Product comparison · 2 handheld vacuums

AEG AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless vs Philips MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless

Add a product
  • 16specifications compared
  • 10differ
  • 6identical
  • 18known for one product only

Key differences

The Philips MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless has 2 h more charging time than the AEG AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless (18 h vs 16 h). The AEG AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless has 3.6 V more battery voltage than the Philips MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless (7.2 V vs 3.6 V). The AEG AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless has 21 mm more width than the Philips MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless (154 mm vs 133 mm). Product colour: Red on the AEG AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless, White on the Philips MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless.

  • Product colour
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:Red
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:White
  • Charging time
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:16 h
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:18 h
  • Battery voltage
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:7.2 V
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:3.6 V
  • Width
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:154 mm
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:133 mm
  • Depth
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:122 mm
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:444 mm
  • Height
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:442 mm
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:109 mm
  • Weight
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:1.57 kg
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:1 kg
  • Package width
    • AG406 handheld vacuum Red Bagless:470 mm
    • MiniVac FC6150/01 handheld vacuum White Bagless:440 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (off)
Comparison of AG406, FC6150/01
34 specifications
Performanceidentical
Cleaning typeDryDry
Air filtration stages quantityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2
Dirt separating methodKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceCyclonic
FilteringKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Design1 differ
Dust container typeBaglessBagless
Product colourDiffersRedWhite
Dirt capacity dry0.5 L0.5 L
Power2 differ
Power sourceKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceBattery
Maximum input powerKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source75 W
RuntimeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source10 min
Charging timeDiffers16 h18 h
Suction powerKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0 Pa
Battery voltageDiffers7.2 V3.6 V
Power consumption (typical)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source75 W
Batteryidentical
Battery technologyNickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH)Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH)
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers154 mm133 mm
DepthDiffers122 mm444 mm
HeightDiffers442 mm109 mm
WeightDiffers1.57 kg1 kg
Packaging data3 differ
Package widthDiffers470 mm440 mm
Package depth140 mm140 mm
Package heightDiffers170 mm152 mm
Package weightDiffers1.88 kg1.23 kg
Packaging contentidentical
Vacuum wand assemblyNoNo
Brush toolKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Crevice toolKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Charging baseKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Other featuresidentical
Battery recharge timeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source18 h
Dust capacityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0.5 L
Technical detailsidentical
Dangerous goodsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceNo
Packaging recyclability rateKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source90%
User manual recycled paperKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Ergonomicsidentical
Battery low indicationKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Wall mountableKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More handheld vacuum comparisons

All handheld vacuum comparisons