REASONS TO BUY
Extracts chlorine
REASONS TO AVOID
Doesn't make water taste
Didn't really remove lead or salts
Mediocre flow rate
PUR Classic FM-2000B Review
If you are looking for a good faucet mount water filter, we feel you should look elsewhere
Credit: PUR
By David Wise ⋅ Senior Review Editor ⋅ April 12, 2018
Contributions From: Austin Palmer
RELATED: The Best Water Filters of 2025
Our Verdict
Delivering one of the worst scores of the group, the PUR Classic FM-2000B didn't deliver any particularly impressive performances and was bested by other products in every single one of our tests. It is rather inexpensive, but other products that cost only a fraction more performed far better, making us very hesitant to recommend the PUR for your water filtering needs.
Our Analysis and Test Results
The FM-2000B finished very near the bottom of the group, only really outperforming the Nanan Healthy Faucet. The Brita SAFF-100 — another faucet mount filter — did quite a bit better and only costs about $10 more. The ZeroWater Pitcher is one of the top water filters we've tested and only costs about $15, making it very, very difficult to recommend the PUR when other alternatives are so much better for only a slight increase in cost.
We weren't impressed with the PUR.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
This model didn't do all that well at actually filtering, making it hard to recommend.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Lead Removal
This filter removed only about 60% of the lead, leaving the water with levels of around 0.91 ppm — well above the 0.015 ppm deemed suitable for tap water by the EPA.
Chlorine removal is the only group of tests that the PUR performed above average in.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Chlorine Removal
We used both indicating test strips and a TDS meter to measure the chlorine levels in the water, finding the first test's supply to have approximately 1300 ppm, while the second's supply was between 20 and 50 ppm. The PUR did much better at extracting chlorine than lead, meriting an 8 out of 10.
The FM-2000B delivered a decent performance for the highly chlorinated water, reducing the levels to just over 20 ppm, at which point our test strip began to turn green. For the less chlorinated water, the PUR system effectively removed all the chlorine, as indicated by the test strips, which failed to register any chlorine levels.
This filter again did very poorly when we evaluated its mineral removal performance.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Salt Removal
The PUR was unable to maintain its performance in this metric. We used table salt as our sample salt, dissolving it in the test water supply until it reached significant concentrations, then attempted to filter it with the FM-2000B.
The levels remained unchanged, registering at about 445 ppm on our meter both before and after filtration.
We found the filtered water produced by the PUR to be quite unsavory.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Taste
This filter didn't handle the poor-tasting water very well, with our panel detecting distinct notes of both salt and chlorine in the filtered water. However, it did perform a little better with the clean water, failing to add any unsavory flavors during the filtration process.
Flow
The PUR did about average, earning a 5 out of 10 for its time of 30 seconds — a little over three times the 9 seconds it took the unobstructed faucet.
Value
While the PUR won't break the bank, it isn't an amazing value, as other filters cost about the same and perform much better, offering more bang for your buck.
Conclusion
Overall, we weren't terribly fond of the PUR FM-2000B, finding it to be far inferior to the majority of the other products we tested. We would suggest considering other options rather than purchasing it.
—David Wise and Austin Palmer
You Might Also Like
