiked to ~10 ppm, whereas our feed water contained no detectable zinc; therefore, the zinc observed post-filtration is most consistent with trace leaching rather than incomplete removal.
In 2025, we found titanium (0.00228 ppm) added to our filtered water. We couldn’t find any health guideline for titanium in drinking water; the lack of a guideline suggests it shouldn’t be a major health concern.
*In our 2025 lab testing, we artificially spiked our tap water with fluoride and nitrate because our new water supply contains neither. The nitrate solution, however, unintentionally contained chloroform, resulting in a test concentration of 1,670 ppm – far above realistic tap water levels (100 ppm is already considered high). Despite this extremely elevated concentration, the Aquagear removed all chloroform and other disinfection byproducts. This result is noteworthy on its own and is also why we did not re-test VOC reduction, unlike other pitchers that failed to fully remove VOCs (including chloroform) in our ultra-high chloroform test.
Lab Results Charts
| Potentially Harmful | Aesthetic Issues | Feed Water Level | Filtered Water Level | Reduction Rate | |
| Water Disinfectants | |||||
| Chlorine (mg/L) | ✖ | ✖ | ~2 | 0 | 100% |
| Disinfection Byproducts (Ultra-High Chloroform) | |||||
| Bromodichloromethane (µg/L) | ✖ | 19.9 | 0 | 100% | |
| Dibromochloromethane (µg/L) | ✖ | 5.81 | 0 | 100% | |
| Chloroform (µg/L) | ✖ | 1,670 | 0 | 100% | |
| Metals | |||||
| Copper (mg/L) | ✖ | ✖ | 0.0136 | 0 | 100% |
| Iron (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.0763 | 0 | 100% | |
| Manganese (mg/L) | ✖ | ✖ | 0.0036 | 0 | 100% |
| Barium (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.0407 | 0 | 100% | |
| Boron (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.0153 | 0.0146 | 5% | |
| Strontium (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.112 | 0.0559 | 50% | |
| Salts | |||||
| Nitrate (N) (mg/L) | ✖ | 2.74 | 2.2 | 20% | |
| Fluoride (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.925 | 0.83 | 10% | |
| Aesthetic Parameters | |||||
| Hardness (mg/L) | ✖ | 59.89 | 153.23 | 156% Increase | |
| Other Parameters | |||||
| pH | 7.8 | 7.6 | |||
| Impurities NOT Detected in Unfiltered Tap Water Sample | |||||
| Titanium (mg/L) | 0 | 0.00228 | |||
| Lab Reports (Ultra-High Chloroform): Filtered Water Report, Unfiltered Water Report | |||||
| Chlorine Self Test Photos: Filtered Water, Unfiltered Water | |||||
| Explanation: | |||||
| Full Removal | |||||
| Considerable Reduction | |||||
| Concentration More Than Double of Unfiltered Water Sample | |||||
| Potential Leaching Reached or Exceeded the Strictest Public Health Guideline We Could Find | |||||
| Potentially Harmful | Aesthetic Issues | Feed Water Level | Filtered Water Level | Reduction Rate | |
| Water Disinfectants | |||||
| Chlorine (mg/L) | ✖ | ✖ | 0.2 | 0 | 100% |
| Disinfection Byproducts | |||||
| Bromodichloromethane (µg/L) | ✖ | 0.58 | 0 | 100% | |
| Bromoform (µg/L) | ✖ | 0.75 | 0 | 100% | |
| Dibromochloromethane (µg/L) | ✖ | 0.94 | 0 | 100% | |
| Metals | |||||
| Copper (mg/L) | ✖ | ✖ | 0.01 | 0 | 100% |
| Barium (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.01 | 0 | 100% | |
| Boron (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0% | |
| Lithium (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100% Increase | |
| Strontium (mg/L) | ✖ | 0.18 | 0.15 | 17% | |
| Salts | |||||
| Nitrate (N) (mg/L) | ✖ | 1.65 | 0 | 100% | |
| Fluoride (mg/L) (Flawed?) | ✖ | 0.46 | 0.59 | 28% Increase | |
| Other | |||||
| Uranium (µg/L) | ✖ | 7 | 5 | 29% | |
| Aesthetic Parameters | |||||
| Hardness (mg/L) | ✖ | 111.9 | 239.7 | 114% Increase | |
| Other Parameters | |||||
| Alkalinity (mg/L) | 140 | 170 | 21% Increase | ||
| pH | 7.77 | 7.98 | |||
| Impurities NOT Detected in Unfiltered Tap Water Sample | |||||
| Zinc (mg/L) | ✖ | 0 | 0.01 | ||
| Lab Reports: Filtered Water Report, Unfiltered Water Report | |||||
| Explanation: | |||||
| Full Removal | |||||
| Considerable Reduction | |||||
| Concentration More Than Double of Unfiltered Water Sample | |||||
| Potential Leaching Reached or Exceeded the Strictest Public Health Guideline We Could Find | |||||
2. NSF/ANSI Certifications and Other Test Data
The Aquagear pitcher does not have any NSF/ANSI certifications for contaminant reduction. However, it does have third-party testing for dozens of impurities to 100% filter life against NSF/ANSI standards 42, 53, and 401 (microplastics were tested against a “modified NSF/ANSI standard”). This testing covers primarily what we consider “easier-to-remove” organics and only a few heavy metals. Listed reduction rates include:
- Lead (99.35-99.41%)
- Mercury (93.33-95.00%)
- Cadmium (96.55-96.67%)
- Asbestos (99.97%)
- Dozens of VOCs (99.97%)
- PFOA (96.20%)
- PFOS (56%)
- Microplastics (99.99%)
- Pesticides and herbicides (99.86-99.99%)
- Several pharmaceuticals (99.87-99.99%)
3. Filtration Process
The Aquagear filter cartridge contains activated carbon and ion exchange resin. Activated carbon removes things like bad tastes and odors, chlorine/chloramine, disinfection byproducts and other organics, as well as certain metals. Ion exchange targets dissolved, unwanted ions in the water.
4. Taste and Odor Tests
In our 2024 test, the filtered water was odorless but had some taste remaining. In our 2025 test, the filtered water was odorless as well, and the taste was much improved compared to our tap water but not 100% perfect.

Usability: /5.00
The Aquagear achieved a usability score of 3.50/5.00, based on its performance in the following categories:
- Initial system assembly including filter priming (0.90/1.00)
- Day-to-day use (2.00/3.10)
- Filter replacements (0.60/0.90)
1. Initial Setup: /1.00
Assembling the Aquagear was not as straightforward as some of the other pitchers, though the manufacturer does provide clear, illustrated directions outlining each step. In addition, a convenient QR code links users to a tutorial video.
The biggest challenge lies with the filter priming – our faucet was too big for the flushing assembly to fit around. We had to push it up against the faucet forcefully. Not only was this inconvenient, but we suspect it could prove difficult for someone older or with limited mobility.
Here’s a quick breakdown of the setup process:
- Attach or hold the flushing assembly to your faucet and run cold water for 2 minutes at low pressure. The flushing assembly bulb does not have to fit your faucet perfectly; press the bulb as firmly to your faucet as possible. It is normal to see some water leaking around the cap of the flushing assembly; you may lower the water pressure slightly to correct this.
- Screw the filter cartridge onto the reservoir securely.
- Place the reservoir into the carafe and secure the lid on top of the pitcher.
- Now your pitcher is ready to use.




2. Day-to-Day Use: /3.10
2.1 Speed & Water Capacity: /1.20
The Aquagear pitcher is a decent choice for daily use but there are better options if day-to-day practicality is your primary concern. On a positive note, its reservoirs are large and well-balanced (7-cup feed, 10-cup filtered capacity), so it can store enough water and requires fewer daily refills to keep your family hydrated – we estimate 4-5 refills for the average-sized US and US family households, respectively. This means you will not have to make repeated trips to the faucet, unlike with models that have smaller feed (or feed + filtered) reservoirs.
In addition, the Aquagear filters fast enough to meet the daily water needs of the average-sized US households, and it can handle thirst bursts. That said, on-demand filtering takes some patience. In our 2025 filtration speed test, the pitcher could filter 4 cups in a reasonable 4:46 min. It performed even better in our 2024 test, clocking in at 3:45 min.
Finally, the pitcher fits both on the shelves and in the door of a standard fridge (dimensions: 5.5″x10.5″x11.25″), and thanks to the generous feed and filtered capacities, you can fill a large 40-oz bottle with a single refill.


2.2 Handling & Pouring: /1.15
The Aquagear’s plastic handle is particularly comfortable with its interior indentations for finger placement. However, the pour spout cover often gets stuck or pops out of place, causing water to spray in all directions – occasionally it needs to be pushed back into position. Additionally, the lid can be hard to remove, doesn’t align easily with the pitcher, and sometimes pops off when pouring. Like the Seychelle RAD, these factors unfortunately make the Aquagear one of our least favorite pitchers when it comes to pouring.
It is relatively light compared to the other pitchers we have tested, with a weight including the wet filter cartridge of 1 lb 12.44 oz. While handling is made easier with a lighter pitcher, less weight may indicate flimsier construction (e.g., thinner plastic) and/or less filter media (not ideal for optimal filtration performance).


2.3 Refilling: /0.75
The Aquagear is easy to refill owing to its oval pour-through tab.

3. Filter Replacements: /0.90
Filter replacements are very easy though there is no filter change indicator to alert you to do so.
Rated filter life is 120 gallons. Assuming 300 gallons of yearly water consumption for the average household, we estimate that you will have to change the filter 2.5x annually. However, the manufacturer notes the filter lasts up to 6 months, so at minimum, it should be changed twice yearly.


Support BOS Water’s Mission!
Every coffee helps us test more products and bring you unbiased results!
Costs: /5.00
Based on value for money, the Aquagear pitcher achieved a cost score of 4.03 out of 5.00, indicating it is priced about average for what it offers compared to competing pitchers (a score of 4.00 represents average value). Notably, while its upfront price is slightly above average compared to the other water filter pitchers we tested, its annual filter replacement cost is around average.
1. Upfront Price
As of September 16, 2025, the Aquagear is priced at $69.95, which is slightly above the $58.53 average across all the water filter pitchers we tested.
2. Long-Term Expenses for Filter Replacements
Based on 300 gallons consumption and a 120-gallon filter life, we estimate $125 in annual filter replacement costs, which is around the $120.13 average across all the water filter pitchers we tested. That said, you can save 20% with a filter subscription.
3. Product Warranty
The system is covered by a lifetime warranty.
4. Other Cost Factors
- The Aquagear’s filter media is claimed to be made in the USA.
- Aquagear offers a filter recycling program. They provide a prepaid shipping label, though you don’t get a free filter in exchange for sending back used filters.
Additional
1. BPA-Free
This pitcher is made from BPA-free materials.
2. Frequent Customer Complaints
We read about issues with taste, slow filtration or clogged filters, and design flaws.
Like some of the other customers, we noticed a few poor design elements: we had trouble with the pour spout cover getting stuck or popping out of place, causing water to spray in all directions. The lid doesn’t seem to fit well, either – it can be hard to remove/replace and sometimes pops off when pouring. The priming assembly doesn’t seem to fit large faucets, making initial setup a slight challenge.
We also detected some remaining taste to our 2024 water, though our 2025 testing yielded much better-tasting water. However, we did not find that the Aquagear filtered particularly slowly, nor was it prone to clogging.
Bottom Line: No Match for Other Pitcher Filters (/5.00)
Filtration weighted at 60%, and usability and cost at 20% each, the Aquagear pitcher scored a final rating of 3.35 out of 5.00.
The Aquagear achieved solid results in our 2025 lab testing, fully removing 9 contaminants and producing water with no odor and a much-improved taste (the 2024 results were mediocre and some taste remained). It isn’t NSF/ANSI certified for contaminant reduction, but it is third-party tested to 100% filter life (but mostly for easier-to-remove organics).
However, it has some design flaws leading to usability issues: the lid doesn’t fit well and tends to fall off, the spout cover gets stuck, causing water to spray while pouring, and the priming assembly does not fit all faucets, requiring force to hold it up to the faucet during filter priming. We do like its comfortable handle and large capacity (fewer refills), as well as its lifetime warranty and pre-paid recycling program for used filters. Overall, we think there are better water filter pitchers out there.
