We installed the US Water Systems Magna Cartridge Filter System in a home in Colorado that was confirmed to have a lead service line. Our primary objective was to eliminate lead in the customer’s entire home, and we conducted first-hand testing to thoroughly evaluate the system’s performance. In this comprehensive review, you’ll find our scores across a range of testing categories, including contaminant reduction, installation, flow rate, maintenance, and design quality.
What We Like
What We Don’t Like
| Price | $879.00 |
| Contaminants Reduced | 200+ |
| Certifications | Not Certified |
| Process | Mechanical + Activated Carbon + CZF |
| Filter Capacity | 30,000 gallons |
| Annual Cost | ~$150–$400 |
| Warranty | Lifetime on housings; filter cartridges not included |
Table of Contents
📊 Scoring Data
At Water Filter Guru, we put water filters to the test by assessing them across 6 performance factors that impact their ability to improve water quality, ease of use, and value for money. We assign scores for each of these testing categories, then combine and average them to reach an overall score, which can then be compared to all other filters we’ve tested so far.
See how this system ranks in our performance testing in the table below.
| Criteria | Results |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 8.58 |
| Health Related Contaminants | 8.50 |
| Aesthetic Related Contaminants | 9.90 |
| Performance Certification | Not Certified |
| Filtration Rate | 25 GPM |
| Component Quality | Exceptional |
| Component Certification | Unsatisfactory |
| Setup | Below Average |
| Servicing Requirements | Outstanding |
| Costs | $0.012/ gallon |
| Warranty Length | Lifetime on housings; filter cartridges not included |
| Shipping | Variable |
| Returns | 60-day return window for unopened products; 1-year guarantee only if spec’d by sales |
🎬 Video Review
🚰 Contaminant Reduction
Score: 8.31US Water Systems sells its POE cartridge systems in multiple configurations. We chose the Magna Triple High Flow Filter System, which was recommended by the manufacturer for its ability to address lead.
To evaluate the system in this category, we combined lab results from our own hands-on testing with evidence of (or a lack of) a performance certification.
Background Info On Our Water Quality
For this review, we were working with a customer whose home was confirmed to have a lead service line, which is due to be replaced as part of their city’s Lead Reduction Program.
Our customer also believed that their city might be using polyphosphate to sequester lead. This is a method that’s increasingly being used by water utilities to reduce lead, particularly with orthophosphate (another form of phosphate) blends.
It’s thought that poly- and orthophosphate reduce lead in water by forming insoluble lead-phosphate minerals, but this doesn’t always happen, and one 2022 study found that some polyphosphate blends can actually increase lead levels by interacting with lead corrosion scale.
The effectiveness of polyphosphates on reducing lead, and their likelihood of increasing lead concentrations, are linked to how they complex with lead and prevent mineral formation, as well as the extent to which they break down over time. Using phosphate blends without fully understanding their chemistry, is, therefore, risky business.
Plus, evaluating the effects of sequestering lead in drinking water is tricky because it would involve having to test water at customers’ homes, downstream of the water supply. That means that lead may not be sequestered effectively, or customers with existing lead scaling may see increases in lead concentrations in their water, but they’d have no way of knowing.
Thankfully, we could only find evidence that our customer’s water supplier uses a pH increase method rather than orthophosphate to inhibit the corrosion of lead pipes, due to the “consequences of adding orthophosphate to such a large system”. These claims are in line with our own test results of the customer’s water—no phosphorus was detected in the water, and the pH was high in both tests (8.1 and 8.3, with the average pH of tap water being around 7.5).
Increasing the pH of water is a proven method of preventing dissolved lead leaching from water pipes by making lead corrosion more stable, but it can also be problematic. A study published in 2011 found that higher pH levels were linked to an increase in the amount of particulate lead, especially in flowing systems. This happens because higher pH can cause bits of the corrosion scale to break off into the water, even though it reduces the amount of dissolved lead.
What does that all mean? Our customer’s water might be at a reduced risk of containing dissolved lead, but it could still contain particulate lead.
The customer had been provided with a PUR water filter pitcher to filter lead out of their drinking water, but they wanted to remove lead from the water supplying their entire home. The most efficient way to do this is with a point-of-entry filtration system, and this US Water Systems model, with a dedicated filter for lead, seemed like a good fit.
Our Performance Testing
Score: 8.57
Starting with our performance testing, our first step was to find out about the concentrations of lead, as well as any other contaminants of concern, in the unfiltered water.
We used a laboratory testing kit called SimpleLab Tap Score to conduct this analysis. Tap Score is our preferred testing service because of its comprehensive, interactive test reports, which provide detailed information on our water quality in an easy-to-read format.
We conducted our unfiltered water test in October 2024. After installing the US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter, we conducted a second post-install test almost three months later, in January 2025.
Why did we wait three months?
This was so we could allow a few months of initial use to ensure our results weren’t positively influenced by using brand-new filters.
July 2025 update: We have since conducted a second batch of tests after our customer altered their system setup to address the unexpected outcomes of test 1. We’ve explained this in more detail in our Test 2 section later in this review.
Health-Related Contaminants
Score: 8.50
Health-related contaminants are those that have been found in studies to affect human health. They include lead and other heavy metals, disinfection byproducts, and other chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and gases.
When we received the results of our unfiltered water test, we were surprised to see that no lead had been detected. We were surprised by this result initially, given that the customer’s home is listed as “Confirmed lead service line; included in the Lead Reduction Program” in the Denver Water Lead Service Line Inventory map. But after learning that their water utility uses the pH increase method to reduce the likelihood of lead pipe leaching, things started to make more sense.
We should also remember that a lack of lead in the specific water sample we tested doesn’t mean that the supply isn’t contaminated. It just means that we couldn’t evaluate the filter’s ability to address lead in this particular test.
Our Tap Score test did detect two other contaminants exceeding the HGL in our unfiltered water:
- 22.8 PPB chloroform (exceeding the HGL of 0.32 PPB by 9190%)
- And 6.93 PPM of bromodichloromethane (exceeding the HGL of 0.22 PPB by 10260%)
These are disinfection byproducts in a group known as total THMs, and have been linked to an increased risk of cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, cardiovascular diseases, immune system effects, and respiratory problems, through exposure in drinking water.
Several health-related contaminants were also detected at trace levels below the HGL, including fluoride, sulfate, copper, molybdenum, barium, and strontium.
The next table shows the full list of contaminants detected in our water, and their concentrations.
| Property | Type | Measurement | Pre-Filtration | Post-Filtration | % Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antimony | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.0006581999 | N.A |
| Arsenic | Metals | PPM | 0.0001889 | 0.000054 | -71.41% |
| Barium | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.00218 | N.A |
| Bicarbonate | Minerals | PPM | 125.74 | 23.06 | -81.66% |
| Boron | Inorganics | PPM | 0.01566 | 0.00348 | -77.78% |
| Calcium | Minerals | PPM | 0.00319 | 2.04674 | 64061.13% |
| Carbonate | Minerals | PPM | 0.27 | 0.083 | -69.26% |
| Chloride | Inorganics | PPM | 10.94 | 0.6919999999 | -93.67% |
| Cobalt | Metals | PPM | 0.000004 | 0.000004 | 0.00% |
| Copper | Metals | PPM | 0.0146 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Fluoride | Inorganics | PPM | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.00% |
| Iron | Metals | PPM | 0.00476 | 0.00072 | -84.87% |
| Lead | Metals | PPM | 0.0000894 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Magnesium | Minerals | PPM | 0.002 | 1.7001 | 84905.00% |
| Manganese | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.00183 | N.A |
| Molybdenum | Metals | PPM | 0.0004124 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Nickel | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.0005074 | N.A |
| Nitrate (as N) | Inorganics | PPM | 0.997 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Phosphorus | Inorganics | PPM | 0.02155 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Potassium | Minerals | PPM | 0.02902 | 0.7204199999 | 2382.49% |
| Selenium | Metals | PPM | 0.0023490999 | 0.000406 | -82.72% |
| Silica | Inorganics | PPM | 12.81681 | 0.85464 | -93.33% |
| Sodium | Minerals | PPM | 53.42337 | 1.67733 | -96.86% |
| Strontium | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.0097 | N.A |
| Sulfate | Inorganics | PPM | 17.737 | 0.402 | -97.73% |
| Thallium | Metals | PPM | 0 | 0.000019 | N.A |
| Uranium | Metals | PPM | 0.0000259999 | 0 | -100.00% |
| Zinc | Metals | PPM | 0.00265 | 0.00263 | -0.75% |
So, how did the US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter address these contaminants?
Our filtered water test results showed that the concentrations of the two DBPs had been reduced, but still exceeded their HGLs:
- Chloroform by 72%, to 6.17 PPB
- And bromodichloromethane by 40%, to 4.15 PPB
These results were slightly unexpected given that the system has a dedicated carbon filter, which should have done a better job addressing DBPs.
We reached out to the manufacturer to query these results, and they explained to us that cartridge-based whole-house filters struggle to remove disinfection byproducts effectively because they don’t provide enough media volume or contact time, especially at higher flow rates. Municipal water with high organic content creates more disinfection byproducts, making the problem worse. They noted that adding more carbon might help, but it would compromise bacterial filtration.
Tank-style systems, with their larger media capacity and longer contact time, are far more effective for whole-house filtration, and the manufacturer doesn’t guarantee cartridges for this purpose.
As for the contaminants detected below the HGL, the US Water Systems POE unit reduced fluoride by 20%, sulfate by 32%, molybdenum by 60%, barium by just 7%, and strontium by 13%. Copper increased slightly by 6%.
It’s important to note that the manufacturer doesn’t claim that the filter can specifically reduce or remove any of these contaminants. Even the Disruptor filter (the cartridge that addresses lead) isn’t claimed to reduce any other heavy metals aside from lead—only chromium 6 and select microorganisms.
In this case, since the customer’s priority was lead removal, the system’s ability to reduce other contaminants was not their key concern.
With that said, if you want to prioritize addressing any of these contaminants yourself, this particular US Water Systems product isn’t going to be the best fit. That’s why it’s important to test your water first, so you can find the filtration system that best addresses the impurities you’re most concerned about.
Unexpected Outcomes
While we’re talking about health-related contaminants, we should mention a couple of unexpected testing outcomes that we noticed in our post-filtration results.
First, 0.063 PPM of aluminum (well within the HGL of 0.6 PPM) was detected in our filtered water where it was absent in the pre-filtration test. There are a couple of possible reasons for this:
- Natural fluctuations in the customer’s water supply between October 2024 and January 2025.
- Leaching from the Disruptor filter media, which uses “Nano Alumina Fibers”. The filter is made from boehmite, a naturally occurring aluminum oxide-hydroxide mineral that’s used in water and wastewater treatment. In studies, this mineral has shown “very good efficiency”, similar to commercial activated carbon under the same conditions, for addressing pollution indicators in water. Boehmite is non-toxic and has a stable structure in water. It’s known to leach aluminum, but while several studies focus on how aluminum dissolves from boehmite under certain conditions, we couldn’t find any raising concerns about its leaching potential in drinking water treatment systems.
After contacting the manufacturer, our “leaching from the Disruptor filter” theory was confirmed. Customer support explained that fresh filters shed aluminum a bit more initially, but this apparently drops off fast. After that, they said our customer should expect to see a tiny residual from the Disruptor tech, but “nothing major once it settles”.
We also saw slight reductions (between 10 and 14%) in minerals including calcium, sodium, and magnesium. These minerals are all essential to human health, but they’re found in a broad range of foods as well as drinking water, and such minor reductions are likely due to fluctuations in the source water rather than removal by the filters themselves.
Test 2
Our customer was keen to achieve a greater reduction of disinfection byproducts with their system, and this led them to reconfigure their initial setup to increase carbon capacity and EBCT (empty bed contact time), or chemical reduction capacity.
They kept the original three filter stages, but added a carbon block filter to sit between the Radial Flow Carbon and Disruptor filters. This gave them four filter stages, with two separate carbon filters.
What was the intended outcome for this? Well, as we saw in our first test, the Radial Flow Carbon cartridge provided significant DBP reduction, but not elimination. By increasing EBCT with an additional cartridge, we increase the system’s reduction rates for all contaminants addressed by carbon filtration, including disinfection byproducts.
Additionally, our customer wanted to install a bone char fluoride reduction system downstream of their main unit. It’s recommended to install a pre-carbon filter upstream to protect the bone char media’s fluoride reduction capacity. That way, it isn’t wasted by removing chlorine, DBPs, or other organic chemicals (which are all addressed by carbon filtration).
So, let’s compare the results of test 1 with test 2:
- Aluminum: This had increased in test 1, but was reduced by 100% in test 2.
- Chloroform and bromodichloromethane: These disinfection byproducts, which lingered in test 1, were completely eliminated in test 2.
- Copper: This had also increased slightly in test 1, but was removed in test 2.
- Fluoride: This was reduced by 20% in test 1 but removed completely in test 2 (thanks to the client’s investment in a separate fluoride filter).
- Molybdenum and potassium: These were reduced by 60% and 28% in test 1 respectively, and both reduced by 100% in test 2.
- Minerals and ions: Sulfate, strontium, magnesium, chloride, calcium and sodium were all reduced slightly in test 1 (by around 10-32%), and were reduced more significantly (by 38-51%) in test 2.
- Hardness & TDS: Hardness was reduced by 13% and TDS by 37% in test 1. Hardness in test 2 decreased by 42% and TDS by 38%.
Aesthetic Contaminants
Score: 9.90
Aesthetic contaminants generally don’t have health effects in concentrations commonly detected in drinking water. But they can affect water’s taste, smell, and appearance.
Only one aesthetic contaminant was detected in the unfiltered water: chlorine. We used test strips included with our sample-taking kit to accurately detect this contaminant, since chlorine is highly volatile and would likely dissipate from the water before it reached the lab.
Around 1 PPM of chlorine was initially detected, which was reduced completely down to 0% in the filtered water. We’d expected this outcome because the US Water Systems filtration system uses an activated carbon filter, and this media has well-documented chlorine reduction abilities.
Performance Certifications
Score: 6.00
US Water Systems claims to reduce numerous contaminants that weren’t detected in our test water, including sediment, chloramine, pesticides, and bacteria.
A good way to get confirmation of a filter’s ability to reduce a broad range of contaminants is to look for performance certifications. Manufacturers can get their filters certified by the NSF, WQA, or IAPMO to a number of performance-related NSF Standards, for reducing contaminants like chlorine, those with health effects, microorganisms, and more.
Unfortunately, the US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter system isn’t currently certified to any performance certifications.
Performance certifications aren’t a legal requirement. But we think that obtaining an NSF 53 certification for the Disruptor filter would be highly valuable, providing reassurance of its performance and reducing the risk of investing hundreds of dollars upfront on a whole-home system.
For filters that haven’t been performance certified, we usually compare the manufacturer’s third-party testing against our own results. But we were unable to find third-party test data for this US Water Systems model, which means we can’t verify how effectively the filter removes specific contaminants beyond our own testing.
🚦Filtration Rate
Score: 10.00Filtration rate is one of the most important performance categories we assess for a whole-house water filter. A system with inadequate flow could affect the efficiency of the water-using appliances and the volume of water delivered to the faucets and fixtures in your home.
The US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter has a recorded flow rate of up to 25 GPM (gallons per minute), which means it can be used efficiently even in larger households. For some perspective, the average whole-home flow rate without a filter is 6-12 GPM.
In our customer’s testing, there were no noticeable changes to water pressure in any fixtures, faucets, or appliances after installing the system.
We awarded it the highest score in this category, and it has one of the fastest flow rates of all the point-of-entry systems we’ve tested.
📐 Design
Score: 8.40The Magna Triple High Flow Filter System is one of the 10+ whole-house cartridge filter configurations offered by US Water Systems.
It consists of three filters attached to a housing bracket and is designed to intercept your main water line. Water flows through the three filters before returning to your plumbing with select contaminants reduced or removed.
We awarded the system’s design score based on two scoring factors: the quality of the components and whether or not it has a design certification.
Component Quality
Score: 10.00
The US Water Systems POE filtration system has a sturdy, high-grade plastic design that feels durable and solidly built.
It’s primarily made from polypropylene, with nickel-plated brass inserts to eliminate the potential for plastic to break if the housings are overtightened.
The materials used in this design are claimed to be BPA-free, but if you want to avoid plastic use as much as possible, you might prefer to go for a metal tank-based system instead.
Filter Design
Since the design of a water filter impacts its overall performance, we think this is a helpful point of assessment when we’re evaluating a filtration system’s overall design.
Our customer got the US Water Systems unit with three separate filter cartridges:
- A 5-micron sediment filter (a 1-micron filter is also available)
- A radial flow carbon filter
- A Disruptor filter (for lead removal)
This is pretty much the expected sequence of filters in a whole-house filtration system designed for city water, with the sediment filter protecting the later filter stages, and the carbon filter addressing chlorine, DBPs, and other common municipal water contaminants.
The exception is the Disruptor filter, which uses unique filtration media and is designed primarily to target lead, giving this system the edge compared to systems using carbon-based filters only.
As we mentioned earlier, our customer decided to reconfigure their initial setup by adding a carbon block filter to sit between the Radial Flow Carbon and Disruptor filters, resulting in four stages of filtration in total. They also invested in the USWS Bodyguard Fluoride Removal Filter, which we’ve reviewed separately.
From a design perspective, this doesn’t change much. Increasing the carbon filtration capacity was a performance choice above anything else.
Certification
Score: 6.00
As with performance certifications, design certifications provide reassurance beyond what can be achieved with our own limited testing.
There are two key design-related certifications that water filters can obtain: a materials safety certification and a certification for lead-free design.
But we could find no evidence of either of these certifications for the US Water Systems unit, so it received the poorer score from us in this category.
However US Water did confirm that the individual components, like the filter cartridges, are certified for materials safety by their individual manufacturers.
⚙️ Setup
Score: 7.50As a point-of-entry system that requires installation at the main water line, the US Water Systems Cartridge Filter unit was fairly challenging to install.
With that said, even due to the more complex nature of a POE install, the process was as quick and easy as it could have been, following the typical steps for installing a whole-house cartridge filter. The system requires just two connections and the filters don’t need to be flushed or primed prior to installation, which also saved our customer a lot of time and effort. The installation itself took just under 45 minutes.
This was our customer’s first time doing a bigger plumbing install, and they did a lot of research and made sure they had all the tools and components on hand before starting. That meant they didn’t have to run to the hardware store mid-install.
The unit is shorter than a tank-based POE system, which makes it more suitable for installing in smaller spaces (although you still need room to maintain the system).
One of the filter canisters did initially leak, but we determined this was due to not lubricating the o-ring properly. After removing the housing, lubricating the o-ring, and replacing the housing, there was no longer a leak. Addressing the issue added another 20 minutes onto the installation time.
If you’re confident with DIY projects, or even if you just have basic plumbing experience, you should be able to install this system.
🔧 Maintenance
Score: 9.75There are a couple of maintenance commitments that you’ll need to make throughout the lifespan of the US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter.
We scored the system in the maintenance category by analyzing its servicing requirements and ongoing spend for replacement filters.
Servicing Requirements
9.50
For some context, US Water Systems sells two types of whole-home systems for domestic use:
- Tank-based systems, which have longer-lasting media but require more difficult maintenance (emptying and replacing the media in a large, heavy tank),
- And cartridge-based systems, which are easier to maintain (just unscrew the filter, remove the cartridge, and replace).
Our customer chose the Magna Cartridge system because they preferred the ease of maintenance, even though the required maintenance is more frequent than a tank-based system.
The three filters need to be replaced once a year on average, and this is the only required maintenance mentioned in the user manual.
Costs
Score: 10.00
We calculated the US Water Systems POE Cartridge Filter’s overall ongoing spend by combining the costs-per-gallon of each individual filter, based on their replacement costs and lifespans.
The total maintenance spend for this system came to $0.12/ gallon, with the following costs-per-gallon for each of the filter stages:
| Filter | Cost per Gallon | |
|---|---|---|
| Magna 5-micron | $0.002 | |
| Interceptor | $0.006 | |
| Radial Flow Carbon | $0.004 | |
Where did we get the 30,000 from?
US Water Systems doesn’t provide a specific capacity for its POE system’s filters, but we estimate a capacity of around 30,000 gallons based on average conditions.
The system’s cost-per-gallon is actually lower than many of the water filter pitchers we’ve tested, so when it comes to ongoing affordability, we couldn’t have asked for more.
🏢 Company
Score: 8.80Our final scoring category looks at US Water Systems as a company, including its warranty, shipping, and returns offerings.
Warranty
Score: 8.50
US Water Systems offers a lifetime warranty on its POE filter housings. The filter cartridges aren’t warranted because they’re consumable (this is pretty standard in most warranties for filtration systems).
The warranty entitles customers to a free filter housing replacement (excluding transportation costs and standard labor charges) if an issue arises due to a manufacturing defect.
You can find the warranty information, including all the terms and conditions, listed in the back of the user manual.
Shipping
Score: 8.00
The shipping fees for US Water Systems products vary depending on the cost, weight, and dimensions of the product.
The company ships to areas inside and outside of the continental US, although orders outside the continental US will need to be quoted by a US Water customer service rep before they can be processed.
View the shipping policy here.
Returns
Score: 8.00
On the surface, the US Water Systems 1-year guarantee seems pretty good, but we bumped the score down in this category because the guarantee only applies if the company’s sales team specs and sells you the system.
Otherwise, you can only return your item if it’s new, unused, and unopened, in original packaging, and the returns period only spans 60 days from your purchase.
Full details about the returns and refund policy can be viewed here.
💰 Value For Money
With everything we know about its performance, both from our own hands-on testing and the manufacturer’s product information, do we think the US Water Triple High Flow Filter System is worth the investment?
It’s clearly more expensive than a POU system, but it gives you the reassurance of knowing that your entire water supply has been filtered. And if you’re dealing with a dangerous contaminant like lead, or those that have dermal and respiratory effects like disinfection byproducts, POE systems like this one are worth the investment.
That said, we were unable to test the system’s ability to reduce lead, and it didn’t fully eliminate DBPs. It also only reduced fluoride, copper, and other contaminants with health effects, so if you want to prioritize removing any of these, this particular US Water Systems model might not be best for you.
To reiterate, testing your water is key here, as only then can you understand the suitability of filtration systems like these for your own water quality goals.
The USWS Triple High Flow Filter System ticks a lot of boxes: it’s sturdily built and pretty simple to install, with promising contaminant reduction abilities, a fast flow rate, and easy maintenance. But that doesn’t mean it’s right for you.
Found this review helpful?
Comment below or share this article!