The QSD framework was leveraged in this study to compare the performance of POU technologies in terms of cost and environmental impacts. Based on the economic analysis, the POU chlorination system had the lowest net cost, while the UV LED system had the highest net cost, considering the baseline general assumptions. In terms of environmental impacts, the AgNP CWF system exhibited the lowest GWP, whereas the UV mercury lamp system had the highest environmental impacts, again based on the baseline general assumptions. If the motivation for selecting a technology is affordability, especially in low-income areas, POU chlorination would be appropriate for short-term adoption, while AgNP CWF may be more suitable for long-term adoption. On the other hand, if GWP is the deciding factor for selecting a technology, AgNP CWF would be appropriate based on the reported low environmental impacts, as revealed in this study. It is worth noting that the AgNP CWF is user-friendly; however, the process of recoating the AgNPs onto the CWF will require an expert assistance, compared to POU chlorination, which households can easily use without needing expert involvement. On the UV systems, our findings indicate that UV LED had the higher cost under all adoption periods, but its GWP was lower compared to UV mercury lamps due to the disposal phase of the mercury of the lamps. However, due to the electricity demand, both UV systems would be less effective in regions where electricity supply is not adequate or unavailable.