If you live in an apartment, you know there are certain considerations to take into account when choosing a vacuum. Space is at a premium, so having an appliance that's maneuverable and easy to store is crucial. Affordability can also be a concern, but today's product landscape offers no shortage of budget-friendly options that sacrifice little regarding features or capability. Last but not least, cleaning performance is also important since you may need to deal with various messes on a variety of surfaces like hardwood, ceramic, or carpet.
We've tested over 100 vacuum cleaners, and below are our recommendations for the best vacuums for apartments. We selected these picks for their performance on different surfaces, their design, and their price. For more options, check out our lists of the best lightweight vacuums, the best handheld vacuums, and the best multi-surface vacuums.
Alternatively, if you're looking for a way to keep your apartment humidity-free, you can check out our recommendations for the best dehumidifiers and the best small dehumidifiers. On the other hand, if you want to keep airborne irritants to a minimum, it might be time to consider buying an air purifier: take a look at our recommendations of the best large room air purifiers.
The best vacuum for apartment living that we've tested is the Shark Stratos Cordless. This cordless stick vacuum isn't exactly new to the market, but it strikes a good balance between maneuverability in tight spaces and performance. It delivers good overall performance on hard surfaces like laminate or hardwood flooring, and its dual roller head provides a decent level of surface agitation on low- and high-pile area rugs or carpets. It's also capable of automatically adjusting its suction power depending on the quantity of debris on the floor. While it's on the larger and heavier side for a stick vacuum, its folding wand goes some way to rectify that by allowing you to clean under tables and some chairs without having to bend too deeply. You can also fold the wand completely in half when the vacuum isn't in use to save on space, which is great if you need to stow it away in a small closet or nook in your apartment.
It can run for up to an hour in its most energy-efficient setting, though that is a best-case scenario, and you can probably expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 minutes in mixed usage. You can also keep track of its battery status in real time with the LED display on the back of its body.
The Shark Cordless Pet IX141 is a great option if you want something cheaper. It goes without the fancier features found on the Shark Stratos Cordless, with no automatic power adjustment system, no folding wand, and no bundled HEPA filter to help lock in fine allergens. That said, it's still a good option for more value-conscious apartment dwellers. It delivers consistently satisfactory performance across a mix of different surface types, and while its max runtime of about 40 minutes is far from class-leading, it's also enough for most cleaning tighter apartments in a single go. Its dirt compartment is pretty generously sized for a cordless stick model, so you won't need to empty it out at the end of virtually every single cleaning session.
Unfortunately, this vacuum does have a fair number of parts that need to be cleaned. With no self-cleaning floorhead, you're likely to find yourself having to yank hair tangled in its brushroll pretty often, especially if you have pets or if you or someone in your apartment has long hair. As with the Stratos, it's a little heavy for a conventional cordless stick vacuum. Combined with its lack of a folding wand, it can be a little clunky to use in really tight spaces. The Samsung Jet 60 is a good alternative if you want something more maneuverable, but you'll have to put up with a smaller dustbin and inferior debris pickup on hard floors.
The Wyze Cordless Vacuum is the best vacuum for small apartments at a budget-friendly price point that we've tested. This cordless stick vacuum is less potent than the Shark Cordless Pet IX141 and a smaller dustbin. That said, it's got a lot of other things going for it, even discounting its cheaper purchase price. Its performance on flat surfaces like hardwood or linoleum is very good, and the vacuum can deal with messes on low- and high-pile carpets. Note that its build quality falls short of the Shark, with the vacuum's body feeling somewhat cheap to the touch, especially its dustbin and floorhead, which scratches very easily.
Its max battery life of about an hour is very good for a cordless model in this price range, though it does run out of juice very quickly in its power-hungry 'TURBO' mode. Its onboard HEPA filter does a decent job of sealing in allergens, too, but note that emptying its dustbin can release a cloud of dust and debris. If you'd prefer using a corded bagged vacuum to get around these issues, you could also consider the Eureka Mighty Mite. It obviously doesn't have the go-anywhere range of a cordless model like the Wyze, but it's still a good option for apartment dwellers. It's very compact, especially for a canister vacuum, so fitting it in a closet isn't hard, and its lightweight chassis makes it a breeze to carry wherever you may need it.
If you're looking for a handheld option for quick clean-ups, the Shark UltraCyclone Pet Pro+ is the best vacuum for apartment dwellers that we've tested. Unlike similarly priced full-size models like the Wyze Cordless Vacuum, it isn't meant for cleaning large areas. Still, it's remarkably effective when dealing with small amounts of debris on flat surfaces like countertops, shelves, and bare and carpeted floors. Its battery life of a little over 10 minutes is also poor, even by the standards of other handheld vacuums, and it forces you to work fast when dealing with more stubborn messes. The battery also isn't removable, so you can't swap in a new pack if the current unit doesn't hold onto a charge as well as it used to.
While it's on the larger side for a handheld vacuum, it's still very lightweight and takes up very little space, allowing you to store it in a cupboard or a closet when not in use. Unfortunately, while the Shark CH951 variant comes with a turbo brush attachment, it has a hard time dealing with hair on upholstered surfaces, so you're better off using its hard-bristle brush or crevice tool to clean couches or chairs. However, it does a terrible job of sealing in allergens due to its rudimentary filtration system. If that's an issue, the Shark WANDVAC is a good substitute, albeit with a much smaller dustbin and worse performance when cleaning up bulky debris, which can clog its suction inlet.
The Dyson V8 is a good substitute for the Shark Stratos Cordless if you want a similarly priced alternative with a wider array of attachments. However, it has a less powerful suction motor and a smaller dustbin than the Shark.
See our reviewThe Dyson Digital Slim is a highly portable and compact cordless stick vacuum and is a good alternative to the Shark Stratos Cordless if your main priority is effortless handling. That said, it's saddled with a weak motor and tiny dustbin.
See our reviewThe Miele Classic C1 is a mid-range corded bagged vacuum that offers superior build quality and substantially easier maintenance than the Shark Stratos Cordless. However, this variant of the vacuum lacks a powerhead or turbo head and will struggle more than the Shark on rugs and carpets.
See our reviewThe BISSELL Zing Bagged Canister is a basic bagged canister vacuum similar in design to the Eureka Mighty Mite and represents a similar kind of alternative to the Wyze Cordless Vacuum. However, it suffers from poor performance on carpeted floors, and it incurs higher recurring costs than both the Wyze and Eureka.
See our reviewGeneral restructuring of the article to align with current product availability and pricing. We replaced the Shark Vertex Pro Lightweight with the Shark Stratos Cordless as the 'Best Apartment Vacuum.' We recategorized the Wyze Cordless Vacuum as the 'Best Budget Vacuum For Apartments' to replace the Eureka Mighty Mite. We added the Shark Cordless Pet IX141 as the new 'Best Mid-Range Apartment Vacuum' pick and added the Miele Classic C1 Pure Suction and Dyson Digital Slim to the Notable Mentions.
We've verified that our recommendations are available and represent the best options. We've also made edits for clarity throughout the article.
Aug 05, 2024: Replaced the Samsung Jet 75 with the Shark Vertex Pro Lightweight as the 'Best Apartment Vacuum' due to its superior debris pickup performance.
Feb 01, 2024: Removed Shark APEX UpLight from Notable Mentions due to current availability.
Dec 05, 2023: Minor in-text adjustments to further clarify product information.
Our recommendations are based on what we think are currently the best vacuums for small apartments. We don't just base our results on overall performance but also on factors like availability, price, and reader feedback.
If you would like to do the work of choosing yourself, here is the list of all our vacuum reviews, with considerations made for portability and storage capability. Be careful not to get too caught up in the details. While no vacuum is perfect for every use, most are good enough to please almost everyone, and the differences are often not noticeable unless you really look for them.
What do you think of our picks? Let us know below.
Looking for a personalized buying recommendation from the RTINGS.com experts? Insiders have direct access to buying advice on our insider forum.
DxOMark normalises images to about 8 MP before calculating their “print SNR” (as opposed to what they call “screen SNR”, which is at native resolution), to account for different sensor resolutions, and notably the fact that while higher-density sensors would have worse per-pixel SNR, this doesn’t translate into noisier images. Indeed, as the article by Richard Butler you reference (don’t miss part 2) points out: (See also: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Emil%20Martinec/noise-p3.html#pixelsize) Do you do anything similar? My impression, looking at your measurements for the EOS R8 and the α7 IV, is that you don’t.
hey spider-mario!
you’re correct–we don’t currently do anything similar. we’re aware that there are some limitations with our current methodology, but we’re always looking to improve, so it’s definitely something we’ll consider for a future test bench update. if you have any other feedback or questions about the methodology, don’t hesitate!
DxOMark normalises images to about 8 MP before calculating their “print SNR” (as opposed to what they call “screen SNR”, which is at native resolution), to account for different sensor resolutions, and notably the fact that while higher-density sensors would have worse per-pixel SNR, this doesn’t translate into noisier images. Indeed, as the article by Richard Butler you reference (don’t miss part 2) points out:
Note that the full frame sensor performs better than the APS-C sensor, even though its pixels are not bigger.
[…]
Having looked at what happens with cameras and crops made from the same sized pixels, what happens if we have differently sized pixels? Aren’t small pixels worse because they’re receiving less light? The answer is: yes, when considered at the level of individual pixels.
But, when you think about the effect on the whole image, not by as much as you’d think (if at all).
(See also: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Emil%20Martinec/noise-p3.html#pixelsize)
Do you do anything similar? My impression, looking at your measurements for the EOS R8 and the α7 IV, is that you don’t.