Homes and Gardens tested the Blizzard CX1 Cat & Dog in its test center, a Bristol pet shelter and the reviewer's home, and found some of the highest suction it had seen, with flawless pet-hair pickup from carpets and upholstery using the TurboTeQ floorhead. The weak spot was the hard-floor head, which pushed flour, cereal and lentils forward instead of taking them in, and the handle is heavy to lift. It suits pet owners with carpet who want a bagless canister and can live with its weight and price.
Full review
Suction and pet hair
Homes and Gardens tested the Blizzard CX1 Cat & Dog in its test center, in Bristol ARC (a local cat and dog shelter) and in the reviewer's own home. Its headline finding was suction: on the max setting the vacuum was so powerful that the floorhead almost stuck to the floor, and the reviewer listed it as some of the highest suction she had seen in a vacuum.
Pet hair was the strongest result. On low-pile carpet in the shelter it picked up every visible hair, crumb and stone, and on a thick rug the TurboTeQ floorhead cleared all the dirt and hair in a single pass. It also cleaned the shelter's high-friction entrance matting better than other vacuums the reviewer had tested.
Where the hard-floor head falls short
The weakness Homes and Gardens found is the non-brushed hard-floor head. With a cup of flour and sugar on wood and linoleum it pushed part of the mess forward and needed several more passes; with cereal and lentils the larger pieces did not fit under the head and much of the cereal was flung forward. With the floorhead removed, the bare wand took everything in, so the reviewer put the problem down to the head's small intake, not the motor.
Homes and Gardens tested the UK version, whose hard-floor head is the EcoTeQ; its Miele roundup notes that US Blizzard CX1 models ship with the AllTeQ head instead, so that specific result may not carry over exactly.
Handling, bin and maintenance
The reviewer called the heavy handle a major design flaw: lifting the handle, wand and floorhead for stairs and curtains took two hands, and the carry handle turns the canister on its side when lifted. The unit weighs 19 pounds by Homes and Gardens' spec table.
Upkeep was easier. The 2-liter bin emptied without anything sticking inside, the washable parts come apart easily, and the ComfortClean button blows fine dust off internal parts in about 20 seconds. The built-in dusting brush and onboard storage for the crevice and upholstery tools also drew praise.
Verdict and price
Homes and Gardens rated it 4.5 out of 5, calling pet-hair performance the real star while noting the almost-$1,000 US price. It is the only bagless model on this page, which matters for buyers who do not want to keep buying bags.
Strengths
- +Homes and Gardens measured some of the highest suction it had seen; on max the floorhead nearly sticks to the floor
- +TurboTeQ floorhead cleared a thick rug of dirt and hair in a single pass in Homes and Gardens' pet-shelter test
- +Bagless 2-liter bin; Homes and Gardens found nothing stuck inside it when emptying
- +ComfortClean self-cleaning clears fine dust from internal parts in about 20 seconds, per Homes and Gardens
Watch-outs
- −The hard-floor head struggled with large volumes of debris: cereal was flung forward and flour needed extra passes in Homes and Gardens' tests
- −Homes and Gardens called the heavy handle a major design flaw, needing two hands on stairs and curtains
- −Expensive: Homes and Gardens noted an almost-$1,000 US list price
How it compares
The Blizzard CX1 is the only bagless canister on this page; the Guard L1 Cat & Dog, Classic C1, SEBO Airbelt K3 Premium, Kenmore Elite 81714 and Eureka Mighty Mite all use bags. At 19 lb (Homes and Gardens' figure) it is heavier than the 15 lb Guard L1 Cat & Dog, which Homes and Gardens also tested and rated higher.
Rating sources
Counts as 4.41/5 in our score — this publisher's 25 scores on the site average 4.28, so its scores are adjusted down to compare fairly with other publishers.
Our 4.4 score is the average of the 1 scored review above, each adjusted for how strictly its publisher scores; 3 more reviewed it without printing a score and are not in the average. More about methodology.
