Skip to content
FilterScored

Aerostar MERV 13 (1-inch) vs Nordic Pure MERV 12 (1-inch)

Bottom line

In our scoring the Nordic Pure wins, 5.9/10 to 5.2/10, and it is also the cheaper filter to keep in the furnace at about $39 a year against the Aerostar's $55. The Aerostar captures finer particles as true MERV 13, but it scores 0.0/10 on airflow fit in our rubric because MERV 13 in a 1-inch panel restricts airflow, so we lean toward it only for systems that can clearly handle the extra resistance - and you pay more per year for that capture, not less. The Nordic Pure gives up a step of filtration as MERV 12 but, in our view, is the better everyday pick for an older or higher-static furnace where airflow headroom matters more than the last increment of capture. Both are honest about their true MERV; that part is a wash.

The Nordic Pure leads this one 5.9/10 to 5.2/10 in our scoring, and the reasons are practical rather than subtle. The Aerostar is true MERV 13 on the ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 scale but runs about $55 a year across 4 changes; the Nordic Pure is true MERV 12 and runs about $39 a year. Both label their real MERV with no proprietary MPR or FPR number, which is the honest baseline we want to see. The other catch is depth: packing MERV 13 into a 1-inch panel restricts airflow more, and that is where the Aerostar loses the most points.

MERV 13True MERV (ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2)MERV 12
7.0Verified Filtration30%5.0
5.0Total Cost of Ownership25%8.0
8.0Rating Honesty20%8.0
0.0Airflow Fit15%4.0
2.0Practical Fit10%2.0

FAQ

Is the Aerostar MERV 13 (1-inch) better than the Nordic Pure MERV 12 (1-inch)?
In our scoring the Nordic Pure MERV 12 (1-inch) rates 5.9/10 and the Aerostar MERV 13 (1-inch) 5.2/10. In our scoring the Nordic Pure wins, 5.9/10 to 5.2/10, and it is also the cheaper filter to keep in the furnace at about $39 a year against the Aerostar's $55. The Aerostar captures finer particles as true MERV 13, but it scores 0.0/10 on airflow fit in our rubric because MERV 13 in a 1-inch panel restricts airflow, so we lean toward it only for systems that can clearly handle the extra resistance - and you pay more per year for that capture, not less. The Nordic Pure gives up a step of filtration as MERV 12 but, in our view, is the better everyday pick for an older or higher-static furnace where airflow headroom matters more than the last increment of capture. Both are honest about their true MERV; that part is a wash.
Which one should I put in my furnace?
The Nordic Pure MERV 12 for most people - it leads 5.9/10 to 5.2/10 in our scoring and costs about $16 a year less to run. A 1-inch MERV 13 filter restricts airflow more, which is why the Aerostar scores 0.0/10 on airflow fit. Choose the Aerostar's true MERV 13 only if your system can clearly handle the added resistance.
Is the Aerostar's MERV 13 worth losing airflow?
Only if your blower has the headroom. The Aerostar is genuinely true MERV 13 on the ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 scale and captures finer particles than the MERV 12 Nordic Pure. But in our view, forcing MERV 13 through a 1-inch panel on a system not built for it can choke airflow, and that restriction is exactly why it earns 0.0/10 on airflow fit in our scoring.
Are these filters honestly rated?
Yes. Both print their true MERV on the ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 scale with no proprietary MPR or FPR number layered on top, which is the honest baseline we look for. Neither carries an accredited third-party certification beyond that MERV rating, and neither is AHRI certified, so we score the verified MERV and nothing more.

Stay in the loop

From FilterScored

Updates from FilterScored, when there is something worth sharing.