We buy all the products we test — no freebies from companies. If you purchase through our links, we may earn a commission, which helps support our testing.
We bought the 13 top water filters, including pitchers, under-sink, and countertop water filters and subjected them to over 20 side-by-side tests to evaluate water quality, taste, annual operating costs, ease of installation, and ease of use. We assembled a broad panel to do blind taste tests. Finally, we ran both tap water and a sample with a high concentration of contaminants through each filter and sent the output to an independent water quality lab to measure precisely the effectiveness of each filter.
The water quality lab tests examined filter performance for critically important contaminants such as: PFAS (forever chemicals), Heavy Metals (like lead) and other critical contaminants.
The Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher is the best filter for most people — it's compact, convenient, and its filtration rivals that of premium reverse osmosis (RO) models.
Our favorite under-sink filtration system is the APEC ROES-50 Essence Series. It received nearly perfect scores in contaminent removal, and also offers compelling long-term annual costs.
The Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher stands out as the rare pitcher that delivers filtration performance approaching what we typically expect from full under-sink RO systems — and that's exactly why it earned our Editor's Choice award. In testing, it removed nearly all major contaminants, including 100% of lead, arsenic, and uranium, plus over 96% of PFNA, making it one of the most capable filters in a simple countertop format. The 3-in-1 PUR PLUS filter is NSF-certified for lead, microplastics, chlorine, and more than 20 chemical and physical impurities, providing an impressive level of purification without requiring any permanent installation or modifications to your plumbing. Day-to-day use is equally friendly, thanks to the slim, fridge-friendly shape and a built-in filter change indicator that removes the guesswork from maintenance.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type
Pitcher
Estimated cost per year (40 gal/month)
$108
Certifications
WQA certified to reduce lead
NSF certified to reduce microplastics
Estimated cost per year (160 gal/month)
$432
Wastewater Generated
No
Its downsides are relatively minor but worth considering: filtration is slower than some competing pitchers, the fill opening is narrow, and replacement filters cost more than the average pitcher, which can add up quickly if your household goes through a lot of water. For anyone who wants serious contaminant reduction without stepping up to an RO system, the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher is the most well-rounded, high-performance choice. If you're shopping around for a pitcher-style filter, you should also take a look at the Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher and the Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher, are runner-ups in the pitcher category. And if a little DIY action doesn't scare you, you might want to consider making the jump to an RO system like the iSpring RCC7AK.
Filter changes are less convenient than other RO systems
The APEC ROES-50 Essence Series is a straightforward, highly capable reverse-osmosis (RO) system that delivers some of the most impressive filtration results in water quality tests. Reverse osmosis works by pushing water through an ultrafine membrane that blocks contaminants at the molecular level, producing exceptionally clean, low-TDS water — and in water quality lab tests, the ROES-50 excelled at exactly that. It brought every critical contaminant we measured, including lead, PFNA, arsenic, and uranium, down to undetectable levels and posted nearly perfect scores for secondary metals as well.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type
Under Sink Reverse Osmosis
Estimated cost per year (40 gal/month)
$75
Certifications
WQA
Estimated cost per year (160 gal/month)
$75
Wastewater Generated
3:1 wastewater-to-filtered ratio
Despite its no-frills design, this system produces consistently excellent-tasting water thanks to its carbon polishing stage, earning high marks in blind taste tests and frequent praise from long-term users. The classic five-stage layout may feel a bit old-school compared to newer twist-cartridge RO systems, but it's also one of the reasons this model is such a strong value: replacements are inexpensive, long-lasting, and easy to buy individually. That said, maintenance is more hands-on than modern RO units, and the system takes up a lot of under-sink space. Water waste is also higher than with tankless systems, an inevitable trade-off with traditional RO designs. Still, for shoppers prioritizing maximum contaminant removal without spending premium RO money, the ROES-50 stands out as a top performer. If you like the idea of RO-quality water but want a sleeker, easier-to-maintain setup, consider the Waterdrop G3P600 tankless system — it performs nearly as well with far less bulk under your sink.
Filters a wide range of contaminants for a pitcher
Low-effort setup
CONS
Filters have a short lifespan
Costly to maintain long-term
Takes a long time to filter water
The Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher is our favorite pitcher filter for contaminant removal, edging out strong competitors like the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher thanks to its superior performance with heavy metals. While both pitchers excel at removing critical contaminants, this Culligan model consistently scored higher in reducing metals such as nickel, iron, and barium, making it an excellent choice for households with older plumbing or questionable municipal water. The star of the system is its 5-stage Zerowater filtration, which strips contaminants down to near-zero levels and even includes a built-in TDS meter so you can verify performance in real time. In testing, it removed 100% of lead, uranium, mercury, and most PFAS compounds. Taste results were solid—clean, crisp water with chlorine and chemical notes fully removed—though a few users noticed flatness when filters were overdue for replacement.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type
Pitcher
Estimated cost per year (40 gal/month)
$240
Certifications
NSF/ANSI 42, 53, and 401
Estimated cost per year (160 gal/month)
$960
Wastewater Generated
No
Where this pitcher falters is the long-term cost. Its impressive performance comes at the price of very short filter life — often only two to four weeks — and the replacements are expensive. For heavy water drinkers or families, long-term operating costs can reach several hundred dollars per year, far higher than the average pitcher. If your priority is getting the cleanest possible water from a pitcher without jumping to reverse osmosis, this is the one to get. If you'd prefer lower maintenance and lower cost, consider the Amazon Basics 10-Cup or Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher, or step up to a budget-friendly RO system like the APEC ROES-50.
The Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher delivers far better filtration performance than its price tag suggests, making it one of the best-value options for everyday use. It posted genuinely strong contaminant removal numbers for a budget pitcher, including 97.2% lead reduction, 100% uranium removal, and an impressive 84.88% cut in PFNA. For households with typical tap water concerns, those numbers put it well ahead of many inexpensive competitors. Where this pitcher really stands out, and why it earned our “Best Pitcher Over Time” award, is its long-term affordability. Most pitcher systems lock you into proprietary filters with fixed pricing and limited buying options. The Amazon Basics model breaks that pattern: it accepts multiple filter brands, meaning you can comparison shop, switch filter types as needed, and take advantage of bulk deals. Replacement filters are inexpensive to begin with, and that flexibility drives yearly costs even lower.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type
Pitcher
Estimated cost per year (40 gal/month)
$44
Certifications
WQA certified against NSF Standards 42, 53, and 372
Estimated cost per year (160 gal/month)
$176
Wastewater Generated
No
The Amazon Basics is not certified to remove PFAS or some heavy metals, so if those are a concern for you, this might not be the best option. While it's not certified for some of the more serious contaminants, its performance with common pollutants makes it reliable for general day-to-day use. It's not designed to replace a true under-sink or RO system, but for casual filtration on a budget, it does more than enough. For anyone who wants clean, better-tasting water without the long-term expense of a dedicated ecosystem, this pitcher offers unmatched cost control. If you need stronger filtration and can stretch the budget, the Pur Plus 11-Cup is the top-performing pitcher overall. And if you want convenience over capacity, the Pur Plus Vertical Faucet Filter offers better contaminant removal with no refilling required.
The Pur Plus Vertical Faucet is an ideal solution for anyone looking to improve their tap water without committing to an under-sink system or dealing with constantly refilling pitchers. Faucet filters like this one deliver water immediately, avoid counter clutter, and don't require permanent plumbing changes, making them perfect for renters or small kitchens. This vertical design, while slightly bulky, fits most faucets and includes a simple one-click installation that makes setup and filter changes easy. We also love the switch that allows you to swap from unfiltered water to filtered water whenever you want, extending the lifespan of the filter.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type
Faucet
Estimated cost per year (40 gal/month)
$59
Certifications
WQA and NSF certified to reduce 70 contaminants including lead, microplastics, mercury, chlorine taste and odor, DEET, and TTHM
Estimated cost per year (160 gal/month)
$90
Wastewater Generated
No
In testing, the Pur Plus Vertical Faucet excelled at reducing lead and PFNA to near-undetectable levels while removing chlorine to improve taste. It also performed well on common heavy metals like barium, copper, zinc, and iron, ensuring a safe, clean pour for daily drinking and cooking. It is not designed to filter fluoride, arsenic, or high uranium levels, so households with extreme contamination concerns may need a more robust system. For those wanting a similar faucet experience, the Brita Elite Advanced Faucet offers comparable performance, but is bulkier and has slightly higher long-term costs. If you prefer a pitcher-style option, the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher remains our top pick for critical contaminant removal while being simple to use and maintain.
We purchased each water filter we tested ourselves, ensuring no influence from manufacturers through free or sample models. We've tested dozens of water filtration systems since 2019, and we've honed our methods year after year to deliver the most accurate results.
Water Quality Lab Testing
The majority of a filter's score hinges on its effectiveness in removing various contaminants and impurities. To ensure the accuracy of our ratings, we commissioned professional water-quality testing at an an independent water-quality lab. We focused on three major categories of contaminants: PFAS (forever chemicals), Critical Contaminants, and Heavy Metals. We ran two types of water samples through each filter: a highly contaminated “super” sample with elevated levels of each contaminant, and a standard tap water sample to mimic typical household conditions. We measured the concentration of each contaminant before and after filtration to determine how effectively each system reduced or eliminated these substances. This dual-sample approach allowed us to see both worst-case performance and everyday effectiveness.
We tested filtered water for common contaminants using an independent lab, conducted taste tests, and measured for total dissolved solids. Credit: Matt Lighthart
In addition to lab analysis, we used a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) meter and chemical indicator strips to further assess the efficiency of each filter. For the taste metric, we assembled a panel of judges to do a blind taste test and rank each water sample. They evaluated whether the filter introduced any unpleasant taste to clean water and assessed its ability to remove undesirable flavors and odors.
Finally, we evaluated each filter's user experience, taking into account factors such as installation, maintenance, operating costs, and efficiency. This comprehensive approach ensures our reviews are thorough, reliable, and beneficial to users seeking the best water filtration system for their home. To learn more about our procedures, check out our How We Test article.
Our water filter rating scores are divided into six different metrics:
Critical Contaminant Removal (35% of overall score weighting)
Heavy Metal and Trace Element Removal (25% of overall score weighting)
Taste (20% weighting)
Setup and Use (10% weighting)
Maintenance and Setup (10% weighting)
Operating Cost (10% weighting)
Why Trust GearLab
Our testing team includes professionals in environmental research, engineering, and journalism. Graham Faulknor has a degree in mechanical engineering with extensive experience in testing and measurement. He contributed significantly to the development of our water filter testing plan, and brings substantial experience to the team when designing, analyzing, and communicating our findings. Austin Palmer is a Senior Review Analyst for GearLab, and has been testing tech and home products on our in-house team for over 10 years. He brings a keen eye for detail and precision to this review. Sam Hill is a journalist based in the Pacific Northwest who focuses his writing on a mix of environmental and tech topics. He leverages his extensive experience in the industry to break down complex topics into clear, understandable results.
Pair this article with our buying advice article to make the best decision for your needs. Credit: Abriah Wofford
A small subset of our blind taste test. Credit: Graham Faulknor
We built a custom test counter to conduct true side-by-side tests. Credit: Graham Faulknor
Analysis and Test Results
In the following section, we will take you through each of the key tests we performed, and the results for each water filter, to help you determine the best water filter for your needs.
Worse Value
Better Value
What's the Best Value?
When it comes to getting the best value in a water filter, the list price of the product doesn't tell the whole story. A higher sticker often means more filtration stages, but that doesn't always translate to better results. What really matters is how well the filter actually removes contaminants. Additionally, there can be a big difference between upfront costs and ongoing costs when you factor in the cost of filter replacements.
Some simple pitchers or faucet filters can outperform pricier under-sink systems while keeping your annual filter costs low. But for high-volume users, undersink models are going to offer the best value. The APEC ROES-50 Essence Series or the iSpring RCC7AK are fantastic options. The APEC ROES-50 is the overall winner here with a slightly higher score in secondary contaminant testing and cheaper long-term operating costs — it is especially cost-effective when you look at annual operating costs for those households with a need for higher volumes of filtered water.
For pitchers, the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher is an excellent value and top performer for 1-2 person households. It's a pretty average price in the pitcher-style filter lineup, but it competes with some RO systems when it comes to filter quality. If you don't have major health concerns when it comes to water quality, the Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher is also a great little budget pitcher. It provides serviceable filtering for most households and is one of the lower-cost pitchers out there due to its ability to use filter replacements from multiple brands.
Heading Into the Great Outdoors?
Then it's best to leave all of these products behind. Under-the-sink or faucet-mount filters aren't suited to the backcountry, and filter pitchers are designed to improve the taste and quality of already-potable water, not to render lake or stream water safe to drink. That task is better left to a water filter specifically designed for the backcountry. To ensure the filter you are considering is up to the task you have in mind, we recommend that you always consult the manufacturer's specifications.
Contaminant Removal
Growing awareness of potential contaminants in tap water and their possible health effects has made reliable water filtration more important than ever. Many people don't realize what unseen pollutants could be in their water, but filters can provide peace of mind by delivering clean, safe drinking water. To test performance, we prepared water samples with elevated levels of chlorine, iron, sulfate, lead, fluoride, and copper - all well above EPA safe limits. We then send filtered and control samples to Tap Score for independent lab testing, ensuring accurate and trustworthy results.
We defined Critical Contaminant Removal as the filter's ability to eliminate high-priority pollutants like lead, PFNA, arsenic, and uranium, while Heavy Metal and Trace Element Removal covers common metals and elements such as copper, zinc, iron, and barium that can affect taste and safety but are generally less immediately hazardous. What contaminants you're concerned about depends on your health and the water quality where you live.
PFAS Forever Chemical Removal
PFAS are a group of “forever chemicals” that don't break down easily. In the water quality test results, we specifically looked at two types: PFNA, which sticks around longer, and PFBA, which is smaller and exits the body more quickly. You don't want either in your drinking water. The results of PFAS removal lab tests are charted below.
% PFAS Removal
Product
Total Reduction
PFNA Reduction
PFBA Reduction
APEC Essence ROES-50
100
100
100
Brita Faucet Mount Elite
100
100
100
Pur Plus Faucet Mount
100
100
100
Travel Berkey
100
100
100
Waterdrop G3P600 RO
100
100
100
Pur Plus Pitcher
97
96
100
Waterdrop 10UA Under Sink
93
92
100
iSpring RCC7AK RO
91
90
100
Brita UltraMax Elite
91
89
100
Amazon Basics
87
85
100
Culligan Zerowater Pitcher 10-Cup
87
85
100
Brita Large Pitcher (10 cup)
73
69
100
Brita Metro
54
51
72
Across the systems we tested, the reverse osmosis units — particularly the APEC ROES-50 and the other under-sink RO models — delivered the strongest PFAS removal, consistently reducing both PFNA and PFBA to near- or fully undetectable levels in both tap water and super-contaminated samples. The two faucet filters we tested — the Brita Elite Advanced Faucet and the Pur Plus Vertical Faucet also hit near-top marks here.
Pitcher filters showed far more mixed results: the high-end, specialty PFAS-targeting pitchers, like the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher, performed respectably, but most standard carbon pitchers struggled, often removing only a portion of PFBA and doing very little against PFNA. The Brita Large 10-Cup Pitcher and Brita Metro were among the most disappointing performers in PFAS testing, with 68.99% and 50.78% PFNA removal rates, respectively. They removed far less PFNA and PFBA than comparable filters and fell well short of what we'd expect from trusted, everyday-use pitchers.
Opening the filter box to replace the internal filter on the Brita Elite Advanced. Credit: Matt Lighthart
Critical Contaminant Removal
Beyond PFAS, we also examined how well each filter handled the remaining critical water contaminants, providing a more comprehensive understanding of which models truly deliver safer water and which ones fall short.
% Critical Contaminant Removal
Product
Lead
Arsenic
Uranium
APEC Essence ROES-50
100
100
100
iSpring RCC7AK RO
100
100
100
Pur Plus Pitcher
100
100
100
Waterdrop G3P600 RO
100
100
100
Culligan Zerowater Pitcher 10-Cup
100
100
98
Travel Berkey
100
25
95
Brita Large Pitcher (10 cup)
94
9
97
Amazon Basics
97
0
97
Brita Metro
93
3
96
Brita Faucet Mount Elite
100
3
44
Pur Plus Faucet Mount
100
9
28
Brita UltraMax Elite
99
0
30
Waterdrop 10UA Under Sink
0
0
1
Again, the RO systems we tested came out on top, removing nearly all the contaminants we tested for in both contaminated samples and standard tap water. For pitchers, the Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher and Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher both neared RO-quality results.
The Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher filtered lead (97.2% removed) and uranium (100% removed) well, but it isn't NSF certified for many serious contaminants like fluoride or nitrates.
The Waterdrop 10UA Under Sink came in toward the bottom of test results, making it the lowest-scored under-sink system. It was able to filter trace amounts of nitrate, but barely enough to mention. It only filtered out 3.8% of lead, 10% of uranium in water quality tests, and it isn't certified to reduce arsenic.
Heavy Metal and Trace Element Removal
Heavy metals and trace elements get their own category because they behave differently from critical contaminants and often enter tap water through plumbing corrosion or natural mineral sources. While they're usually less urgent than issues like lead or PFNA, elevated levels of metals such as copper, zinc, or barium can still impact long-term health and the taste of your water — so we test them separately to show which filters can reliably address these everyday concerns.
The results of heavy metal and trace element removal tests are charted below.
Mineral and Trace Element Removal
Product
Iron (ppm)
Copper (ppm)
Barium (ppm)
Zinc (ppm)
APEC Essence ROES-50
100
100
100
100
Brita Faucet Mount Elite
100
100
100
100
Culligan Zerowater Pitcher 10-Cup
100
100
100
100
iSpring RCC7AK RO
100
100
100
100
Pur PlusFaucet Mount
100
100
100
100
Travel Berkey
100
100
100
100
Waterdrop G3P600 RO
100
96
88
87
Amazon Basics
96
93
85
74
Brita Large Pitcher (10 cup)
88
85
78
62
Brita Metro
87
86
77
62
Brita UltraMax Elite
99
66
61
0
Pur Plus Pitcher
100
100
0
0
Waterdrop 10UA Under Sink
4
0
0
100
The top reverse osmosis systems dealt with heavy metals and trace elements well across the board, reducing nearly all secondary contaminants to zero in tests of super-contaminated and tap water samples. The Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher also performed well here, reliably knocking out metals like copper, zinc, iron, and barium; while we did see minor copper and zinc leaching in the lab, the amounts were extremely small and stayed well below EPA health guidelines.
The Travel Berkey delivered solid mid-tier results, effectively removing metals like barium, copper, strontium, nickel, zinc, and iron, with decent performance on vanadium, lithium, and boron; while it showed small amounts of aluminum, cobalt, and silver leaching, levels stayed safe, and only selenium and molybdenum proved unreliable. The Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher was right behind, but there were some issues with the leaching of aluminum and very small amounts of silver.
Again, the Waterdrop WD-10UA Under Sink came in last place. It reliably removed 100% of zinc from the contaminated samples (its primary certified target), but most other metals, like cobalt and chromium, passed through largely unchanged. It didn't introduce any noticeable leaching, so at least it isn't adding anything unwanted to your water. That's a low bar, though. The Brita Ultramax Dispenser with Elite Filter was also disappointing in this category, showing inconsistent removal of several metals and introducing some aluminum during testing.
Taste
Filtered water can make a noticeable difference in how your tap water tastes, especially if it carries metallic or chemical notes. Enjoying crisp, clean-tasting water straight from your faucet or pitcher not only improves the everyday experience but can also encourage you to stay hydrated and cut down on bottled water use. Taste is subjective, though; some people like a hint of minerals, while others prefer a completely neutral flavor. We aimed to capture overall impressions across a range of preferences. For taste tests, we ran each filter with water from a garden hose to standardize the source, then conducted a blind taste test with five evaluators. Each tester sampled filtered water from every unit alongside unfiltered tap and garden hose water, ranking the results from best to worst to give us a clear sense of relative taste performance. When we weren't able to run water samples through taste tests, we crowdsourced opinions by researching online reviews to glean accurate notes about each model through user feedback.
Overall, users consistently reported that filtered water tasted fresher across all models we tested, though a few naysayers occasionally noted plastic or flat flavors. Among our top performers, the APEC ROES-50 Essence Series, Waterdrop G3P600 Reverse Osmosis System, and Pur Plus 11-Cup Pitcher received the highest marks for crisp, clean taste. Models with slightly lower scores, namely the Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher, Travel Berkey, and Waterdrop WD-10UA Under Sink, still delivered noticeably improved water compared to unfiltered tap, even if minor off-flavors were reported by some users.
Maintenance and Setup
We often take running water for granted, and a great water filter fits seamlessly into that everyday routine. However, setup, daily use, and ongoing upkeep can vary a lot from model to model. Our testing team dives in, handling installation and daily operation to see how each unit performs in real-world use.
Some filters, like under-sink RO systems, require a bit of DIY know-how to install, while pitchers are ready to go after a quick rinse. Which model fits best really comes down to how much time and effort you're willing to put into setup and upkeep.
The easiest water filters to use are, obviously, the pitcher-style filters. After a quick initial clean, all you need to do is drop in a filter and fill it up with water to have cleaner, tastier water at your disposal. These models are designed to be easy to clean regularly and during filter replacements. Some are even dishwasher safe. You won't need to check any instructions here — these are as “plug and play” as they come.
The top performers in ease of use all follow the 'fill-and-go' philosophy. The Brita Ultramax Dispenser with Elite Filter is especially convenient, with a large capacity that means fewer refills. The Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher and Brita Metro are compact, simple, and virtually maintenance-free, making them perfect for quick daily use. The Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher also shines here, with a straightforward drop-in filter and intuitive design that keeps clean water flowing with minimal effort. Some pitchers do filter at different speeds, though, so take individual reviews into account if you don't want to sacrifice speed.
Unfortunately, replacement filters for this pitcher are quite pricey, and they need to be changed more often than any other system we tested. Credit: Matt Lighthart
Both of the faucet models were surprisingly easy to set up as well. The Pur Plus Vertical Faucet snaps onto most standard taps and delivers filtered water instantly. They require a filter change every few months, which we found easy to do, and daily use is effortless, making them a hassle-free alternative to pitchers.
The Pur Plus is easily snapped onto many kitchen faucets. Credit: Matt Lighthart
All of the RO systems received much lower scores in the category, not because they're a complete hassle, but because it takes a little more know-how to install them. Most require you to renovate (and abandon) under-sink spaces and some basic plumbing access. Once set up, they run quietly and efficiently, but the initial setup is more involved than pitchers or faucet models.
The Waterdrop G3P600 Reverse Osmosis System is specifically designed to navigate those issues, though, with a more compact design and streamlined installation that reduces the hassle and space concerns typical of traditional RO setups. It's no water pitcher, but it's a bit simpler.
Operating Cost
Operating costs are an important part of the equation. While filtered water tastes better and is safer, some systems require frequent, pricey replacement filters or produce extra wastewater, which can add up over time. It's worth factoring in both filter longevity and the amount of water wasted during the process when deciding which model offers the best long-term value.
We divide annual operating costs into two key categories: costs for filtering 40 gallons a month vs. 160 gallons per month. Why? We want to capture the difference in value between households with low-volume needs (40 gallons) and higher-volume needs (160 gallons).
At around 40 gallons per month, pitcher-style filters sit solidly in the middle of the value spectrum, thanks to zero installation costs and no wasted water.
Once usage ramps up to 160 gallons per month, the picture changes. Frequent filter replacements make most pitchers less cost-effective at higher volumes, and for larger households or heavy water use, under-sink systems become the more economical choice.
Those Filter Replacement Costs Add Up!
The Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher offers good water quality performance; however, the frequent need for filter replacements significantly increases annual operating costs. You'll want to consider annual costs in your purchase decision to hit the right balance of water quality, convenience, and cost for your family.
Reverse osmosis systems cost a lot more upfront than pitchers or faucet filters, and take more effort to install. But, for households that frequently need filtered water, their reasonable annual operating costs and higher-volume output may justify the higher initial cost. The APEC ROES-50 Essence Series emerged as the most affordable reverse osmosis system, with estimated annual filter costs of about $75, regardless of water usage. The iSpring RCC7AK followed at roughly $95 per year, slightly higher because it includes an extra filter in the rotation. The Waterdrop G3P600 Reverse Osmosis System was the priciest by far, with annual costs hitting around $145, significantly more than its RO counterparts.
Every filter change adds up over time, and the difference between models can be striking. Among pitchers, the Amazon Basics 10-Cup Pitcher came out as the most affordable, with estimated annual costs of just $44 at 40 gallons per month. On the other end, the Culligan with Zerowater 8-Cup Pitcher was a major outlier, costing a whopping $240 for the same monthly usage.
The drop-in filters are super easy to change and don't cost too much to replace, especially when you have the option to shop around. Credit: Matt Lighthart
For faucet filters, the Pur Plus Vertical Faucet and Brita Elite Advanced Faucet show a notable annual cost difference: at 40 gallons per month, annual expenses are $41 versus $78, respectively. That gap widens even further with heavier use—at 160 gallons per month, the difference jumps to $90 versus $288.
Bottom line: RO systems generally make more sense for high-volume use—they're more economical over time and can safely provide filtered water for cooking, coffee, and other household needs. Pitchers and faucet filters remain convenient and easy for light use and drinking water, but their costs can escalate quickly if you rely on them too heavily.
Another factor to keep in mind with reverse osmosis systems is wastewater. RO filters produce extra water as part of the filtration process, which can add up over time. For example, the APEC ROES-50 Essence Series generates about 3 gallons of wastewater for every 1 gallon of filtered water, the iSpring RCC7AK runs at a 2:1 ratio, and the Waterdrop G3P600 is also more efficient at roughly 2 gallons of wastewater per 1 gallon filtered. While not a dealbreaker, this extra water use can affect overall operating costs and household efficiency.
How to Pick A Water Filter
We've put together four key considerations, including the type of filtration system, available space, and budget, to help you find the best water filtration for your home.
While most people are accustomed to pitcher-style water filters, other options also exist, such as under-the-sink, faucet-mounted, and reverse osmosis systems. Deciding on the appropriate filtration system comes down to the level of contaminants in your water, your budget, and the level of setup needed. If you know your water has higher levels of contaminants and you need to cover a wide range of filtration, the upfront cost of a reverse osmosis system can be worth it. On the other hand, if you're more or less hoping to get cleaner, odor-free water, then a pitcher is your best bet.
Depending on your household size, you may opt for larger capacity systems. While the simplicity and ease of use of a pitcher is great, larger households may find themselves refilling too often, especially if you use your filtered water for everything from drinking to boiling pasta and watering your houseplants. For those who consume more water, an under-the-sink option may work best for your needs. Also, consider how much free space you have. Under-the-sink options help keep counter space free, but you will have to clear a place to potentially store a tank along with the filters.
Periodic maintenance of your water filter system is key to maintaining proper filtration. Some systems require changing filters after only two months, while others can run the same filter for a year (or longer, depending on usage). A simple pitcher-style system typically only needs one filter type to be replaced, while more complex filtration systems, such as reverse osmosis filters, require different replacements depending on the filter stage. For those undecided on a filtration system, consider whether the extra maintenance costs and time are worth it for the extra filtration capabilities.
Installation of under-the-sink systems involves a variety of different parts and often requires cutting pipe and drilling for installation of the faucet. If you feel comfortable with DIY projects, installing a filtration system can be fairly straightforward. However, if you're renting, have limited space under your sink, or are not keen on self-installation, it's worth considering options that can be placed on the counter.
Conclusion
Here at GearLab, we aim to provide you with firsthand knowledge from our testing experience, so you can purchase the best products that suit your needs and budget. For water filters, we looked closely at the subtle nuances that set pitchers, faucet models, and under-the-sink versions apart from one another. Whether you are looking to improve the taste of city water or want the perfect-tasting refreshment for a wedding or backyard BBQ, we hope you now have the knowledge to buy the perfect water filter for you.
