Review: Culligan 10 Cup Water Filter Pitcher

This page contains affiliate links. Learn more.

Authors: Sara and Raoul | Last Updated: 2026/01/29

Culligan 10 Cup on Sara's Countertop

Our Verdict (Best For)

The Culligan 10 Cup is our runner-up pitcher for most effective filtration. It achieved excellent results in our lab testing for contaminant reduction, delivering better-tasting water (not 100% perfect). It has a higher count of NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants than many competitors, but key ones like nitrates and VOCs are missing. The pitcher is made from BPA-free materials and feels well-built. Setup is easy. It filters fast enough for daily use, pours smoothly, and fits easily in the fridge. Its smaller capacity, however, means you’ll need to refill more often – which may be a bit messy under wide-spray faucets. A built-in meter accurately measures filtered water TDS (we don’t like that approach). Upfront cost? Well below average. But warranty and rated filter life are very short so that filter replacement costs really start to add up.

The Culligan 10 Cup 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:

  1. Hands-on experience: We assembled, primed, used, and maintained it.
  2. Filtration effectiveness: We sent unfiltered and filtered tap water samples to professional laboratories for analysis to determine real-world contaminant reduction. We also reviewed NSF/ANSI certifications and other available test data.
  3. More testing: We conducted taste and odor evaluations as well as filtration speed tests.
  4. 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.

Culligan 10 Cup

Final Rating: 3.98/5.00

Filtration: 4.50/5.00

Usability: 3.50/5.00

Costs: 2.90/5.00

Type: Water Filter Pitcher
Price (Sep 16, 2025, No Short-Term Sales): $34.99
Yearly Cost for 300 gal Based on Rated/Claimed Filter Life (Sep 16, 2025): ~$205 (Save ~20% With Filter Subscription)

Upper Reservoir (Feed Water) Size: 3.5 Cups
Lower Reservoir (Filtered Water) Size: 9.25 Cups
Dimensions (WxHxD): 5″x10.5″x10″
Weight Incl. Wet Filter Cartridge: 3 lb 5 oz
Filter Media/Process: Particle Filtration + Activated Carbon + KDF + Ion Exchange Resin
NSF/ANSI Certs for Filtration Effectiveness (# of Impurities Certified): Standards 42, 53, 401 (28) – Performance Data Sheet
Rated/Claimed Filter Life 20 gal
Filter Change Indicator? No (TDS Meter)
Product Warranty: 90 Days
Manual: Link

Final Rating: 3.98/5.00

What We Like Most

  • Achieved excellent results in our 2025 lab testing for contaminant reduction.
  • Filtered water had a much better taste and no odor.
  • Higher count of NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants, but important ones like nitrates and VOCs are missing.
  • Feels sturdy and well-built thanks to its substantial, comfortable handle and thick grey plastic reservoir, giving the pitcher a modern, sophisticated look. Made from BPA-free materials.
  • Setup is easy with clear, illustrated instructions and a QR-linked tutorial video.
  • Fits comfortably in both fridge shelves and doors and pours smoothly without spilling even when pouring fast.
  • Well below-average upfront cost.

What We Don’t Like

  • “0 TDS approach” can be misleading, as it doesn’t necessarily mean pure water.
  • On-demand filtering takes patience.
  • Smaller capacity means you’ll need to refill more often and can’t fill a large 40 oz bottle with 1 refill.
  • Circular sliding lid has a limited opening, which can make refilling under wide-spray faucets a bit messy.
  • Short 20-gallon filter lifespan means frequent replacements, which are easy but can get tedious.
  • No filter life indicator (though the TDS meter helps track performance).
  • Well above-average annual filter replacement costs.
  • Short 90-day warranty.
  • Third-party customer complaints include very short filter life, bad taste and odor, inconsistent TDS readings, and an unergonomic design.

How the Culligan 10 Cup Compares to…

13 Other Water Filter Pitchers

In this video, Sara explains why the Culligan 10 Cup became our runner-up pitcher for most effective filtration.

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 Culligan 10 Cup

Filtration: 4.50/5.00

The Culligan 10 Cup Pitcher achieved a filtration score of 4.50/5.00. How? It did excellent in our lab testing and has a higher count of NSF/ANSI-certified contaminants, though key ones like nitrates and VOCs are missing. The filtered water had a much better taste compared to our tap water and smelled perfectly clean.

1. Lab Results: 4.84/5.00

exclamation icon

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 lab test comparing an unfiltered and a filtered tap water sample, the Culligan could remove 9 undesirable impurities and contaminants to below the minimum detection level (i.e., 100%): chlorine, bromodichloromethane*, dibromochloromethane*, iron, barium, boron, strontium, nitrate, and fluoride.

A few substances were not fully removed:

  • Chloroform* was reduced by 97%, which is still very high.
  • Copper saw a 45% reduction, which is moderate and far lower than the reduction rate of 99.60% listed in Culligan’s performance data sheet for its NSF/ANSI standard 53 certification. The reason for this difference may be the much lower copper level in our feed water (0.0136 ppm) compared to the higher level used in certification testing (~3 ppm), and the fact that the Culligan pitcher uses KDF media (a copper-zinc mix) which might have released trace copper.
  • Manganese was reduced by 64%, which is quite solid.

Finally, with 100% limescale reduction, this pitcher is a great pick if protecting kettles or coffee makers is your priority.

*We artificially spiked our tap water with fluoride and nitrate because our 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). We suspected this extremely elevated concentration likely explains why the Culligan did not fully remove the chloroform. For this reason, we conducted a re-test for VOC reduction at a normal chloroform level (34.7 ppm), but still did not see 100% reduction across the board. For our evaluation, we used the highest reduction rate observed for each DBP across both tests.

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 48 97%
Disinfection Byproducts (VOCs Re-Test)
Bromodichloromethane (µg/L) 15.5 0 100%
Dibromochloromethane (µg/L) 4.24 0 100%
Chloroform (µg/L) 34.7 4.71 86%
Metals
Copper (mg/L) 0.0136 0.0075 45%
Iron (mg/L) 0.0763 0 100%
Manganese (mg/L) 0.0036 0.0013 64%
Barium (mg/L) 0.0407 0 100%
Boron (mg/L) 0.0153 0 100%
Strontium (mg/L) 0.112 0 100%
Salts
Nitrate (N) (mg/L) 2.74 0 100%
Fluoride (mg/L) 0.925 0 100%
Aesthetic Parameters
Hardness (mg/L) 59.89 0.25 100%
Other Parameters
pH 7.8 5.8
Impurities NOT Detected in Unfiltered Tap Water Sample
Lab Reports (Ultra-High Chloroform): Filtered Water Report, Unfiltered Water Report
Lab Reports (VOCs Re-Test): 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

2. NSF/ANSI Certifications and Other Test Data

The Culligan 10 Cup Pitcher is certified for contaminant reduction by IAPMO against NSF/ANSI standards 42, 53, and 401. We counted 28 certified contaminants, with average reduction rates listed in the performance data sheet including lead (98.80-98.90%), mercury (94.20-96.60%), chromium 6 (99.40-99.50%), fluoride (99.70%), total PFAS (99.70%), and emerging compounds (96.60-99.40%).

Despite these certifications covering a relatively high number of important contaminants, nitrate, VOCs, and others are missing. There is no additional third-party testing beyond these NSF/ANSI certifications.

3. Filtration Process

The Culligan pitcher uses a multi-stage filter that combines particle filtration, activated carbon, KDF media, and ion exchange resin. Particle filtration (mechanical filtration) acts as a sieve to trap solid (undissolved) impurities like sand, rust, and dirt. 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. KDF is a copper-zinc media which also removes chlorine and certain water-soluble heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and iron, and also inhibits microbial growth

4. Taste and Odor Tests

In our test, the filtered water from the Culligan pitcher had a much better taste than our tap water and no odor.

Usability: 3.50/5.00

The Culligan pitcher achieved a usability score of 3.50/5.00, based on its performance in the following categories:

  1. Initial system assembly including filter priming (1.00/1.00)
  2. Day-to-day use (2.00/3.10)
  3. Filter replacements (0.50/0.90)

1. Initial Setup: 1.00/1.00

Assembling the Culligan pitcher is simple. In addition to clear, illustrated directions, a convenient QR code also links users to a tutorial video.

Here’s a quick overview of the setup process:

  1. Remove the lid, reservoir, and TDS meter from the pitcher.
  2. Pull the tab on the TDS meter. The screen will turn on when the meter is ready to use.
  3. Wash pitcher using warm water and mild dish soap; rinse and dry.
  4. Unwrap your filter, peel off the lid, and rinse the outside shell with water for 30 seconds.
  5. Insert the filter into the reservoir and twist clockwise until it locks in place.
  6. Replace the lid, open the circular disc, and fill the reservoir with cool or room-temperature water.
  7. Insert the TDS meter into the dock with the screen facing out.
  8. Now your pitcher is ready to use.

2. Day-to-Day Use: 2.00/3.10

2.1 Speed & Water Capacity: 0.40/1.20

The Culligan pitcher is a decent choice for daily use but there are better options if day-to-day practicality is your primary concern. Firstly, it has smaller reservoirs (3.5-cup feed, 9.25-cup filtered) that are not well-balanced. And so because filtered capacity is nearly 3x greater than feed, you need to refill thrice in order to top up the filtered reservoir. As a result, more refills are needed to keep up with your daily demands – we estimate 8-9 per day for the average-sized US and US family households, respectively.

While on-demand filtering takes patience, the Culligan pitcher could filter 4 cups of water in 5:04 min in our 2025 filtration speed test. It therefore filters fast enough to handle thirst bursts and can meet the daily water needs of the average-sized US (family) household.

Finally, the pitcher fits both on the shelves and in the door of a standard fridge (dimensions: 5″x10.5″x10″). However, the smaller feed capacity means you won’t be able to fill a large 40-oz bottle with a single refill.

2.2 Handling & Pouring: 1.15/1.15

The Culligan pitcher’s thick handle provides a comfortable grip and allows for smooth pouring without spills, even when pouring quickly. It is relatively heavy compared to the other pitchers we have tested, with a weight including the wet filter cartridge of 3 lb 5 oz. While that may be a disadvantage from a handling perspective, heavier weight can generally indicate sturdier construction (e.g., thicker plastic) and/or more filter media which is desirable for better filtration results.

2.3 Refilling: 0.45/0.75

The Culligan pitcher might be a little bit tricky to refill compared to some other pitchers; its circular sliding lid covers about 1/3 of the opening even when fully pushed to the side. While it should be fine in most cases, it may get messy with faucets that have a wide spray pattern.

2.4 Other: 0.00/0.20

We have a removable, built-in TDS meter which accurately measures the TDS of the filtered water in the reservoir. However, we are not fans of the “zero TDS” idea. A TDS meter can’t detect several important impurities, including many organic compounds like disinfection byproducts, particulate lead and other non-dissolved contaminants. Therefore, these substances don’t count towards total dissolved solids. What it does measure are mainly harmless or even beneficial salts and minerals. Additionally, it reads in parts per million, so it’s far too imprecise for contaminants that can be harmful at much lower concentrations.

Since the information provided by the TDS meter can cause confusion and promote a false sense of security, we didn’t award the Culligan any extra points for this feature.

3. Filter Replacements: 0.50/0.90

Frequent filter replacements are required if following the Culligan’s short 20-gallon rated filter life. Assuming 300 gallons of yearly water consumption for the average household, we estimate that you will have to change the filter 15x annually for this pitcher. While the process is straightforward, 1-2x monthly filter changes may get tiresome.

Alternatively, Culligan states you may replace the filter when the TDS meter reads 6 (the pitcher lacks a traditional filter life indicator). However, this latter approach means you’re likely exceeding the NSF/ANSI-rated filter capacity.

Support BOS Water’s Mission!

Every coffee helps us test more products and bring you unbiased results!

Buy Us a Coffee

Costs: 2.90/5.00

Based on value for money, the Culligan pitcher achieved a cost score of 2.90 out of 5.00, indicating it is relatively expensive compared to competing pitchers (a score of 4.00 represents average value). Most importantly, while its upfront price is well below average compared to the other water filter pitchers we tested, annual filter replacement cost is well above average.

1. Upfront Price

As of September 16, 2025, the Culligan pitcher is priced at $34.99, which is still well below 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 20-gallon filter life, we estimate $205 in annual filter replacement costs, which is well above 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 short 90-day warranty.

4. Other Cost Factors

  • Built-in, removeable TDS meter
  • Pitcher feels sturdy and well-constructed, especially the reservoir and thicker plastic handle

Additional

1. Looks

Gray handle and reservoir give the pitcher a more sophisticated look.

2. BPA-Free Construction

The pitcher is made of BPA-free materials.

3. Frequent Customer Complaints

We read about issues with bad taste or odor of filtered water, inconsistent TDS readings, and bad design/ergonomics. Other customers complained about the very short filter life (needing replacement in days).

The Culligan does have a shorter rated filter life compared to most of the other pitchers we tested. Contrary to some of its critics, however, we found its filtered water to be odorless with an improved taste compared to our tap water. Additionally, we were pleased with the attractive design and overall sturdy construction, even if it was a bit hefty (though we agree the feed and filtered reservoirs are not well-balanced). Finally, although we are not fans of the TDS method to inform about water quality, our readings were consistent with our lab reports.

Bottom Line: Our Runner-Up Pitcher for Most Effective Filtration (3.98/5.00)

Filtration weighted at 60%, and usability and cost at 20% each, the Culligan pitcher scored a final rating of 3.98 out of 5.00.

The Culligan takes the #2 spot for the pitcher with the most effective filtration as it completely removed most contaminants in our lab test, has a higher count of NSF/ANSI certifications for contaminant reduction (though it’s missing some key ones like nitrates and VOCs), and its filtered water was odorless and tasted much better than our tap water. It is also sturdy, attractive, and easy to setup, handle/pour, and maintain.

However, it is slightly impractical for daily use, largely due to the small feed and unbalanced feed/filtered capacities – frequent refills will be necessary to keep up with your day-to-day needs. Its relatively short 20-gallon rated filter life means you will need to make frequent filter replacements, too; while you’ll save a bit on the initial purchase of the Culligan pitcher, plan to spend more over time on its maintenance.

About the Author(s)

Sara

Sara has been a lifelong home-improvement fan (she’s been hooked on This Old House since she was five) and taught herself any project she didn’t already know by watching YouTube tutorials. She is also an award-winning filmmaker. Armed with this skillset, Sara installs, primes, samples, uses, and maintains nearly every point-of-use water treatment systems we test – then brings her results to life on camera for our YouTube channel.

Raoul

Raoul has a background in mechanical engineering and has been writing about home water treatment since 2015. He designs our product review processes, analyzes the results, and ties everything together. As editor-in-chief, he tries hard to keep the whole operation running smoothly behind the scenes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top