When buying air purifiers, I not only review them individually but also compare them with other similar models in the same class.
That’s why, in this article, I’ll be discussing the Coway AP-1512HH and the Winix 5510.
These two air purifiers are quite similar, they cover similar room sizes and use similar filtration technologies, but there are some key differences as well.
They have completely different designs, but only the Winix 5510 offers smart features, and unlike the Coway, the Winix doesn’t produce ozone.
Our Verdict
Let me be clear: these two are among the best air purifiers we’ve ever tested. Both offer excellent performance, high build quality, premium filters, and pretty good features for the price.
However, I believe the Winix 5510 has a slight edge. It comes with a pellet-based carbon filter, has a more modern design, includes smart features, is easier and slightly cheaper to maintain, and has a slightly higher CADR.
If you have any questions about these two devices, feel free to ask in the comments section below the article.
Specs: Coway AP-1512HH Vs Winix 5510
| Product Image |  7% off |  |
| Manufacturer | Coway | Winix |
| Model | AP-1512HH | 5510 |
| Dimensions (inches / cm) | 16.81 x 9.65 x 18.30 inches (42.7 x 24.5 x 46.5 cm) | 13.6 x 8.3 x 22.2 inches (34.6 x 21.1 x 56.4 cm) |
| Weight (pounds / kg) | 12.8 lb (5.8 kg) | 13.3 lb (6 kg) |
| Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) | 233 CFM (396 mÂł/h) | 253 CFM (430 mÂł/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. | 361 sq. ft. (33 m²) | 392 sq. ft. (36 m²) |
| Performance Ratings Performance Ratings Score Summary: 8.3 - Average Score (91 products) 9.9 - Best Score (1 products) 1 - Worst Score (1 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, Deodorization Filter, True HEPA Filter, and Ionizer | Pre-filter, Activated Carbon Filter, True HEPA Filter, and PlasmaWave |
| Filter Replacement Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Filter Life | up to 12 months | up to 12 months |
| Power Consumption
Power Usage Summary: Our extensive testing of 91 air purifiers revealed the following power consumption insights:
Check out our power consumption calculator tool. | 77W | 65W |
| Operating Costs Ratings Operating Costs Ratings Score Summary: 9 - Average Score (91 products) 10 - Best Score (2 products) 1.7 - 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 | 3 – Speed 1, Speed 2, and Speed 3 | 5 - Sleep Mode, Speed 1, Speed 2, Speed 3, and Speed 4 |
| Air Quality Sensor Air Quality Sensor Summary: Out of 91 air purifiers tested, only 44 have the air quality sensor. | Yes | Yes |
| Air Quality Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Auto Mode Auto Mode Summary: Out of 91 air purifiers tested, only 45 have auto mode functionality. | Yes | Yes |
| Smart App Smart App Summary: Out of 91 air purifiers tested, only 26 have smart app functionality. | No | Yes |
| Voice Control Voice Control Summary: Out of 91 air purifiers tested, only 25 have voice control functionality. | No | Yes |
| Other Features | IonizerTimer | PlasmaWaveLight Sensor |
| Noise Level (low – high) | 41.4 – 63.5 dBA | 40.2 – 65.7 dBA |
| Noise Ratings Noise Ratings Score Summary: 9.3 - Average Score (91 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 | Pets Living Rooms Kitchens Allergies Dust | Pets Living Rooms Kitchens Allergies Smoke Dust Neutralizing VOCs |
| Warranty | 3-year | 2-year |
| In-Depth Review | Coway AP-1512HH | Winix 5510 |
| Price |
Performance Test – Comparison
As I already mentioned, these two air purifiers are designed for almost identical room sizes.
The Coway AP-1512HH has a CADR of 233 CFM (396 m³/h), which makes it suitable for rooms up to 361 sq. ft. (33 m²).
On the other hand, the Winix 5510 can cover rooms up to 392 sq. ft. (36 m²).
This provided an ideal opportunity to test both air purifiers in a room of the same size.
Particle Removal Tests - Comparison
We placed the Coway AP-1512HH and Winix 5510 in two separate tests and measured their performance using the Temtop laser particle meter.
We placed each in a 320 sq. ft. (30 m²) room, ran them at maximum speed for 60 minutes, and measured the results using a Temtop laser particle meter.
The result? Both air purifiers improved the air quality by an impressive 96%.
This confirms just how efficient these models are and why they consistently appear on our best-buy recommendation lists.
Smoke Box Test – Comparison
We placed both air purifiers in our smoke test, where we measured how quickly each could remove all the smoke from a glass box.
Although the Winix has a higher CADR, it was two seconds slower than the Coway.
The Winix 5510 took 20 seconds to clear the smoke, while the Coway AP-1512HH did it in just 18 seconds.
However, thanks to its superior pellet-based carbon filter, I would still consider the Winix 5510 the better overall option for neutralizing smoke.
Noise Level Test – Comparison
It’s unrealistic to expect slightly more powerful air purifiers like these two to be as quiet as some smaller models.
However, I must admit that both are very quiet at the lowest speed and are fairly well-optimized across all speed levels.
At the lowest speed, the Winix 5510 produces 40.2 dBA, while the Coway AP-1512HH produces 41.4 dBA.
Noise Levels - Comparison
Comparison of noise levels at all fan speeds between the Coway AP-1512HH and Winix 5510 air purifiers.
At maximum speed, the situation shifts slightly: the Coway produces 63.5 dBA, while the Winix reaches 65.7 dBA.
What sets the Winix apart in this comparison is its larger number of fan speeds, five in total, compared to the Coway’s three.
| Fan Speed | Winix 5510 (dBA) | Coway AP-1512HH (dBA) |
|---|---|---|
| Sleep Mode | 40.2 dBA | - |
| Speed 1 (Low) | 41.5 dBA | 41.4 dBA |
| Speed 2 (Medium) | 43.2 dBA | 44.6 dBA |
| Speed 3 (High) | 52.7 dBA | 63.5 dBA |
| Speed 4 (Turbo) | 65.7 dBA | - |
Because of this, I would say the Winix 5510 is slightly better optimized for noise overall.
Operating Costs – Comparison
When it comes to operating costs, I believe both devices could have been better optimized and equipped with more energy-efficient motors.
The Coway AP-1512HH uses a 77W motor, while the Winix 5510 uses a 65W motor.
This means that if you were to run both devices at maximum speed, 24 hours a day for an entire month, your electricity bill would increase by approximately $4.68 for the Winix and about $6.05 for the Coway.
Monthly Power Consumption Cost - Comparison
Comparison of monthly power consumption costs for the Coway AP-1512HH and Winix 5510 air purifiers at all fan speeds.
In addition to electricity costs, there’s also the cost of replacement filters.
On average, filters for both devices last around 12 months, though they are slightly more affordable for the Coway.
| Fan Speed | Winix 5510 (W + $/month) | Coway AP-1512HH (W + $/month) |
|---|---|---|
| Standby | 1.1W ($0.01) | 0.2W ($0.01) |
| Sleep Mode | 3.7W ($0.32) | - |
| Speed 1 (Low) | 4.1W ($0.36) | 3.6W ($0.31) |
| Speed 2 (Medium) | 7.2W ($0.63) | 8.1W ($0.71) |
| Speed 3 (High) | 16.3W ($1.43) | 69.1W ($6.05) |
| Speed 4 (Turbo) | 53.4W ($4.68) | - |
Still, the better-optimized motor gives the Winix 5510 an edge in this test, which is why I consider it slightly more cost-effective in terms of annual maintenance.
Leave a Reply