Compare Our Top Shower Filter Systems

Honorable Mention Shower Filters

HigherDose Red Light Shower Filter for $599: This shower filter is in some ways the most intriguing shower filter idea I’ve encountered in the past year—a shower filter that also incorporates a ring of lights delivering dual red and near-infrared wavelengths (650 nm and 850nm) at purported therapeutic intensity. Aside from turning your shower into a discotheque, this amounts to a time-saving measure for those who would otherwise avail themselves of red light therapy on mats or with scary-looking masks. In this case, the red light therapy happens while you shower. The 10-stage filter, in my at-home testing, was able to remove 90 percent of the total chlorine from my chloramine-treated water. We’re still testing and looking into both the filter and the red light therapy over longer-term testing, but the device is already well worth mention.

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Afina A-01 Filtered Showerhead for $129: Afina’s two-stage chlorine filter is as effective as any of the filtered showerheads we tested out of the box, reducing total chlorine levels to undetectable amounts when it’s new. The broad, spa-like spray was also among the most pleasant of any showerhead we tested. But no independent lab testing was offered, and filter replacement is a bit more expensive than some, at $29 every two months with a subscription (or $40 every two months without).

Filterbaby Diamond Series Shower Filter for $113: This inline filter was able to reduce total chlorine levels to undetectable amounts, one of few filters on the market able to do so—and the fact that it’s an inline filter means you’ll be able to keep your existing showerhead and just slot this filter in between the pipe and your showerhead. That said, it’s a bulky filter, which means your showerhead will be about 4 inches lower than it used to be, and the screw-in system is a little awkward: It’s one of the only showerheads I actually needed a wrench to install properly. The replacement filters are designed to use minimal plastic, but they are also more expensive than most, at $42 every three months.

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Sproos! Filtered Hand Shower for $148 ($120 with subscription): Sproos is a quirky, kicky, kooky shower brand aimed squarely at young “renters and DIYers”—offering a rainbow of bold colors for handheld filtered showerheads. Sproos has made some improvements to its design since WIRED first tested in 2024. Its shower filters are also recyclable, a rare distinction. The filters removed most, but still not all total chlorine out of the box upon our testing in early 2026, in a chloramine-treated water system. And like a lot of shower filters, no independent lab testing has been released publicly.

Hydroviv Filtered Shower Head for $160: Hydroviv is a water filter company of long standing, and its KDF-55, calcium sulfite, and catalyzed carbon showerhead ranks among the few shower filters I’ve tested that was able to filter total chlorine levels down to undetectable levels in a chloramine-treated water system. Hydroviv suggests filter replacements once every six months, a longer span than comparable shower filters such as Canopy or Afina; that said, its $75 filters cost double or more what other filters do, and I noted significant loss of efficacy after four months. As with most makers of shower filters, requests to see independent lab testing results were unsuccessful. Hydroviv claims its filter media help reduce bacterial growth, though the materials cited are the same listed in other shower filters.

ShowerClear Filtered Shower Head, pictured as installed at a WIRED reviewer’s home.Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

ShowerClear Showerhead for $139: OK, you got me. This isn’t a filter. The ShowerClear is instead designed to solve a problem you probably hadn’t thought about but now may keep you up at night: Potentially infectious bacteria called mycobacteria, prone to causing lung infections, enjoy growing inside showerheads and are resistant to chlorine-treated water. They grow in colonies, a bit like fungus. Hence, the name. What’s worse, if you can’t open up your showerhead, you can’t see them and you don’t know they’re there. Gives you the willies. Anyway, this ShowerClear has a hinge and a latch. This means you can open it up, look inside, and clean its interior completely, with soap or vinegar or disinfectants. This is a very rare quality even among filtered showerheads. I’d be happier if the ShowerClear’s water flow fanned out a little better, or if the latch were less of a defining design feature. But what’s all that for a little peace of mind? (That said, if you want a filter to remove chlorine, you’ll also need an inline filter like the Weddell Duo.)

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Croix Filtered Showerhead for $129 and Croix Handheld Showerhead for $129: Shower filter company Croix was founded by chemical engineer Spencer Robertson, an old hand at water filtration. The fixed showerhead is handsome, and the handheld shower has a much broader array of spray settings than most—including a fun, ultra-broad spray setting that’s like a savagely powerful misting device. This said, the KDF-55 and calcium sulfite filter didn’t filter even close to the majority of total chlorine levels from my chloramine-treated water system. Based on results I’ve reviewed from Croix’s internal testing, I’d more likely recommend this device for chlorine-treated systems like the one in New York City. WIRED was able to review internal testing showing that Croix’s filters were successful at filtering most free chlorine from water, in accordance with NSF standards. Replacement cartridges and filters are reasonably priced and recommended once every four months, a longer interval than most brands on the market.

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Aquasana Inline Filter for $150: Aquasana’s funnily bulbous two-layer filter removed the majority of total chlorine in my chloramine-treated system, and it was also one of the only shower filter companies to offer independent testing data backing up its claims for chlorine-based systems. So far, so good. So why’s it not up near the top of our list? A flimsy shower wand with poor spray force and radius, a slight but unfortunate tendency toward leakiness at the shower connection, and unforgiving geometry that means it doesn’t link up well with all showerheads as an inline filter. Still, it works and it’s lab-attested for free chlorine removal, and I happily recommend it.

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

Jolie Filtered Showerhead for $169: The Jolie showerhead pioneered the influencer-centric, testimonial-driven marketing model that has made shower filters so dominant in the public conversation. Its design, which looks a bit like a giant Monopoly playing piece and comes in chrome, gold, black, or red, is eminently likable. The device offers even water spray and a soft, stippled faceplate that feels luxuriant in the strangest of ways. But Jolie didn’t respond to requests for independent testing when we asked in 2024, and our own testing put it somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of removing total chlorine from a chloramine-treated system.

Also Tested

Kohler Cinq for $150: Kohler is a venerable Wisconsin brand with a number of water treatment options for showers and faucets. The Cinq filtered showerhead is admirably classic in form, and its five-layer filter looked equally promising, advertising in particular KDF-55 and activated carbon. Home testing didn’t show great results with my chloramine-treated water, however, and for the price I felt entitled to high expectations. Requests for independent lab testing data in 2024 didn’t get results.

Act + Acre Showerhead Filter for $120: Beauty company Act + Acre’s filtered showerhead didn’t perform as well as others in my home testing of total chlorine. We also didn’t fall in love with the showerhead itself, which looks a bit like a gooseneck desk lamp and droops awkwardly from the shower pipe.

Frequently Asked Questions

How We Tested and What We Tested

AccordionItemContainerButton

Photograph: Matthew Korfhage

The market for filtered showerheads remains young and largely unregulated, and performance claims are only rarely backed up publicly by independent data. We made lots of requests, but few shower filter companies hand over their lab results. (Thank you Rorra, Aquasana, Weddell, Croix, and Curo for being exceptions.)

Some makers told us that independent labs and certifying bodies have been backed up, and that data is forthcoming. Many offered customer satisfaction surveys or anecdotal studies instead. This all means that some skepticism is warranted.

And so I also got out test kits at home. First I test the total chlorine levels in the water without any filtering, a measure that includes either chloramine or free chlorine that’s interacted with whatever’s in your pipes. Then I test the water filtered by the showerhead. I perform each test multiple times to account for imprecision or fluctuations in testing and in municipal chlorine levels. In most cases, I do this over multiple days upon initial testing to account for any inconsistencies in my own water supply.

For testing, I avoided painfully unreliable home test strips, and instead got out somewhat nasty chemical indicators and used digital and chemical tests designed for pools and aquariums.

We also tested total dissolved solids using a TDS meter, and separately tested filters’ effects on pH in order to gauge effects but also to verify the reliability of chemical test results.

The effectiveness of filters goes down over time, of course, depending on how much contamination is filtered out of the water—which is why filters always need to be changed. As we update this guide, we continue to test the most effective showerhead filters to see how their efficacy changes over time—and add any new shower filters we’re able to recommend.

What Does a Shower Filter Do?

AccordionItemContainerButton

The biggest thing that most shower water filters tackle, in a measurable way, is filter chlorine and chlorine compounds, mostly through chemical reactions. Pretty much every American city adds low concentrations of chlorine or chlorine compounds to drinking water to kill potentially harmful bacteria. This is all well and good when the water’s still in the pipes. But chlorine’s not exactly great for your hair or your skin, and few people like to drink it. Some are also especially sensitive to the taste or smell, or prone to skin reactions.

The most prominent home shower filters rely in part on a zinc-copper mixture called KDF-55, known to be quite effective at neutralizing “free” chlorine in chlorine-treated systems. Other common substances used to treat chlorine and chlorine compounds include calcium sulfite and activated or catalytic carbon. The most effective filters use these in some combination. The main thing I was able to test and verify was the best shower water filters’ ability to remove the total chlorine content of water coming out of your shower.

We’ve seen little evidence that the most common types of showerhead filters have much effect on the softness or hardness of water, or on calcium buildup. In fact, some early academic studies present evidence that they don’t. The shower filters we tested also had very little effect on the sum total of dissolved solids in our water, according to measurements with a TDS meter—i.e., the filters aren’t removing a large amount of materials or minerals from the water.

I wasn’t able to test claims by some companies that these filters remove heavy metals like lead and arsenic, which thankfully aren’t in my pipes. We only found one company, Weddell, whose filter was certified to remove leadr. So far, so good! Nonetheless, if you believe you have dangerous lead or arsenic in your water, you probably shouldn’t try to fix the problem with a mail-order showerhead. Talk to a water treatment professional or your public health authority.

Does My City Use Chlorine or Chloramine?

AccordionItemContainerButton

If you live in a major US city, chlorine is likely not what your city uses to treat the water in its pipes. New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Phoenix use chlorine, sure. But Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, and most big cities in Texas don’t.

More than half of American big cities use a substance called chloramine, a more stable and enduring chemical that’s harder to filter and test. That’s also what was in my water supply. To test, I got out my handy digital water colorimeter and a somewhat nasty chemical indicator, and then tested the ability of each shower filter to treat any of a number of chlorine compounds in the water.

Curious whether your city uses chlorine or chloramine as a disinfectant in your pipes? Check here for an accounting of the 50 biggest municipal water systems in the United States.

Are Shower Filters Effective for Hard Water?

AccordionItemContainerButton

No, probably not.

The best shower filters I tested will improve your water quality, largely by removing chlorine and chloramine compounds—and other contaminants that may include heavy metals.

But shower filters can only do so much. You probably shouldn’t expect these shower filters to soften the mineral hardness of your water or remove most substances, which derives mostly from dissolved calsium and magnesium salts in your water.

After all, a filter must be relatively small to fit into a showerhead. And yet it’s being asked to filter gallons of water each minute, pushed out at both high temperature and high pressure. A showerhead filter poses a daunting engineering challenge, as compared to countertop water filters that treat only a small amount of water at a time—or a bulky reverse-osmosis device that can plug into your under-sink plumbing

Hard water is more often solved by specific water softeners, reverse osmosis filters, and whole-house water filtration systems. Some early studies show that a number of shower filters may even add a small amount of hardness to your water, via calcium sulfite filters,

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today

We’ve all been in situations where we’ve had to sleep on a sofa bed. I can recall many childhood vacations where I’d be tossing and turning on a squeaky setup. If this was also you, sofa beds might not jump out as the most appealing option. But they’ve evolved from the rickety pull-out mattresses of yore—today’s sofa beds are a far more comfortable and efficient way to create a guest bed wherever you need, whether in a spare room or a small apartment.

That said, sofa beds, also known as sleeper sofas, are not all of the same caliber. This is where Australian furniture brand Koala aims to stand out. Since entering the US market in the fall of 2023, it has focused on comfortable, stylish, and easy-to-assemble sofa beds. However, as a professional mattress tester, I was very curious to see if the latest Koala sofa bed offering, the Wanda, was as comfortable and supportive as the mattresses I usually test. So I went on a testing side quest and dedicated a whole week to sleeping on the Wanda. What I found is that it’s a cozy short-term solution for guests and general lounging, but I wouldn’t replace your mattress setup with it.

Quadruple Threat

Sofa beds typically use a “2-in-1” design, combining a couch with a pull-out bed that folds away under the seat cushion when not in use. The Wanda offers a “4-in-1” design that combines a couch with a daybed, a reversible chaise, and a queen-size, slide-out bed.

The Wanda arrived in four large boxes—you will most definitely need help moving them, especially if you plan to go up any stairs. Aside from size, these boxes range in weight from a doable 47 pounds to 104 pounds, which I struggled to move upstairs on my own.

All Together Now

In honor of all my previous sleeper sofa experiences, I wanted to know how the Wanda would fare in a small room. So instead of my usual spacious studio setup, with dimensions of 13 feet by 15 feet, I decided to use my upstairs home office. Since I didn’t move my desk out of the way, the Wanda took up half the room, which was only 10.5 feet by 10.5 feet, give or take, with other furniture in it. The sofa bed is 99 inches long (8.25 feet) and resembles a sideways “L,” with the chaise jutting out 69 inches (5.75 feet). As if this weren’t cozy enough, my husband and two small dogs decided to set up shop with me.

Industry analysis from nPerf of the UK’s mobile market arena in 2025 has revealed “intense” competition at the top tier, with the best internet performance delivered not just by market leader EE but also rival provider Three.

The nPerf Speed Test analysed the overall quality of the connection experienced by UK mobile users across all four quarters of 2025, considering several criteria, namely download speed, upload speed, latency, browsing performance and streaming quality. Measurements were based on 57,299 tests conducted via the nPerf application on both Android and iOS devices.

Download speeds above 25 Mbps were classified as excellent, and a latency of 0-30 ms was considered excellent, enabling activities such as 4K video streaming and real-time interaction, while 31-100 ms enabled optimal internet performance with minimal delay. Browsing performance was seen as a measure of how quickly and efficiently internet pages were loaded and navigated. A browsing score between 75% and 100% meant near-instant page loading.

A score between 75% and 100% indicates smooth streaming in terms of the quality benchmark. Scores between 50% and 75% were seen as adequate for YouTube streaming. Below 50% resulted in compromised video quality.

Overall, EE and Three were found to have tied for leadership with both operators delivering download speeds exceeding 110 Mbps, supporting what were described as “comprehensive” user experiences.

Both EE and Three Users were seen as benefiting from high-quality mobile experiences, particularly for streaming, gaming and real-time communications.

EE’s performance was rated as having “comprehensive strengths” and demonstrating “strong performances” across all metrics. The BT-owned operator had an overall score of 86,470 nPoints in the study, complementing download speeds of 110.44 Mbps with upload speeds of 15.77 Mbps. EE rated scores of 69.65% for browsing and 76.51% as regards video streaming, delivering “fluid content viewing” for users.

For its part, Three was said to have a “solid top position” additionally guaranteeing “high-quality” video calls and “efficient” content sharing. The operator achieved the best latency in the sector (35.31 ms), perfect for online gaming and real-time communications. Three’s overall rating was 84,993 nPoints, with download speeds reach 110.72 Mbps and upload speeds of 16.50 Mbps, but also with the best latency in the sector (35.31 ms). Leading in upload performance, the operator could guarantee high-quality video calls and efficient content sharing.

In competitive positioning, Vodafone ranked third with 74,892 nPoints and delivered 74.56 Mbps in download speed. The operator was said to have demonstrate solid video streaming performance at 74.35%.

The fourth UK mobile operator, O2, was said to have experienced a “focused” performance in 2025, totalling 66,557 nPoints and displaying “efficient” latency of 37.56 ms, suitable for what were called “responsive” online experiences.

Looking specifically at the mobile internet experience of the UK’s 5G networks, Three subscribers enjoyed the best 5G internet in 2025 with both fastest download and upload speeds. Both O2 and Three offered the best 5G connections with the lowest latency. EE, Three and Vodafone tied for best 5G web browsing performances while Three and Vodafone were seen as delivering the leading 5G streaming performances.

Commenting on the results, Sébastien de Rosbo, CEO of nPerf, said: “The UK mobile market demonstrates strong competition at the top, with both leaders delivering comprehensive performance and user experiences that benefit from high-speed connectivity across all key indicators.”