Scheppach WCR72 or Lubluelu CHYW201: which should you choose?
Comparison of the two window-cleaning robots using our catalogue's scoring criteria, value by value. Scores are relative to all the models we have analysed.
Scheppach WCR72
Main drawbackSmall water tank needs frequent refilling
Read the full analysis →
Lubluelu CHYW201
Main drawbackMains power makes cord routing part of every setup
Check price on Amazon → Read the full analysis →Our verdict based on your priority
- Priority: “Suction pressure”Lubluelu CHYW201 8.6 / 10 vs 7.1
- Priority: “Water tank capacity”Lubluelu CHYW201 9.5 / 10 vs 6.6
- Priority: “Backup battery holding time”Lubluelu CHYW201 9 / 10 vs 7.5
- Priority: “Equipment”Lubluelu CHYW201 8.9 / 10 vs 8.1
By criterion
| Criterion | Scheppach WCR72 | Lubluelu CHYW201 |
|---|---|---|
| Suction pressure | 7.1 | 8.6 advantage |
| Water tank capacity | 6.6 | 9.5 advantage |
| Backup battery holding time | 7.5 | 9 advantage |
| Equipment | 8.1 | 8.9 advantage |
A gap of less than half a point does not count as an advantage: our scores are relative to the catalogue, and using them to pick a winner would imply a level of precision we cannot offer.
Side-by-side specs
| Specification | Scheppach WCR72 | Lubluelu CHYW201 |
|---|---|---|
| Suction pressure | 2800 Pa | 6500 Pa |
| Electrical power | 72 W | Not provided |
| Water tank capacity | 35 ml | 160 ml |
| Backup battery holding time | 20 min | 30 min |
| Robot height | 6,8 cm | Not provided |
| Robot weight | 0,98 kg | Not provided |
| Noise level | Not disclosed | Not provided |
| Power supply during cleaning | Mains-powered | Mains-powered |
| Manufacturer's intended use | Household | Household |
| Compatible surfaces | Mirrors | Mirrors |
| Indoor / outdoor cleaning | Outdoor | Outdoor |
| Window compatibility | Framed | Framed |
| Spraying | Automatic | Dual spray |
| Control | Remote control | Remote control |
| Safety features | UPS backup battery | UPS backup battery |
Figures published by manufacturers and retailers, compiled in our reviews. “Not provided” means the figure could not be verified.
Which is right for you?
Scheppach WCR72
Leads on 0 criterion of 4 compared
- No numerical specification sets it apart in this comparison.
Lubluelu CHYW201
Leads on 4 criteria of 4 compared
- Water tank capacity: 9.5/10 vs 6.6/10 (160 ml vs 35 ml)
- Suction pressure: 8.6/10 vs 7.1/10 (6500 Pa vs 2800 Pa)
- Backup battery holding time: 9/10 vs 7.5/10 (30 min vs 20 min)
- Equipment: 8.9/10 vs 8.1/10
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comparison based on published specifications and our scores, calculated using the same criteria for every model. Our methodology →
Frequently asked questions
Which is rated higher, Scheppach WCR72 or Lubluelu CHYW201?
Lubluelu CHYW201 scores 9/10, compared with 7.3/10 for Scheppach WCR72, using the same scoring criteria.
Which wins on “Water tank capacity”?
Lubluelu CHYW201 wins on “Water tank capacity”: 9.5/10 compared with 6.6/10 for Scheppach WCR72. Recorded values: 160 ml versus 35 ml.
Which wins on “Suction pressure”?
Lubluelu CHYW201 wins on “Suction pressure”: 8.6/10 compared with 7.1/10 for Scheppach WCR72. Recorded values: 6500 Pa versus 2800 Pa.
Which wins on “Backup battery holding time”?
Lubluelu CHYW201 wins on “Backup battery holding time”: 9/10 compared with 7.5/10 for Scheppach WCR72. Recorded values: 30 min versus 20 min.
Which wins on “Equipment”?
Lubluelu CHYW201 wins on “Equipment”: 8.9/10 compared with 8.1/10 for Scheppach WCR72.