In this comparison, I will present a detailed analysis of the Winix 5510 and Shark NeverChange air purifiers to determine which is the better choice.
The Winix is a much larger unit with a higher CADR of 253 CFM (430 m³/h) and more advanced features. By contrast, the Shark NeverChange has a CADR of 97 CFM (165 m³/h) and comes with fewer smart options.
Both devices use high-quality filtration technology, though the Winix filters are slightly better.
Keep reading to see which purifier performed better in our tests and which one I ultimately recommend.
Our Verdict
By simply looking at the specification table, it’s clear which air purifier is the better choice and the winner of this comparison.
If there’s still any doubt, that would be the Winix 5510. It offers a much higher CADR, covers more than twice the room size, includes a variety of smart features, uses a True HEPA filter, and delivered outstanding results in all our tests.
If you have any questions about this comparison or about either of these two devices, feel free to leave a comment below.
Specs: Shark NeverChange HP152 Vs Winix 5510
| Product Image |  28% off |  |
| Manufacturer | Shark | Winix |
| Model | NeverChange HP152 | 5510 |
| Dimensions (inches / cm) | 10.5 x 9.3 x 14.9 inches (26.7 x 23.6 x 37.8 cm) | 13.6 x 8.3 x 22.2 inches (34.6 x 21.1 x 56.4 cm) |
| Weight (pounds / kg) | 7.25 lb (3.28 kg) | 13.3 lb (6 kg) |
| Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) | 97 CFM (165 m³/h) | 253 CFM (430 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. | 150 sq. ft. (14 m²) | 392 sq. ft. (36 m²) |
| Performance Ratings Performance Ratings Score Summary: 8.3 - Average Score (102 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, Pet Particle Filter, Activated Carbon, and NanoSeal HEPA | Pre-filter, Activated Carbon Filter, True HEPA Filter, and PlasmaWave |
| Filter Replacement Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Filter Life | up to 5 years | up to 12 months |
| Power Consumption
Power Usage Summary: Our extensive testing of 102 air purifiers revealed the following power consumption insights:
Check out our power consumption calculator tool. | 26W | 65W |
| Operating Costs Ratings Operating Costs Ratings Score Summary: 8.8 - Average Score (102 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 | 5 - Speed 1, Speed 2, Speed 3, Speed 4, and Speed 5 | 5 - Sleep Mode, Speed 1, Speed 2, Speed 3, and Speed 4 |
| Air Quality Sensor Air Quality Sensor Summary: Out of 102 air purifiers tested, only 51 have the air quality sensor. | Yes | Yes |
| Air Quality Indicator | Yes | Yes |
| Auto Mode Auto Mode Summary: Out of 102 air purifiers tested, only 52 have auto mode functionality. | Yes | Yes |
| Smart App Smart App Summary: Out of 102 air purifiers tested, only 30 have smart app functionality. | No | Yes |
| Voice Control Voice Control Summary: Out of 102 air purifiers tested, only 29 have voice control functionality. | No | Yes |
| Other Features | Odor NeutralizationTimer | PlasmaWaveLight Sensor |
| Noise Level (low – high) | 40.4 – 62.4 dBA | 40.2 – 65.7 dBA |
| Noise Ratings Noise Ratings Score Summary: 9.2 - Average Score (102 products) 10 - Best Score (1 products) 7.6 - 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 Allergies Small Spaces Dust Children's Rooms Long Filter Life | Pets Living Rooms Kitchens Allergies Smoke Dust Neutralizing VOCs |
| Warranty | 2-year | 2-year |
| In-Depth Review | Shark NeverChange HP152 | Winix 5510 |
| Price |
Performance Test – Comparison
We tested the airborne particle removal performance of these two devices in rooms typically used for evaluating air purifiers with similar coverage.
In a 194 sq. ft. (18 m²) room, the Shark NeverChange improved air quality by about 92%, which is a very good result.
Particle Removal Tests - Comparison
We placed the Shark NeverChange HP152 and Winix 5510 in two separate tests and measured their performance using the Temtop laser particle meter.
However, in a 320 sq. ft. (30 m²) room, the Shark NeverChange achieved about a 90% improvement, while the Winix 5510 proved far more efficient, improving air quality by an impressive 96%.
Overall, the Winix demonstrated its true power and confirmed why it’s one of the best air purifiers we’ve tested so far. It’s clear that it captures airborne particles much more effectively than the Shark NeverChange.
Smoke Box Test – Comparison
We tested the Winix and Shark air purifiers in our smoke test, where we measured how long it takes each device to clear all the smoke from the glass box.
The Shark NeverChange needed much more time than the Winix to complete this test. It took 37 seconds to remove all the smoke, while the Winix needed only 20 seconds.
This is yet another test in which the Winix outperformed the Shark.
Noise Level Test – Comparison
When it comes to noise levels, the first thing to note is that both air purifiers have five fan speeds plus an auto mode.
We measured their noise output at each speed and compared the results.
At the lowest speed, the difference is negligible: the Shark NeverChange registered 40.4 dBA, while the Winix 5510 measured 40.2 dBA.
Noise Levels - Comparison
Comparison of noise levels at all fan speeds between the Shark NeverChange HP152 and Winix 5510 air purifiers.
At maximum speed, however, the results diverged. The Winix 5510 was louder at 65.7 dBA, compared to 62.4 dBA for the Shark NeverChange.
Overall, if you look at the chart with results on all speeds, you’ll notice the two models perform very similarly at lower speeds, with the Shark appearing slightly better optimized.
| Fan Speed | Winix 5510 (dBA) | Shark NeverChange HP152 (dBA) |
|---|---|---|
| Sleep Mode | 40.2 dBA | - |
| Speed 1 (Low) | 41.5 dBA | 40.4 dBA |
| Speed 2 (Medium) | 43.2 dBA | 41.3 dBA |
| Speed 3 (High) | 52.7 dBA | 50.9 dBA |
| Speed 4 (Turbo) | 65.7 dBA | 56.7 dBA |
| Speed 5 (Max) | - | 62.4 dBA |
However, when factoring in the CADR-to-noise ratio, the Winix actually comes out a bit more efficient, despite being noticeably louder at its top speed.
Operating Costs – Comparison
As expected, when it comes to power usage, the Winix relies on a larger and more powerful motor, which makes sense given its much higher CADR.
The Winix 5510 uses a 65W motor, while the Shark NeverChange uses a 26W motor.
If you were to run both air purifiers at maximum speed, 24 hours a day, for an entire month, your electricity bill would increase by about $4.68 with the Winix and about $2.24 with the Shark.
Monthly Power Consumption Cost - Comparison
Comparison of monthly power consumption costs for the Shark NeverChange HP152 and Winix 5510 air purifiers at all fan speeds.
In addition, there’s the cost of replacement filters. Winix filters are more affordable, while Shark claims its filters can last up to 5 years.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that such a small filter could last that long—you’ll most likely need to replace it more frequently.
| Fan Speed | Winix 5510 (W + $/month) | Shark NeverChange HP152 (W + $/month) |
|---|---|---|
| Standby | 1.1W ($0.01) | 0.3W ($0.03) |
| Sleep Mode | 3.7W ($0.32) | - |
| Speed 1 (Low) | 4.1W ($0.36) | 4.6W ($0.4) |
| Speed 2 (Medium) | 7.2W ($0.63) | 5.7W ($0.5) |
| Speed 3 (High) | 16.3W ($1.43) | 10.6W ($0.93) |
| Speed 4 (Turbo) | 53.4W ($4.68) | 16.1W ($1.41) |
| Speed 5 (Max) | - | 25.5W ($2.24) |
Because of this, I’d say that the Shark NeverChange could end up being more expensive to maintain in the long run compared to the Winix. Still, on a yearly basis, the overall maintenance costs of the two devices are fairly similar.
For comparing the noise levels I think it would be important to also supply the CFMs for each speed. I don’t see a way of getting that information from your review. Without the CFM figures, your evaluation of noise levels is worthless. I was not able to get the CFMs for each speed on the 2 units except for the maximum speeds. So… the Winix has a maximum CFM of 250 (65.7 dBA) while the Shark has a maximum of 98 CFM (62.4 dBA). Although the exact information is not available, I was able (with AI “using several reliable methods based on industry standards and performance data from very similar models”) to estimate that the Winix will supply approximately 85 CFM at low speed (41.5 dBA) and approximately 110 CFM at medium speed (43.2 dBA). Now… compare that with the Shark’s 62.4 dBA for 85 CFM. Which unit is quieter? By very far the Winix, hands down. I think you should add the CFM of each speed when you do a review.
Thanks for the feedback. You raise a fair point. I’ll consider including CFM data alongside noise levels in future comparisons to make them more useful.
Appreciate the suggestion.