Best Water Filter Pitcher in 2025? We (Lab-)Tested 14 Models!

Water Filter Pitchers

• Clearly Filtered Water Pitcher
• Waterdrop Chubby
• LifeStraw Home 10-Cup
• ZeroWater 10-Cup Ready-Pour
• Kirkland Signature (Costco) Filtered Water Pitcher
• Brita Large 10-Cup (Everyday) Pitcher With Elite Filter
• Aquagear
• PUR PLUS 11-Cup
• Epic Pure
• ProOne (With Old G2.0 M Filter)

Please note: This page is still a work in progress. Additional content and details will be added shortly – stay tuned!

Video Script

We just wrapped up our second round of water filter pitcher testing — and combined with round 1, that brings us to 14 different models, covering all the major brands. We also re-ran our contaminant reduction tests at a new lab and using a different water supply, giving us a much stronger dataset to rely on. So if you’re looking for the most straightforward, science-based buying advice on water filter pitchers — this is where you’ll get it.

Alright, welcome to our Water Filter Pitcher Comparison 2.0!

If you’ve seen our first video from last year, you might remember that our lab results back then weren’t as clear as we’d hoped, so we couldn’t give the most practical buying advice. But this time, things are different.

We re-tested 8 of the previous pitchers using a new lab and water supply, added 3 new models, and ended up with way more reliable data. Some of the old pitchers even got design or filter upgrades, and we refined our rating process too.

Long story short — we’ve got a ton of new info to work with, so let’s jump right in.

These are the 8 pitchers we tested last and then re-tested this year:

• Most importantly, the highly popular ZeroWater 10-Cup Ready-Pour and the Clearly Filtered — both were top picks last time. Spoiler: one still is, the other… not so much. Stick around to find out.
• The LifeStraw Home 10-Cup and the Epic Pure — both previously showed possible methylene chloride leaching, so we’ll see what changed. Plus, we’ll talk about the LifeStraw’s claim to filter bacteria and parasites.
• The Brita Everyday — a must re-test; last time performance wasn’t exactly impressive, so let’s see if that improved.
• The PUR PLUS 11-Cup — another big name with some concerning lab results we can’t wait to share.
• And finally, the Aquagear and Waterdrop Chubby — with Waterdrop being a current Amazon bestseller, we’ll cover what it’s good for (and what it’s not).

The 3 newly added pitchers are:

• The recently released Culligan 10-Cup, which turned out to be a real surprise.
• The LARQ Pitcher PureVis — the most expensive one we’ve ever seen; we’ll talk about whether it’s worth it.
• And the Seychelle RAD, which many of you requested here on YouTube. Oh wait, that’s not the Seychelle RAD, that’s the Aquagear… this is the Seychelle RAD. Hm… weird.

3 pitchers from last time we didn’t re-test were the up&up Navy 7-Cup by Target, Kirkland Signature, and ProOne. Kirkland and ProOne are discontinued it seems, and the up&up didn’t seem worth re-testing — but we might do that in future.

So that’s 14 pitchers total, 11 of which matter for this video. We’ll start with our 4 top picks, then do a quick-fire round for the rest.

But before we dive in, a quick reminder: please subscribe and give this video a like if you want to see more content like this.

Alright — our #1 overall water filter pitcher is… the Clearly Filtered – still the same as last year.
Looking at both our old and new lab results, we think it delivers the most effective filtration, which is what matters most to us. Usability is also strong, making it the best all-rounder.

Let’s start with the lab testing.

Essentially, we assembled and primed each pitcher exactly as instructed, including the Clearly Filtered. Then we filled a large bucket with our tap water, poured equal amounts into each pitcher, took one unfiltered sample from the bucket, and one filtered sample from each pitcher. All were analyzed by an independent lab.

So this was a simple before-and-after comparison of our tap water. And as we always say, this isn’t an exact science — small handling errors, cross-contamination, or natural variations in the water can all affect results. Plus, we can only test for contaminants actually present in our water supply. So, think of this as a snapshot, not a final verdict.

With that in mind, here’s how the Clearly Filtered performed:

In 2024, most impurities and contaminants were removed to 100% — chlorine, 3 disinfection byproducts, copper, barium, lithium, strontium, and uranium. Below 100% were boron, nitrate, and fluoride. Fluoride even showed a 184% increase, though we’ve long believed that our 2024 fluoride results were flawed — you can see the details in our comparison sheet linked in the description. It also contains our full analysis including all lab reports plus our product links and discount codes so you can save money and support the channel, helping us do even bigger tests in the future.

Anyway, ignoring fluoride and factoring in potential silver and titanium leaching (both below the strictest health guidelines), the Clearly Filtered did pretty well but not perfectly.

In 2025, we used a better lab method to measure fluoride, and this time everything was removed to 100% except nitrate (96%). Almost perfect.

We think that clear improvement comes down to the new priming process. In 2024, we had issues with the priming bag and disk not staying on, which could’ve hurt performance. This time, that wasn’t a problem. That could also explain why titanium, while still detectable in the filtered water, was at a much lower level. And the potential cobalt leaching was extremely low as well. Still not ideal, but if you put it into context, those concentrations seem pretty negligible. For example, the strictest cobalt health guideline we could find is almost 60 times higher than what we measured. Bottom line: in 2024, the Clearly Filtered did pretty well. In 2025, it did excellent.

Alright, that covers our lab data.

Next, water aesthetics — basically how the filtered water tastes and smells. With the Clearly Filtered, both improved noticeably. It’s about as good as you can expect from a pitcher-style filter. Of course, it’s not quite as pristine as water from a reverse osmosis system, but still a big step up from tap.

And finally for filtration, NSF standards for contaminant reduction. The Clearly Filtered only has 2 official NSF certifications — for chlorine and for taste and odor — not exactly the most critical ones. However, it’s backed by extensive third-party testing against NSF and other standards, and that testing goes up to 200% of the rated filter life. So, while we’d prefer more official certifications, the data we do have looks very promising.

All things considered, the Clearly Filtered earns 4.50 out of 5.00 for filtration — the highest possible score for any pitcher that isn’t fully NSF-certified.

Okay, next: usability.

Initial setup is straightforward. The directions are clear, include step-by-step illustrations, and there’s a QR code that links to a tutorial video.

We already mentioned that, in our first round of testing, we had issues with the old priming disk and bag not staying on. That’s now been fixed with the new priming bag, which was much easier to use. You remove the protective sticker from the cartridge, fill the priming bag with water, connect the filter, squeeze the water through, repeat that 2–3 times, then disconnect the bag, check that the gasket is in place, screw the filter into the upper reservoir, fill with water — and you’re ready to go.

At first, this priming bag felt like a downside, since it’s an extra step and the Clearly Filtered is the only pitcher in our test that uses one. But once you’ve done it, the pitcher is ready to use right away, without waiting for slow “real-time” priming, so overall we actually see it as a pro.

Day to day, filtration speed is fast enough for household use but still not “filter on demand.” In our test, it took about 13.5 minutes to filter 4 cups. Some pitchers are much faster — for example, the Waterdrop Chubby did 4 cups in under 2 minutes, which is obviously more convenient. But our data also showed that longer contact time tends to go hand in hand with better contaminant reduction, while very fast filters tended to perform worse, which makes sense. So a somewhat slower pitcher like this can actually be an advantage.

On the positive side, the Clearly Filtered needs the fewest daily refills of all pitchers we tested — usually 3–4 for an average household. That’s partly due to its overall size, but more importantly, the balance between the feed and filtered reservoir. With one full refill of the upper reservoir, you get about 8.5 cups of filtered water, and that’s how we recommend using it: fill the top all the way and wait about 20–30 minutes until most of it has gone through.

Many other pitchers either have a smaller feed reservoir, a smaller filtered reservoir, or both, and some are just poorly balanced. The LifeStraw is a good example: it can store more than 15 cups of filtered water, but you need 4 full refills of the top to fill the bottom. So if you want to quickly fill a 40 oz bottle, you can’t do it in one go. With the Clearly Filtered, you can — and it still fit in our fridge, both on the shelves and in the door.

Refilling is easy thanks to the flip-top lid, which has a nice curve to open and a wide opening, so aiming water into it was never an issue.

We also like the clear upper reservoir because it shows exactly how much unfiltered water is left – the only other pitcher to have this feature is the Epic. And it’s especially helpful here, because if there’s still a lot of water in the top and you tilt the pitcher too far, some of that unfiltered water can escape under the lid. The Clearly Filtered isn’t the only pitcher with this problem, but it’s still not ideal and another reason to let most of the water filter through before pouring.

The large handle gives a comfortable, secure grip, but you do need to pour a bit more slowly. If you go too fast, the water will splash in a wide pattern.

We also weighed the empty pitcher with the cartridge installed and found it to be relatively heavy. That’s the trade-off for using more filter media, which is generally a good thing. Filter replacements are easy to do, but there’s no filter life indicator, so you have to track it yourself or estimate your water use.

All in all, that’s 4.10 out of 5.00 for usability.

Alright, next up — third-party customer feedback and costs.

Overall feedback could be better honestly. Aside from the minor leaking and splashing we already mentioned, the most common complaints were clogged filters and instability of the upper reservoir. The latter is easily avoided by waiting until all the water has filtered through before pouring. As for clogging, that depends heavily on feed-water quality. Still, yeah, the Clearly Filtered is probably more likely to clog than a filter that’s more permeable to begin with. But higher permeability usually goes hand in hand with weaker filtration, so it’s really a bit of a double-edged sword.

Now, costs.

The Clearly Filtered sells for $100 upfront, with an optional 10% off through a filter subscription — or the same discount using our code, so no subscription required. That puts it firmly in the premium price range. On the upside, it comes with a 2-year limited warranty, compared to about 90 days for most cheaper pitchers. It’s also made from medical-grade Tritan plastic, which the company says is free from BPA, BPS, phthalates, and any estrogen or androgen activity.

Honestly, we’re not experts in plastics. All we can say is the pitcher doesn’t feel cheap or flimsy — though it also doesn’t feel super high-end in a way that really sets it apart from the competition.

And since we haven’t yet seen any good plastic-free water filter pitcher, if you’re concerned about plastic, we’d suggest transferring and storing your water in a glass carafe after filtration.

For ongoing costs, based on 300 gallons of use per year (three 100-gallon cartridges), we estimate about $155 annually — slightly above average, with an optional 10% off for subscribers.

Overall, for costs — or rather, value for money — that’s 3.50 out of 5.00. Weighted together — 60% filtration, 20% usability, 20% cost — the Clearly Filtered earns a final score of 4.22 out of 5.00, the highest among all 14 pitchers we tested.

If we had to sum it up: with the new filter priming in place, it offers extremely thorough filtration and solid usability — but you do need to be okay with the higher price.

Next up: our runner-up for most effective filtration — the Culligan 10-Cup Pitcher — and the ZeroWater 10-Cup Ready-Pour, since the two are basically twins.

That’s not a coincidence. Culligan actually bought ZeroWater in 2020 and advertises its pitchers as using the same filtration technology. When you look at how the filters are built, they’re nearly identical apart from the outer shell. So, how did they perform in the lab?

For 2024, we only have data for the ZeroWater. It removed most contaminants to 100%, except boron at 75% — still better than the Clearly Filtered — and copper, which went up 1,100%. That suggests potential leaching, possibly from the KDF media, which is a copper-zinc mix, but the detected copper level was below the strictest health guideline, and we’d expect any leaching to taper off quickly. So not great, but not alarming either. We also saw potential leaching of zinc, iron, and aluminum but in trace amounts and all negligible at the levels detected.

In 2025, we can compare Culligan and ZeroWater side by side — and unsurprisingly, their results were very similar. Both removed chlorine, iron, barium, boron, strontium, nitrate, and fluoride to 100%. For copper, the Culligan achieved 45% reduction and the ZeroWater 82%, meaning the Clearly Filtered did slightly better in that category. For manganese, results were 64% and 100%, respectively. When it came to disinfection byproducts, the Culligan removed 2 of 3, with 97% chloroform reduction — just below the Clearly Filtered. The ZeroWater achieved 96% for bromodichloromethane, 100% for dibromochloromethane, and 94% for chloroform — again, just a bit lower.

However — and this is an important detail — our new water supply doesn’t naturally contain nitrate or fluoride, so we had to spike it with both salts. But doing that, we accidentally also added chloroform that was present in the nitrate solution — which we didn’t realize at the time. That pushed chloroform levels from the usual 50 to 100 parts per billion all the way up to 1,695.7 ppb. That’s insanely high and unrealistic for U.S. tap water.

That’s why we repeated the tests for disinfection byproducts on every pitcher that didn’t reach 100% reduction the first time — using new filters and making sure we didn’t mess up the water again. Well… there goes another $1,000, but hey, you live and learn.

Anyway, in the re-test, the Culligan dropped slightly to 86% chloroform reduction. The ZeroWater, though, fell off a lot more — 45% for bromodichloromethane, 44% for dibromochloromethane, and 41% for chloroform.

Meanwhile, the Brita, Waterdrop, and LARQ, which we also re-tested, actually improved.

So, based on that, we’d say neither the Culligan nor the ZeroWater really stand out for disinfection byproducts. And with the ZeroWater especially, performance seems kind of hit or miss.

That’s also what we saw when testing yet another ZeroWater filter cartridge in the 32-Cup Ready-Read Dispenser as part of our big countertop filter comparison — where chloroform levels didn’t go down at all.

On the bright side, we didn’t detect any potential leaching from either pitcher in 2025.

So overall, both pitchers did well in the lab. But with the ZeroWater in particular, we’re a bit concerned about the inconsistent results for disinfection byproducts — which wouldn’t be such a big deal if they weren’t present in pretty much all U.S. tap water supplies at varying levels.

Now, you might think, “My TDS meter always reads 0, so my water must be clean, right?” Well — ours did too. Even the lab reports listed total dissolved solids as 0 for both Culligan and ZeroWater.

The problem is, disinfection byproducts are organic compounds and don’t count toward total dissolved solids. So a TDS meter can’t detect them — same with particulate lead for example or other non-dissolved contaminants. What it does measure in most tap waters are mainly harmless or even beneficial salts and minerals, and since it reads in parts per million, it’s far too imprecise for contaminants that can be harmful at much lower concentrations. That’s why we’re not fans of the “zero TDS” idea. It seems to cause confusion and give people a false sense of security.

Okay, let’s move on to taste and odor. The Culligan’s filtered water tasted as good as it gets without reverse osmosis — crisp and neutral. ZeroWater was similar last year, but this time we noticed a faint plastic taste.

As for NSF certifications, Culligan has an impressive list, including chromium-6, lead, fluoride, total PFAS, and emerging compounds. What’s missing are VOCs and a few other things, and there’s no third-party test data.

ZeroWater has fewer NSF certifications — for chromium-6, lead, mercury, PFOA and PFOS, and chlorine — but offers more third-party test data, mainly for metals and salts. Again, we’re missing organics.

Bottom line: both pitchers score 4.5 out of 5.0 for filtration, again the highest rating we give for any filter that isn’t fully NSF-certified. Just keep in mind ZeroWater’s disinfection byproduct performance may be hit or miss.

Usability? Both pitchers are easy to set up and almost identical in process. You wash the pitcher, unwrap the filter, rinse the cartridge shell for about 30 seconds, install it onto the reservoir, and fill with cold water. The only extra step for ZeroWater is discarding the first 2 full reservoirs before use.

We liked the clear instructions with illustrations, and the Culligan even includes a QR code that links to a short setup video.

For everyday use, both filter fast enough for most households, but like the Clearly Filtered, you’ll need a bit of patience if you want filtered water on demand. In our 4-cup test, the Culligan took 5 minutes and 4 seconds, and the ZeroWater clocked in at exactly 5 minutes — not bad, and more than twice as fast as the Clearly Filtered.

Now for the downsides: the Culligan’s feed reservoir feels too small. It only holds about 3.5 cups, so you’ll need to refill it 3 times to fill the filtered section completely, and about 8–9 times per day for an average household. Plus, you can’t fill a 40 oz bottle in one go; you have to refill the pitcher in between.

ZeroWater is a bit more balanced — 2 refills fill the filtered reservoir, and an average household needs about 5–6 refills daily. On the plus side, you can fill a large 40-oz bottle at once.

Refilling is also a little different between the two. The Culligan has a circular sliding lid that still covers about a third of the opening even when fully open. It worked fine for us but could be messy if you have a wide-spray faucet.

The ZeroWater, meanwhile, requires removing the lid entirely to refill. It’s not a big deal but less convenient overall.

Good news: both pitchers fit easily on fridge shelves and inside the door.

Handling and pouring: both pitchers did well here.

The Culligan has a thick, comfortable handle, and even though it’s the heaviest of the bunch at 3 lb 5 oz (with the filter installed), as mentioned, that extra weight means more filter media, which is a plus. Pouring is smooth and spill-free, even when you go fast, and you can pour while there’s still unfiltered water left in the top — very handy.

The ZeroWater is also fairly heavy and feels built for two-handed use. Pouring is smooth, but the lid can fall off if you tilt too far or pour too quickly to get the last bit of water out.

A workaround for that is using the built-in pour spout at the bottom, which lets you dispense water without lifting the pitcher at all. The button feels sturdy, presses easily, and dispenses water smoothly.

As for filter replacements, both are super simple, but you’ll be changing them often if you follow the rated lifespans — 15 gallons for ZeroWater and 20 gallons for Culligan — which adds up quickly in cost. Alternatively, you can replace once the TDS meter reads “6,” as both brands suggest. Just know that this means you’re likely exceeding the NSF-rated filter capacity.

Both pitchers include a TDS meter instead of a traditional filter life indicator. The Culligan’s meter is built in but removable, so you can take direct readings from the lower reservoir. On the ZeroWater, you take manual readings and store the meter in the lid when not in use.

Overall, we gave both pitchers a 3.50 out of 5.00 for usability.

Customer feedback next.

For the Culligan, reviews were mixed but similar overall to the Clearly Filtered. The most common complaint was short filter life — some users said filters lasted only a few days, which gets expensive fast. Others mentioned occasional bad taste or odor, awkward ergonomics, and inconsistent TDS readings. At least in our tests, TDS readings matched both our other meters and our lab data, and that also applied to the ZeroWater.

For the ZeroWater, people reported fishy, sour, metallic, or chemical-tasting water, slow filtration or clogged filters, poor lid design — especially it falling off while pouring — and even leaking filters where unfiltered water mixed with the clean batch.

Costs?

At the time of this video, the Culligan 10-Cup Pitcher sold for about $35 and the ZeroWater for roughly $38, depending on the retailer. Both are below average in upfront price compared to all pitchers tested. Now we actually tried pretty hard to get into the Culligan and ZeroWater affiliate programs — along with all the others — but no luck, so unfortunately, we don’t have any discount codes to share. Still, both pitchers are much more affordable upfront than the Clearly Filtered.

On the downside, each comes with just a 90-day warranty and 30 days on the filter cartridges. That said, both pitchers feel sturdy and well-built — especially the Culligan’s reservoir and handle made from thicker plastic. The gray color also gives it a more refined look. And yes, both use BPA-free plastic.

For long-term costs, based on the 20-gallon filter life, we estimate around $205 per year for the Culligan, with an optional 20% discount if you subscribe to filters. That’s above average — actually more expensive than the Clearly Filtered.

For the ZeroWater, with filters rated for just 15 gallons, yearly costs jump to about $285 which is really expensive.

Factoring everything in, the value-for-money scores come out to 2.9 for the Culligan and 1.74 for the ZeroWater — both on the lower side.

Still, the Culligan managed an overall rating of 3.98 out of 5.00, earning its spot as our runner-up for most effective filtration. The ZeroWater landed at 3.75 out of 5.00 — not bad, but with more caveats.

Okay, those were our top recommendations for most effective filtration. We have 2 more picks if you prioritize other things.

First, the Epic Pure – our new #1 for usability, where it scored 4.50 out of 5.00, the highest of all pitchers.

Setup is easy: there’s a booklet with clear illustrations, but the written instructions are a bit long-winded, so it’s not instantly obvious that you basically just need to twist the filter into the upper housing and then fill and discard 2 full pitchers.

Once assembled, the Epic is fast enough for normal household use, but at around 9 minutes for 4 cups, you still can’t filter on demand. You don’t have to wait for all the water to pass through before pouring, though. Still, the clear upper reservoir lets you see how much unfiltered water is left.

Capacity is well balanced at 8 cups feed and 11 cups filtered storage. You can fill a 40 oz bottle in one go, and we estimate no more than 4 daily refills for an average household. Refilling is easy one-handed thanks to the flip-top lid that opens when you press the blue rubber tab near the top of the handle, and the pitcher fits in a standard fridge.

More pros: the round wood handle looks good and feels very comfortable, pouring is smooth both slow and fast, and filter replacements are easy. There’s a simple filter life indicator that counts down from 90 days.

Where the Epic Pure falls behind is filtration. It seems to use the right media, but last year our filtered water still had a slight taste. Although the Epic handled the ultra-high chloroform in our messed-up test, both our 2024 and 2025 lab results leave room for improvement, especially for barium and strontium reduction.

In both years we also saw potential methylene chloride leaching. Even though only at trace levels and below the strictest health guideline, in 2025 the Epic was the only one of 11 pitchers with that issue, and in 2024 it was only the Epic and the LifeStraw. We’re not saying that proves anything, but it’s worth noting.

There are no official NSF certifications for contaminant reduction, but there is thorough third-party testing to 100% of filter life, which results in a filtration score of 3.81.

Looking at customer reviews, common complaints are cracked plastic, lid and pouring issues, and slow filtration. Overall feedback could be better, but reviews for the old and new Epic Pure models are mixed together, which makes it harder to interpret.

Costs: the pitcher is $79 upfront. You can save 15% with a filter subscription or 20% with our exclusive code, which makes it roughly average-priced. There’s a lifetime warranty plus a satisfaction guarantee, which clearly sets the Epic apart. It uses medical-grade Tritan like the Clearly Filtered, but while the Clearly felt average in build quality, the Epic feels more sturdy, and the packaging appeared very eco-friendly.

With a 150-gallon filter life, we estimate annual filter costs at $106 (with a 15% subscription discount), which is below average. On top of that, Epic has a cool recycling program where you get 1 free filter in exchange for 5 used ones. Overall, that’s 4.68 out of 5.00 for costs and a final rating of 4.12 out of 5.00.

Last recommendation: the Brita Everyday Elite — our #1 budget pick. It sells for around $40 on Amazon, with annual filter replacements costing about $40–45, so it’s hard to beat on price. The trade-off is durability. It only has a 90-day warranty, and the flip-top lid could break if not handled carefully. Still, that’s a perfect 5 out of 5 for costs.

Filtration isn’t as strong. While our re-test showed 100% removal of disinfection byproducts, metal and salt reduction was subpar, and last year we weren’t impressed with the taste either.

Things improve a bit thanks to the highest number of NSF-certified contaminants, but most are easier-to-remove organics. Overall filtration: 3.31 out of 5.

Usability is better. Setup and filter changes are simple, the instructions are clear, and filtration is fast — about 40 seconds per cup — so you can filter on demand. It’s lightweight, fits in the fridge, and large enough to fill a 40 oz bottle in one go. However, you’ll still need to refill 6-7 times since the feed reservoir is smaller. Refilling is easy, though, with a button-controlled flip-top lid.

The Brita Everyday is comfortable to hold and pours smoothly, but believe it or not, our unit leaked unfiltered water through a gap near the spout, mixing with filtered water while pouring. Maybe our pitcher was a fluke, but other users reported the same, so it’s best to wait until all water has filtered before pouring.

On the upside, there’s a refill-based filter life indicator that tracks actual use, which is more accurate than a simple timer. So usability: 4.05 out of 5.00 which makes a final rating of 3.79 out of 5.00.

Okay, quick-fire round of the remaining pitchers.

First, the Waterdrop Chubby — a solid choice if your main goal is to protect appliances like coffee makers or kettles from limescale. Here’s why:

1. A) It did well for hardness reduction — 77% in 2024 and 75% in 2025 — and the water tasted great. B) It’s affordable, unlike the Culligan or ZeroWater, which are too costly for that purpose. C) It doesn’t clog easily, even with hard water. D) It filters 4 cups in under 2 minutes, which is extremely fast. The pour-through tab can leak unfiltered water, but with that speed, it’s not a big deal. Usability and build quality are both solid.

Just keep expectations realistic — the Chubby has barely any NSF certifications, and based on our lab results, it won’t remove much beyond hardness. On the bright side, no harmful leaching. Final rating: 3.15 out of 5.00.

Next, the LifeStraw Home 10-Cup. We “kind of” recommend it for one specific scenario: if you ever have to deal with non-potable water containing bacteria or parasites.

It’s tested against nearly 30 species, including E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia. That said, always disinfect water properly if you can — boil it, chlorinate it, whatever’s available. A pitcher should only be a last resort.

The reason: filters like the LifeStraw trap microbes mechanically, but don’t necessarily kill them, so the filter can get contaminated. And if even a few bacteria or parasites slip through, you could still get sick. Mechanical filtration also has no lasting effect, so microbes can grow back in stored water.

Other than that, the filtered water tasted and smelled good. The LifeStraw did fine in our lab tests, though in 2024 we saw potential leaching of methylene chloride below health limits.

Its biggest issue is usability. The feed and filtered reservoirs are poorly balanced — you need 4 feed refills to top up the lower tank. It’s also too tall to fit our fridge without moving shelves. And because it’s bottom-heavy with a high, small handle, pouring feels a little awkward. Costs are average. Final rating: 3.78 out of 5.00.

Next up: the Seychelle RAD and the Aquagear, which funnily enough look almost identical. Both came in similar navy-blue cardboard boxes of the same size, although the Aquagear’s internal packaging felt more thoughtfully done. It really seems like both pitchers are made by the same manufacturer, which isn’t necessarily bad, but definitely interesting.

The pitchers also performed very similarly in the lab, with the Seychelle RAD coming out slightly ahead. In fact, the Seychelle did quite well, especially considering its fast filtration speed.

What we didn’t like: neither pitcher has official NSF certifications for contaminant reduction. Seychelle’s product description mentions NSF 42 and 53 testing, but the lab reports on their own website actually show a different model — one of their dual pitchers, not the RAD. Aquagear, on the other hand, includes NSF testing for dozens of impurities and to 100% filter life, but that’s mainly limited to easier-to-remove organics.

On usability, the Aquagear’s setup instructions were fine, but the Seychelle includes only a basic sheet — clear enough but low effort. To prime both filters, you have to use a small flushing assembly that didn’t fit around our faucet, so we had to hold it tightly in place for the whole process. That was inconvenient and could be tough for someone older or with limited mobility.

Though our biggest issue was pouring. Both the Seychelle and the Aquagear performed worst in that category. The spout cover often got stuck or popped out of place, spraying water everywhere, and sometimes needed to be pushed back into position.

Combined upfront and long-term costs are average, giving a final rating of 3.48 out of 5.00 for the Seychelle and 3.35 out of 5.00 for the Aquagear.

Almost done! – the LARQ Pitcher PureVis using the Advanced filter:

In case you don’t know, LARQ was acquired by Brita in 2024. The PureVis feels high quality and is heavy for its size, but in a solid, sturdy way rather than cumbersome. Handling is good, almost making you believe the lower half is glass even though it’s plastic. We also liked the design: a navy blue upper half and clear bottom that look modern and upscale.

The pitcher is quite small, and unfiltered water can escape through the filling tab if you tilt it too steeply when pouring, but overall usability was decent. We would have loved to see it excel in the lab, but it didn’t. It didn’t perform badly, it just didn’t really stand out.

So even with its extra features — sensor and app to track water consumption and filter life, an indicator light ring, and a UV light that activates on refill, every 6 hours, and manually — we find it hard to justify the very high price: $168 upfront and about $160 per year for filters (with a subscription option that offers some savings).

Also, note that LARQ says the pitcher is for potable water only. The UV light was tested only against heterotrophic bacteria, which are not a health concern in already treated drinking water. They mainly cause bad taste and odor, especially with stagnant water or old filters. So you should not use this pitcher on water that isn’t properly disinfected assuming the UV will keep you safe.

Final rating for the LARQ Pitcher PureVis: 3.28 out of 5.00.

And finally, the PUR PLUS 11-Cup.

Contaminant reduction in our lab tests wasn’t bad overall, but we’re seriously concerned about possible leaching of barium and boron. To be clear, we’re not saying this is definitive proof of leaching – these are just the results from our before-and-after lab testing.

• In 2024, our reports showed a 1,200% increase in barium, up to 0.13 ppm, which is still below the strictest health guideline we could find. Boron was reduced by 50%.
• In 2025, things looked much worse: barium increased by 2,271% to 0.695 ppm, above the strictest EWG guideline meant to protect the kidneys and cardiovascular system. Boron increased by 4,456% to 0.697 ppm, above the strictest WHO guideline.
• We also then tested another PUR PLUS filter cartridge in the 30-cup dispenser and saw similar results: barium up 2,075% to 0.87 ppm, and boron up 1,720% to 0.91 ppm, both again above the strictest health guidelines.

This could be coincidence, an error on our side, or a lab issue. But we’ve tested more than 70 water filters and have never seen barium or boron increases anywhere near what we found with the PUR PLUS. So we really think PUR should look into this, and based on that, it doesn’t make sense for us to go into the PUR PLUS 11-Cup in more detail.

Great! If you want to dive deeper, you can check our full analysis of all 14 pitchers — including lab reports — in our comparison sheet linked below. You’ll also find all our product links and discount codes there if you’re thinking about getting one of these systems.

And if you found this video helpful, please consider subscribing and giving it a like. Feel free to leave your questions in the comments, share your own experience with any of these pitchers, or tell us which filters you’d like us to review next.

Thanks a lot for watching, and we’ll see you in the next one.