✅ Features of Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum

This vacuum boasts powerful suction, suitable for both daily cleaning tasks and high-traffic zones. Its runtime extends to 40 minutes in hand vac standard mode, facilitated by a removable battery.

The PowerFins Brushroll ensures consistent cleaning contact on various surfaces, including carpets and hard floors. Furthermore, hair wrap prevention is addressed through a self-cleaning brushroll, proving particularly useful for pet owners.

Maneuverability is enhanced by the MultiFLEX wand, which bends for reaching under furniture and folds for compact storage.

For allergy sufferers, the HEPA filtration system with Anti-Allergen Complete Seal effectively traps dust, allergens, and dander. The unit also readily transforms into a hand vac for versatile above-floor cleaning.

An XL Dust Cup with CleanTouch Dirt Ejector minimizes emptying frequency. Finally, LED Headlights are included to illuminate hidden debris during cleaning.

✅ What we like about Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum

The lightweight design of this product is a major plus. It's easy to carry around the house, maneuver in tight spaces, and store when not in use. This makes it a good choice for a wide range of users, regardless of age or physical ability.

Ease of use is another significant advantage. The cordless design provides freedom of movement, allowing you to clean without being tethered to an outlet. Assembly, emptying the dustbin, and cleaning the unit are all straightforward and hassle-free.

One of the most praised features is its ability to pick up pet hair effectively. Whether it's dog or cat hair on carpets or hard floors, this product seems to excel at removing it.

Maneuverability is also excellent. It's easy to navigate around furniture, get into hard-to-reach places, and the swivel head makes turning corners a breeze.

In terms of performance, it does a good job of picking up dirt, dust, and debris. It's effective on various surfaces, including carpets and rugs, and consistently removes pet hair. The battery life is also adequate for cleaning apartments and even some homes on a single charge.

Storage is convenient thanks to its folding design, which allows for compact storage.

Some users find that the price point represents good value, given the performance, lightweight design, and overall feature set.

The LED lights are a nice touch, helping to illuminate dust and debris in darker areas. The easy to swap batteries is another big plus.

✅ Key specs of Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum

The Shark IZ163H, also known as the Shark Pet Pro Cordless Stick Vacuum, boasts a lightweight design and a self-cleaning brushroll. Its compact form and raspberry color make it visually appealing. Key features include a HEPA filter, cordless operation, and a 0.34-quart capacity. It operates at 181 watts with a runtime of 40 minutes and a charging time that matches at 40 minutes.

This vacuum is recommended for handling household messes and pet hair, with included accessories like the Pet Multi-Tool and Crevice Tool. Its handheld form factor and a single handle add to its portability. It measures 10.24"L x 7.09"W x 46.1"H and weighs just 3.4 pounds.

It runs on a Lithium-Ion battery, is designed for indoor use, and has a noise level of 80 dB. Control is managed via push button and touch methods. This model doesn't include Clean Sense IQ.

This cordless vacuum comes with a 5-year limited warranty. It is powered by Lithium-Ion batteries which is included. It has received an average customer rating of 4.2 out of 5 stars based on 9,749 ratings.

✅ Comparison to similar models

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. Trucozie T350 Cordless Stick Vacuum

Shark's IZ163H stands out with its established brand reputation against Trucozie's newer entry. The Trucozie T350, however, potentially wins on price due to its higher bestseller ranking. While both offer powerful suction, Shark’s PowerFins technology is a known quantity for strong performance.

The Trucozie T350 edges out with a slightly longer runtime of up to 45 minutes, compared to the Shark's 40 minutes. However, Shark's brushroll technology, particularly its "No Hair Wrap" PowerFins, is a major advantage for pet owners. Shark's MultiFLEX wand provides superior flexibility for cleaning under furniture and compact storage.

Both vacuums offer HEPA filtration, but Shark explicitly touts an "Anti-Allergen Complete Seal," suggesting enhanced allergen trapping. While both convert to handheld vacuums, the Trucozie has a significantly larger dust cup capacity at 0.63 quarts versus the Shark's 0.34 quarts. The Shark IZ163H is considerably lighter at 3.4 pounds compared to the Trucozie's 6 pounds, making it easier to maneuver.

Both include LED headlights, while the Trucozie operates at a slightly quieter noise level of 75 dB versus Shark's 80 dB. Charging time is a significant win for Shark, with a rapid 40-minute charge compared to Trucozie's 5 hours. Shark's Pet Multi-Tool gives it an edge for pet owners when considering included attachments.

Customer ratings are close, with Trucozie slightly higher, but with far fewer reviews (4.4/5 from 1,055 ratings versus 4.2/5 from 9,749 ratings for the Shark). The Shark IZ163H boasts a higher wattage at 181 watts compared to the Trucozie's 150 watts. Shark offers a 5 year limited warranty, which provides extra assurance. Trucozie's special features, LED display and multiple suction modes, add extra convenience.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. AZVKEA S17 Cordless Stick Vacuum Cleaner

The Shark IZ163H and the AZVKEA S17 are both cordless stick vacuums with distinct strengths. Overall, the AZVKEA S17 edges out the Shark IZ163H as the better option

AZVKEA S17 boasts a higher suction power at 45KPa compared to the unspecified value of the Shark. Its runtime is also superior, offering up to 60 minutes versus the Shark's 40. Flexibility also goes to AZVKEA S17 because of Dual Handle Design that makes it ergonomic

However, the Shark features a PowerFins brushroll designed for self-cleaning and preventing hair wrap. The AZVKEA uses a V-shaped anti-tangle brushroll with a leather strip.

The AZVKEA S17 has a more advanced 8-stage cyclonic filtration system with HEPA and outlet filters, whereas the Shark utilizes HEPA filtration with an anti-allergen complete seal. The AZVKEA's dust cup capacity is also significantly larger at 1.6 liters compared to the Shark's small 0.34 quarts.

The Shark is lighter at 3.4 lbs compared to the AZVKEA's 6.99 lbs. But the AZVKEA operates at a much quieter 64 dB, compared to the Shark's 80 dB. On the other hand, the Shark has a faster charging time of 40 minutes, while the AZVKEA takes 4 hours to fully charge.

Regarding extra features, the AZVKEA stands out with its aromatherapy tablets, an extra HEPA filter, and 7x24 customer service. The Shark has LED headlights, a removable hand vac, and a CleanTouch dirt ejector. The AZVKEA has a higher wattage of 550W, suggesting a more powerful motor compared to the Shark's 181W. Customer reviews also favor the AZVKEA, with a 4.6 out of 5 stars (from 735 ratings) against the Shark's 4.2 (from 9,749 ratings).

The Shark offers a 5-year limited warranty, while the AZVKEA's warranty is unspecified. Finally, the AZVKEA is estimated to be the lower cost.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. dsorupa V10 Ultra Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

The dsorupa V10 Ultra clearly outperforms the Shark IZ163H in suction power. With its specified 45KPa and 550W motor, it surpasses the Shark's unspecified "Powerful Suction." The dsorupa also wins in runtime, boasting up to 70 minutes compared to the Shark's 40 minutes. The dsorupa wins because it allows for more cleaning time without needing to be recharged.

The brushroll technology of the dsorupa V10 Ultra is more capable. Its combination soft and hard brush, along with its V-shaped anti-tangle design, is more robust than the Shark's PowerFins Brushroll. Similarly, the dsorupa's filtration system is superior, featuring an 8-stage system and an aroma tablet, which is more complete than the Shark's HEPA filtration and anti-allergen seal. The dust cup capacity is also a win for the dsorupa; its 1.8 liters dwarfs the Shark's 0.34 quarts, leading to less frequent emptying. The inclusion of an integrated LED display is another advantage for the dsorupa, providing useful information, unlike the Shark.

The Shark IZ163H wins when it comes to weight and charging time. Weighing only 3.4 lbs compared to the dsorupa's 8 lbs, the Shark is significantly more maneuverable. Furthermore, its 40-minute charging time is far quicker than the dsorupa's 3.5 hours.

Customer reviews favor the dsorupa V10 Ultra, with a rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars compared to the Shark's 4.2. Finally, without pricing information, a definitive overall winner cannot be determined.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. Honeywell VC10 Aeromax Cordless Stick Vacuum

The Shark IZ163H edges out the Honeywell VC10 Aeromax in price, likely reflecting its popularity. However, the Honeywell boasts a more powerful suction at 125W suction power with 400W of power, and a longer runtime of up to 55 minutes compared to the Shark's 40 minutes. The Shark does charge significantly faster, clocking in at 40 minutes versus the Honeywell's lengthy 5 hours.

The Honeywell's dust cup is slightly larger at 0.13 gallons (0.52 quarts) than the Shark's 0.34 quarts. On the other hand, the Shark is lighter at 3.4 pounds versus the Honeywell's 5.5 pounds.

Feature-wise, the Honeywell includes a tangle-resistant motorized roller, LED lights, and a broader array of attachments, while the Shark focuses on a flexible wand, self-cleaning brushroll, and HEPA filtration. Speaking of filtration, the Shark's HEPA filter is superior to the Honeywell's foam and disk filter.

Customer reviews are favorable for both, but the Shark benefits from a much larger sample size (9,749 ratings) with a comparable rating of 4.2 out of 5 stars, compared to the Honeywell's 4.3 out of 5 stars from only 26 ratings. The Honeywell also includes more accessories and benefits from the wall dock.

In summary, while the Shark is preferable for household messes and cleaning up pet hair, the Honeywell is much more versatile. Furthermore, the Shark has a feature that prevents hair from wrapping around the brush.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. Nexahome BVC-V11 Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

Shark wins in brand recognition, being a well-established and trusted name compared to the lesser-known Nexahome. However, when it comes to suction power, Nexahome takes the lead with a specified 45KPa, offering a quantifiable advantage over Shark's vague "powerful" description. Nexahome also boasts a significantly stronger motor at 550W compared to Shark's 181W.

Runtime is another area where Nexahome prevails, offering up to 50 minutes of cleaning time versus Shark's 40 minutes. Both vacuums bring unique brushroll technologies to the table, resulting in a tie. Shark's PowerFins are excellent for deep cleaning, while Nexahome's anti-tangle design with LED lights is great for visibility and preventing hair wrap.

For filtration, Nexahome edges ahead with a 6-stage HEPA system, suggesting a more thorough cleaning process than Shark's HEPA filter with an anti-allergen complete seal. The dust cup capacity is decisively in Nexahome's favor, holding 1.26 quarts compared to Shark's 0.34 quarts.

Nexahome offers more enhanced usability and convenience with its smart touch display and self-standing design. While Shark has a flexible wand, Nexahome has the upper hand here. Shark is much lighter at 3.4 pounds compared to Nexahome's 9 pounds, which can be a huge factor for ease of use.

Even though Nexahome has a higher customer rating, Shark wins in customer reviews with a much larger sample size. Storage is another win for Nexahome, offering both self-standing and wall-mounted options. Without pricing information, there is no possible way to compare the products.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. KCLASO V10 Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

The KCLASO V10 edges out the Shark IZ163H with its superior suction power, boasting a hurricane-force 45Kpa compared to Shark's unspecified "Powerful Suction." Additionally, the KCLASO provides a slightly longer runtime of up to 45 minutes.

However, the Shark IZ163H strikes back with its self-cleaning PowerFins brushroll, a major convenience, especially for pet owners, minimizing hair wrap. The KCLASO, on the other hand, utilizes a V-shaped roller brush and comb design. KCLASO has a 5 stage filtration system compared to Shark's two stages of HEPA filtration

Furthermore, the KCLASO has a larger dust cup capacity (500 ml) compared to Shark's 0.34 quarts (approx. 322 ml).

The Shark IZ163H's lightweight design at 3.4 pounds makes it significantly easier to maneuver than the KCLASO's 6.64 pounds. The KCLASO operates at a quieter 75 dB compared to the Shark's 80 dB.

Both vacuums offer unique design advantages. The Shark's MultiFLEX wand excels at reaching under furniture and compact storage, while the KCLASO has a 90° self-standing design and 180° bendable brush head. The Shark also charges much faster, taking only 40 minutes, whereas the KCLASO needs 5 hours. Both offer comparable attachments.

The KCLASO V10 has a Touchscreen functionality offering ease of use and display useful information. The Shark does not have this feature

Shark's brand reputation is superior and they offer a 5 year warranty vs an unknown warranty on the KCLASO.

✔ Shark IZ163H Cordless Stick Vacuum vs. Ciogu P6-C17K-H08A Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

When comparing the Shark IZ163H and the Ciogu P6-C17K-H08A cordless stick vacuums, several factors come into play. Shark clearly wins in brand recognition, leveraging its established reputation in the vacuum cleaner market. However, the Ciogu boasts a more powerful suction at 33kPa, while the Shark's suction power is not explicitly stated. The runtime slightly favors the Ciogu, offering up to 45 minutes on Eco mode, versus the Shark's 40 minutes.

The Shark excels in brushroll technology with its PowerFins and self-cleaning, no-hair-wrap design, a considerable advantage for pet owners. The Shark's MultiFLEX wand provides better flexibility and reach under furniture. Ciogu has the edge in filtration, offering 99.99% HEPA efficiency.

The Ciogu has a much larger dust cup capacity (1 Liter vs 0.34 Quarts on the Shark), reducing the frequency of emptying. Shark is the lighter of the two at 3.4 lbs, offering better maneuverability. The Ciogu operates at a significantly quieter noise level of 65 dB, compared to the Shark's 80 dB.

The Ciogu also stands out with its touch screen and LED display, giving more user feedback and control. Both vacuums include attachments, making it a tie in this category. While the Ciogu has a slightly higher customer rating (4.5 out of 5 stars), the Shark has a far greater number of reviews (9,749 vs 173), giving it greater confidence rating. Finally, Shark offers a 5-year limited warranty, a significant advantage in terms of long-term value and reliability.

✅ Conclusion

The Shark IZ163H Pet Pro Cordless Stick Vacuum presents a compelling package for those seeking a lightweight, maneuverable, and effective cleaning solution, particularly for homes with pets. Its strong suction, combined with the self-cleaning brushroll and HEPA filtration, tackles pet hair and allergens with ease. The MultiFLEX wand significantly enhances reach and storage convenience. While battery life may require planning for larger homes, the overall performance, coupled with the ease of use and features like LED headlights, make it a worthwhile investment, especially considering the positive customer feedback and the reassuring 5-year limited warranty.