Best Steam Mops

Not all steam mops can sanitize

Steam mops are touted as a greener and safer way to clean as they use hot water rather than chemicals to kill germs. It's natural to assume that all steam mops can sanitize a bathroom or kitchen floor, but many models do not produce vapor that is hot enough to kill bacteria and dust mites. Though by definition to create steam the water has to reach its boiling point of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, by the time the vapor travels from the heating element to the floor, it may have cooled as much as 100 degrees. To kill dust mites, you need a temperature of at least 130 degrees, according to Environment, Health and Safety Online. While 165 degrees is the minimal goal to kill food-borne bacteria, boiling point, or 212 degrees, will allow you to kill a larger variety of bacteria according to the Centers for Disease Control. Some steam mops can only reach these temperatures at floor level if you hold the mop in one place for eight to 15 seconds. Therefore to sanitize effectively, mopping a whole floor can be a long, tedious job. It is also risky, since many manufacturers recommend leaving a steam mop in one place no longer than 15 to 20 seconds to avoid damaging the floor.

For example, in the instructions for the Eureka Envirosteamer 313A (*Est. $90) the manufacturer recommends holding the mop in place a minimum of eight seconds to sanitize. Another brand, Reliable, claims that its Steamboy T1 (*Est. $85) produces 248-degree steam, but the instruction manual says this temperature is achieved only after eight seconds in one spot. You can see how this would be impractical if you're trying to sanitize a large floor.

In addition, models such as the Bissell 1867-7 Steam Mop (*Est. $70), the Shark Steam Mop S3101 (*Est. $65), the Shark Steam Pocket Mop S3501 (*Est. $110) and the Reliable Steamboy T1 (*Est. $85) do not provide continuous steam and require a pumping action of the handle or the pulling of a trigger to release steam. While offering control over how much steam is released, this becomes quite tiring if you wish to sanitize with one of them.

Haan steam mops are the only sure exception to this, providing 212-degree continuous steam at the floor level -- hot enough to kill germs in just one second. You still have to mop slowly, but you can keep the mop moving rather than having to hold it in one spot. The steam is extra fine and comes through 15 equally spaced holes in the mop head, providing uniform sanitization. As long as you change the reusable microfiber pad when it becomes saturated, it is not apt to leave a floor too wet either. Pads attach quickly with hook and loop fasteners similar to Velcro.

As a result, the Haan FS-20 Sanitizing Steam Mop (*Est. $95) is the best steam mop if sanitizing is a priority. The Haan FS-20, which weighs just under 4 pounds (including a full water tank), has an adjustable handle, a cord that's nearly 20 feet long and a foot-pedal power switch. An optional short handle (*Est. $10) allows you to use the steam mop as a handheld steamer, useful for killing dust mites in bedding and upholstery and bacteria in the bathroom. You can use it on countertops, too, but not on a vertical surface like a tile wall. A carpet tray (*Est. $10) lets you use it to freshen carpets.

The Haan FS-20 steam mop is great for sanitizing, but this comes with some drawbacks. Reviewers say its nonswiveling mop head is difficult to maneuver around tight areas, plus there are some longer wait times. Startup takes about three minutes, and if you need to refill the water, you have to let the mop cool down for 30 seconds first. The Haan steam mop's water reservoir is on the small side at just under 12 ounces, but the steam is so fine that the FS-20 can work for 15 to 20 minutes between refills.

A detailed owner-written comparison review published at Amazon.com reports that the Haan FS-20 Sanitizing Steam Mop does clean better than both the Shark Steam Pocket Mop and the Eureka Envirosteamer. However, some complain that the power cord is too short, and there are sporadic reports of failure of the water sensor and power switch as well as breakage of the handle.

A newer Haan steam mop, the Haan SI-35 Slim & Light Sanitizing Steam Mop (*Est. $110), also sanitizes well and is gaining popularity. Though it does not receive as many reviews as its sister, the FS-20, on some sites the Slim & Light earns higher ratings. As implied by its name, the Slim & Light has a lower profile steam head, which allows it to better reach under appliances and furniture, but it is actually a pound heavier than the FS-20. While the FS-20 uses the water as a boiler tank to create the steam, the Slim & Light steam mop uses an internal pump and as such some users report it is noisier. There are not enough reviews to determine if this change in mechanism corresponds to any change in mechanical failure rates. The water tank is 2 ounces larger and removable in the Slim & Light steam mop, and it reportedly lasts for 20 to 30 minutes of cleaning. It still takes a similar three minutes to heat up, but you do not have to wait for the mop to cool down to refill the water.

So far, owners like the Haan SI-35 steam mop for its ease of use and cleaning capability. Though it comes with a carpet-tray attachment, the greatest drawback to the Slim & Light is its lack of a short handle attachment to clean countertops or upholstery. Given that the FS-20 is more versatile and cheaper than the Slim & Light, the Haan FS-20 remains our top choice for a sanitizing steam mop.

Nonsanitizing steam mops are quicker to use

If sanitizing is not a priority, the most popular and well-reviewed steam mop is the Bissell 1867-7 Steam Mop (*Est. $70). The Bissell 1867-7 (sometimes sold as the Bissell Green Tea steam mop), comes with just one rectangular head, doesn't have a carpet glider and weighs less than 7 pounds. However, reviewers like the way it pivots 360 degrees, making it easy to clean around tight areas like a bathroom. The 17.5-ounce reservoir provides about 15 minutes of cleaning time, but it does have to be removed each time to refill it.

To sanitize your floors with the Bissell 1867-7, you have to hold the steam mop in place for 15 seconds, compared to the Haan steam mop, which can sanitize in one second. The steam is only released from the Bissell 1867-7 when the trigger on the handle is pressed compared to the continuous release of the Haan FS-20. This gives you more control over when and how much steam you release, but some users complain that holding the trigger in the on position can be tiring, too. The steam only comes out through one hole on the bottom of the Bissell steam mop, and quite a few owners say it's tricky to get enough steam without getting the mop cover sopping wet. As such there are a number of complaints about the Bissell 1867-7 leaving a lot of water on the floor. The main drawbacks, though, are its relatively short 18-foot cord and the need to replace a filter (*Est. $12) every few months. It is recommended to use distilled water in all steam mops, but since the water flows past the heating mechanism rather than being directly heated in the tank like most steam mops, the Bissell 1867-7 is especially susceptible to mineral buildup. In addition, if you are tall, you may find the nonadjustable 45-inch handle too short and uncomfortable to use. Lastly the prices for the Bissell 1867-7 vary widely across the Internet, so it's worth your time to shop around.

A close second to the Bissell 1867-7 steam mop is the Eureka Envirosteamer 313A (*Est. $90). Comparison reviews praise the Envirosteamer for its sturdy build and its ease of use. At 5.4 pounds, it is hefty enough to apply pressure to difficult stains, but the Envirosteamer isn't so heavy that it isn't easily portable. The power cord is one of the longest at 25 feet, and its water tank holds 20 ounces. In a head-to-head comparison performed by "A. Chandler" at Amazon.com, this large capacity allowed the Envirosteamer to clean for more than 20 minutes before needing to be refilled, while the Haan FS-20 lasted for 15 minutes and the Bissell 1867-7 for only 12.5 minutes. Chandler also measured the steam from the Envirosteamer at 220 degrees F using a commercial thermometer, but the user's manual states that the Envirosteamer will produce steam at 170 degrees when left in place between eight and 15 seconds. So the Envirosteamer is clearly capable of sanitizing your floors, it's just unclear how quickly it will do it.

In About.com comparison reviews, the Envirosteamer is praised for its good cleaning ability on every hard floor surface tested (vinyl, ceramic tile, laminate and hard wood) as well as for its maneuverability and good edge cleaning. (Note: ConsumerSearch is owned by About.com, but the two don't share an editorial affiliation.) However some users at Amazon.com criticize the Envirosteamer for leaking water and leaving the cleaning pad sopping wet. Other users say this problem self-corrected after they had used their Envirosteamer a handful of times.

What about Shark steam mops?

Another choice for mopping a large area if sanitizing is not a priority is the Shark Steam Pocket Mop S3501 (*Est. $110). However, it costs more than the Haan steam mop, which does sanitize. Like the Haan FS-20 Sanitizing Steam Mop, the Shark Pocket Mop has an adjustable handle, but the longer 30-foot cord minimizes the need to move from one outlet to another. The 16-ounce reservoir gives 30 minutes of working time between refills, and steam is ready in just 30 seconds. The Pocket Mop is often sold with three different heads -- triangular, rectangular and an extra-large rectangular head -- plus four double-sided covers, a dusting cover and a carpet-glider attachment. The mop head not only pivots 180 degrees, but it also flips over, so when the microfiber cover gets dirty or soggy, you can flip it over to use the other side. (One reviewer at Amazon.com notes that this design means the steam mop has to be leaned against something; it won't stand up by itself.)

Shark steam mops take some effort to use because they must be pumped to emit steam. After the initial priming, the handle pumps easily whenever you push the mop forward, but reviewers say this does take some muscle. At 5 pounds for the Shark Pocket Mop it is also heavier than the Haan FS-20. Steam comes out through just one hole, like the Bissell 1867-7 Steam Mop, rather than 15 with the Haan FS-20, so the microfiber cover is apt to get soggy. This can result in streaks or floors left wet. Comparison tests at The Wall Street Journal find that the Shark Pocket Mop is better at cleaning stains than the cheaper Bissell 1867-7.

Owners reviewing the Shark Steam Pocket Mop give it high average ratings at several retail sites, including Target.com, Sears.com and BestBuy.com. At Amazon.com, owners aren't quite as enthusiastic, giving it a 4-star average on a 5-point scale, and only about 70 percent of reviewers are really happy with it. Detractors complain of poor cleaning, streaking and early breakdowns along with poor customer service from Shark. There is a high frequency of handles breaking with the Shark steam mops, perhaps due to the pumping action required to release the steam, but handle replacement kits can be purchased directly from Shark (*Est. $20 to $30). 

Worth considering both for versatility and good cleaning performance are the SteamFast Three-in-One Steam Mop SF-294 (*Est. $90) or its still-available predecessor, the SteamFast Steam Mop SF-292 (*Est. $85). Both of these 1,300-watt steam mops do triple duty as steam mops, fabric steamers and handheld steam cleaners. Steam output is adjustable, so you can use less steam on wooden or laminate floors, more on vinyl and tile. You can also dial it up to help remove stubborn stains. Many users say they set the steam even lower than specified in the directions, especially on wood floors, and still have good cleaning results.

The SteamFast SF-294 weighs 4.6 pounds with a full 15-ounce tank of water. The steam mop is ready to go in 30 seconds and can be refilled without waiting for it to cool down, though some say the refill process is awkward with the fill area at the bottom of the reservoir. Working time ranges from 16 to 25 minutes, depending on how you set the steam output. One owner notes that it cleans 1,200 to 1,400 square feet on one filling at the low setting. Another owner reports that the SteamFast steam mop cleans grout better than the Haan or Shark mops.

Owners like the versatility of the SteamFast SF-292, but many complain that the handle breaks easily and that both refilling the reservoir and changing the pads are awkward. The pads are supposed to be air dried, so you may need to keep a few spares on hand for larger cleaning jobs. The fabric and handheld steamers are tricky to use without dripping. The SteamFast SF-294 features an improved fabric steamer, but we haven't found any reviews of this yet; Good Housekeeping reports only on this model's superior performance as a floor mop and awards it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

SteamFast also makes a budget steam mop, the 1,000-watt SteamFast SF-140 Steam Mop (*Est. $50), designed only for use on floors. Like the SF-292, the handle is adjustable, but the steam output for the SF-140 is not and the water reservoir is half the size. The handle swivels but the mop head doesn't. Owners at Amazon.com say it takes two or three minutes to warm up. Coupled with the small reservoir, it can be frustrating to use except on small areas.