Oh, I know the struggle! I went through the same research recently. So, I’ve been using Aquaguard for about 2 years now, and honestly, I’m quite satisfied with it. A few things I can share:

1. Water Quality: Aquaguard uses advanced filtration like RO, UV, and UF, which has really worked well for us. I feel the water tastes clean and fresh.

2. Maintenance: This part can be a bit of a hassle. Aquaguard recommends servicing every 3-4 months, and they’re pretty proactive about reminding us. But each service costs a few hundred rupees if you’re not on an AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract). I do feel it’s a little high, but they respond quickly when needed.

3. Power Consumption: It does add a little to the electricity bill. Not a dealbreaker, but I didn’t realize this initially.

Overall, if you’re okay with regular servicing, Aquaguard has been reliable for me. But I’d love to hear if anyone else has used Kent, too—especially since that was my other option!

I’ll add my two cents since I’m using Kent and had a friend who owned an Aquaguard.

1. Filtration Quality: Kent uses a mix of RO, UV, and sometimes UF (depending on the model). I’m in an area with hard water, so the RO filter was important for us. I’d say Kent does a great job at filtering out dissolved impurities, and we haven’t had any issues with the water taste.

2. Maintenance Cost: This part has been a bit of a headache. Kent filters need frequent changing if you’re using hard water, and that gets pricey. Our technician mentioned that we should ideally get an AMC to reduce costs, but I’m not sure it’s always worth it unless your water source is very hard.

3. Service Quality: Service quality really depends on the area. In cities, I think both Kent and Aquaguard have decent networks. However, in smaller towns, I’ve heard people complain about delays.

I’d say Kent works well if you’re looking specifically for RO-based purification and are okay with a slightly higher maintenance cost over time. Both brands have their pros and cons, honestly.

Also, Let me list out some drawbacks I’ve seen with both, based on my research and experience:

Kent Cons:

High Maintenance Cost: The RO membranes, pre-filters, and UV lamps need regular replacement if your water is on the harder side. This means additional yearly costs.
Service Availability: While it’s generally okay in bigger cities, smaller towns can have service delays. I’ve had friends from non-metros facing issues with getting timely help.
Aquaguard Cons:

Power Consumption: If you live in an area with frequent power cuts, you may need an additional power backup. It can drain electricity more than expected, especially with older models.
Service Push for AMC: Aquaguard’s service personnel often push customers into taking up their AMC, sometimes even mid-service, which can feel a bit forced.
Neither brand is perfect, but knowing these issues helped me be prepared before buying. Just pick based on what you’re comfortable with managing!

Interesting points, everyone! We actually switched from Aquaguard to Kent after three years due to maintenance issues, so I’ve got experience with both.

• Aquaguard Experience: The filtration was excellent, but I agree that the service charges piled up over time. I also felt that their service teams were pushy with AMCs. Even when we had an AMC, the technician visits weren’t always consistent. When they did come, though, they usually did a thorough job.

• Kent Experience: So far, Kent has been great in terms of water quality. The water in our area has a lot of sediments, so the RO system works perfectly for that. Yes, the filters require changing often, but I found Kent’s service team a bit more professional, at least here in Bengaluru. However, I have heard that people in smaller towns still face delays.

For me, Kent works better for hard water, while Aquaguard was ideal in our old house with municipal water supply. Each has a clear edge depending on your water type and service area.

Just want to quickly chime in with a warning. If you’re getting a water purifier in general, always factor in AMC costs and filter replacement every 6-12 months. We have Kent, and while the water quality is great, the maintenance feels like a recurring expense. We’ve had months where they showed up twice because of a filter issue, which was frustrating.

Also, if you go with Aquaguard, check if they have a power-saving model because their regular purifiers can consume a fair bit of electricity. If you’re in an area with good municipal water quality, you might not need the RO function at all—maybe a UV + UF model would do. That saves a lot on maintenance, too.

I’ve had Aquaguard for four years, and here’s my honest view:

• Water Quality: No complaints, really. The water tastes neutral, and the filtering seems efficient.
• Maintenance Experience: Mixed. They do push hard for AMC every year, but one thing I liked is that their technicians are usually knowledgeable. However, if you don’t have AMC, you end up paying a lot every time they come.
• Electricity Cost: Yes, it does add to the bill slightly. We don’t have many power cuts, so it’s manageable, but something to think about if you’re on a tight budget.

In comparison, my friend has Kent, and from what I’ve seen, Kent’s RO performance is great for hard water areas, but she has also had filter clogging issues. So if you go for Kent, just be prepared for the maintenance side. Hope this helps someone decide

Thanks, everyone, for the detailed feedback! After reading all this, I think it’s clearer:

• Aquaguard might be better if you want overall reliable filtration with the support of a strong service network, especially in bigger cities.
• Kent seems to have an edge with RO performance for areas with hard water, though you’ll need to budget for regular filter replacements.

I’ll definitely look into the AMC options and weigh them based on service reviews in my area