The Woder 10K-Gen3 Is No Longer Available as of Winter 2019
REASONS TO BUY
High flow rate
Removes chlorine fairly well
REASONS TO AVOID
In our filter tests it didn't filter out lead or salts as well as many competitors
Woder 10K-Gen3 Review
This under the sink water filter won't break the bank, but didn't impress us in our filter tests
Overall, the Woder failed to impress.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
By David Wise ⋅ Senior Review Editor ⋅ April 12, 2018
Contributions From: Austin Palmer
RELATED: The Best Water Filters of 2025
Our Verdict
Our Analysis and Test Results
The Woder finished in the middle of the group, right behind the Brita SAFF-100. However, the SAFF-100 was far superior in our tests at extracting lead and chlorine from water. Neither of these filters did very well at extracting minerals from the water or made water that tasted particularly great. The SAFF-100 also usually retails for about a third of the cost of the Woder, making it much more desirable in our opinion.
Overall, the Woder failed to impress.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Lead Removal
We evaluated this by running water with very high levels of lead through each filter, then sending the filtered water off to an independent lab for analysis.
This lab found that our supply water had lead concentrations of around 2.3 ppm — significantly higher than the 0.015 ppm deemed allowable by the EPA. The Woder removed about 93% of the lead, but failed to meet the standard, with lead levels about 10 times higher than the allowable amount in the filtered water, as measured by the lab.
Chlorine Removal
The Woder 10K fared much better in our chlorine removal tests, earning a 7 out of 10 for its solid performance. We made two batches of chlorinated water, one with very high levels of chlorine and one with much more moderate levels. The Woder didn't perform very well with the highly chlorinated water, as the test strips still maxed out when measuring the filtered water. However, the Woder did remove all the chlorine from the less chlorinated water, with the strips failing to indicate any change.
Salt Removal
Unfortunately, the Woder's performance plummeted in this metric, with this filter failing to remove any of our sample salt. We used table salt, dissolving it into the water supply for our filters until our meter registered levels of about 445 ppm. After running it through the Woder, we measured the filtered water and found that the concentration remained unchanged.
We weren't fans of drinking the water produced by the Woder.
Credit: Jenna Ammerman
Taste
The Woder continued its lackluster performance in our taste tests. It made clean water taste a bit stale and generally unpalatable to our water-tasting judges.
Next, we made a batch of exceptionally undrinkable water using chlorine bleach and salt, then ran it through the 10K-Gen3. It did improve the flavor to a decent extent, but it definitely didn't bring the water to a level our panel considered drinkable.
Flow
The Woder actually has one of the highest flow rates of the group. To determine scores, we timed how long it took the Woder to fill up a 1-quart vessel. The Woder only took about 12 seconds — just a little bit more time than the standard faucet's 9 seconds.
Value
While this is one of the least expensive under-the-sink filters we have tested, it isn't an amazing value, as we found its performance in our tests to be disappointing overall compared to the competitors we tested.
Conclusion
The Woder 10K-Gen3 is not a water filter we'd recommend to a friend unless their primary interests were in fast flow rate and filtering out chlorine, the two areas in our tests in performed very strongly versus competitors.
—David Wise and Austin Palmer
You Might Also Like
