I have used a faucet-mounted 3-stage PUR filter for many years, but we recently moved to another apartment and it has a shower-like extending faucet in the kitchen, preventing a faucet filter install. Since we need clean water in the kitchen, I decided to get a pitcher instead. I first tried a Brita pitcher, but after some research, returned it and got this PUR.
Comparison to Brita
Comparing to Brita pitcher, this 2-stage PUR pitcher produces water that tastes slightly better, albeit not as good as what we used to get from the faucet-mounted model. The filter element itself is heavier and larger than that of Brita and appears to have a slightly slower flow rate, which to me indicates possibly better filtration.
I also did extensive research and it seems Brita filters fewer substances. The filter element in this PUR needs to be twisted in the opening to lock it and prevent unfiltered water from coming through, which Brita doesn’t have. Another plus for PUR.
The price of filters is lower with Brita, but since the filters need to be replaced every 2 months/40 gallons, an addition couple of dollars per filter (if that) make no difference.
If you live in an older house, lead might be present in your pipes and water. If that is the case, you might want to look into a 3-stage faucet-mounted PUR filter. It filters many more contaminants than the pitcher.
I believe both PUR and Brita used to have an NSF certification to remove lead, but the rules changed to reflect different kinds of lead that can be present in drinking/tap water and I don’t see NSF certification for either Brita or PUR pitchers. They obviously filter out some, but how much is an open question.
The PUR advertisement claims that the pitcher removes 2x more contaminants than “leading pitcher”. I assume “leading pitcher” is Brita. The question is how they counted contaminants.
Still, the list is impressive. It removes 99% of microbial cysts, reduces chlorine, 96% of trace levels of pharmaceuticals, yet leaves behind beneficial fluoride. The PUR pitcher is NSF certified to reduce 14 contaminants.
It is unclear what contaminants are actually present in average tap water, or, more importantly, your water. Still, the number of contaminants removed indicates and overall quality of the filtering media to me and I decided to keep the PUR pitcher and to return the Brita one.
Both the Brita and the PUR pitchers are BPA-free.
The pitcher is pretty cheap so expecting a super-awesome design or unbreakable construction would be silly. The pitcher looks fine and its parts are of decent sturdiness. The fit and finish are good. The lid is slightly flimsy, but fits well.
As of 05/2013, I have had this pitcher for over a year and we use it constantly. It works as well as new.
The pitcher filters pretty slow, even slower than Brita. This is another area where faucet-mounted filter is superior. But if you plan ahead and keep the pitcher filled, there is no issue.
Pros: Price, easy to use, filters out contaminants better than Brita, filters easy to find.
Cons: Questionable lead filtering, not as good as faucet-mounted filters (flow, filtration, cost of running it).
For better filtration, convenience and speed of filtration, as well as cost of filters, a faucet-mounted PUR filter wins hands down. But if you cannot or don’t want to install a faucet-mounted filter, I recommend this PUR 7-cup pitcher over Brita.
My web site