@encorevacuums let me try to explain...
Dyson V16 Piston Animal (and the Submarine which is the wet-and-dry version) is normally an excellent and superior vacuum. A true mains-equivalent with innovations and advancements that help change the game of floorcare and cleaning, but... emphasis on "normally". This is because V16 is actually crippled out of the box, and has to be modded to work as well as it's meant to be - while thankfully the mod is easy to do,
@Vacuum Facts, the one who found that mod, chose to keep withholding the method behind said mod, while the mod itself can threaten the warranty as some have pointed out. Not everyone could identify the problem - some, like TechRadar, blamed the wrong thing: it's not the fault of the new dual-cone head which de-tangles hair flawlessly, and that head's angled front and thin unswept step between the Archimedes-screw cup rollers are neither truly major problems. The real problem was possible thanks to Dyson's stupid oversight that halved the 900W motor down to 450W consumption and severely diminishing cleaning performance down (at least outside of Eco mode, but alas) to dupe-level during actual deep cleaning (Vacuum Facts found the Auto mode of the initial pre-mod V16 to be WORSE than even Dreame Z30 which had worse sensors and more wasteful designs). That ridiculous and unprecedented flaw technically broke the V16, securing a spot as an option in this choose-the best-of-worst poll here. It's a tragic machine because all its innovations are incredible but it's crippled from nailing the basics and has to be modded or revised properly to be able to fly for real. (For those asking,
@Vacuum Facts is not a Dyson fanboy, as he absolutely hates how the V16 is launched. I also agreed with him too, not just on that but on many other things such as his own lectures)
Combine the old Samsung Jet review of the aforementioned Vacuum Facts with the RTINGS review of the Jet Ultra, and you see what it really is at the end of the day: the Jet Ultra is barely a true improvement over the old Jet models even from many years ago. It's far more powerful and have some new generation of their very own motor to compete with Dyson's, but Samsung's design is ultimately wasteful. The dual-brushrolls are bulky and heavy so you cannot easily fit and tuck the head in floor-level crevices and undersides with it, and the soft roller in that dual is neither motor-driven nor edge-to-edge, while the brush bar is very ordinary, so it exhibits all the remaining disadvantages all the same, such as pushing dust down the piles of carpets. RTINGS noted that Samsung wouldn't have any trouble if it wasn't for the head's design, and I'm pretty sure the flaws in the head justifies RTINGS' finding which would definitely be dismissed by Vacuum Facts. If even an unreliable tester (or team of testers) can correctly identify the problem holding the reviewed products back, then there's no more excuse, and in this case Samsung clearly dropped the ball in the long run.
Samsung's form factor is a poorer imitation of the current versions of Dyson's designs, leading to it being too front-heavy and potentially too low of center of gravity as well, even for in-line form factor pioneered by Dyson's revolutionary (Cyclone) V10, so it's only comfortable to hold on floor level due to its grip. In fact, the telescoping wand is LITERALLY the only thing Samsung has over Dyson when it comes to form factor, and even then that was primarily to help make the included self-emptying station less unwieldy and less bulky. That station being included makes up a good chunk of cost, making the Jet Ultra even more expensive than the base versions of any Dyson cordless sticks.
This is mostly the same as Samsung, but the biggest design difference is resembling Dyson's in-line versions a bit more, but still quite front-heavy even for said in-line form factor. Like Samsung, Dreame made their own motor too, though they're much closer in airwatts to the V16 than the Jet Ultra. However, they're just as wasteful (
@Vacuum Facts want us to look at how badly Dreame's brush bar did, so please watch his review) and the machine itself have seriously inferior sensor, meaning it's not as accurate and not nearly as sensitive. That reduced price tag gives it all away.
SEBO nailed the most resemblance to Dyson's in-line versions yet, but not only their specs didn't even match (way less powerful motor, only 48 minutes of max runtime, etc.), but they are minimally cyclonic. Their designs are mid at best, and they're from the same brand that Vacuum Facts himself also dismissed in his respective review as well. This is not a joke - watch his review to see.
Lupe is shut down, so Lupe Pure will remain as it is: an upright gasping for innovation. Similar dual-brushrolls as Samsung, barely cyclonic, and that upright form factor is not versatile or properly lightweight enough. While at the very least it helped introduce a new testing method, but it hardly cleans well in practice, like almost all cordless machines out there.
Henry Quick is a bagged vacuum. And bags incur running cost, is likely to be dumped to landfills, may easily smell, and isn't all that environmentally friendly nor economically friendly. Scent pods gotta be redundant because, again, running cost. Henry's specs are also inferior, corded or cordless.
Dyson's perpendicular form factor is the original shape of the mains-equivalence trend, and Dyson's upgrading to in-line form has (as they've made it clear a few times) changed virtually the entire machine. V8, while cheaper, is more limited, less powerful, less runtime, and less capacity and merely optional (for the most part) HEPA filtration which will have become standard (though Dyson's still sealed whole-machine, as it should be in all their modern machines in general). V8 Cyclone fixes a lot of the flaws and technically make it a new mains-equivalent, but it's still cheap enough that compromises still flooded, just less so than the 2016 original have become compared to the modern competition. Still has lesser capacity.
Oh, and none of the V8 get any version of the dual-cone head, so hair de-tangling is a toss up through the comb vanes in brush bar which would be (and has been) pretty loud and scratching.
This one is obvious once you have seen it. This is a bonafide cookie-cutter robot vacuum that can be held like a stick vac. Compromises are boundless here.
Same as eufy but for entirely different reasons - where do I even start?
@Vacuum Facts have extensive videos showing how inferior Kirby vacuums are compared to Dyson's mains-equivalent machines - even a V10 blows Kirby out of the water. In fact, I wager that most dupes will be able to perform at least as well as any Kirby vacuum, even the crippled pre-mod V16 above. And Kirby is bagged and corded and HEAVY, for absurdly extra hassle. I know a bunch of you love Kirby, but let me say it. Vacuum Facts was right and is still right: no matter what you think, Kirby is a horrible vacuum cleaner. It's only legendary through the first half of the 20th century but people still clamoring it even in the 21st century. Speechless!
This applies to Shark, LG, Vax, and all kinds of tool brands. In other words, virtually EVERY SINGLE COMPETITORS to Dyson that's not presented as dedicated options above,
@encorevacuums, meaning it's essentially the "others" options, much to
@Hatsuwr 's charging thus far (as of me writing this).
The description is said as in the tin: these are all the knockoffs, dupes and copycats that seriously can't properly compete with Dyson's latest and greatest flagships (currently V15 onwards, as of me writing this s#1t), no matter how good they have been.
