Steam mops are getting more popular and most of them are budget. So far, we don't see a big reason to go for a more expensive option if your only goal is to mop the floors so let's compare the two of the best budget cleaners, the Bissell Power Fresh Steam Mop 1940 and Shark Steam Pocket Mop S3501.
Video made by Vacuum Wars
Bissell Power Fresh Steam Mop 1940 vs Shark Steam Pocket Mop S3501
| Specs/Models | Bissell Mop 1940 | Shark Mop S3501 |
| Price | $92.69 | $59.99 |
| Bin capacity, ml | 470 | 450 |
| Power, W | 1500 | 1200 |
| Corded | yes | yes |
| Cord length, feet | 23 | 18 |
| Swivel head | yes | yes |
| Handheld steamer | yes | - |
| Steam control | steam on demand | - |
| Cleaning path width, inch | 12 | 12 |
| Weight, lbs/kg | 6.2/2.8 | 4.8/2.2 |
Both steam mops operate about the same way, to make them work, you only have to add water to the tank. No detergent is needed for cleaning. Attach a washable microfiber, plug it up and the device is ready to go.
The area where they're both very similar:
- cleaning ability
- water efficiency
- easy to remove the pads
- inexpensive pads replacements
Both cleaners are very good at cleaning dried-on sticky stains
When testing, there is no significant difference in cleaning performance. Both are good at water efficiency. The Bissell has three steam settings when the Shark has one. So there is not much water consumption in the Bissell when you test it on max and lowest settings. The Shark consumes more water but not much. Both mopping pads are easily washable in the washing machine.
But both brands make it easy to remove the pads and wash them. Also, both brands have inexpensive replacements for those pads that you can even buy locally.
Main differences and why one of these is better than the other
Here are the pros with the Bissell:
- turn it on and off with a button
- stands upright on its own
- removable water tank
- better with ergonomics
- have a longer cord
An on/off button makes it easier to start and stop. The same button cycles through the steam settings where the Shark needs to be unplugged to turn it off which is inconvenient.
The Bissell can stand upright on its own and the Shark can't which is another simple but surprisingly important feature
The Bissell has a removable water tank where the Shark doesn't. It makes filling the tank on the Bissell much more convenient.
The Bissell was much better with ergonomics that is the way that it felt in your hand as you used it mostly. Because it just automatically dispenses the steam where the Shark gets its pressure by a kind of pump action on the handle. Which automatically works as you make back and forth mopping passes. But over long periods found that pump action just kind of tires the arm.
With a removable tank, the Bissell makes it easier to fill up with water. The Shark's water tank is not removable
The Bissell has a longer cord by about three feet. The Bissell also has an extra kind of scrubbing brush on the back that can be engaged or retracted. And the marketing material they showed all kinds of ways this could be useful didn't find much of a difference in the tests.
Shark Steam Pocket Mop S3501
Has a two-side mopping cloth making one side kind of extra during cleaning
$59.99 on AmazonShark pros:
- the pad can be flipped
- little bit lighter
- cheaper
That did one big pro for the Shark is that the pad can be flipped. So effectively you have one extra pad ready to go at all times which is valuable. The Shark is also a little bit lighter but not really by enough.
The Shark is typically a bit cheaper than the Bissell but again not by much both of these are in the same budget price range both companies have more expensive steam mops with more bells and whistles and attachments.
Conclusion
Pretty clear that the Bissell PowerFresh 1940 series is the winner. It's cheap, it does the job really well, has a lot of features and specs that people will really appreciate especially when compared with the Shark. And it adds a lot of value especially if you are still currently mopping with a mop and bucket to clean floors.
Comments: 0