LARQ vs Brita: A Data Driven Comparison

In our testing, LARQ was better at reducing most contaminants in our water and provided the reassurance of protection against microorganisms in our filtered water, but Brita has a performance certification and had a much faster filtration rate.

📊 Our Testing Data

At Water Filter Guru, we personally test every single water filter mentioned in our reviews.

We test 6 different factors that impact the performance, quality, and value of the filter. Here are the scores that LARQ and Brita achieved across the testing categories:

Factor	LARQ	Brita
Contaminant Reduction	8.14	4.29
Filtration Rate	7.00	10.00
Design	8.10	8.80
Setup	9.00	9.50
Maintenance	9.00	9.75
Company	8.35	8.50

If you want to know exactly what data went into the overall performance scores for the pitchers, you’ll find it in the next table. 

Factor	LARQ	Brita	Winner
Overall Score	8.21	6.59	LARQ
Health Related Contaminants	8.30	3.50	LARQ
Aesthetic Related Contaminants	9.90	9.90	Tie
Performance Certification	None	NSF/ANSI 42, 53 & 401	Brita
Filtration Rate	0.60 GPH	2.92 GPH	Brita
Component Quality	Outstanding	Fair	LARQ
Component Certification	Not Certified	NSF/ANSI 42, 53	Brita
Setup	Excellent	Outstanding	Brita
Servicing Requirements	Exceptional	Outstanding	LARQ
Costs	$0.54/ gal	$0.17/ gal	Brita
Warranty Length	1 year	1 year	Tie
Shipping	Free on orders over $80 within the contiguous US	$35 order threshold	Tie
Returns	30 days, but only if unopened	30 days	Brita

🚰 Contaminant Reduction

The reason why you want to buy a water filter is to reduce contaminants in your water, so contaminant reduction was our number-one testing priority. 

Rather than rely solely on the manufacturers’ performance claims and third-party testing sheets, we obtained our own data from testing our water quality at home. 

We also looked for official performance certifications from the WQA, NSF, or IAPMO, which are more legitimate and reassuring than third-party test data.

Our Lab Test Results

We used Tap Score tests by SimpleLab to test our unfiltered water and the filtered water from the Brita Elite and LARQ PureVis pitchers. Our test results were delivered in the form of an interactive report for each water sample we tested. 

Using these reports, we were able to see which contaminants were detected in our unfiltered water, and how the two filters had altered the concentrations of these contaminants. 

We used Tap Score’s Health Guideline Levels (HGLs), which are stricter than the federal MCLs, when analyzing our water quality. 

Take a look at our test data in the next table.

The LARQ pitcher did a much better job at reducing the majority of contaminants in our water compared to Brita. But Brita doesn’t claim that the Elite filter can reduce many of these impurities, nor is the filter tested or certified to reduce these. 

We think Brita’s contaminant reduction score would have been higher if we used the pitcher to filter a water supply containing contaminants that it is tested to reduce. 

That’s why testing your water beforehand is so important, so you can buy a filter that’s designed to address your unique water quality issues.    

Health-Related Contaminants

First, we analyzed our test reports to see which health-related contaminants our water contained, and how LARQ and Brita compared in reducing these. 

Our test water was treated groundwater from a shared well, which contained 8 contaminants with possible health effects.  

Of these, there were two impurities – fluoride and uranium – that were detected at levels above the HGL. We were particularly looking to reduce these, at least down to safe concentrations, although ideally, we wanted to eliminate them entirely. 

Here’s the full list of contaminants detected in our water.

The LARQ PureVis pitcher reduced 100% uranium, barium, strontium, and molybdenum, as well as 97% copper, 88% sulfate, and 20% nitrate. We were disappointed to see that it didn’t reduce fluoride, but LARQ doesn’t claim fluoride reduction. 

The Brita pitcher performed more poorly than LARQ, only reducing 26% uranium, 13% strontium, 17% molybdenum, and 5% nitrate. And, like LARQ, it didn’t reduce fluoride. It did, however, reduce 100% barium and 97% copper, the same as LARQ. 

Aesthetic Contaminants

Our unfiltered water contained around 1 PPM of chlorine, which pulled down its aesthetic score in our testing. 

LARQ and Brita both reduced 100% of this impurity, bringing our water’s aesthetic score up to perfect. The pitchers both use activated carbon in their filters, which is the best solution for addressing chlorine-related tastes and odors.  

Minerals & Ions

We didn’t plan or expect to reduce healthy or beneficial mineral ions in our water. From experience, we typically find that only RO systems and those that use ion exchange resins reduce minerals due to the comprehensive nature of their purification process. 

So we were surprised to see that the LARQ PureVis pitcher reduced calcium by 83%, and magnesium by 93%, in our water. It also reduced around 50% sodium. We saw an increase in potassium from 0 PPM to 77.3 PPM in our filtered water, so we think the pitcher uses a cation exchange resin, which exchanges potassium with other ions. 

There were no surprising outcomes with the Brita Elite filter: it didn’t reduce the calcium and magnesium concentrations in our water.

We didn’t score the filters in this category, but we prefer the fact that Brita doesn’t reduce minerals given their taste and health benefits.  

Performance Certifications

We can only get so much information from our own water quality testing because our water contains just a fraction of the contaminants that exist today.

We place a lot of importance on official performance certifications because they provide proof that a filter can reduce contaminants that might not be present in our own water. 

A great example of this is the Brita Elite pitcher’s WQA and IAMPO certifications to NSF Standards 42, 53, and 401, for the reduction of 15 out of the 33 contaminants listed on the performance data sheet. These contaminants include BPA, Particulates Class I, asbestos, mercury, PFOS, and PFOA – none of which were detected in our own water. 

The LARQ pitcher currently isn’t certified – it only has third-party testing data, so we gave it a poorer score in this subcategory. 

🚦Filtration Rate

The LARQ PureVis and Brita Elite pitchers both use gravity filtration. We timed their filtration processes and measured them in gallons per hour (GPH). 

Product	Filtration Rate Score	Filtration Rate
LARQ	7.00	0.60 GPH
Brita	10.00	2.92 GPH

The LARQ PureVis pitcher was unexpectedly slower than many of the other pitchers we tested, filtering 0.281 gallons of water in 28 minutes and 6 seconds. This gave it a filtration rate of just 0.60 GPH.

On the other end, the Brita Elite pitcher had one of the fastest filtration rates of at 2.92 GPH, based on its ability to filter 0.391 gallons of water in 8:01 minutes. It filtered water almost five times faster than LARQ. 

We think a reason for Brita’s slightly faster filtration speed is that its filter has a simpler design, without the resistance of multiple different filtration layers and materials. But this doesn’t explain why LARQ’s filtration rate is so slow, given that many other water filter pitchers we tested had more comprehensive filter designs and still exceeded 2 GPH. 

💲 Upfront Cost

Brita and LARQ are on opposite ends of the scale when it comes to upfront cost, too. 

When we got the LARQ PureVis pitcher to test, it cost $139 including the Advanced filter (the Essential filter is cheaper but less effective). This is pretty pricey – all the other water filter pitchers we’ve tested so far haven’t exceeded $100. 

Brita is well-known for being an affordable brand, and the 10-Cup Tahoe pitcher cost $41.99 at the time of our testing. However, the included filter was Brita’s less capable offering, the Basic, so we ended up paying for the Elite filter on top of our initial purchase.  

Looking at value for money, Brita has the less impressive offering, so we wouldn’t expect to spend any more than we did. LARQ is the only pitcher we’ve tested to have a UV light, so again, it makes sense to us why this pitcher is more expensive. We think both systems are worth their price because they appeal to specific preferences and situations. 

Product	Price	Filters Included
LARQ PureVis	$139.00	2
Brita 10-Cup Tahoe pitcher	$41.99	1

📐 Design

LARQ and Brita don’t differ too much in terms of their key design components. Both are pitchers with similar water-holding capacities (LARQ holds 8 cups, while Brita holds 10 cups), and both have the same unfiltered water reservoir, which holds the filter at the bottom. 

There are only a few differences between the two: the LARQ PureVis pitcher also uses a UV wand, and we found that the Brita Elite pitcher’s design quality was inferior to LARQ’s.

The LARQ filter element is unique in that it is flat and doesn’t sit down in the filtered water.

Here are the design scores we awarded to each of the pitchers. 

Product	Design Score	Component Quality	Materials Safety
LARQ	8.10	Outstanding	Not certified
Brita	8.80	Fair	Certified

LARQ did better here because it has the better component quality, despite the fact that Brita is the only pitcher in this comparison with a certification for materials safety. 

Component Quality 

Water filters are typically made of plastic, and while we don’t expect them to be as durable as other systems (like stainless steel units), we still have high standards for their component quality.

The LARQ pitcher was one of two systems (the other being the Clearly Filtered pitcher) that met these high standards. 

There doesn’t appear to be information on LARQ’s website about its filter materials. We reached out to the company’s customer service, who told us that its filters are made from BPA-free PP (polypropylene), and the pitchers are made of BPA-free ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and SMMA (styrene methyl methacrylate copolymer).

We noted that these plastics felt thicker, sturdier, and better quality than the majority of the other pitchers we tested (which felt thinner and more brittle in comparison). 

Our Brita system also fell into this second category of pitchers. It’s made from polypropylene and SAN (Styrene acrylonitrile resin), and its plastics felt flimsier and poorer quality compared to LARQ’s. 

Plastic & Its Potential Setbacks

Despite the differences in their design feel and quality, LARQ and Brita both have one thing in common: they’re both predominantly plastic systems. 

If you want to avoid plastics because you’re concerned about microplastics leaching, you may want to look elsewhere. 

This is particularly our concern with the LARQ pitcher because UV exposure increases the leaching or formation of “problematic plastic-associated substances”. Note: We couldn’t find any studies that explicitly discussed UV exposure and plastic leaching from ABS and SMMA (the two plastics used in the LARQ pitcher). 

A few water filter manufacturers sell glass or stainless steel pitchers. Brita used to sell a glass pitcher, and you may find it sold by some retailers, but it’s no longer available on the company’s website. 

Filter Materials & Media

The type(s) and number of filter media used in a water pitcher filter affect its overall performance. 

Generally, the more filter media that are used in combination, the more thorough the filtration process, and the greater the number of contaminants that can be targeted. 

We saw a difference in performance between LARQ and Brita Elite, and we think this reflects the difference in their filter designs. 

The LARQ PureVis Advanced filter uses an activated carbon filter – and that’s the only filter media that’s disclosed by the manufacturer. We think the pitcher also contains an ion exchange resin because it reduced additional contaminants in our water that aren’t typically targeted by activated carbon, like uranium, barium, and molybdenum. 

What makes the PureVis pitcher unique is its UV wand, which exposes the filtered water to UV light. This helps protect the pitcher vessel from bacterial growth and also meant that we didn’t have to clean it as often.

The Brita Elite’s filter design, in comparison, is simpler. It uses activated carbon media, and again, Brita doesn’t mention any other media used in the pitcher. There could be additional media, but it’s difficult to say for sure because the pitcher didn’t effectively target many contaminants in our water. 

Materials Safety Certification

Materials safety certifications are one of our key scoring criteria within the design category. We value the reassurance that these certifications can provide in knowing that a water filter is safe and suitable for its purpose. 

The LARQ PureVis pitcher currently doesn’t have any design or materials safety certifications. 

The Brita Elite pitcher is certified for materials safety as a component of its WQA and IAMPO performance certifications, so it got the top score here.

⚙️ Setup

If you hate DIY and you’re looking for a water filtration system that’s pretty much ready to go out of the box, a water filter pitcher like LARQ or Brita is a great choice. 

The pitchers got similarly high setup scores, but Brita did best overall. You can see our results below. 

Product	Setup Score	Setup Time
LARQ	9.00	Around 15 to 20 minutes
Brita	9.50	Less than 10 minutes

There are a few basic setup tasks that we followed for the Brita Elite and LARQ PureVis pitchers: 

1. First, we unboxed the pitcher, reservoir, and filter. 
2. We placed the filter to one side and washed out the pitcher and reservoir in warm water with soap. 
3. Next, we prepared the filter following the manufacturer’s instructions. 
4. We could then start filtering our water. 

In terms of preparing the filters, the Brita filter was easiest here because we just had to hold it under running water for 30 seconds, while LARQ’s filter needed to be soaked in water for 10 minutes. We also had to filter and discard the first batch of water from our LARQ pitcher.

LARQ had a few additional, unique setup tasks because it uses a UV wand, which needed to be charged before use (we charged it overnight). You may also choose to download the LARQ app.

The app is currently not compatible with Android devices, so we downloaded it on an iPad. It gave us access to cool features that we don’t have when using a water filter pitcher alone, including water intake tracking. We could also track the filter life status and the UV wand’s battery life. 

Both of our pitchers had filter replacement indicator lights, which we set during the initial setup process so they’d accurately count down the filter lifespans. 

🔧 Maintenance

Easy maintenance is another reason why water filter pitchers are popular, and Brita and LARQ both performed well in this category. 

Here are the maintenance scores that the pitchers received. 

Product	Maintenance Score	Servicing Requirements	Costs
LARQ	9.00	Exceptional	$0.54/ gal
Brita	9.75	Outstanding	$0.17/ gal

This was another close outcome, but Brita got the highest score because it has a lower ongoing cost. 

Servicing Requirements 

The LARQ PureVis and Brita Elite pitchers use a single filter, and our main servicing task was to replace the filter every few months. 

Every replacement filter needed to be soaked (for LARQ) or rinsed (for Brita) using the same filter preparation steps that we’d followed in the setup process. 

The Brita Elite filter has the better capacity of the two (up to 120 gallons, which Brita says equates to around 6 months). The PureVis Advanced filter has half the capacity of Brita’s: 60 gallons, or up to 3 months. The filter lifespan depends on how much water you use and the quality of the water being filtered.  

There was an additional maintenance task for the LARQ pitcher only: charging the UV wand. We did this around once a month, or whenever the light on the lid flashed green.

We also washed out the pitcher and reservoir to keep them clean. For Brita, we did this once or twice a week. For LARQ, which has the UV wand in the pitcher vessel, we cleaned it around once or twice a month. Although LARQ protects against pathogens in the pitcher, scale and other debris can still accumulate, which is why we still cleaned it out occasionally. 

Maintenance Costs

We noticed a significant difference between LARQ and Brita when it came to their ongoing maintenance costs. 

The PureVis Advanced filter has an ongoing cost of $0.54/ gallon, so it’s up to triple the maintenance cost of most other pitchers we tested, including Brita. 

The Brita Elite filter is very affordable, with a long-term cost of just $0.17/ gallon. There are two reasons why the pitcher is so affordable: its filters have a long projected lifespan, and Brita replacement filters are cheaper than from many competitors. 

It’s worth noting that we upgraded the filters in both of these pitchers: we used the Advanced filter instead of the Essential filter in the LARQ pitcher, and we upgraded from the Basic filter to the Elite filter in the Brita pitcher. 

In terms of value for money, Brita is best if you’re looking for the longest filter lifespan and want to keep your maintenance spend to a minimum. 

But we want to reiterate the importance of knowing what your water contains. Despite having a higher ongoing cost, the LARQ pitcher may be the best value for you if your water contains impurities that LARQ, not Brita, targets. LARQ is also best if you want to protect your filtered water from pathogens – a benefit that Brita doesn’t offer.

🏢 Company

We know the importance of being able to trust the company behind the product: the reassurance in knowing that your purchase is protected with some form of warranty, and the clarity of fair and transparent shipping and returns policies. 

We’ve compared LARQ and Brita as companies in this category.

Product	Company Score	Warranty Length	Shipping	Returns
LARQ	8.35	1 year	Free on orders over $80 within the contiguous US	30 days, but only if unopened
Brita	8.50	1 year	$35 order threshold	30 days

Both got similar company scores, but Brita’s overall score was slightly higher due to its better returns offering. 

Warranty Length 

LARQ and Brita offer the same 1-year warranty, which is better than the warranties offered by many other water filter pitcher manufacturers (typically spanning 30-90 days). We’re particularly pleased with this offering from Brita given that its pitchers are cheaper and less high-end than LARQ’s. 

Shipping 

Both manufacturers tied in the shipping category, too. They offer free shipping, but only if customers reach a certain order threshold. 

LARQ offers free shipping for orders above $80 within the contiguous US, while Brita’s minimum spend is lower: $35. 

Keep in mind that LARQ’s pitchers are more expensive than Brita’s, and for both manufacturers, you’ll get free shipping on your initial pitcher purchase. But you’ll probably have to pay a shipping fee for replacement filters unless you buy them elsewhere.

Returns

LARQ and Brita both offer a 30-day returns policy, which is pretty standard for water filter pitchers. 

However, Brita got the higher score in this category because we identified a flaw with LARQ’s returns: the product must be unused and in its original packaging for a full refund to be issued. This defeats the purpose of the return policy because it means the customer can’t actually test the product. 

⛔️ System Setbacks & Flaws

We always aim to present a fair and balanced argument when we’re comparing water filters, and that means evaluating their flaws and setbacks, too. 

Here are the features of the LARQ and Brita pitchers that we were less impressed with.

LARQ PureVis Setbacks

• Expensive – The LARQ PureVis pitcher is more than three times the price of Brita’s offering, both upfront and for ongoing maintenance.   
• Not certified – Unlike Brita, LARQ’s Advanced filter doesn’t have any performance or materials safety certifications. 
• App compatibility issue  – We were disappointed that we couldn’t use the LARQ app on our Android phone; only our iPad. 

Brita Setbacks

• Reduced fewer contaminants – The Brita Elite filter was unable to effectively address many contaminants in our test water. 
• No pathogen UV protection – Brita’s pitcher doesn’t have a UV wand. We were particularly concerned about pathogens in our filtered water as a result of biofilm buildup in the filter media (something that seemed more likely given that it can be used for up to 6 months). 
• Poorer design quality – We found the Brita pitcher to be thinner and flimsier than the LARQ pitcher. 

🆚 LARQ or Brita: Which is Best?

After our comprehensive evaluation of both water filter pitchers, which would we recommend for which situations?

You’ll Prefer LARQ If:

Go For the Brita Elite Pitcher If: