Water wastage is a significant problem with all RO water purifiers. Wasting water is criminal, especially in these days of water shortage. Therefore, consumers looking for RO water purifiers that promise less waste.

Some manufacturers like Kent take advantage of this and try to push products like Kent RO Water Purifier with Zero Water Wastage. But we have seen in our review how far-fetched Kent’s claims are regarding Zero % water wastage.

Pureit has introduced a new model, Eco Water Saver, which claims to reduce water wastage by nearly 60%. Though the water wastage percentage depends on the quality of the water source, we have tested the Pureit model and found that it wastes comparatively less water than other comparable RO water purifiers.

This article compared the Pureit Eco Water Saver with the Livpure Glo Pro++.

Pureit Eco Water Saver Vs. Livpure Glo Pro++

Installation – No issues

Generally, water purifiers today are flexible because you can either wall-mount them or place them on the kitchen counter without any problem. However, the Eco Water Saver model is bulkier than the Livpure Glo Pro++ appliance. Hence, it occupies more space.

The Eco Water Saver model requires an external pressure pump if the input water pressure is less than 10 psi. On the other hand, the Livpure machine can comfortably handle input water pressure of up to 5 psi. It needs a pump if the pressure reduces below 5 psi.

Livpure does not supply a sediment filter with the original packaging, whereas the Eco Water Saver model offers an extra sediment filter, free with the package. But that should not bother you because the sediment filters are inexpensive and cost less than Rs 700.

Installation-wise, these machines are equal in almost all respects.

Performance – Good

The performance of an RO water purifier depends on how much TDS levels in water it can handle comfortably. These water purifiers claim to purify water with TDS levels up to 2000 ppm. Usually, all water drinking sources in India have TDS levels of less than 2000 ppm. 

The Livpure Glo Pro++ and the Eco Water Saver work on a 7-stage water purification process that includes RO, UV, and UF. In addition, Livpure Glo Pro++ has a Taste Enhancer feature, whereas the Eco Water Saver features a Mineral Enhancer cartridge attachment. However, both have similar attachments, so there is little to choose between the two models on display.  

Water Wastage – Crucial aspect

Water wastage is a significant issue, especially when you have water shortages all around India.

Generally, all RO water purifiers waste large quantities of water while removing TDS.

The higher the TDS levels, the more the wastage.

HUL Eco Water Saver claims to use a unique technology that cuts wastage by 60%. We have tested the machine and found that water wastage is less but not as much as that claimed by HUL. However, a lot depends on the TDS levels in the input water source.

In contrast, Livpure Glo Pro++ offers no extra features to save water wastage. Therefore, the HUL Eco Water Saver model seems better equipped. So, if water saving is your prime concern, the HUL Eco Water Saver, with its Eco recovery technology, is a good option.

Water Taste Change – Similar performances

The RO water purification process removes TDS entirely from the source water because the RO membrane does not allow compounds with a molecular weight higher than 20 to pass through it.

Therefore, the membrane arrests heavy metal impurities like arsenic and lead. At the same time, it also prevents essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, etc., from passing through. So, the water taste after RO water purification is bland.

The Livpure Glo Pro++ model features a Taste Enhancer attachment comprising a mineralizer cartridge containing essential minerals for replenishment. The HUL Eco Water Saver model also features a similar internal attachment known as a Mineral Enhancer. In addition, the working procedures are similar. Therefore, after RO purification and passing through the mineralizer cartridge, the resultant water tastes good in both models.

Besides, both these models offer UV purification to rid the RO-purified water of all bacteria, viruses, and microorganisms to make it 100% hygienically safe to consume.   

Storage Tank Capacity – Depends on the family size.

Ideally, an RO water purifier must have a storage tank capacity of six liters to cater to the requirements of small to medium-sized Indian families. RO water purification takes more time than UV purification. Hence, storage capacity is crucial. The Livpure Glo Pro++ has a 7L storage tank capacity, whereas the Eco Water Saver machine features a 10L tank. Therefore, storage-wise, the HUL Eco Water Saver model is better.

However, smaller families and those having space constraints in the kitchen can opt for the Livpure appliance because it saves space.

Maintenance Costs – This can sway your decision.

Maintenance costs of RO water purifiers are high because replacing RO membranes frequently can be expensive. Besides, one must not use the cheap RO membranes available on the retail market. It is better to purchase branded RO membranes compatible with the machine. All RO water purifier manufacturers have their brands. Though they might be expensive, they are better in the long run.

RO membranes usually have a life of around 6000 liters of water purification. Therefore, the TDS levels in source water determine the frequency of replacing the RO membranes. HUL Eco Water Saver and Livpure Glo Pro++ have mineralizer cartridges requiring frequent replacement. Hence, the maintenance costs of both these machines are identical. But the Germ Kill Kit in the HUL model makes it more expensive to maintain.

Therefore, maintenance costs-wise, the Livpure Glo Pro seems a better machine.

LED Indicators – Similar features

The Livpure and HUL Pureit models have LED indicators indicating tank-full, machine-on, and filtration-process-on.

The HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver model has another LED indicator to alert users about GKK replacement. This feature is advantageous because it ensures maintaining the hygiene factor. You get alerts 15 days in advance to replace the GKK. The machine stops working if you do not do so on time. So, the HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver is better equipped than the Livpure Glo Pro++ model in this regard.  

Service-related issues – Location-specific feature

Service-related issues can be location-specific. Generally, Livpure and HUL offer excellent service during installation and maintenance. Sometimes, service personnel can force users to purchase sediment filters from them instead of from the market. However, you need not do so because the filters are cheaper in the market.

We did not experience such service-related issues during our testing of both machines.

Pricing – depends on your budget.

Pricing-wise, the Livpure Glo Pro++ is less expensive than the HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver model. The primary reason is that the HUL appliance has a higher storage capacity of 10L vs. 7L of the Livpure appliance. In addition, the Eco Recovery Technology makes the HUL machine more efficient than the Livpure Glo Pro++.

So if you are budget conscious and have a small family, the Livpure Glo Pro++ is a good choice. But if there are no budget constraints or your family is large, the HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver is ideal.

Final Thoughts

Performance-wise, there is little to choose between the Livpure and the HUL Pureit. Looks-wise, both the machines are attractive and suit your kitchen ambiance. Maintenance costs-wise, the Livpure Glo Pro++ is better, whereas the HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver machine is better at saving water.

Considering the water shortage in India, especially during summer, we recommend users go for the HUL Pureit Eco Water Saver. However, the Livpure Glo Pro++ is also a good machine in all respects.