Air Quality Devices – Comparison 2017 Q2

More and new devices on the market. From wearables to home AQI monitors are here to assist people’s needs. Remember air pollution is everywhere.

comparison air 2017 Q2

  • Prices may vary during time.
  • Some Companies don’t specify on their data sheet if their devices are capable to measure PM2.5 or PM10 and they just mention the word dust.
  • Some other companies say: Our product goes beyond CO₂ by analyzing substances that directly affect your well-being by measuring VOCs. They aren’t clear if their devices have CO₂ sensor.
  • Some of the devices are AQI Monitors and Air Purifiers Combo. On this list you can only read the features as an AQI monitor.
  • The classification of the design between BadGood and Very Good is based on the materials (plastic, wood, glass and metal) that they use and the aesthetic on my personal opinion.

15 thoughts on “Air Quality Devices – Comparison 2017 Q2

  1. I wonder if someday you could include the type of sensor that is used. The technology behind the sensor (metal oxide, electrochemical, particle sensor…) would be an interesting category to help our understanding of these devices. You have touched on this in your comments and I agree that some devices may not clearly state what sensors they are using.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for including Speck! A couple minor corrections for Speck:

    * We offer 2 models, one with a humidity sensor ($199), and one without ($149). Your chart says “No” for humidity, which is fine if that’s the model you tested, but then the price should be listed as $149 and not $200. Alternatively, change “Humidity” to “Yes” and list the price as $199.

    * If by “Map/Share” you mean some sort of map showing all (public) Specks, then it should be listed as “Yes”. Our public data map is here:

    Finally, in response to Cheryl’s question about sensor used, we provide full tech specs here:


    Chris Bartley
    Principal Research Programmer
    Airviz / CMU CREATE Lab

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hello,
    first of all, thanks for your work.
    In my case all comes down to accuracy. By accuracy I don’t mean the exact absolute number of particles or CO2, but at least an high correlation with the real data ( the values can be higher or lower but the error remains constant and with same trend of real data ). The drift of the sensors over time is also a concern for me.
    ¿What’s the point if they don’t measure the real data?
    In the end the only way to be sure about this is to buy another reliable particle meter like Dylos and compare values… If you could measure the accuracy somewhat it could be awesome.
    For example Laser Egg and AirVisual were tested by smartair and they were very accurate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Asier, thank you for your message. Indeed accuracy is important and durability as well. AirVisual has a great CO2 sensor I use it myself and I have compared it with others too. Now about PM sensors, they are vulnerable to dust and they are hard to maintain. You have mentioned Dylos. It isn’t the best and it isn’t the most accurate device. Although the company has been on the market for quite some time now but they haven’t update their product recently. Some companies have used cheap PM sensors but believe me they have learnt their lesson.


  4. I’m not an expert by any means, but you can check this blog entry regarding to dylos accuracy:
    Another tests were performed here:

    For me it’s hard to pick a winner by just usability/features because I don’t know if it’s going to be accurate or not. But thanks for your efforts comparing all of them.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s