The 5 Best Water Filters of 2024

Best Under Sink Filter

iSpring RCC7

Measured Annual Cost	$50.00
Type	Reverse Osmosis
Replacement Schedule	Stage 1 - 3, every 6 months RO, every 2-3 years Post carbon, every 12 months
Replacement Cost	2 year supply for $100
NSF/ANSI certified	Certified to NSF/ANSI 58

The iSpring RCC7 offers a competitive price, exceptional filtration capabilities, and a pleasing taste. The 5-stage filtration process demonstrated exceptional performance in our tests, removing 100% of each of the six contaminants we tested. No other model matched this performance. Our test team widely liked the taste of the water and described it as neutral, crisp, and odorless. The $50 annual cost of the filters didn't make this absolute most affordable, but it was $10-100 less expensive annually than any model with similar contaminant removal performance. Similarly, the list price is not the absolute lowest, but it performed much higher at removing contaminants than the APEC WFS-1000, the only under-sink model we tested that cost dramatically less. This model is an efficient, affordable, quality reverse osmosis filter.

The installation and maintenance requirements align with most other reverse osmosis filters, with a typical DIY setup likely taking a few hours. However, the iSpring's stage 1-3 filters need replacing every six months, which is much sooner than filters like the Bluevua RO100ROPOT, which can last two to four times longer (but the Bluevua costs much more up front and for replacement filters). Despite the filters' low cost, this translates to more frequent maintenance than other models. If you think the additional hassle of a reverse osmosis system seems unnecessary or cumbersome, check out the APEC WFS-1000, which is easier to use and less expensive.

Read more: iSpring RCC7 review

Best Pitcher Water Filter

ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage Pitcher

Measured Annual Cost	$57.50
Type	Pitcher
Replacement Schedule	After 18,000 mg of dissolved solids; 1-40 gallons
Replacement Cost	2 for $30 4 for $40 8 for $90 12 for $115 16 for $150
NSF/ANSI certified	N/A

The ZeroWater 10 Cup 5 Stage Filter has a robust ability to eliminate various contaminants, including PFOA/PFOS. It includes a total dissolved solids (TDS) meter that allows users to measure water purity and a queue to change the filter. The fast setup and pour spout on the back side of the jug enhance its convenience. It's great for individuals or small families looking for convenience and premier filtration.

Despite its impressive filtration capabilities, the taste of the ZeroWater did not appeal to all of our test team. Its highly efficient filtration produces a light, neutral, and smooth taste. Lastly, the higher price of the filters creates a higher annual cost compared to other pitchers in our test, like the PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher, which our test team found to produce better overall tasting water. However, the PUR didn't perform as quite as strong in our contaminant removal tests.

Read more: ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage Pitcher review

Best Value Under-Sink Filter

APEC WFS-1000

Measured Annual Cost	$40.00
Type	3 Stage under sink
Replacement Schedule	Every 12 months
Replacement Cost	Stages 1-3 for $40
NSF/ANSI certified	NSF Certified filters and tubing

The APEC WFS-1000 water filter is a reliable and cost-effective solution for those seeking cleaner, tastier water. Its compact, tankless design makes it a great fit for small under-the-sink areas, and its slightly simplified setup broadens its appeal. In our tests, this filter excelled at removing contaminants like chlorine, fluoride, copper, and lead, contributing to its delicious taste. This makes it an excellent choice for delicious water and effective filtration in an affordable, smaller package.

The APEC WFS-1000 offers many benefits, but in our filtration tests, it could not effectively filter out high levels of sulfates and iron. In areas where the water supply has excess sulfur or metallic flavors, this model may fall short. The APEC Essence ROES-50, a compact and efficient reverse osmosis system, could be an ideal alternative, as it filtered out all of the iron and sulfate. The ROES-50 offers enhanced filtration capabilities and delivers delicious neutral water at one of the lowest annual costs for a reverse osmosis filter.

Read more: APEC WFS-1000 review

Best Value Pitcher Filter

PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher

Measured Annual Cost	$36.00
Type	Pitcher
Replacement Schedule	40 gallons or 2 months
Replacement Cost	$24 for a 4 pack
NSF/ANSI certified	NSF certified to reduce chlorine, mercury, copper, zinc and other chemical & physical substances

We're impressed with the PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher for its great-tasting water and solid filtration capabilities. The unit allows users to access and pour out filtered water while the upper compartment continues to filter. The resulting water was a favorite with the test team for its neutral, fresh, and nearly bottled character. This product is perfect for consumers who prioritize taste and quality in their drinking water and prefer the convenience of quick access to filtered water.

However, a drawback of the PUR Classic Pitcher is the shorter lifespan of its filters compared to other pitchers in the market. This can lead to more frequent replacements, which could be inconvenient for some users and slightly increase the annual expense of this model. The ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage is a suitable alternative for those looking for a longer-lasting filter or anyone with higher usage needs. These two pitcher filters are similar in their upfront cost, but be aware that the ZeroWater's replacement filters are pricier than the PURs. Comparatively, the ZeroWater removes more contaminants, but the PUR scored better in our taste test.

Read more: PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher review

No-Fuss Reverse Osmosis System

Bluevua RO100ROPOT

Measured Annual Cost	$149.96
Type	Reverse Osmosis (Countertop)
Replacement Schedule	Stage 1, 2, and 4, every 12 months Stage 3, every 12-24 months
Replacement Cost	Stage 1, 2, and 4 are $29.99 each, stage 3 filter is $59.99
NSF/ANSI certified	N/A

The Bluevua RO100ROPOT water filter system offers an exceptional filtration performance with zero installation, making it an ideal solution for consumers who want the benefits of reverse osmosis filtration but cannot install a permanent system. Its four-stage filtration process effectively eliminates contaminants, providing users with clean and refreshing water. This product is particularly suited to renters or short-term tenants who seek a high-quality, portable filtration solution.

The Bluevua operates with moderate efficiency at a 2:1 ratio, generating some wastewater that requires repurposing as it is not connected to the plumbing. Additionally, it is relatively expensive and takes up substantial counter space. For those who can accommodate a permanent installation and are looking for a more cost-effective solution, the iSpring RCC7 under-the-sink reverse osmosis system is a great alternative due to its filtration performance and lower overall cost.

Read more: Bluevua RO100ROPOT review

Compare Products

Compare select up to 5 products to compare

	Score	Product	Price
	90	iSpring RCC7 Best Under Sink Filter	$220
	88	ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage Pitcher Best Pitcher Water Filter	$35
	87	Bluevua RO100ROPOT No-Fuss Reverse Osmosis System	$434
	87	APEC Essence ROES-50	$200
	85	PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher Best Value Pitcher Filter	$30
	82	APEC WFS-1000 Best Value Under-Sink Filter	$145
	81	Home Master HydroPerfection	$530
	78	Berkey	$408
	69	Brita Tahoe 10-Cup Pitcher with Elite Filter	$42

How We Test Water Filters

Each water filter in our testing roster was purchased at full price, ensuring no influence from manufacturers through free or sample models. We've been testing dozens of water filters since 2019, and we've honed our methods year after year to deliver the most accurate results.

The majority of a filter's score hinges on its effectiveness in removing various contaminants and impurities. To guarantee the precision of our data, we subjected both the contaminated supply and the filtered water to rigorous analysis at an independent water quality lab. This meticulous process allowed us to determine each filter's performance accurately.

In addition to lab analysis, we utilized a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) meter and chemical indicator strips to assess each filter's efficiency further.

For the taste metric, we assembled a panel of judges who blindly tasted and ranked each water sample. They evaluated whether the filter introduced any unpleasant taste to clean water and assessed its ability to remove undesirable compounds effectively.

Finally, we examined each filter's user experience, considering factors such as installation, maintenance, cost, and efficiency. This comprehensive approach ensures our reviews are thorough, reliable, and beneficial to users seeking the best water filter for their needs. To learn more about our procedures, check out our How We Test article.

Our water filter testing is divided into three different metrics:

• Contaminant Removal (60% of overall score weighting)

• Taste (30% weighting)

• Setup and Use (10% weighting)

Why Trust GearLab

Our testing team of Graham Faulknor and Isaac Laredo have tested well over hundreds of products. Isaac has a degree in Environmental Science, a strong background in water and snow science, and has had his environmental research published in academic journals. Graham has a degree in mechanical engineering and owns two patents. Both bring substantial experience to the team when designing, analyzing, and communicating our testing procedures. You are in good hands between Isaac's experience conducting and designing environmental studies and research and Graham's formal training and career experience working as a mechanical engineer.

Analysis and Test Results

To determine the best water filters, we divided our review into three weighted testing metrics: impurity removal tests, a taste test, and a setup and use test. Each rating metric is weighted based on its significance and is comprised of various subtests.

What's the Best Value?

The correlation between a water filter's performance and its price is not always straightforward. While high-priced products often offer more filtration stages, potentially yielding better results, this isn't universally true. It largely depends on the type of filter the unit uses. Some expensive filters surprisingly underperform in contaminant removal tests. A simple pitcher can be cost-effective and have a robust filter. At the same time, a complex countertop model or an under-the-sink system will be more expensive and can deliver similar results. Your usage and spatial needs largely determine the value of a water filter.

The ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher is an excellent value and top performer. It is slightly more expensive than other pitcher models but is significantly more affordable than any under-the-sink model, yet it also delivered the best score overall. Another good value is the Pur Classic 11 Cup Pitcher which is a few bucks cheaper, but this reduction comes with a drop in filtration performance. If under-sink filters fit your needs better, then the iSpring RCC7 or the APEC WFS-1000 are fantastic options. The RCC7 offers better filtration performance, but the APEC is a better choice if you want a lower start-up and annual cost.

Contaminant Removal

The rising awareness of potential contaminants in tap water and their health implications has underscored the importance of water filters. Many individuals may not be aware of the unseen pollutants lurking in their water. However, water filters can offer reassurance by providing clean, safe drinking water. We created a water sample infused with high chlorine, iron, sulfate, lead, fluoride, and copper levels to determine the efficacy of various water filters. These values vastly exceeded the acceptable water quality standards set forth by the EPA. We sent the filtered and control samples for testing to Western Environmental Testing Laboratories, an independent water quality lab, to ensure the highest quality data.

The results of our chlorine, fluoride, and sulfate removal tests are charted below.

Chemical Removal

Product	Chlorine	Fluoride	Sulfate
ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage Pitcher	100.00	100.00	100.00
iSpring RCC7	100.00	100.00	99.88
Bluevua RO100ROPOT	100.00	100.00	99.09
Home Master HydroPerfection TMHP	100.00	96.20	99.22
APEC Essence ROES-50	100.00	94.70	100.00
APEC WFS-1000	100.00	100.00	39.13
PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher	94.83	100.00	34.78
Big Berkey	88.33	100.00	30.43
Brita Tahoe 10-Cup Pitcher with Elite Filter	75.00	37.00	43.48

The clear winner here was the ZeroWater 10-Cup Pitcher, which removed 100% of these contaminants. The Spring RCC7 and Bluevua filters followed closely behind, removing 100% of chlorine and fluoride, and over 99% of the sulfate. The Home Master and APEC Essence models also had a respectable showing.

After that, the results started to fall off somewhat. The APEC WFS was able to remove all the chlorine and fluoride, but only 39.13% of the sulfate. The Brita removed the least amount of the chlorine and fluoride in the test group.

The metal removal portion of our contaminant removal test (copper, iron, lead) is charted below for each filter.

Metal Removal

Product	Copper	Iron	Lead
APEC Essence ROES-50	100	100	100
Bluevua RO100ROPOT	100	100	100
iSpring RCC7	100	99.90793651	100
Home Master HydroPerfection TMHP	99.86346154	99.77777778	100
ZeroWater 10-Cup 5-Stage Pitcher	100	99.46031746	100
Big Berkey	100	79.36507937	100
PUR Classic 11 Cup Pitcher	88.46153846	84.92063492	100
APEC WFS-1000	100	46.03174603	100
Brita Tahoe 10-Cup Pitcher with Elite Filter	17.30769231	34.92063492	100

During our metal removal tests, all filters we tested successfully removed 100% of the lead. Whew! The only two models that managed to remove 100% of the copper and iron were the APEC Essence and the Bluevua. The iSpring RCC7 and ZeroWater Pitcher removed 100% of the copper, but left behind traces of iron. The Berkey and APEC WFS-1000 also removed 100% of the copper, but only removed approximately 79% and 46% of iron, respectively.

We combined the results of all the contaminant removal tests to score these products. Total scores are shown in the chart below.

The iSpring RCC7 is the most effective under-the-sink filter in our review. The model uses a five-stage reverse osmosis filtration process with NSF certified filters. It removed 100% of chlorine, fluoride, copper, and lead. It also removed 99.88% (2297.3 of 2300 mg/l) of sulfate and 99.91% (629.42 of 630 mg/l) of iron. The water sample from this first-rate filter had only a mere 3.28 mg/l of contaminant left over.

The best pitcher performance came from the ZeroWater 10 Cup 5 Stage Pitcher. This small yet mighty pitcher outperforms many of the large under-the-sink models to provide premier filtration. It also uses an NSF-certified five-stage gravity-fed filter. The filter is uniquely certified to remove PFOAS, a chemical used to manufacture water and stain-resistant fabrics and nonstick cookware. A 2023 EPA study estimated at least 42% of United States tap water sources contain this chemical. These chemicals can accumulate in the bodies of humans and pets and have been linked to various health issues, including reproductive and developmental problems. The ZeroWater removed 100% of chlorine, fluoride, lead, copper, and sulfate. It also removed 99.46% (626.6 of 630 mg/l) of iron. The impressive filter brought the 3004.2 mg/l sample to a mere and potable 3.4 mg/l of water.

The Bluevua RO100ROPOT is a countertop reverse osmosis system that uses four-stage purification to remove impurities. This model filtered out 100% of chlorine, fluoride, copper, iron, and lead. On par with the other contaminants, this unit filtered out 99.09% (2279 of 2300 mg/l) of sulfate, well below the acceptable limit of 250 mg/l set by the EPA. The overall value of the water was 21 mg/l.

The Home Master HydroPerfection features nine-stage reverse osmosis filtration and a UV filter to kill microorganisms. The Home Master filtered out 100% of lead and chlorine. It also filtered above 99.2% of copper, iron, and sulfate. Lastly, the model removed 96.2% of fluoride. The result was a clear, potable water sample with a respectable total value of 19.85 mg/l.

The APEC Essence directly challenged each of the above filters in head-to-head testing. This five-stage reverse osmosis system left very few things behind and removed 100% of chlorine, sulfate, lead, iron, and copper. Compared to the other top filters, it fell slightly short on fluoride as it removed 94.70% (9.47 of 10mg/l). The serious filtration power of the model left the smallest amount of leftover contaminants of any filter in the review and transformed our 3,004.02 mg/l water sample to .53 mg/l.

All of the above filters are acceptable for any water source as the filter reduced the overall consumption to a level well within the acceptable EPA standards. The remainder of the filters left some contaminants above acceptable standards. While these filters are acceptable for most water sources, they may fit some better than others.

The APEC WFS-1000 is the only standard filtration under the sink model in the review. While it couldn't compete with the top model, it still offered effective filtration, removing 100% of chlorine, copper, lead, and fluoride. It particularly struggled with sulfate and iron, only filtering out 39.13% (900 mg/l) and 46.03% (290 mg/l) respectively. It is best suited for water sources with lower iron and sulfate.

Taste

Water filters can significantly enhance the taste of tap water, particularly when it carries an off-putting metallic or chemical undertone. The experience of enjoying a glass of refreshing water directly from your tap can enrich your home life and reduce dependency on bottled water. We recognize that taste preferences are diverse; some individuals savor a mineral hint in their water, while others lean towards a more neutral flavor, and there's a whole spectrum in between. To effectively gauge and rank taste, our test team conducted a blind taste test. Each model filtered water from a garden hose to produce water for evaluation. We had five taste testers drink the filtered water from each unit, garden hose water, and tap water and rate it from best to worst.

The Pur Classic was a clear winner in terms of taste. Nearly every panel member rated it at least above average, with others giving it top marks of very good. It produces neutral, fresh, soft water that appeals to a wide variety.

The iSpring, APEC WFS-1000, APEC Essence, and Brita Tahoe Pitcher were tester favorites for taste and commonly rated above average. These models produce water comparable to bottled water through a neutral, refreshing profile.

The Berkey and Bluevua produce great neutral-tasting water, especially when compared to the tap or a garden hose, but neither stood out in the blind taste test.

The Home Master uses a remineralization filter that reintroduces calcium and magnesium into the water to provide a mineral water experience. The filter is effective; our test team found it carried a slightly harder and more flavorful character. The water from this filter divided our test team as some like mineral water, and others don't.

The ZeroWater was another filter that divided our test team. Its exceptionally pure water possessed a soft, neutral, smooth profile that shared the characteristics of distilled water.

Each filter within this review produced an improved version of the garden hose water and didn't impart any initial flavors to the final sample. If your water source has chlorinated, metallic, or sulfuric flavors, consider a filter that performs well with these contaminants.

Setup and Use

We often take our utilities for granted; we flip a switch, and the lights illuminate, or we turn a tap, and water flows freely. A water filter should seamlessly integrate into this effortless experience. However, not all water filters are the same. They can differ significantly in user experience, particularly during setup and regular use. Factors such as ease of installation, daily operation, long-term upkeep, and overall expense can influence your choice. Our testing team takes on the task of installation and evaluates the setup process and daily Use. We also consider the yearly cost of the filter and the maintenance routine.

The setup process can vary widely between the water filter types. Still, the installation and maintenance are similar within each type, with small variations in the tools needed, hardware, and instructional quality.

The pitcher and countertop models, including the Brita Tahoe, Pur Classic, ZeroWater, Berkey, and Bluevua, boast a seamless setup process and are practically ready for immediate use right out of the box. This ensures a quick and effortless transition to enjoying freshly filtered water. Moreover, their maintenance is straightforward and efficient, typically involving simple filter changes. The Berkey and Bluevua models, in particular, offer easy access to the filters and require no tools, further simplifying the process for multiple filter replacements.

Every filter change comes with an associated cost. Among the pitchers, the Brita Tahoe boasts the lowest annual cost of any filter at $30, while on the other end of the spectrum, ZeroWater pitcher holds the highest at $56. Regarding countertop models, Berkey offers a significantly lower annual cost of $83, compared to Bluevua's steep $150.

Under-the-sink models such as iSpring, APEC Essence, APEC WFS, and Home Master necessitate a more intricate installation and maintenance process. These models require a few hours for installation and an additional faucet. However, they all offer DIY-friendly processes with comprehensive instructions. The APEC WFS stands out with its tankless design, saving both time and space during installation. Despite its increased number of filters, the Homemaster earns points for its user-friendly design, ditching the filter wrench and adopting push-fit filters to simplify maintenance.

More filters and complex systems often translate to higher annual costs compared to pitcher models. For example, the iSpring RCC7 has an annual cost of $50, the lowest for reverse osmosis in our review, thanks to the lifespan and price of iSpring's filter set. The Essence is a close second in operating costs with an annual cost of $108.50. If the added cost of reverse osmosis doesn't align with your needs, the simple 3-stage APEC WFS-1000 offers a lower annual cost of $40 due to its reduced number of filters.

Daily use significantly contributes to user experience. Countertop and pitcher models often offer more features than under-the-sink models. The ZeroWater model utilizes an additional spout near the handle for easy water access, allowing you to place the filter on the edge of a countertop or fridge shelf for convenient water dispensing without lifting. This feature is especially helpful for young children. The PUR Classic features a dual-compartment design enabling water pouring while the upper section is still filtering. It also includes a filter light indicator signaling when it's time for a filter change. The Bluevua model, similar in design to a coffee machine, includes an LED screen to monitor filter health, water quality, and to set water amounts.

Post-installation, most under-the-sink water filters offer similar user experiences. A significant differentiator is their overall efficiency. Reverse osmosis filters use water pressure to push clean water through the reverse osmosis filter, creating wastewater in the process. More efficient systems use less water for this process, reducing water waste and potential spikes in your water bill. The Home Master stands out as the most efficient reverse osmosis filter, operating at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it creates one gallon of wastewater for every gallon of filtered water. The iSpring and Bluevua operate at a 2:1 ratio. The APEC WFS-1000, an under-the-sink system that does not use reverse osmosis, produces no wastewater — a significant advantage for traditional systems.

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.

What Type of Water Filter Do You Need?

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 are looking 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.

How Big is Your Household?

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. While under-the-sink options help keep counter space free, under-the-sink models will have to have a place to potentially store a tank along with the filters.

What About Maintenance?

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 use). A simple pitcher-style system will typically only need one filter type to be replaced, while more complex filtration systems, such as reverse osmosis filters, will require different replacements depending on the filter stage. For those undecided on a filtration system, consider if the extra maintenance costs and time are worth it for the extra filtration capabilities.

Is Setup a Concern?

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, but if you're renting, have limited space under your sink, or are just not keen to self-install, it's worth thinking about options that live on the counter.

Conclusion

Here at GearLab, we aim to provide you with first-hand knowledge from our testing experience so that you can purchase the best products that suit your needs and budget. For water filters, we looked closely at the subtle nuances that set the pitchers and countertop models apart from the under-the-sink versions. Whether you are looking to improve the taste of city water or want to have the perfect tasting replenishment for that wedding or backyard BBQ, we hope you now have the knowledge to buy the perfect water filter for you.