Skip to content

Appliances head-to-head

Austin Air HealthMate HM400vsCoway Airmega 400

27 years between them: the 2017 Coway Airmega 400 at 8.0, the 1990 Austin Air HealthMate HM400 at 7.2. The older one still holds Durability.

Welded steel, fifteen pounds of carbon, a five-year filter, and no interest in being quiet.

Price and availability change constantly, so we don't quote them here — the link opens the current Amazon listing.

A heavy-duty purifier sized for the large open rooms most portable units quietly cannot handle.

Price and availability change constantly, so we don't quote them here — the link opens the current Amazon listing.

Where they diverge

The widest gap is Ease of use, Coway Airmega 400 ahead 8.2 to 5.6. They come closest on Performance, 9.0 to 8.8. Left of center is Austin Air HealthMate HM400, right is Coway Airmega 400.

Austin Air HealthMate HM400 versus Coway Airmega 400 — axis scores out of 10Horizontal bar chart of editorial scores out of 10 across 5 axes. Bars for Austin Air HealthMate HM400 run left from the axis labels, bars for Coway Airmega 400 run right. Austin Air HealthMate HM400: Performance 8.8, Value 6.6, Durability 9.6, Ease of use 5.6, Quietness 5.2. Coway Airmega 400: Performance 9.0, Value 7.0, Durability 8.4, Ease of use 8.2, Quietness 7.6.Austin Air HealthMate HM400 (left)Coway Airmega 400 (right)PerformanceAustin Air HealthMate HM400 — Performance 8.8 out of 108.8Coway Airmega 400 — Performance 9.0 out of 109.0ValueAustin Air HealthMate HM400 — Value 6.6 out of 106.6Coway Airmega 400 — Value 7.0 out of 107.0DurabilityAustin Air HealthMate HM400 — Durability 9.6 out of 109.6Coway Airmega 400 — Durability 8.4 out of 108.4Ease of useAustin Air HealthMate HM400 — Ease of use 5.6 out of 105.6Coway Airmega 400 — Ease of use 8.2 out of 108.2QuietnessAustin Air HealthMate HM400 — Quietness 5.2 out of 105.2Coway Airmega 400 — Quietness 7.6 out of 107.6Editorial score out of 10 — higher is better

Which one to pick

Take the Austin Air HealthMate HM400

Leads on Durability.

  • Chemicals, gases, and VOCs, where carbon weight decides the outcome
  • You want no firmware, no sensor, and nothing that can stop being supported
  • A five-year filter interval instead of a cartridge twice a year

Take the Coway Airmega 400

Leads on Performance, Value, Ease of use and Quietness.

  • A room large enough that smaller units cycle constantly
  • You want a sensor-driven auto mode that reacts to the room instead of a fixed speed
  • Dual-sided intake suits where the unit has to sit

What each one gets wrong

Austin Air HealthMate HM400

  • It has to run in a bedroom — even the low setting is an audible fan
  • You want auto mode, a timer, or any readout of what the air is doing
  • The machine will move between rooms; this one goes somewhere and stays

Coway Airmega 400

  • Proprietary filters that cost real money every six months
  • Floor space is tight — the footprint is substantial

Specs, side by side

SpecAustin Air HealthMate HM400Coway Airmega 400
FiltrationFour stages — two pre-filters, 60 sq ft HEPA, 15 lb carbon and zeolite
AirflowThree-speed motor, up to 400 CFM
Filter lifeRated up to five years
BuildWelded steel, powder coated, about 47 lb, on casters
CoverageVery large rooms
FilterDual intake, HEPA plus carbon
SensorLaser particle sensor, four-color indicator

Rankings they both appear in

Questions

Is the 2017 Coway Airmega 400 the safer pick over the 1990 Austin Air HealthMate HM400?
Coway Airmega 400 leads on Performance, Value, Ease of use and Quietness. If Durability matters more to you, take the Austin Air HealthMate HM400 instead. The 27-year gap shows in the totals as 8.0 against 7.2.
What does the 1990 model still win?
On Durability, yes. That axis still goes to the 1990 model. The 2017 one answers with Performance, Value, Ease of use and Quietness.
Which one ranks higher in "Throughput is cheap in a room nobody sleeps in"?
Coway Airmega 400 sits at #1 in "Throughput is cheap in a room nobody sleeps in", Austin Air HealthMate HM400 at #3.