Our Editorial Pledge
FilterOut operates independently. We don't accept payment from suppliers to appear, rank higher, or receive favourable coverage. Scores are determined entirely by the 10 criteria below. Suppliers are welcome to submit corrections to factual errors via the contact form — we review and update where errors are confirmed.
✓ No paid placements or sponsored rankings
✓ Scores sourced from publicly verifiable data
✓ WaterMark licence numbers independently checked
✓ NSF certification scope confirmed in NSF database
✓ Supplier errors corrected on request
✓ Scores reviewed quarterly
The 10 Criteria
Each supplier is scored out of 10 on every criterion. The final FilterOut Score is a weighted average. Criteria marked with ★ carry the most weight because they most directly affect long-term value and safety.
01
★ Certifications & Compliance
We verify WaterMark licence numbers directly against the ABCB register. NSF 42, 53, 58, and 401 claims are cross-referenced with the NSF International database. We explicitly distinguish between "WaterMark certified" (verifiable), "WaterMark components" (partial), and certification claims that can't be independently confirmed. A supplier who states certification but can't provide a licence number receives a lower score than one who never claimed it.
Source: ABCB WaterMark register · NSF International database
02
★ Filter Cartridge Compatibility
The most impactful long-term cost factor most comparison sites completely ignore. We document the exact filter cartridge format required for each system and whether standard aftermarket replacements exist. Standard formats (10" × 2.5", 20" × 4.5" Big Blue) score highly because replacements are available from dozens of suppliers. Proprietary formats score poorly because you are dependent on one supplier's pricing for the life of the system. This is the single biggest differentiator between AquaCo (score: 7.0) and Complete Home Filtration (score: 3.0).
Source: Supplier websites · Manufacturer specifications · Direct supplier inquiry
03
Filtration Performance
What contaminants are removed, and to what documented reduction percentage? We look for published test data, not just technology category claims. PFAS, heavy metals, chlorine, VOCs, and sediment are assessed separately. A supplier who publishes a tested 99.9% PFAS reduction to a named protocol scores higher than one who claims "removes PFAS" without documentation. We also note whether performance claims are self-reported or third-party verified.
Source: Supplier technical documents · NSF test reports where available
04
Total Cost of Ownership (3-year)
We model the 3-year total cost: system purchase + installation + filter replacements at the supplier's stated schedule at their stated price. For subscription models we extend to 5 years to capture lock-in cost progression. Figures are normalised to a per-year cost. Suppliers who don't publish pricing score lower on transparency, which also affects this criterion. Rental models are modelled and compared to equivalent outright purchase.
Source: Published pricing · Direct supplier quotes · Historical review mentions
05
Install Quality & Professionalism
Drawn from Google Reviews and ProductReview.com.au. We read a sample of 50+ reviews per supplier and code for installation-specific language: "professional", "punctual", "clean", "rushed", "left a mess", "wrong fitting", etc. We weight negative mentions more heavily than positive — one bad install mention in 50 reviews scores differently from twenty. We also check whether licensed plumbers are specified as default or optional.
Source: Google Reviews · ProductReview.com.au
06
After-Sales Support
Phone, email, and chat availability. Service response speed as reported in reviews. Warranty terms — what's covered, for how long, and what the process is. We specifically note whether warranty claims require ongoing subscription or servicing through the supplier (another form of lock-in). Owner-operated businesses score differently than franchise operations for service accessibility.
Source: Supplier websites · Review sentiment · Direct contact testing
07
Pricing Transparency
Does the supplier publish installation pricing openly? Are filter replacement costs stated with frequency? Are subscription or service contract terms clear before you contact them? Suppliers who require an enquiry for basic pricing information score lower than those who publish openly. This criterion specifically rewards honesty — a supplier who says "prices from $X, depending on configuration" scores better than one whose website has no pricing at all.
Source: Supplier websites at time of review
08
Flow Rate
Stated flow rate in litres per minute (L/min) under standard conditions. We note where figures are self-reported versus independently tested. We note the test conditions stated (or not stated). Flow rate matters most for large households or high-demand applications; it's less critical for 1–2 person households with standard usage. Scored relative to the range of products reviewed.
Source: Supplier specifications
09
Australian Made
We distinguish explicitly between three claims: (1) Designed in Australia — the lowest bar, (2) Assembled in Australia — components imported, assembled locally, and (3) Manufactured in Australia — actual production, not just assembly. Claims are cross-referenced against available evidence. "Australian-made" marketing language without documentation of what specifically is made here scores poorly. Only Cloudtap currently achieves the highest score on this criterion.
Source: Supplier websites · Direct supplier disclosure
10
Aesthetics & Product Design
Housing material quality, finish options, profile dimensions, and how the unit presents in a typical Australian home context. Scored from product photography, showroom visits where available, and customer review mentions of appearance. This is the lowest-weighted criterion because it's subjective, but it matters to homeowners and we assess it honestly. Cloudtap currently leads on this criterion due to Colourbond colour range and all-stainless profile.
Source: Product photography · Customer reviews · Showroom assessment
What the Numbers Mean
The FilterOut Score is a weighted average across all 10 criteria, scored out of 10. Here's a plain-English guide to what each range means for a home buyer.
| Score |
What it means |
Currently scored here |
| 9.0 – 10.0 |
Exceptional across almost every criterion. Verified certifications, no lock-in, strong reviews, transparent pricing. Would confidently recommend to any Perth homeowner. |
AquaCo (9.1) |
| 8.0 – 8.9 |
Very strong. May have one notable weakness (e.g. fewer reviews, premium pricing) but no red flags. Suitable for most households. |
Cloudtap (8.3) |
| 7.0 – 7.9 |
Good overall, with some areas to check before committing. May lack full cert documentation or have a pricing transparency gap. Worth a detailed read of the profile page. |
Water2Water (7.8), Integraflow (7.6), WFW (7.5), Pure4Sure (7.2) |
| 6.0 – 6.9 |
Has meaningful concerns that affect long-term value or safety. Not necessarily "avoid" — but you need to understand the specific issues before buying. |
Complete Home Filtration (6.8), Water Analytics (6.5) |
| Below 6.0 |
Significant issues across multiple criteria. We would not recommend without specific mitigating reasons. |
No current supplier |
Disclosure & Data Sources
Scores are researched from publicly available sources. We contact suppliers directly where data is unavailable online. We update scores when suppliers provide documented evidence of changes (new certification, updated products, etc.).
◆ ABCB WaterMark register (abcb.gov.au)
◆ NSF International database (nsf.org)
◆ Google Reviews (collected at review date)
◆ ProductReview.com.au
◆ Supplier websites (archived at review date)
◆ Direct supplier communication