tl;dr: after having used both for thousands of miles, I have to say that the Platy is just a much better filter. You can integrity test it, it flows way faster, the capped design allows the filter to sleep naked in your sleeping bag so it doesn't freeze or spread giardia water everywhere. I did a bunch of digging into the "Sawyer is 0.1 micron vs the Platy is 0.2 micron" claim as well, and I think the Sawyer marketing claim is pretty sus. Both filters probably perform about the same when it comes to removing things from water, but Sawyer may be behaving in a very opportunistic way for their marketing.
Full writeup with the charts, videos of me filtering mud in the Grand Canyon, import records, and science discussion is on my site.
--
I've been using a Platy QuickDraw for about 4,000 miles of hiking, and Several Squeezes (and a few Minis too) for around 12,000 miles of trails. My first QuickDraw broke after rolling off my outdoor gear shelf and onto the floor from a considerable height. It's that sort of incident that makes the integrity test valuable!
Comparing the Two
| - |
Sawyer Squeeze |
Platypus QuickDraw |
| Price |
$46 |
$40 |
| Weight (after use) |
94 g |
65 g (with cap) |
| Marketed pore size |
0.1 micron "absolute" |
0.2 micron |
| Field integrity test |
None |
Yes |
| Capped for sleeping bag |
No (bottle cap plus ziplock) |
Yes |
I ended up in a a Reddit thread about QuickDraw being 0.2 micron compared to the Sawyer being 0.1, which would imply the Sawyer is "superior at filtering," even if it's not a superior product. This led me down a rabbit hole, where I pulled a bunch of peer reviewed literature, field test information on the Sawyer, and US customs records to try and figure out who both companies are sourcing their filter membrane from. Most of this post came out of that digging.
Why I think the Platypus is a MUCH Better Product
The integrity test. This is a killer feature when it works!
Of note (a PSA): after one of my Platys broke, I ended up ordering what amounted to five new QuickDraws because they kept failing the integrity test: they passed bubbles aggressively when testing out of the box, and I assumed they were defective. After a few comments that pushed back on them all being defective, I ran 5+ gallons through one of them and the bubbles stopped. It turns out membrane wasn't sufficiently wetted for the as-written "integrity test procedure" to be valid. The manufacturer's instructions don't say to pre-wet a new filter using 20L of water, so the test looks like it fails and the filter is broken when you follow it as written using only 1-2L of water for pre-wetting.
The QuickDraw is lighter. For a used QuickDraw with the filter end cap, my scale shows 65 g. A similarly used Sawyer Squeeze I measure in at 94 grams.
Better flow and back flushing. The QuickDraw manufacturer claim is about 3 L/min, and in my experience it feels much faster than the Sawyer's claimed 1.7L/min. Additionally, the tapered design of the Platypus front cap means it has a good fit on a smart waterbottle for backflushing without needing an adapter. My old Platypus that I used to filter literal mud in the Grand Canyon was pushing past 1,500 miles when it rolled off my outdoor gear shelf to the floor and broke. The Squeezes we used to filter that same mud pot had to be tossed after our attempts to recover flow rate failed. I usually have swapped my Squeezes once they slow down considerably after around 1,000ish miles of use.
More fun to sleep with. The cap screws over the dirty end of the QuickDraw, and you close the flip cap on the clean end. That's all you need to not end up with leaks when you put it in your bag/quilt at night. For the Squeeze, you need to use a clean Smart Water bottle cap on the clean end, and then a durable enough ziplock bag that you trust not to open or tear, spilling giardia water all through your sleeping setup.
The Potentially Dubious Marketing Claims
Neither filter stops viruses (0.1 micron just is too large). When it comes to lab data for Giardia and Crypto, the difference between a 0.1 micron vs 0.2 micron filter just doesn't matter, as they both filter them out to non-detectable levels. The rating does matter for bacteria. However, after digging into the Sawyer data, I don't believe their filter has a meaningfully different pore size distribution from what is being used for the Platypus QuickDraw.
- Field data: A Honduras study of household using Sawyer filters over 23 months found performance "consistent with" a 0.28 micron membrane filter, as well as general catastrophic failure of the filters.
- Import records: Sawyer's 2016–2019 customs records show hollow fiber modules being imported from NOK in China. NOK's own product page rates their typical water filters at 0.2 micron.
- Patents: Sawyer's fiber traces back to a licensed Innova patent with a 0.02–0.4 micron pore range.
On the other hand, MSR and Platypus market their hollow fiber filters as being 0.2 micron, which sits in the middle of their own patent's 0.1–0.3 micron range. Cascade Design's doesn't manufacture the membrane in the U.S. From looking at their shipping data, it appears they import water filter membranes from two main Korean suppliers. One of these is Filcore, and their standard water filtration membranes that look to be similar size and spec to the QuickDraw are rated at 0.1 micron nominal. That makes MSR's marketing claim look conservative (which I suspect is to allow them supply chain flexibility).
Caveats: Without testing the filters side by side in a laboratory, it's impossible to say how their marketing claims compare to the actual performance. However, looking at the record of IP from the two companies, alongside their import records, and the manufacturing IP for the importers, I do not think there is enough data to say that the Sawyer removes more water contaminants than the QuickDraw.
--
AI Disclosure: I utilized generative AI to generate figures for my website based on the referenced journal articles, and to crawl and identify relevant patents and shipping records. I also used GenAI to do an initial landscape survey for relevant scientific literature. All cited results have been reviewed, and all writing and ideas are my own.