My HAH powerhead for carpet is a "TurboCat." The website for that product says, "Will the Air Driven Power Brush clean as well as an Electric Powerhead? If the Turbocat Air Driven Power Brush is matched with the right Power Unit tests show that it�s performance is comparable to an Electric Power Head. The Turbocat has a higher life expectancy, higher brush speed than many electric power head�s, it is lighter, it has an automatic height adjustment feature, and it has the ability to clean closer to edges. In addition the Turbocat has a built in Performance Indicator. If airflow is restricted within the tubing or power unit, the Turbocat will slow down, indicating that the system is not operating at peak performance and should be checked." I have never used an electric powerhead to compare suction ability. My powerhead does a good enough job, but I imagine there is room for improvement....

HEPA is not a brand; it is a designation defining a standard of particulate removal efficiency. "By government standards, a HEPA air filter must remove 99.97% of all particles greater than 0.3 microns from the air that passes through." It is a proven standard that is reproducible and is not dependent upon the design of a central vac system that would be inherently variable depending on home design and quality of installation and implementation (actual suction of a central vac is dependent upon run length, tubing diameter and turbulence from non-straight runs) HEPA vacuum filtration has been proven in controlled trials (funded by the NIH) to mitigate allergen exposure specifically in asthmatic subjects. In fact, regarding vacuuming with a HEPA filtered vacuum: "The intervention was effective in improving measures of lung function, reducing the frequency of coughing, reducing the proportion of children requiring unscheduled medical visits and reporting inadequate use of controller medication." In order to claim that a central vacuum would be superior one would have to show that the act of vacuuming with a central vac would aerosolize fewer respirable particles than a portable vacuum and more effectively remove allergen from the environment. I can find no evidence of this and it is counterintuitive that it would, given that the suction of a vacuum is not the primary determinant of aersolization of particles; the act of vacuuming stirs up particles from the leading and trailing edges of the head while suction is directed perpendicular to the direction of movement and aerosolization. So, if they both aerosolize particles equally which one is better? I'll take the one that uses a standardized method of particle removal over one that is installation-dependent. I'll take an evidence-based, proven intervention over a "seems like that should work" intervention any day. Interestingly, HEPA-rated portable vacuums are also the standard for asbestos abatement and nuclear remediation. And I'll state most importantly that the person with the allergies should not be the one doing the vacuuming. Particles can remain suspended for 60-90 minutes after they are aerosolized so the allergic individual would ideally not be in the room for that length of time as well. Obviously the allergic person should not be emtying the bags or canisters whether in a central of portable vac. I always recommend that portable vacuums should be emptied outside as well.

I've had both and much prefer the rapid flex hose. The rapid flex hose seems to have more suction for some reason. I've had it over a year now with no damage to my woodwork (which concerned me as well not having a sock)...definitely go with the rapid flex. While not pretty, it does work better with the Turbocat than the grey sock covered hose.

Yes! We had a central vac before building a couple years ago and having the HAH installed. I loved my first central vac, but the HAH is even better. Don't have to find a place to store the hose or try to wrangle it into a neat coil to put it away. I would give up other wants in a house before I'd even consider not having a central vac and, definitely, the HAH.