Canopy
Jolie
Canopy and Jolie are two brands best known for their showerhead water filters. Something they both have in common is that their marketing is very much geared towards women.
We were keen to test both filters and see if they were worth their price tags, especially since they’re both around $50-$70+ more expensive than similar filters not marketed towards women (pink tax is, unfortunately, very common).
We’ve discussed the results of our analyses in this article.
In our testing, these shower filters actually received the same scores across the board, with only the “company” category as the exception.
But while they performed the same on the surface, our experiences testing each of the filters were unique, and they do have some differences when it comes to filtration performance for individual contaminants, design, costs and filtration rate.
Neither product blew us away, and we wouldn’t recommend either of them as the “best” shower filter (they took 6th and 7th place out of the 9 showerhead filters we recently tested).
That said, if we purely compare the two, Canopy’s 1-year warranty makes it just the more appealing choice, which translates to a ever-so-slightly higher overall score.
Table of Contents
📊 Our Testing Data
We scored the Canopy and Jolie shower head filters across 6 different performance categories. This means we can compare them at surface level for their contaminant reduction, filtration rate, design, setup, maintenance, and company policies at a glance. See the scores for both systems in the table below.
Factor | Canopy | Jolie |
---|---|---|
Contaminant Reduction | 7.71 | 7.71 |
Filtration Rate | 10.00 | 10.00 |
Design | 7.20 | 7.20 |
Setup | 9.00 | 9.00 |
Maintenance | 9.50 | 9.50 |
Company | 8.80 | 8.35 |
Want to get a more detailed overview of our results? The next table displays all the scored subcategories that were combined and averaged to achieve the overall scores for each category.
Factor | Canopy | Jolie | Winner |
---|---|---|---|
Overall Score | 8.25 | 8.23 | Canopy |
Health Related Contaminants | 7.80 | 7.80 | Tie |
Aesthetic Related Contaminants | 9.90 | 9.90 | Tie |
Performance Certification | none | none | Tie |
Filtration Rate | 2.33 GPM | 2.20 GPH | Canopy |
Component Quality | Fair | Fair | Tie |
Component Certification | none | none | Tie |
Setup | Excellent | Excellent | Tie |
Servicing Requirements | Excellent | Excellent | Tie |
Costs | $0.012/ gal. | $0.012/ gal. | Tie |
Warranty Length | 1 year | 60 days | Canopy |
Shipping | $25 order threshold | Free for lower 48 US states | Jolie |
Returns | 60 days | 60 days | Tie |
🚰 Contaminant Reduction
We awarded the contaminant reduction scores for Canopy and Jolie by combining data from our own water testing (using city water from Steamboat Springs, CO) with official certifications from the WQA, NSF, or IAMPO.
Our Lab Test Results
We tested two samples of water to see how the Canopy and Jolie shower filters affected our water quality:
- An unfiltered water sample
- A water sample taken from our shower after installing each filter
We used a lab testing service called Tap Score by Simplelab, which mailed us kits to take our samples before sending them back to the lab.
When analyzing our data, we compared our results to the testing lab’s Health Guideline Levels, or HGLs. This helped us to understand the safety of the concentrations of contaminants detected in our water.
A couple of testing notes that are important for this specific comparison:
- First, since the Canopy and Jolie filters are designed to filter shower water (not drinking water), we were most concerned about the contaminants in our water that pose risk of inhalation and dermal exposure, rather than ingestion. The key contaminants we focused on were chlorine, disinfection byproducts (DBPs), and water hardness.
- Second, we decided to test cold water, even though most of us shower in hot water. This was because we wanted to get an accurate measurement of the disinfection byproducts in our water, which are highly volatile and dissipate into the air quickly, particularly from hot water.
- Since these can be harmful when inhaled, it was important for us to test how effectively each filter could address them.
Below, we’ve shared the percent reduction of the contaminants in our water by Canopy and Jolie.
Contaminant Name | Type | Unit | Unfiltered | Canopy | Difference | Jolie | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arsenic | Metals | PPM | 0.0002311 | 0.000448 | 93.86% | 0.0002047 | -11.42% |
Barium | Metals | PPM | 0.03189 | 0.03204 | 0.47% | 0.03227 | 1.19% |
Bicarbonate | Minerals | PPM | 148.14 | 148.22 | 0.05% | 144.92 | -2.17% |
Boron | Inorganics | PPM | 0.01897 | 0.01374 | -27.57% | 0.01244 | -34.42% |
Bromochloromethane | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 0.25 | 0.2 | -20.00% | 0.14 | -44.00% |
Bromodichloromethane | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 2.62 | 5.26 | 100.76% | 2.96 | 12.98% |
Bromoform | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 0.09 | #DIV/0! | 0.08 | #DIV/0! | |
Calcium | Minerals | PPM | 34.43656 | 40.02903 | 16.24% | 34.27139 | -0.48% |
Carbonate | Minerals | PPM | 1.68 | 0.52 | -69.05% | 0.86 | -48.81% |
Chloride | Inorganics | PPM | 19.881 | 21.01 | 5.68% | 21.153 | 6.40% |
Chloroform | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 5.47 | 16.02 | 192.87% | 4.19 | -23.40% |
Cobalt | Metals | PPM | 0.000004 | 0.000004 | 0.00% | 0.000004 | 0.00% |
Copper | Metals | PPM | 0.07381 | 0.09762 | 32.26% | 0.02928 | -60.33% |
Dibromochloromethane | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 0.74 | 1.43 | 93.24% | 1.03 | 39.19% |
Fluoride | Inorganics | PPM | 0.004 | 0.231 | 5675.00% | 0.245 | 6025.00% |
Grains per gallon | Properties | Grains | 7.49 | 8.42 | 12.42% | 7.45 | -0.53% |
Hardness | Properties | PPM | 127.82 | 142.51 | 11.49% | 126.62 | -0.94% |
Hardness (Ca,Mg) | Properties | PPM | 127.82 | 142.51 | 11.49% | 126.62 | -0.94% |
Hardness (Total) | Properties | PPM | 128.19 | 144.15 | 12.45% | 127.56 | -0.49% |
Iron | Metals | PPM | 0.00072 | 0.00072 | 0.00% | 0.00072 | 0.00% |
Lead | Metals | PPM | 0.0002713 | 0.0013676 | 404.09% | 0.0001689 | -37.74% |
Lithium | Metals | PPM | 0.00421 | 0.00403 | -4.28% | 0.00398 | -5.46% |
Magnesium | Minerals | PPM | 10.15845 | 10.33339 | 1.72% | 9.96807 | -1.87% |
Manganese | Metals | PPM | 0.00007 | #DIV/0! | 0.00007 | #DIV/0! | |
Molybdenum | Metals | PPM | 0.0002244 | 0.0002972 | 32.44% | 0.0002203 | -1.83% |
Nickel | Metals | PPM | 0.0004253 | 0.000103 | -75.78% | 0.000103 | -75.78% |
Nitrate (as N) | Inorganics | PPM | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.00% | 0.006 | 0.00% |
pH | Properties | pH | 8.39 | 7.88 | -6.08% | 8.11 | -3.34% |
Phosphorus | Inorganics | PPM | 0.00587 | 0.00587 | 0.00% | 0.00587 | 0.00% |
Potassium | Minerals | PPM | 2.01457 | 1.98126 | -1.65% | 1.98357 | -1.54% |
Sodium | Minerals | PPM | 12.2439 | 12.38306 | 1.14% | 12.14987 | -0.77% |
Strontium | Metals | PPM | 0.18737 | 0.18557 | -0.96% | 0.18462 | -1.47% |
Sulfate | Inorganics | PPM | 19.887 | 36.293 | 82.50% | 21.748 | 9.36% |
Thallium | Metals | PPM | – | – | – | 0.0000302 | #DIV/0! |
Total Dissolved Solids | Properties | PPM | 206.7 | 236.9 | 14.61% | 212.5 | 2.81% |
Total THMs | Disinfection Byproducts | PPB | 8.83 | 22.8 | 158.21% | 8.26 | -6.46% |
Uranium | Metals | PPM | 0.0005325 | 0.0005397 | 1.35% | 0.0005569 | 4.58% |
Vanadium | Metals | PPM | 0.000166 | 0.000166 | 0.00% | 0.000166 | 0.00% |
Zinc | Metals | PPM | 0.00919 | 0.81767 | 8797.39% | 0.42455 | 4519.70% |
Canopy and Jolie got identical scores here. They both eliminated chlorine, but neither had an effect on water hardness or DBP concentrations, and neither score was brought up by a performance certification.
Health-Related Contaminants
Both filters performed similarly when it came to reducing health-related contaminants in our water.
There were a handful of contaminants with possible health effects detected in our shower water. We were specifically concerned about chlorine and four disinfection byproducts (see the table below for their detections).
Three of the four DBPs exceeded the lab’s Health Guideline Level, meaning they were present in potentially health-harmful concentrations. Bromochloromethane was detected in concentrations below the Reporting Limit, so it was unable to be evaluated.
Contaminant | Measurement | Detection | HGL |
---|---|---|---|
Bromochloromethane | PPB | 0.25 | 0 |
Bromodichloromethane | PPB | 2.62 | 0 |
Chloroform | PPB | 5.47 | 0.22 |
Dibromochloromethane | PPB | 0.74 | 0.1 |
Total THMs | PPB | 8.83 | 0.32 |
Starting with the Canopy Filtered Showerhead, this filter completely eliminated the chlorine detected in our water, but it didn’t reduce DBPs—in fact, total THMs actually increased by 158%.
We believe this is an incidental increase due to fluctuations in the DBPs in our water and simply tells us that the filter was unable to reduce them.
We did notice a few unusual outcomes: there was a 32% increase in copper and the massive 8,797% increase in zinc in our filtered water (still within the HGL for both). We think these contaminants leached from the KDF media, and the good news is that they’re not known to have health effects through dermal exposure or inhalation.
Additionally, arsenic increased by 93%, and fluoride increased by 5,675%. Again, we think these were incidental fluctuations in our water supply throughout the day of testing.
Our results also highlighted a 404% increase in lead. In this case, we are concerned that such a substantial increase in lead could point towards leaching from the filter itself, but we can’t confirm this until we conduct further, comprehensive testing.
As for the Jolie Filtered Showerhead, this filter also eliminated chlorine, but, like the Canopy filter, it didn’t affect the DBP concentrations in our water. Again, a couple of THMs actually increased post-filtration.
Another similarity we noted was that the levels of zinc in our filtered water from the Jolie unit had also increased, this time by over 4,500%. Interestingly, in this case, copper actually decreased by 60%.
The concentrations of fluoride in our filtered water also increased by 6,025%, likely incidentally, and we’re not concerned about its effects in shower water.
Water Hardness
Hard water has hair and skin effects in shower water, so we also tested for water hardness pre- and post-filtration.
Our unfiltered water sample had a total hardness reading of 128.19 PPM, or 7.49 GPG, putting it in the “hard” category. We also performed a more precise onsite titration test, which detected a hardness of 8 GPG.
Canopy’s manufacturers claim that it can reduce magnesium and calcium carbonate…
….but we didn’t see these results in our testing: magnesium wasn’t reduced at all, while calcium increased by 16%. Carbonate did decrease by 69%, but total hardness increased by 12.45%, so the filter clearly does not address water hardness.
The Jolie filter didn’t reduce water hardness either, but at least Jolie didn’t make misleading claims about hard water reduction.
Contaminant | Measurement | Unfiltered | Canopy | Difference | Jolie | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Calcium | PPM | 34.43656 | 40.02903 | 16.24% | 34.27139 | -0.48% |
Grains per gallon | Grains | 7.49 | 8.42 | 12.42% | 7.45 | -0.53% |
Hardness (Total) | PPM | 128.19 | 144.15 | 12.45% | 127.56 | -0.49% |
Magnesium | PPM | 10.15845 | 10.33339 | 1.72% | 9.96807 | -1.87% |
Performance Certifications
Neither Canopy nor Jolie have been certified for contaminant reduction, which puts them behind compared to many other shower filters on the market. NSF/ANSI 177 for chlorine reduction is the most common certification that showerhead filters can obtain.
Canopy simply claims that its filters have been tested to NSF 177 Standards, which could be confusing to somebody with limited knowledge of how certifications are obtained.
Jolie’s claims are bolder and downright misleading: the product page mentions that the Jolie model “far exceeds certifications” and has been “tested in multiple labs”, and the FAQs state that the filter “uses best-in-class filter technology and is NSF Certified”.
🚦Filtration Rate
We timed how long it took for Canopy and Jolie to filter two cups of water. We repeated the test three times for each filter, then took the average time for each and converted it into a flow rate in gallons per minute (GPM).
Here’s how both systems matched up.
Product | Filtration Rate Score | Filtration Rate |
---|---|---|
Canopy | 10.00 | 2.33 GPM |
Jolie | 10.00 | 2.20 GPM |
Both products were among those with the fastest flow rates of all the shower filters we tested. Canopy was slightly faster, although there wasn’t much in it.
The Canopy Showerhead Filter had a filtration rate of 2.33 GPH, based on its ability to fill 2 cups of filtered water in an average time of 3.22 seconds.
The Jolie Showerhead Filter took an average time of 3.42 seconds to fill 2 cups of water, so its flow rate came in at 2.20 GPM.
We tested both filters while they were still quite new, so it’s likely that their flow rates will decrease over time as their media becomes clogged with contaminants. But in our testing, neither filter affected our showerhead water pressure and we were still able to enjoy a power shower.
💲 Upfront Cost
In terms of their upfront cost, both Jolie and Canopy are selling shower filters with a high price tag.
At the time of publishing this review, Canopy’s Showerhead Filter is selling for $150, while Jolie’s is even steeper, at $165.
For some perspective, the other similar filters we tested ranged in price from $35 to $119. Since the Canopy and Jolie filters use the same filtration media as many of these other shower filters, and don’t offer any specific features or benefits that make them unique, we don’t think their expensive upfront costs are worth it.
Product | Upfront Cost | Replacement Filter Cost/ gal. |
---|---|---|
Shower Stick | $375.00 | $0.002 |
Jolie | $165.00 | $0.012 |
Canopy | $150.00 | $0.012 |
Aquasana | $119.99 | $0.006 |
Weddell | $89.99 | $0.003 |
Hello Klean | $87.00 | $0.015 |
Berkey | $60.00 | $0.003 |
AquaBliss | $59.95 | $0.002 |
Sprite | $35.00 | $0.002 |
📐 Design
As for design, here’s where we’re finally seeing a handful of differences between the two systems.
Both are a similar size, and both combine the filter and showerhead in one unit, but they look different. The Canopy filter is a funnel shape, while the Jolie filter has a cylindrical compartment that stores the filter, attached on the back of a round, flat showerhead.
Canopy also has something that the Jolie filter doesn’t: an included aroma kit, with a felt diffuser that you soak with essential oil and hang from your shower.
They’re both available in several different finishes and colors, and both have a similar look and feel—kinda flimsy and plasticy—in terms of component quality. Neither is certified for materials safety, so again, quite disappointing.
In terms of filter materials, they’re similar here, too. The Canopy filter contains granular activated carbon, KDF-55, and calcium sulfite media, while the Jolie filter uses KDF-55 and calcium sulfite, so no activated carbon.
KDF, calcium sulfite, and activated carbon are all known for their chlorine reduction abilities, which is a good start. But both of these filters would be improved by using a solid carbon block filter, which would mean they could also target disinfection byproducts.
Product | Design Score | Component Quality | Materials Safety |
---|---|---|---|
Canopy | 7.20 | Fair | Not certified |
Jolie | 7.20 | Fair | Not certified |
⚙️ Setup
So both filters were quick and easy to install in our testing, taking less than 5 minutes and involving a few basic steps, no tools required.
Canopy says you should prime the filter by running water through it for 30 seconds, while Jolie doesn’t mention priming, so we assume the filter just gets primed when you turn your shower on and wait for the water to warm up.
Product | Setup Score | Setup Time |
---|---|---|
Canopy | 9.00 | <5 minutes |
Jolie | 9.00 | <5 minutes |
🔧 Maintenance
It’s also important to compare the ongoing maintenance requirements for each system, since this affects how much they’re gonna cost in the long run.
The good news is that shower filters are super simple to look after. You just replace the filter and clean the exterior as you’d clean any normal shower head.
Canopy and Jolie both have a filter lifespan of 3,000 gallons, or around three months.
This is half the average six-month lifespan claimed by many other shower filter manufacturers, but they’re both still very affordable to maintain, with their ongoing costs coming in at $0.012 per gallon.
Replacing the filters in both units was easy, too—Canopy has a removable front that pops off, while Jolie’s showerhead can be unscrewed, giving you access to the filter.
Product | Maintenance Score | Servicing Requirements | Costs |
---|---|---|---|
Canopy | 9.50 | Excellent | $0.012/ gal. |
Jolie | 9.50 | Excellent | $0.012/ gal. |
🏢 Company
Finally, I wanna talk about the companies behind the products and how they compare in terms of their policies and warranties.
Canopy leads the way with its 1-year warranty, which is actually one of the best warranties we’ve seen for a shower filter. It also has a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Jolie’s 60-day returns period is the only “warranty” it has, so it doesn’t match up to Canopy here.
But, Jolie has the better shipping offering, with free shipping to customers in all contiguous United States. Canopy only offers free shipping on orders over $25, so not quite as good—especially when a single-filter replacement is below the free shipping threshold at $25.
Product | Company Score | Warranty Length | Shipping | Returns |
---|---|---|---|---|
Canopy | 8.80 | 1 year | Free to US on orders over $25 | 60 days |
Jolie | 8.35 | 60 days | Free shipping to the lower 48 states | 60 days |
🧠 Our Consensus
So what do I ultimately think about these two filters?
In my opinion, neither is worth your money unless there is something specific that you just happen to love about their design that you can’t find for a more affordable cost elsewhere.
A shower filter should primarily serve a practical purpose, but Canopy and Jolie are marketing their filters as beauty products.
Why?
Because the beauty industry is booming. These brands have obviously done their research and made a deliberate decision to target people who might not buy a shower filter for health reasons, but will spend money to improve the appearance of their hair or skin.
I personally don’t like how these filters are marketed, especially given how much more expensive they are than other products that do exactly the same thing.
I don’t think it’s worth spending upwards of $150 on either of these systems—not even for the novelty of Canopy’s scent diffuser, which is basically its only unique feature. I mean, I can just use scented shower gel like I do anyway…