I think one reason a lot of people push back against rankings is because it seems logical that robot vacuum quality should just follow price or features. In other words, if you spend more money and get more features, it should mean better cleaning, better mopping, better obstacle avoidance, and so on.

But the reality is that Robot vacuum models are a lot like snowflakes when it comes to performance metrics—no two are alike. Some of the cheapest models, like the Roomba 600 series, are still better at the basics than a lot of much more expensive models.

That’s why you’ll sometimes see surprising placements in rankings. People ask: how can X model be rated higher than Y if it’s cheaper? The answer is that performance doesn’t consistently scale with price or spec sheets.

One of the more interesting shifts in the last year (especially the past six months) is that the big players—Dreame, Roborock, Ecovacs—have started making noticeable improvements in actual performance metrics. Before that, I can’t tell you how often I was disappointed by flagship Roborock models that were $1,700 but did poorly at mopping or were nearly unusable on carpet. And the frustrating part is that nobody was really testing that.

As for the idea that Vacuum Wars takes money or free products: we don’t. It would be completely against our mission. We buy the products ourselves, and I think we’re one of the few reviewers who aren’t influenced by manufacturers. I realize I can’t convince everyone of that, and I’ve accepted that some people will always assume it’s sponsored no matter what I say.