The Philips Series 800 and Shark HP102 are two compact air purifiers, nearly identical in size and with very similar performance, making them ideal candidates for comparison.
The Shark HP102 is suitable for rooms up to 124 sq. ft. (11.5 m²), while the Philips Series 800 covers slightly larger spaces up to 176 sq. ft. (16 m²). Additionally, the Philips model features a more efficiently optimized motor of just 20W, which also has a better power-to-CADR ratio.
Both air purifiers use a three-stage filtration technology, including a pre-filter, HEPA filter, and activated carbon filter. They are both CARB-certified, don’t produce ozone, and are 100% safe to use.
Neither model offers a smart app, but both are equipped with an air quality sensor, an air quality indicator, and an auto mode feature. Below is a detailed specifications comparison of the two devices.
Our Verdict
What I particularly like about the Shark HP102, compared to the Philips, is its additional fan speeds, the use of a True HEPA filter, and its better display. It’s also slightly quieter.
However, the Philips Series 800 uses more affordable filters, has a better power-to-CADR ratio, and is much cheaper to maintain, making it the better option and my top recommendation.
If you have any questions about these two air purifiers, don’t hesitate to ask in the comment section below.
Specs: Shark HP102 Vs Philips Series 800
| Product Image |  |  |
| Manufacturer | Shark | Philips |
| Model | HP102 | Series 800 |
| Dimensions (inches / cm) | 8.7 x 8.7 x 14.6 inches (22 x 22 x 37 cm) | 14.4 x 9.8 x 9.8 inches (36.7 x 25 x 25 cm) |
| Weight (pounds / kg) | 5.85 lb (2.65 kg) | 5.3 lb (2.4 kg) |
| Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) | 80 CFM (136 m³/h) | 112 CFM (190 m³/h) |
| Coverage (4.8 ACH)
Room Coverage Explanation: ACH is a measurement used in indoor air quality management to indicate how many times the air within a defined space is changed/moved through the filter media.
For more details, visit our ACH calculator tool. | 124 sq. ft. (11.5 m²) | 176 sq. ft. (16 m²) |
| Performance Ratings Performance Ratings Score Summary: 8.5 - Average Score (67 products) 9.8 - Best Score (2 products) 2.5 - Worst Score (2 products) We use the Temtop LKC-1000S laser particle meter to test the particle removal efficiency of every air purifier. It measures PM2.5 (µg/m3), PM10 (µg/m3), Particles (per/L), and HCHO (mg/m3) in the air, and also calculates the AQI. You can read more about our testing methodology here. | ||
| Filtration Technology | Pre-filter, Activated Carbon Filter, and True HEPA Filter | Pre-filter, NanoProtect HEPA Filter, and Activated Carbon Filter |
| Filter Replacement Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Filter Life | 6-12 months | up to 12 months |
| Power Consumption
Power Usage Summary: Our extensive testing of 67 air purifiers revealed the following power consumption insights:
Check out our power consumption calculator tool. | 24W | 20W |
| Operating Costs Ratings Operating Costs Ratings Score Summary: 9.1 - Average Score (67 products) 10 - Best Score (2 products) 8 - Worst Score (1 products) We measure the power usage at all speeds using an energy meter, after which we calculate how much it would cost to use the device at a particular fan speed for one month. For reference, we use an energy price of $0.12 per kWh. You can read more about our testing methodology here. | ||
| Number of Fan Speeds | 4 – Speed 1, Speed 2, Speed 3, and Speed 4 | 3 – Sleep Mode, Auto Mode, and Turbo Mode |
| Air Quality Sensor Air Quality Sensor Summary: Out of 67 air purifiers tested, only 31 have the air quality sensor. | Yes | Yes |
| Air Quality Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Auto Mode Auto Mode Summary: Out of 67 air purifiers tested, only 32 have auto mode functionality. | Yes | Yes |
| Smart App Smart App Summary: Out of 67 air purifiers tested, only 20 have smart app functionality. | No | No |
| Voice Control Voice Control Summary: Out of 67 air purifiers tested, only 20 have voice control functionality. | No | No |
| Other Features | ECO ModeDisplay BrightnessDisplay LockTimer | N/A |
| Noise Level (low – high) | 41.7 – 56.5 dBA | 41.8 – 62.8 dBA |
| Noise Ratings Noise Ratings Score Summary: 9.3 - Average Score (67 products) 10 - Best Score (1 products) 8.2 - Worst Score (1 products) We use a special noise measurement tool to test the noise level of the air purifier at all speeds. We measured the noise level on the dBA scale. You can read more about our testing methodology here. | ||
| Best Suited For | Bedrooms Small Spaces Dust Children's Rooms Portable Use | Bedrooms Allergies Low Energy Cost Small Spaces |
| Warranty | 2-year | 2-year |
| In-Depth Review | Shark HP102 | Philips Series 800 |
| Price | Check Price on Amazon | Check Price on Amazon |
Performance Test – Comparison
These are two very small air purifiers with relatively modest CADR ratings. The Shark HP102 has a CADR of 80 CFM (136 m³/h), while the Philips is slightly more powerful, with a CADR of 112 CFM (190 m³/h). As a result, the Philips is better suited for larger rooms.
However, the good news is that we tested both devices in a 194 sq. ft. (18 m²) room, and both delivered excellent results. The test lasted 60 minutes, with both devices running at maximum speed the entire time.
Particle Removal Tests - Comparison
We placed the Shark HP102 Vs Philips Series 800 in two separate tests and measured their performance using the Temtop laser particle meter.
The Philips Series 800 reduced the amount of PM2.5 particulate matter from 93 to 6.5 µg/m³, resulting in an impressive 93% improvement in air quality.
The Shark HP102 achieved a similar result, reducing the amount of PM2.5 particles from 101.7 to 8 µg/m³, improving air quality by 92%.
Both devices performed exceptionally well in the tests, with the Philips showing slightly better results.
Smoke Box Test – Comparison
Given that the Shark HP102 has a slightly lower CADR than the Philips, I expected it to be somewhat less effective in the smoke test.
However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Shark cleared all the smoke from the glass box about 4 seconds faster. It took 29 seconds to clear the smoke, while the Philips Series 800 took 33 seconds.
This was a very close comparison, with both devices demonstrating outstanding performance in the tests.
The Shark had a slight advantage in the smoke test, while the Philips had a slight edge in the particle removal test, leading to the conclusion that these two models have nearly identical performance.
Leave a Reply