A softener and an RO are for entirely different purposes, so it is difficult to answer that question without knowing what your water problems are and what you want removed from your water and in what amounts.

Industry standard Fleck or Clack water softening systems from a local water treatment pro will be substantially less expensive than Kinetico. An industry standard RO (one that uses commodity membrane and pre and post filters) will be <$500 and replacement filters will be less costly than Kinetico's proprietary filters.

You should be able to use Google or Yellow Pages to find local water treatment companies and get some quotes.

So is that all that the Kinetico system is? Just a water softener and RO system?

My wife had recently spoken to someone who had the Kinetico installed and has been raving about the health benefits (real or perceived) such as better skin, better taste, less sediment/calcium/solids in the water, no build up of red rings in the tub/sink, etc.

My towns water quality report here:

http://issaquahwa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/466

So long story short
not sure if the whole Kinetico solution is worth the 3-5K or if a combination
of Fleck + RO would be a more cost effective solution.

"So is that all that the Kinetico system is? Just a water softener and RO system?"

It's difficult to answer that question without knowing what you were looking at - or what your friend has.

So let me answer your question this way: Water softening and RO is a commodity process. Kinetico doesn't have any "special sauce" that suddenly makes tap water into the fountain of youth or anything else. They really don't. There is a tremendous amount of nonsense regarding "health benefits" with all water treatment. Take all of that with a grain of sodium chloride.

A Fleck or Clack based softener will produce the same results as a Kinetico softener. A RO unit will produce similar results as another RO unit.

Yes there are differences in the hardware - some are going to be more reliable and lower maintenance than others. There are cost differences as well. In terms of softeners - a Fleck or Clack based unit from a reputable dealer will serve you very well and provide much better value than Kinetico in my opinion.

There can be a big difference in the value that the company who specs and installs the unit brings to the table - pay attention to that.

Besides softening, do you need RO? and if so, just one faucet? What are you trying to remove? Would a carbon taste / odor filter be more appropriate?

What water issues are you experiencing? Do you have rust-colored rings in fixtures? Buildup on faucets, etc? Tastes or odors you find objectionable? Your water quality looks pretty good, with hardness of 4.3 grains per gallon and low TDS. I don't see any compelling reason you would need an RO, but a softener might be appropriate. The treatment plant's report did not include iron or pH so it is possible those may be an issue.

AIW: Here's what I really think: I think that Kinetico has moved into a different marketing space. This isn't really about " I have x hardness levels, and these specific water issues I'm treating". They have moved into "high-end water treatment because my neighbor / friend / family member has it".

It's not based on any kind of rational need or measurable outcomes. It's expensive and exclusive and therefore it must be better. People who spend a lot of money on something rarely say, "That wasn't worth it... I got taken", especially when the benefits are mostly intangible.

I'm not saying that their product isn't legit (this isn't treating water with magnetic fields or a carbon filter pretending to be something different) but if you are selling a $5k (+ maintenance) water softener / RO unit to someone who just has mildly hard water -- something isn't right.

This isn't the first person who has posted this kind of inquiry.

Jake - I tend to agree with you. I'll still continue to attempt to inject a little science and engineering and allow folks to make their own decision by whatever criteria they prefer. Everyone has certain things for which they will pay a premium beyond reason. Of course, I always think my way is the best way but, at the end of the day, it's not my house or my money so I don't much care what decisions other folks make as long as they aren't rude.

There are some rings around drains, and mineral build up here and there. We recently moved to this area and switched from water delivery (Polland Spring) and have noticed that the water doesnt taste great here (using a Brita).

At the moment considering a Fleck and pairing with an Aquasana or some other filtration for the whole house. Any other recommendations on the filter?

I would use a standard carbon filter on either the cold water in the kitchen or a separate faucet in the kitchen. It's the only tap in the house from which you will be consuming much water. I always say my toilets don't need carbon filtered water (or my washing machine or dishwasher or shower, for that matter).

My pick is theBig Blue cartridge holders (10" or 20") and then select a cartridge to go in it. Note that carbon filters need to be replaced after 1 year because of the potential of bacterial buildup.

For something around $100 in parts (housing and filter) you can have good carbon filter for your cold water in your kitchen and then the replacement filter is ~ $30 a year.

Juil Sohng,

So if you haven't seen this in other posts,a Fleck based softener is available online. It can be a good way to go if you have a plumber who will install it for you and do the basic setup. I've used and recommend this provider - but there are others as well.

If you need more service than that, you can get a local provider to sell and maintain something similar at a marginally higher price.

Jake is there a whole house water filter that you would recommend? I was looking at the Aquasana on amazon.

No, I don't recommend whole house filtering.

Carbon filtering makes sense to clean up drinking water taste / odor / also removes VOC's and some pesticides and such. Keep in mind that municipal water is testing for contaminates based on EPA requirements so there are generally limits on what's going to be in the water in the first place.

Carbon filters will also remove residual chlorine from municipal water; however, chloramines require a different approach. Your water company seems to be using chlorine at this time.

A typical carbon filter needs to be replaced after no longer than 1 year. Because they are removing the chlorine disinfectant, there can be a growth of bacteria on the carbon filter. There are some exceptions to this:

1. a back washing carbon filter

2. a carbon filter that incorporates a KDF process filter upstream.

So, to do "whole house" carbon filtering correctly requires a back washing system, or a KDF process system, or you are going to burn through an unreasonable amount of carbon filters (filtering water for the toilet).

The Aquasensa whole house filter seems to use the KDF process filters (but it doesn't call it that). It also claims to have a "Salt free softener" and makes some other dubious claims. It also claims NSF testing to validate all of the claims made, while the actual test results are just for removing chlorine. Without a whole lot more transparency on what's going on I can't get behind that system.

Again, I recommend a standard filter housing in which you can put standard filters and filtering only your drinking water. These filters can be a carbon block filter which will do a great job at a reasonable price and you replace it every year. Or you can get a KDF-55 and carbon filter for example and replace it less often (35,000 gal worth).

I agree with Jake regarding whole-house carbon filtration. I will add one additional thought about drinking water. Since you don't care for the taste of your water using the Brita, you may not care for the taste of water passed through just a carbon filter. The Brita uses carbon filtration plus limited ion exchange. It could be that it isn't removing enough, or it could be that you object to the slightly softened water from the Brita. Taste is subjective so you'll need to experiment a little. A simple carbon filtration unit to fit under your sink is cheap and easy to install. I would try that first to see if it improves the taste enough. If that doesn't do it for you, then you will need to go to an RO system to improve flavor. An RO will remove the majority of all of the constituents in your water.

Thanks for the input. I think I will opt for the Fleck and then one of the carbon filters to boot.

Any thoughts on this guy though?
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000KL0M3E/?tag=softwater02-20

Or this. I think same company maybe an updated design?

https://www.amazon.com/CRYSTAL-QUEST®-Triple-Filter-System/dp/B000NY51L6

So the second link is a pair of big blue filter holders and then a KDF + Carbon cartridge. You can do that, or do a single version of that - I linked to it earlier.

The single version is what I use on my home for the drinking water (not Crystal Quest, but a single KDF-55 + Carbon in a big blue holder)

Note: the amount of water that can go through my filter is 95,000 gallons @ 3 gallons per minute (a kitchen sink is 2 - 2.5 gpm) so it's appropriate for that.

The claimed capacity of the second link is 6-8 gpm, but nothing is matching up correctly. They are showing a 2 holder unit but talking about a 3 cartridge unit. I'm very skeptical of getting 6-8 gpm through such a unit.

Again, my advice is to stay away from whole house filtering.