Product comparison · 2 vacuums

AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag vs Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum

Add a product
  • 35specifications compared
  • 17differ
  • 18identical
  • 43known for one product only

Key differences

The Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum has 50 W more maximum input power than the AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag (900 W vs 850 W). The AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag has 1.5 kWh more annual energy consumption than the Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum (29.4 kWh vs 27.9 kWh). The AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag has 0.5 L more dust capacity than the Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum (3.5 L vs 3 L). AC input frequency: 50 Hz on the AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag, 50-60 Hz on the Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum. Product colour: White on the AEG AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag, Grey on the Philips 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum.

  • Maximum input power
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:850 W
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:900 W
  • Annual energy consumption
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:29.4 kWh
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:27.9 kWh
  • AC input frequency
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:50 Hz
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:50-60 Hz
  • Dust capacity
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:3.5 L
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:3 L
  • Product colour
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:White
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:Grey
  • Tube material
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:Stainless steel
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:Metal
  • Vacuum air filtering
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:Allergy Plus, HEPA
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:HEPA
  • Cleaning surfaces
    • AB61H6SW 3.5 L Cylinder vacuum Dry 850 W Dust bag:Hard floor
    • 2000 series FC8243/09 vacuum:Carpet, Hard floor

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of AB61H6SW, FC8243/09
78 specifications
Power3 differ
Maximum input powerDiffers850 W900 W
Suction powerKnown for one20300 AWUnknown — not stated by the source
Annual energy consumptionDiffers29.4 kWh27.9 kWh
Power controlKnown for oneMechanicalUnknown — not stated by the source
Power plug typeKnown for oneType CUnknown — not stated by the source
AC input frequencyDiffers50 Hz50-60 Hz
Input power (IEC)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source750 W
Design3 differ
Dust capacityDiffers3.5 L3 L
Product colourDiffersWhiteGrey
Tube lock typeKnown for oneButtonUnknown — not stated by the source
Tube materialDiffersStainless steelMetal
CordlessKnown for oneNoUnknown — not stated by the source
Flexible hoseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Rotary wheelKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Wheels materialKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourcePlastic
Housing materialKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourcePlastic
Tube couplingKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceConic
Performance4 differ
Vacuum air filteringDiffersAllergy Plus, HEPAHEPA
Air filtration stages quantityKnown for one4Unknown — not stated by the source
Cleaning surfacesDiffersHard floorCarpet, Hard floor
Noise levelDiffers73 dB77 dB
VacuumKnown for one20.3 kPaUnknown — not stated by the source
AirflowKnown for one33 l/sUnknown — not stated by the source
Operating radiusDiffers12 m9 m
Dirt separating methodKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceFiltering
Removable filterKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
CertificationKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceECARF
Warranty periodKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2 year(s)
Ergonomics2 differ
Cord lengthDiffers9 m6 m
Automatic cord rewinderKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Dust container full indicatorKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Number of park/storage positionsKnown for one2Unknown — not stated by the source
Handles quantityKnown for one1Unknown — not stated by the source
Control typeDiffersButtonsButtons, Rotary
Vertical storageKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Park/storage assistKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Handgrip accessory storageKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers436.7 mm263 mm
DepthDiffers306.6 mm403 mm
HeightDiffers238.5 mm220 mm
WeightDiffers5 kg4.3 kg
Weight (without accessories)Known for one5 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Package widthKnown for one610 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package depthKnown for one385 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package heightKnown for one300 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package weightKnown for one9.56 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Packaging content1 differ
Vacuum brushes includedDiffersTurbo brushCleaning brush
Integrated fold-out crevice toolKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Special nozzleKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceMulti-purpose nozzle
ManualKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
User manual recycled paperKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Technical detailsidentical
Filter typeKnown for oneHEPAUnknown — not stated by the source
HEPA filtration systemKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
WheelsKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Cable lengthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source6 m
Dangerous goodsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceNo
Logistics dataidentical
Package volumeKnown for one70460 cm³Unknown — not stated by the source
Country of originKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceChina
Other featuresidentical
Filter modelKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceCP1349
Maximum powerKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source900 W

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 vacuum comparisons

All vacuum comparisons