In the last few years, sous vide cooking has become increasingly accessible. That’s largely thanks to the rise of affordable wand-like immersion circulators that can heat water efficiently without taking up a lot of counter space. There is another style of sous vide machine that’s more like a stand-alone water oven — such as the Sousvide Supreme ($425) — but these take up a lot more room and tend to be expensive. Immersion circulators, on the other hand, are infinitely more versatile as they can be attached to any heatproof vessel (and are typically cheaper).

How to pick

Almost all of the immersion circulators on the market work the same way, so you really can’t go wrong whichever you choose. That said, there are a few criteria to keep in mind when selecting your preferred model. For one, you’ll want it to keep accurate temperature and to maintain that temperature for an extended period of time, especially for foods that take over a day to cook (this isn’t uncommon, especially for tough cuts of meat). It’s better if it’s powerful enough to heat up water quickly, though you could always help it along by using hot tap water to start.

Most models these days come with Bluetooth or WiFi (or both), which helps you set and monitor your sous vide temperature from an app on your phone. Many of these apps also come with recipes where you can tap on a preset temperature to start cooking a little faster. Bluetooth-only models work when you’re within 30 to 40 feet of the cooker, while those with WiFi let you supervise your food from anywhere in your home, or as long as you’re on the same network.

Several Engadget staffers, as well as those at Serious Eats and the Wirecutter, tend to prefer the sous vide devices from Anova as the company has a strong track record for precision and the interface is intuitive. Anova offers several different models at varying power levels (and price points) depending on your preference. The lower-end Nano, for example, won’t heat up water as quickly and doesn’t have an adjustable clamp, but it’s only $80 and will likely suit most home cooks. If you’re a little more ambitious or see yourself cooking a lot of things via sous vide (and thus would need more power), then upgrading to the higher-end Precision Cooker ($149) or Precision Cooker Pro ($298) might be a better choice.

Another popular choice is the Breville Joule ($145) (formerly known as the Chefsteps Joule, but has since changed name due to a Breville acquisition), which is a personal favorite of mine due to its small size as it can fit into most drawers easily. It’s a little more powerful than the aforementioned Nano, and can heat up water a few minutes faster. I also like that it has a magnetic base, making it easier to attach to certain pots. The one downside is that it lacks on-board controls; the only way to use it is via the companion app. I personally don’t find this to be a problem, but if you simply need to be able to see the temperature at a glance and dial it up or down with ease, then it might not be for you.

it’s also worth mentioning the Monoprice Strata, which is the cheapest of the lot at only $42. There’s no WiFi or Bluetooth connectivity here, but it gets the job done regardless.

What else to consider

At the bare minimum, the only other items you need to cook sous vide are a large metal pot (big enough to fill with water), and a zipper-lock freezer bag to put the food in. Rather than using a vacuum sealer to get rid of air, you would use the water displacement method: Immerse the bagged food in the water while partially unsealed, and water pressure will push the air through the opening. Once everything is mostly underwater, you can seal the bag and it’ll stay submerged.

If it still floats, you can stick one or two spoons in the bag, and that’ll hopefully weigh things down (J. Kenji Lopez-Alt from Serious Eats also suggests using a large binder clip attached to the bottom of the bag along with a heavy spoon). If you’re concerned about water getting in the bag, you can attach the bag tops to the pot with binder clips, thus keeping the bag upright.

If you’re really serious about sous vide, you might want to start investing in some specialty equipment. Instead of pots, for example, you could opt for cooking sous vide in large restaurant-grade plastic containers by Cambro or Rubbermaid. Not only is plastic a better insulator than metal, there’s generally more space for more food, which is good when you’re cooking for a crowd.

Whether you use a pot or a plastic container, it’s not a bad idea to cover the vessel with plastic wrap when cooking for long periods, so that water doesn’t evaporate as much. Some companies like Chefsteps offer custom silicone pot lids that are made specially to accommodate their sous vide cookers. Alternatively, Lopez-Alt offers a much cheaper and more ingenious solution: Cover your water in ping pong balls. They float, and they’ll slow down evaporation as well.

Additionally, while zipper-lock bags work well for most tasks, it’s still not a bad idea to get a vacuum sealer along with thicker plastic bags designed specifically for sous vide. For one, this lets you sous vide vegetables or braised meats, which typically require a higher temperature (zipper-lock bag seams might fail when it’s that hot). This also lets you freeze a bunch of food, vacuum seal them and sous vide packets straight from the freezer, which is great for batch cooking.

You likely already have this at your disposal, but another handy tool is a good skillet to sear your meat. That sous vide device might be able to cook your steak to medium rare, but it won’t be able to brown it. A cast iron skillet, on the other hand, will. You could also consider a torch — Wirecutter likes the Bernzomatic TS8000, and we’ve seen others use a Searzall — but a cast iron skillet is far more affordable than either option. Of course, if you have a grill, you can use that too.

There are other, miscellaneous items that could prove useful. Lopez-Alt likes having a pot lid organizer immersed in the container to help separate several submerged bags. If you want to make custard, yogurt or breakfast cups with your sous vide cooker, you should get yourself some mason jars too.

One more indispensable item worth considering: A trivet to rest your water vessel on so you don’t destroy your countertop.

What to cook

Since affordable sous vide cookers have been in the market for a few years now, there is no shortage of recipes and guidelines online to help you figure out what to do with your newfangled kitchen gadget. The links below are some of our favorites, though bear in mind that a lot of this is based on personal taste. Your mileage may vary.

Anova

It only makes sense that the maker of one of the most popular sous vide machines also has a pretty deep library of sous vide recipes. If you’re ever at a loss as to what to make via sous vide, simply peek at this website, where you can search for recipes from professionals and amateurs alike.

Serious Eats

We’ve mentioned it several times here already in this guide, but Serious Eats truly is a remarkably useful resource for all things sous vide. Lopez-Alt uses a science-based approach when developing his recipes, so if you follow his temperature guidelines, you won’t go wrong. His guide to sous vide steak is a favorite among Engadget staffers, as is his take on slow-cooked sous-vide style eggs, which has resulted in some of the best eggs I’ve ever had.

Chefsteps

Years before making the Joule, Chefsteps made a name for itself as a cooking school with a heavy slant on food science, tech and molecular gastronomy. That’s probably why the sous vide recipes from Chefsteps are some of the more creative ones we’ve seen on the internet. Not only does it teach you how to make that perfect chicken breast, it’ll walk you through the perfect accompaniment for said chicken breast — perhaps a crunchy apple fennel salad and a buttery carrot puree. Other favorite recipes include wonderfully tender salmon filets, juicy pork chops and Chefsteps’ own interpretation on the “sous vide egg bites” you sometimes find in certain Starbucks shops.

Sous Vide at Home

This is actually a cookbook from the people behind the Nomiku WiFi sous vide machine (which has since been discontinued), but the recipes in it will work with any sous vide device. Not only does it have beautiful photographs, it also offers fantastic recipes like jerk chicken wings, duck confit and chocolate pots du creme.

Other noteworthy recipes:

Images: Will Lipman for Engadget (Anova / holiday light background)

Why you should trust us

I’ve been cooking professionally for almost 20 years, and I’ve been testing blenders and hand blenders at Wirecutter for three years. For this guide, we brought Matt Shook, founder of Juiceland, into our test kitchen to get his hands-on opinion, and we interviewed superfood chef Julie Morris, who uses both a full-size and personal blender for home and work. We also scoured editorial reviews from sources like America’s Test Kitchen and Consumer Reports and read many customer reviews.

Who should buy a personal blender

A personal blender is a convenience item for the dedicated smoothie lover who’s short on time in the morning. If you want to quickly make a morning smoothie and run out the door without having to wash a blender pitcher and lid, a personal blender is for you.

Even if you’re not drinking smoothies daily, or you’re happy with your full-sized blender, a personal blender can do small batches of sauces and dressings with less cleanup. Think of a personal blender as a complement to your regular blender, the way a mini chopper is to a food processor.

Personal blenders are good for small jobs like smoothies, but their motors aren’t as powerful as the ones found in our picks for full-size blender. This means you’ll need to use more liquid and cut fruit smaller. Personal blenders also aren’t made for crushing large chunks of ice or blending hot liquids. If you want an all-around kitchen workhorse that can puree soups, sauces, and make multiple rounds of frozen margaritas, you should consider getting a full-size blender.

How we picked

From left to right: NutriBullet Pro 900, NutriBullet, Cuisinart CPB-300, Jamba Juice Quiet Shield, Vitamix S-55, Nutri Ninja, Tribest PB-150, Bella Rocket Pro, Bella Rocket. Photo: Michael Hession

The perfect personal blender is powerful, hands-free, and simple to use. We looked for blenders with a small footprint to accommodate small apartments and dorms or people who don’t want a lot of countertop clutter. A sturdy cup with secure travel lid is a major plus, especially for commuters. Finally, we scoured user reviews to get a read on durability and long-term reliability.

Most importantly, a personal blender needs to make relatively smooth purees in about a minute. In our testing, we found more powerful blenders could puree thick mixtures and blend faster. Smaller machines got hot and smelled of burning after making thick smoothies. Smaller blenders needed up to ¾ cup more liquid than the more powerful models to make a continuous vortex, which resulted in thin, watery smoothies.

All the models we brought in to test except for one were hands-free: once the cup was locked into place, you could take your hands off the machine. This is a superior design to cups that need to be held in place, as a minute can seem like a long time when you can’t step away. While you shouldn’t leave the blender running unattended, you can still multitask while making your smoothie.

Matt Shook of Juiceland (right) considering the variable speed dial of the Vitamix S-55. Photo: Michael Hession

We found personal blenders that had only one speed and powered on by engaging the cup with the base were the easiest to use. High-priced personal blenders offer speed controls and pre-programmed settings, but we appreciate a no-frills user interface. Variable speed dials didn’t improve the user experience. In fact, having to choose a speed or program added an unnecessary step to what should be simple.

Since these are single-serving blenders, we wanted them to be small enough to leave on the counter because you’re more likely to use an appliance if it’s in sight and accessible. If you already have a regular blender and you’re looking for a second appliance to handle smaller jobs with less cleanup, a small footprint is even more important.

Cups that are comfortable to hold with secure travel lids that snap shut are an added bonus for commuters. Two of our picks have lids that seal tight and can be tossed into a backpack or tote. Although the openings in these travel lids are pretty small across the board, our smoothie drinkers in the test kitchen all agreed they would use a straw with extra thick smoothies. All of our picks should fit in most car cup holders.

To get an accurate read on the longevity of these machines, we sifted through the glut of online reviews to find patterns of wear and malfunction. We’re confident that our picks, when used responsibly and within their abilities, will last a long time.

How we tested

Matt Shook of Juiceland blending a thick banana and berry smoothie in our top pick, the NutriBullet Pro. Photo: Michael Hession

To see how these blenders could handle a thick smoothie, we blended frozen bananas, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, and juice for the recommended running time of each specific model. If any blender couldn’t make a puree in that amount of time (usually one minute) or the base began to get noticeably hot, it was disqualified.

For round two, we blended curly kale and water, then strained the mixture through a fine sieve. We evaluated the amount of solids and fibers as well as particle size. To see if these blenders could tackle tough fiber, we made a smoothies with ½-inch-thick pieces of ginger and frozen peaches (all the smoothies from this test had noticeable fibers). We also made a hearty shake from dates, banana, peanut butter, ice, and almond milk. Dates are difficult to puree into a smoothie, and we found that each of our picks could handle the task.

The Nutribullet Pro blending a shake of dates, frozen banana, ice, and almond milk. Photo: Michael Hession

After each smoothie was blended, we attached the travel lid (where applicable) and gave each tumbler a vigorous shake over the sink to check for leaks. We also tried to drink thick smoothies from the opening in the lids.

We took decibel readings while the blenders were full and running since we read some complaints about the motors being too loud. All the blenders ran around the same noise level, between 92 and 98 decibels 5 inches away from the machine. (This is about the noise level of a garbage disposal.) There was only one exception: the Jamba Juice Quiet Blend, which has a large plastic muffler that decreased the noise by 10 decibels. Noise level didn’t account for pitch, though. One of our dismissals was so high-pitched, we winced every time we ran it.

Our pick: NutriBullet Pro 900

Photo: Michael Hession

Out of the models we tested, the NutriBullet Pro 900 has the best balance of power, ease of use, and price. It blended everything we threw at it without straining. The Pro comes with a secure-fitting travel lid, and the large cup has a blending capacity of 24 ounces. With a 5½-inch-diameter footprint, it’ll tuck away neatly on most kitchen counters, and its 15-inch height clears standard upper cabinets. NutriBullet Pro comes with a limited one-year warranty, but a four-year extended warranty is available.

The NutriBullet Pro had no problem blending thick, spoonable smoothies. Our banana-berry smoothie came out lump-free. The kale puree wasn’t the finest blend we saw, but it wasn’t as fibrous as the kale from the Nutri Ninja. The NutriBullet blended dates well, leaving only a few small, pleasantly chewy pearls in the bottom of the cup that didn’t clog the straw. None of the personal blenders did an exceptional job on fresh ginger fiber, but that’s an extremely tough thing to break down. Matt Shook of Juiceland was impressed with the force and smooth results of the NutriBullet.

The NutriBullet blends thick mixtures, like this date shake, without straining. Photo: Michael Hession

The travel lid on the NutriBullet screws on tight and a hinged plastic cap snaps over the opening to make it easy for commuters to travel without the risk of spilling all over themselves. We shook the sealed cup over the sink and saw no leakage. We will be testing the effectiveness of the travel lid long-term to see how it fares in a backpack or a tote on hectic commutes.

The “colossal” 32-ounce NutriBullet blending cup has 24 ounces (three cups) of blending capacity, which is plenty of room for a satisfying smoothie. Our runner-up pick, the Tribest PB-150, only allows for 300 ml, or just over 10 ounces (or 1¼ cups).

The NutriBullet Pro is intuitive and simple to use straight out of the box. There aren’t any dials or buttons to navigate. The motor is engaged when the blending cup is twisted onto the base, and it has one speed. Unlike some other models we tested, the same blade assembly works on all the different cup sizes included (depending on where you get it, there’s a variety of 32-ounce, 24-ounce, and “short” cups), so there’s no guesswork about what goes where.

At around $80, the NutriBullet Pro isn’t cheap, but it’s in the midrange of what you can pay for a personal blender. We tested models four times the price and found they don’t offer much more than speed variation and a die cast metal drive shaft (the part that turns the blade). The drive shaft on the NutriBullet is rubber and plastic. We also looked at blenders as inexpensive as $25, but these offered weak motors and leaky gaskets.

We think the Pro is worth the price increase over the original NutriBullet 600-watt model. The original NutriBullet strained a bit with thicker mixtures, and it produced smoothies with a couple of small lumps. And surprisingly, in our head-to-head comparison of all the NutriBullet models, the Pro also beat out the larger, more powerful NutriBullet Rx. It’s all about design: The Pro has six long blades, whereas the Rx has only four shorter ones. That said, the NutriBullet Pro won’t blend berry seeds, which is something that an upgrade, full-size blender like the Vitamix 5200 can do. But most of the personal blenders we tested left whole seeds intact.

NutriBullet Pro is offered in a couple of different packages. The package offered on Amazon has 13 pieces, which includes two colossal cups; the company’s website offers a seven-piece package with one colossal cup and one 24-ounce tall cup; and Bed Bath & Beyond offers a 10-piece package with two blades. They all cost around the same price, although you have to pay shipping on the NutriBullet website.

Extra cups, lids, handles, and blade assemblies are widely available for purchase through NutriBullet or Amazon. NutriBullet offers a limited one-year warranty that protects against manufacturer defects. The warranty is only honored if the product is bought through an authorized dealer, which includes Amazon. For around $12, you can buy a four-year extended warranty that protects your purchase for a total of five years. Misuse and abuse aren’t covered.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

Even though we like the tight-fitting travel lid, the spout for drinking is very small, measuring 1 inch by ¾ inch. It’s very difficult to drink a thick smoothie without using a straw. But we prefer straws to smoothie sipping, so this doesn’t bother us one bit.

The NutriBullet Pro isn’t the sleekest machine we tested. The branding is splashed all over the front, and if you’re logo averse, this can be troubling. If aesthetics are that important to you, consider getting the Breville Boss To Go.

In 2014, Consumer Reports declared the NutriBullet Pro a “safety hazard” after a piece of the blade broke off due to a stress test where they blended 7 large ice cubes 45 times. Later that year, after an initial investigation, the Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that there was no reason for a recall. In September of 2016, Consumer Reports restored the NutriBullet Pro to their product rankings, giving it an overall score of “good.” We think a stress test of that magnitude is unrealistic. Personal blenders aren’t meant to crush large cubes of ice over and over again. CNET conducted stress tests on the NutriBullet Pro and found no problems of breakage or malfunction.

Runner-up: Tribest PB-150

Photo: Michael Hession

The Tribest PB-150 is a durable, no-frills personal blender. We like the Tribest for its tiny footprint and minimal clutter. At 16 ounces, the blending cups are smaller than those on both the NutriBullet and Breville blenders, and the travel lid doesn’t have a seal, so you can’t throw it in a bag. The Tribest made thinner smoothies than our top or upgrade picks because more liquid was required to get a consistent puree.

Julie Morris, California-based chef and author of Superfood Soups and Superfood Smoothies, has been using the Tribest personal blender for almost 11 years and is currently on her second one (her first lasted seven years). Julie uses her Tribest for little jobs like dressings and sauces, as well as small pureeing and grinding tasks with fruits and nuts. For her, it’s like how a mini chopper serves a full-size food processor.

Smoothies in the Tribest require more liquid, but we think this tiny blender will be a go-to for small kitchen tasks. Photo: Michael Hession

The Tribest is the smallest blender of our picks with a 4½-inch base and 12¼ inches of height. It also includes the smallest cup of all our picks, which has a maximum blending capacity of 10 ounces (a 24-ounce cup is available to purchase on the Tribest website). This little blender can be easily stashed in a corner or on a shelf, and the two 16-ounce blending cups won’t add too much clutter to your kitchen.

The PB-150 is the most streamlined package available from Tribest. The more expensive PB-250 and PB-350 have the same motor base, but with more attachments. Extra accessories like additional cups, blades, and even a plastic ring that makes the motor base Mason jar compatible are available for purchase through the Tribest website. All Tribest personal blenders come with a one-year warranty.

Upgrade pick: Breville Boss to Go

Photo: Michael Hession

In our tests, the Breville Boss To Go delivered the thickest, silkiest smoothies. It’s super powerful and easy to use out of the box. The Breville is the only one of our top picks that has a metal base and driveshaft. Since the Boss To Go is brand new on the American market—it debuted in the US in 2016—there aren’t a ton of user or editorial reviews at this time. However, we feel confident about this recommendation because of Breville’s reputation for making quality appliances and from our own testing experience. At around $160 at the time of writing, it’s a splurge, but if you want sleeker design and velvety smoothies, it’s the one to buy.

The Breville Boss To Go blended smoothies in the same amount of time as the NutriBullet Pro, but produced smaller berry seeds and the finest kale puree of all our picks. The Boss To Go could handle super thick blends, and the motor never showed any sign of straining. Unlike the NutriBullet, the Breville pureed dates until only tiny brown flecks of skin were detectable.

Like our other the NutriBullet Pro and Tribest, the Breville has hands-free operation, and the single-speed motor engages when the blender cup is twisted onto the base. This straightforward interface gave the Boss To Go a leg up over other high-priced blenders we tested that had variable speed dials.

The Breville Boss To Go is one of three personal blenders we tested this year that has a die-cast metal drive shaft. The other two are the Vitamix S-55 and Jamba Juice Quiet Blend. Photo: Michael Hession

We liked the build quality of the Breville’s blade assembly and driveshaft. The blades spin on a metal plate embedded in the base, and the texture of the matte plastic was easy to grip when screwing and unscrewing the blade assembly from the cup. The driveshaft is die-cast metal, as opposed to the rubber and plastic on the NutriBullet Pro and Tribest PB-150.

Since the Boss To Go is relatively new, we will be using it vigorously in our test kitchen along with our top pick to gauge long-term performance. We will use them as they should be used in a home setting, and we’ll report back in six months.

Care and maintenance + tips for success

Personal blenders are meant for small jobs like single servings of smoothies and small batches of sauces like vinaigrettes. Be reasonable about what you can put in these blenders. They are convenience machines, not kitchen workhorses. Here’s a list of tips for success to ensure a long life from your blender base and accessories:

• Respect the fill line on the blending cup. Overfilling leads to seal leakage, which is the number one complaint about personal blenders on Amazon.
• Don’t blend hot liquids or anything carbonated.
• If blending ice, cubes should be on the small side. We used bag ice in our tests.
• Frozen fruit is good to use out of the bag. If using frozen bananas, cut into one-inch sections before blending.
• Read the instruction manual and corresponding recipe book to get an idea for liquid-to-solid ratios.
• Most personal blenders have a maximum amount of time they can be run continuously, usually one minute. Be conscious of this to avoid motor burnout.

The competition

The NutriBullet Rx is absurdly large for a personal blender, and despite having a higher wattage than the Pro 900, it’s actually less effective. That’s because it has just four short blades (compared with the Pro’s longer six), which left marble-sized chunks of frozen banana in our smoothies.

The NutriBullet Balance comes with a built-in scale and connects via Bluetooth to a recipe app on your phone. When you use the smoothie recipes, you’re prompted to add the ingredients one by one to the blending cup, and the scale tells you when you’ve added the correct amount. That’s a useful feature for some people who want to easily track their calorie intake, and the Balance blends on a par with the Pro. But for now the recipe app is limited, and you could do a similar thing just using an inexpensive kitchen scale, so we don’t think the Balance is worth its usual $150 price tag for most people.

The Jamba Juice Quiet Blend (made by Hamilton Beach) performs well. The single-serve blending cup is sturdy and comfortable to hold, and the travel lid is one of the best we tested. The cup and blender pitcher have a die-cast metal driveshaft, and the quiet shield reduces the noise by 10 decibels (yes, we tested that too). But we didn’t like the variable speed dial, bulkiness of the whole unit, or lack of power. When you turn on the blender, there’s a lull before the blades get to full speed. When removing the blade assembly, the blade disk can get stuck by vacuum, and releasing it causes some smoothie to spray out. Matt Shook said, “Well, your blouse is ruined right before you’re about to walk out the door!”

Matt Shook was impressed by the performance of the Bella Rocket Extract Pro, especially after he learned of the very economical price. America’s Test Kitchen recommends this model, too. But we dismissed this blender after reading 32 Amazon reviews regarding leakage and broken blades, 25 claims of motor burnout and smoking, 15 instances of a black substance coming from the blade assembly or motor, and 2 complaints sparks shooting from the motor base (even though we didn’t observe any this in our testing).

The Nutri Ninja, the best personal blender according to America’s Test Kitchen, made noises that were very high-pitched, which made it seem louder than the others in our tests. It also had the poorest performance blending kale, leaving the largest fibrous pieces.

The original 600-watt NutriBullet, America’s Test Kitchen’s runner-up pick, wasn’t as efficient at blending frozen fruit or kale as its 900-watt sibling, our main pick. Spend the extra $20 or so for the Pro.

The Cuisinart CPB-300 is okay, but in our tests it couldn’t blend thick smoothies without the motor getting hot. The cups are small and the travel lids don’t seal.

At a cost of around $400 at the time of writing, we thought the powerful and well-built Vitamix S-55 would’ve been a formidable competitor. While the S-55 blended thick ingredients into a super-smooth puree, the strong motor also caused the blender to turn and move across the counter in repeated tests using one small frozen banana, 4 ounces of frozen berries, and and 6 ounces of orange juice. We reached out to Vitamix for comment about this and their chef recommended using the less convenient 40-ounce container with tamper and using pre-sliced frozen items. Vitamix also suggested, “The movement could also have something to do with the surface you are blending on. If it is more of a granite top or a slicker surface, the machine may be more inclined to move.” However, this is still problematic as many people have smooth, granite countertops. We also had a difficult time figuring out the controls. Matt uses Vitamix blenders in his juice shops, and he couldn’t figure out the fussy, complicated interface in which you need to turn the dial and push it in. We disqualified the S-55 after the first round.

The Bella Rocket leaked from the first test and was disqualified before the second round.

This guide may have been updated by Wirecutter. To see the current recommendation, please go here.

When readers choose to buy Wirecutter’s independently chosen editorial picks, Wirecutter and Engadget may earn affiliate commissions.

Why you should trust us

The original version of this guide was written by Wirecutter staff writer Lesley Stockton, who has made a lot of ice cream and frozen yogurt over the course of her long culinary career. As a fresh-faced line cook in New York City, she hung out in the pastry kitchen as much as possible, learning about ice cream from the pastry cooks. She also had to spin a horseradish crème fraîche sorbet, served as a garnish on tuna tartare, every day before service.

Marguerite Preston, who conducted testing for the 2017 update, is a former professional baker with a passion for pastry in general and ice cream in particular. She has also worked on guides to cake pans, waffle makers, pie plates, and more for Wirecutter.

For this guide, we spoke with several ice cream experts, including Brian Smith, co-owner of Ample Hills Creamery; Billy Barlow, then director of culinary and production at Blue Marble Ice Cream; Lauren Brown, avid home ice cream maker and one half of Red & Brown; and Douglas Goff, a professor and food scientist at the University of Guelph with more than 30 years of experience in the field of ice cream. We read reviews from Cook’s Illustrated (subscription required) and Good Housekeeping. Finally, we polled Wirecutter readers to find out what they were looking to pay for an ice cream maker and what features would be most convenient for them.

Who should get this

An ice cream maker isn’t an essential kitchen tool, but if you love ice cream and like experimenting with unique flavor combinations, investing in one is worthwhile. Which type you should buy depends largely on how often you plan to use it and how much you want to spend. Generally, you’ll find three styles of ice cream makers:

• Ice-and-salt: These old-fashioned makers tend to be the most affordable. You set a canister filled with ice cream base in a bucket of ice and salt and you churn the mixture, either by hand or with a motor clamped onto the machine’s top. If you want to make ice cream only a few times during the summer months, and you’re not looking for the smoothest texture possible, this kind of machine might be a good option. The setup can get pretty messy, which is why it’s best for people with outdoor space.
• Prefrozen bowl: The most common maker of this type is the liquid-filled insert bowl, which you have to freeze for eight to 24 hours. You then put the bowl into a separate machine that churns the ice cream base. While this option is budget-friendly, the insert bowl takes up valuable space in your freezer. You also can’t make back-to-back batches because you need to prefreeze the bowl, which means you’ll be able to make only 1½ to 2 quarts of ice cream at a time.
• Compressor: This type, a self-refrigerating ice cream maker, is the easiest to use. Just flip a switch, and you can turn out batch after batch of ice cream. These machines can be simple, with just a few buttons to operate, or loaded with automatic settings. Compressor models are the closest you can get to professionally spun ice cream at home. If you’re serious about your ice cream making game, this is the style to buy.

How we picked and tested

The compressor-machine contenders, clockwise from bottom left: Whynter ICM-15LS, Ariete Stainless Steel Ice Cream Maker, Whynter ICM-201SB, Lello 4080 Musso Lussino, Breville Smart Scoop. Photo: Michael Hession

The primary task of an ice cream maker is to produce creamy ice cream with few ice crystals. The faster the mixture freezes, the less time ice crystals have to form. Although machines will do this in about 20 to 40 minutes, there’s no optimal time cycle—you just want the mixture to freeze as quickly as possible. That’s why compressor machines tend to make smoother textures: They churn and freeze the ice cream base faster than those that rely on frozen inserts or ice and salt.

A good compressor machine will freeze at around -32 degrees Fahrenheit and maintain that temperature until the end of the cycle. A machine that uses a frozen bowl will only get warmer as the mixture freezes (and if your freezer is at the end of a defrost cycle when you take the insert bowl out, you’ll end up with a milkshake rather than actual ice cream). You can improve results in any type of machine by making sure your ice cream base is as cold as possible (see our ice cream making tips for how to do this).

While the ice cream base freezes, the dasher—a paddle in the machine—stirs the mixture. Home machines generally have plastic dashers, while pro-level machines (and a few high-end home models) use metal versions. The rate at which the dasher turns, in part, determines overrun: the amount of air whipped into ice cream, measured as a percentage. The faster the dasher moves, the more overrun you have. (Think of it like a whisk whipping cream.) The fat and egg content in a recipe also affects overrun, which we’ll get into later.

In our original 2014 test, we tried nine ice cream makers of all types: specialty hand-cranked, electric high-capacity ice-and-salt, frozen insert, and compressor. The only kind we knew we didn’t want to try was the large-capacity hand-cranked ice-and-salt type. Those machines are too much of a pain to churn, since they require a strong arm to constantly crank for 20 to 30 minutes.

For our 2015 update, we brought in only self-refrigerating compressor ice cream makers. These models performed the best in our first test—producing the highest-quality ice cream—and in surveying our readers we found that most respondents were looking to buy a compressor machine. We kept our budget and KitchenAid attachment picks the same because no new models of those styles had come out over the past year. The 2015 contenders included the Breville Smart Scoop, Cuisinart ICE-100, Lello 4080 Musso Lussino, Sunpentown KI-15, and Whynter ICM-15LS.

We made both vanilla and chocolate ice cream in each machine. Photo: Michael Hession

For our 2017 update, we again tested only compressor machines. We pitted two new models—the Whynter ICM-201SB and the Ariete Stainless Steel Ice Cream Maker—against the Whynter ICM-15LS, the Breville Smart Scoop, and the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino, our 2015 picks. Our budget and KitchenAid attachment picks again remain the same, because we’ve still seen no new models worth testing in those styles.

We churned 10 batches of ice cream for the 2017 update. Photo: Michael Hession

We decided to leave out gelato makers, since gelato is a different animal. It differs from ice cream in that it is mostly milk and sugar with little cream and little to no egg yolks, sometimes using cornstarch to thicken instead. You need to churn gelato slower and at a higher temperature to maintain that “stretchy” quality, which is why ideally you should use a gelato-specific machine for the task. The result is a product with little to no overrun that resembles a custard more than ice cream. Don’t get us wrong—gelato is delicious, and we love it. But it’s just not the same.

Setting up the Ariete (left) and the Whynter ICM-15LS. Photo: Michael Hession

In 2014 we tested the machines using a relatively low-fat recipe from Ample Hills Creamery in Brooklyn, and we tasted the results for texture and flavor with friend Sara Bonisteel, staff editor for the food section of The New York Times (which is now the parent company of Wirecutter). For our 2015 and 2017 updates, we used a higher-fat vanilla ice cream base that contained more cream and egg yolks than the Ample Hills recipe, which had more milk than cream.

The Whynter ICM-201SB 2.1-quart machine had plenty of room for mix-ins. Photo: Michael Hession

Higher-fat ice cream bases are more forgiving, because they contain a lower percentage of water to crystallize and ruin the creamy texture. If a machine in our tests made icy ice cream from this luxurious base, we figured it wouldn’t be worth buying.

Taste-testing the results. Photo: Michael Hession

In 2015, we also made a simple lemon sorbet without added glucose or corn syrup to smooth out the texture. We thought an unforgiving sorbet recipe that didn’t have any aid from fruit fiber or special sugars would show us the differences between these machines. But we were wrong—all the ice cream makers produced the same sorbet, so we did not repeat this test for our 2017 update. Finally, we made chocolate ice cream in each machine, and in 2017 we also used that round to test how each machine handled mix-ins added toward the end of churning. (If you’re curious, we used recipes from David Lebovitz, author of The Perfect Scoop.)

In 2015, instead of the informal tasting we held for the original guide, we held a blind taste test with six tasters. For the 2017 update, we returned to an informal tasting, using our former top picks as a benchmark of quality. From our years of testing, we’ve learned that with ice cream makers, you truly do get what you pay for: The prices of the machines we tested directly reflected the resulting quality of the ice cream.

Our pick: Whynter ICM-15LS

The Whynter ICM-15LS. Photo: Michael Hession

We like the Whynter ICM-15LS because it made smoother ice cream in a shorter amount of time than most of the other models. Although it didn’t create the absolute smoothest texture in our tests, it does hit the sweet spot of great results at a reasonable price. It’s also one of the quieter machines we tested, and one of the simplest models to use, scoop from, and clean. The simple, compact design makes it easy to store, as well. And because this Whynter model is a compressor machine, no prefreezing of any kind is required.

In all rounds of testing, the ICM-15LS made some of the best ice cream, producing a pronounced creaminess with very few ice crystals. With an overrun of 53 percent, the mixture was quite airy but still very rich. It wasn’t as smooth as what we got from the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino, but this machine also costs roughly 60 percent less than that model. As for freezing time, the ICM-15LS churned out creamy ice cream in 33 minutes, falling into second place after the Musso Lussino. Our runner-up, the Breville Smart Scoop, made ice cream in 35 minutes, and the Cuisinart ICE-100 posted the longest freeze time at 42 minutes.

In 2015 we learned that the cost of the compressor machines was directly proportionate to the quality of the ice cream they produced. The cheapest machine, the Sunpentown KI-15, literally stopped working halfway through the cycle and didn’t completely freeze the ice cream. Part of the mixture was still liquid, which resulted in uneven, icy ice cream. The Cuisinart ICE-100 was slightly better, but also produced an icy texture. For just a bit more money, the Whynter ICM-15LS made a far creamier ice cream. Both the Breville Smart Scoop and the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino made better ice cream, but they’re significantly more expensive. The Whynter ICM-15LS hits the right balance of making really good ice cream at a decent price.

One of the great things about the Whynter ICM-15LS is the lack of noise. It was one of the quietest machines we tested, in stark contrast to our previous runner-up, the Cuisinart ICE-100, which was high-pitched and loud.

The machine itself is pretty compact: Measuring 8½ by 15 by 9¼ inches (height by length by width), it’s the smallest of our recommendations. That small size makes the ICM-15LS easier to stash under a workbench or in a cabinet while not in use. Compare that with the Breville Smart Scoop, which measures slightly larger at 9½ by 16½ by 11½ inches, and the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino at 10½ by 17½ by 12 inches. At 32 pounds, it’s pretty heavy, but it’s easier to pick up and move than our upgrade pick, which weighs 40 pounds. Nevertheless, it’s better stored in a low cabinet than on a high shelf.

It’s easiest to take the lid off to add mix-ins. Photo: Michael Hession

The ICM-15LS is simple to use. The 1½-quart removable bowl is easy to lift out, thanks to a built-in handle, so you can scrape out all the ice cream with ease. The Musso Lussino, on the other hand, doesn’t have a removable bowl, so scooping out the finished ice cream and cleaning the machine both get pretty messy. In our tests, setting up the Whynter machine was effortless and took less than three minutes. The Breville was more difficult to navigate; we had to give the manual a once-over and figure out the many buttons and functions before we could start churning.

This machine is also very convenient. It’s a compressor model, so it doesn’t require ice and nothing needs to be frozen in advance; just pour in your chilled base and turn it on. It isn’t any different from the other compressor machines we tested, but it does stand leagues ahead of the insert and ice-and-salt models we tried.

Fine Cooking likes the Whynter ICM-15LS for its value. Our prior pick was the Whynter SNO (since discontinued), and this machine is basically the same guts with a smaller bowl.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

Our previous pick, the Whynter SNO, had a 2-quart capacity, while the Whynter ICM-15LS has only a 1½-quart capacity. The smaller capacity is not that big of a deal, however, because you can run batches back-to-back in this machine since prefreezing isn’t required.

The opening for adding mix-ins is almost comically tiny (2½ by 1 inches, versus the Breville’s 4¾-by-2-inch opening). But because you can remove the lid and the motor keeps turning, adding mix-ins is pretty easy without fussing with the opening in the lid.

Runner-up: Breville Smart Scoop

The Breville Smart Scoop. Photo: Michael Hession

For the price, we think the Whynter ICM-15LS is the best ice cream maker for most people, but the Breville Smart Scoop is a good—albeit substantially more expensive—option if the ICM-15LS sells out. In our tests the Breville model made slightly creamier ice cream than the Whynter, but we don’t think that makes it worth the price jump.

The Smart Scoop was our higher-priced option in our original guide, but in 2015 it failed to beat the much more consistent (and expensive) Lello 4080 Musso Lussino. What the Smart Scoop really has going for it are more automatic options—basically a lot of extra bells and whistles that most people probably don’t need. It has an auto mode that lets you choose from 12 hardness settings (which seems excessive), from soft sorbet to super-firm ice cream. A bell alerts you when the time is right to add mix-ins, and the lid’s wide-mouth opening makes that task easy. When the cycle is done, the Smart Scoop automatically stops turning the ice cream, and an alert bell or an ice cream truck song signals that the cycle is finished (you can turn this off).

A keep-cool function ensures that your ice cream stays frozen and churned for up to three hours. The machine also has a unique cool-down function that brings the temp on your base and the machine down to the perfect turning temperature before it starts to churn—no other ice cream maker in our test group has this feature. The large, bright LCD screen is easy to read, and the buttons are intuitive. And if you prefer, the Smart Scoop also has a manual function that gives you complete control (the Whynter ICM-15LS, in contrast, has no presets).

The Breville Smart Scoop is loaded with automatic settings, which makes it unique. Photo: Michael Hession

At 54 percent overrun, the Smart Scoop’s ice cream was so smooth and perfectly churned that we could have eaten it straight from the machine, no additional freezing necessary. You could do the same with any of these makers, but the Breville, and the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino for that matter, produce a firmer ice cream straight out of the machine. If you want a more scoopable ice cream, just transfer the mixture to a freezer-safe container and freeze it for a few hours.

At nearly $400 at the time of writing, the Smart Scoop is definitely a splurge. And there’s nothing you can do in this machine that you can’t do in the Whynter ICM-15LS. But the preset auto functions do take a lot of guesswork out of the timing, which is great for beginners and even kids.

Brian Smith at Ample Hills Creamery told us that he had one of these at his house and that his kids loved to use it, probably because of the cheery jingle that plays when the ice cream is finished churning. It also comes recommended by Serious Eats and Bon Appétit.

Upgrade pick: Lello 4080 Musso Lussino

The Lello 4080 Musso Lussino. Photo: Michael Hession

The Lello 4080 Musso Lussino is truly the most luxurious home ice cream maker we’ve ever used. In our blind tasting, the Musso Lussino took first or second place with every taster. For the price, however, it’s worth the investment only if you’re a serious connoisseur or you have cash to burn. Musso is an Italian company that sells home and commercial ice cream and gelato makers. The design of the Musso Lussino is sleek and simple with no bells and whistles, but we do have a few small gripes about its build.

The stationary bowl is not fun to clean, especially if the machine isn’t situated near a sink. You basically have to scrape out every last bit of ice cream and let the bowl warm up a bit, otherwise your cleaning water will freeze. Then you need to fill a mixing bowl with soapy or bleach water and wipe the machine out, making sure to rinse it completely. The task took more paper towels than we care to use, but we’re sure that we could streamline it with practice.

Checking the consistency of the ice cream in the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino. Photo: Michael Hession

The machine is also really big and heavy, measuring 10½ by 17½ by 12 inches (height by length by width) and weighing 40 pounds. This isn’t something you can stash on a shelf; it should be permanently parked on your countertop.

As with the Whynter ICM-15LS, using the Musso Lussino is impressively easy. The metal dasher—all the others in our test group are plastic—sits in the depressed stainless steel bowl. After you pour in the ice cream base, you just set the timer and press the two green buttons, one for freezing and the other for churning; you have no extra controls or settings as on our runner-up. We aren’t sure why the Musso Lussino has two separate buttons, but the cooling button could be helpful for keeping the ice cream cold once you turn off the churn button—just remove the dasher so that it doesn’t get frozen into the mixture. In our tests, this machine took 22 to 25 minutes, posting the quickest churning time of all the models we tested. What does that speed get you? Less ice-crystal formation and an intense creaminess that’s reminiscent of store-bought premium ice cream, thanks to a more powerful compressor that freezes the mixture faster. The difference is evident when you scoop out the finished product, as it’s stretchy, like gelato, and visually smoother. The Whynter ICM-15LS and Breville Smart Scoop turned vanilla ice cream in 33 and 35 minutes, respectively, and their product was more icy.

But, again, the Lello 4080 Musso Lussino is really expensive. For it to pay for itself, you’d need to make 1 quart of ice cream at least once a week for two and a half years. For the same price you could easily buy 275 pints of premium ice cream from a store at $5 per pint, if you factor in the cost of the Musso Lussino plus quality ingredients (and why use anything but in such a machine?). But if you like to make ice cream for family and friends on the regular, and you have the money, this just might be your ideal ice cream maker. Like the other machines we picked, this model comes with a one-year warranty, which is a bit short given the hefty price tag.

Budget pick: Nostalgia ICMP400

If you’re not ready to commit to an expensive compressor machine, the Nostalgia ICMP400 offers good results, although it requires more work and won’t produce the creamiest textures. Of the two models we tested that required ice and salt, the Nostalgia was the winner. This simple machine can make up to 4 quarts of ice cream, easily twice the capacity of the others.

The Nostalgia produced decent ice cream with a lower overrun of 31 percent, which is on the dense side. While the ice cream was a bit icy, it wasn’t the biggest offender in our testing lineup. Sara Bonisteel preferred this machine’s ice cream over that made in the equally affordable Hamilton Beach 68330R, noting that it had a “nice bite” and “pretty nice texture” with a “hint of ice crystal.” The flavor of the cream really came out in the finish. (We didn’t test this model again with the higher-fat recipe. It’s very possible that with a different recipe, this machine would yield an ice cream with higher overrun.)

The Nostalgia requires plenty of ice and salt. Photo: Michael Hession

The construction is simple, with a canister, a cover, a dasher, a bucket, and a motor that fits over the top. You just layer ice and salt in the bucket around the canister and plug in the motor. (We used kosher salt because we couldn’t find ice cream rock salt, and it worked just fine.) The bucket has a big, comfortable handle, and the motor runs at a low hum. In our tests the ice cream took about 30 minutes to churn, but the bucket was only a quarter full; at full capacity, the process would’ve taken longer. Since it was a cool day, we didn’t need to add more ice.

Keep in mind that this machine isn’t designed for you to add mix-ins while it’s running. You have to remove the motor and lid to add anything to the canister. Even then, you run the risk of accidentally getting salty ice in your ice cream. Best to stir in any additional nuts, cookies, or candy by hand after it’s done churning.

For KitchenAid stand-mixer owners: KitchenAid Ice Cream Maker KICA0WH

Photo: Michael Hession

While we were not impressed with other frozen inserts, we found that the KitchenAid Ice Cream Maker KICA0WH attachment was the only frozen-bowl model that worked well consistently. It’s a space-saving, affordable alternative if you have a KitchenAid stand mixer from 1990 or later.

The KitchenAid KICA0WH made perfect, fluffy ice cream every time. And we do mean fluffy, with the highest overrun (68 percent) in our tests (using the lower-fat recipe). The lowest speed on a KitchenAid is still faster than the churn speed on all of the ice cream makers we tested, so the resulting ice cream was smooth and extremely airy, with few discernable ice crystals. If you like a denser ice cream, this is not the maker for you.

Because of the fluffier texture, the flavors also weren’t as pronounced, and we didn’t get an especially indulgent mouthfeel. Billy Barlow, then culinary and production director at Blue Marble Ice Cream, told us he used this attachment because he already owned a KitchenAid mixer and he had space constraints in his New York City home. He noted that while you do have control over the speed while using the KitchenAid attachment, if you run it too fast, the friction will prevent your ice cream from setting. We ran it on the lowest speed, and it worked really well.

This attachment comes highly recommended by Good Housekeeping. Cook’s Illustrated(subscription required) recommends it with reservations because of the high overrun.

Ice cream making tips

Yes, we tasted a lot of ice cream. Photo: Michael Hession

Even the best home ice cream machine will never make ice cream quite as smooth as the stuff you can buy in the store, which is churned more quickly at lower temperatures, preventing ice crystals from forming. But you can take some steps to greatly increase the quality of your homemade ice cream, mostly by making sure it stays as cold as possible through every part of the process. Here’s how to get the most out of any ice cream machine:

• Before you spin your base, thoroughly chill it down in an ice bath, or even let it chill in the fridge overnight. The colder the base, the sooner it starts to freeze, and the smaller the ice crystals will be. There is no skipping this step, unless you have a Breville Smart Scoop, which can do it for you.
• Once the ice cream is spun, it’s like soft serve—it’s completely edible but definitely not scoopable. This is the point where you “ripen” the ice cream, which means transferring it to a container to freeze for at least a few hours. Additional freezing is an important step, because it reduces the formation of ice crystals; the colder your freezer, the quicker your ice cream sets, and the smaller those ice cream crystals will be.
• If you’re interested in adding mix-ins, do so before ripening the ice cream. The ice cream base expands as the dasher whips air into the mixture. In our testing, we found that once the quart of base increased in size, it had little room for much else, and we needed to add mix-ins slowly and periodically. Maybe that’s the reason the Ample Hills cookbook suggests adding all mix-ins by hand once you’ve transferred the ice cream to a storage container. Also, if you are adding mix-ins, chill them in the freezer so they don’t melt your freshly spun ice cream.
• If you’re new to ice cream making and aren’t sure how long to churn, no worries with the Whynter ICM-15LS: That machine has an automatic shut-off function, so it won’t suffer damage if your mixture happens to freeze solid. Otherwise, remove the ice cream from the machine when it’s thick and about the consistency of soft serve.
• Also make sure the outside of the bowl is dry before placing it in the machine. This is a tip that Breville’s instructions specifically call out so that the bowl doesn’t freeze into the machine, and it’s a good idea for all ice cream makers with removable bowls.

What is overrun?

The term overrun refers to the amount of air whipped into the ice cream. There’s no optimal overrun, as commercial ice cream overrun can range from the super-dense 24 percent (Häagen-Dazs) to the light and fluffy 94 percent (Breyers), according to Cook’s Illustrated(subscription required). Think of it as the difference between pudding and mousse—they’re both stirred custard desserts, and they’re both delicious.

The air whipped into ice cream actually plays a role in texture and flavor delivery. Billy Barlow of Blue Marble Ice Cream said, “Air is very important when you take into account texture, as well as whenever you incorporate air into a product; if you have mint or vanilla in your ice cream, something that’s aromatic, those air capsules actually hold the aroma of whatever it is you’re flavoring with.” Ice cream that has a higher fat content holds more air. Not only that, but those air capsules also deliver better mouthfeel and texture.

All but one of the machines we tested in 2015 created an overrun between 53 percent and 59 percent, which showed us that home compressor machines yielded a similar overrun.

Cheap ice cream makers cut corners with cheap ingredients and high overrun. In the commercial ice cream business, more air means higher profits for producers. Douglas Goff, a food scientist with extensive experience in ice cream, told us, “Manufacturers are caught in the middle of ingredient and fixed costs on the one hand (which keep going up) and retailing demands for price point on the other hand (can’t go up), so overrun is a way to try to straddle that line and keep up margins.”

He went on to explain how that affected the quality of the finished product: “Yes, it is one of the defining characteristics of quality—too low and it is very dense, heavy, and rich (Häagen Dazs as the quintessential example, that is their market niche), and too high and it is too marshmallowy/fluffy, the cheap supermarket no-name brands being a good example.”

If you’re a fan of both fluffy texture and high-quality ingredients, the best way to have the ice cream of your dreams is to make it yourself.

The competition

The Whynter ICM-201SB is a newer Whynter model than our current pick, and at 2.1 quarts it has a larger capacity (the Whynter ICM-15LS makes 1.5 quarts). But it didn’t make ice cream significantly better than our current pick, and at the time we tested it was more expensive as well. However, if you can find the 201SB for cheaper than our pick, we think you’ll be perfectly happy with it.

We didn’t like the hand-crank model we tested. Photo: Lesley Stockton

Our previous runner-up, the Cuisinart ICE-100, fell from grace after 2017’s testing round. Pitted against other compressor models, it couldn’t compete and came in dead last. It took the longest to churn ice cream, 42 minutes, and the result was the iciest in our testing group.

The Sunpentown KI-15 was an underperformer. It churned the vanilla ice cream base with ease, and our blind-tasters liked its results a lot. But that’s where the good news ends: It stopped churning the lemon sorbet and chocolate ice cream before the mixtures were completely set, producing an icy and uneven texture.

The Donvier 837409W was the only hand-cranked model we tried. The smaller capacity (1 quart) of the frozen bowl probably makes the work much more manageable, as it needs to be turned only four complete turns, every three to four minutes for 20 minutes. But we found that it made inconsistent batches; the first was great, but the second was very icy.

A smaller machine with an insert bowl that requires prefreezing, the Cuisinart ICE-21 generally made icy ice cream in our tests. The ICE-21 does have a large opening in the top for mix-ins, which is a real plus. The biggest disappointment of this model was that when we went to make the second batch the next day, it wouldn’t freeze at all. The mixture resembled a half-melted milkshake.

Our prior top pick, the Whynter SNO, has since been discontinued. In our tests it made delicious, smooth ice cream on a par with that of our newer pick, the Whynter ICM-15LS. The SNO is bigger, heavier, and a little louder than the ICM-15LS, but if you happen to find it on closeout somewhere, go ahead and pick it up. We still stand by this maker.

The Whynter ICM-200LS is a slightly higher-capacity, slightly more expensive version of our top pick. A sales representative told us that the machines had the same motor and compressor; the only difference was that the ICM-200LS made 2 quarts of ice cream as opposed to 1½ quarts. We didn’t think an extra pint of ice cream was worth paying about $40 more at the time, so we opted not to test.

The White Mountain Appalachian Series 6-quart Electric Ice Cream Maker uses ice and salt and has a motorized dasher. Although it offers an attractive wooden bucket and is made in the USA, it typically costs over $200. Since you can get an easier-to-use compressor machine for that price, we opted not to test.

The Cuisinart ICE-30BC Pure Indulgence is a frozen-insert machine. Cook’s Illustrated wasn’t entirely pleased with it, and one of the editors here at Wirecutter had an unfavorable experience while owning one.

This guide may have been updated by Wirecutter. To see the current recommendation, please go here.

When readers choose to buy Wirecutter’s independently chosen editorial picks, Wirecutter and Engadget may earn affiliate commissions.

Why you should trust us

Senior editor Christine Cyr Clisset, who wrote our original guide to immersion blenders, has spent hundreds of hours for Wirecutter researching, testing, and writing about kitchen gadgets that whirl, cut, and chop. That includes writing our original guides to food processors and blenders. Before that she was a cookbook editor at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Kitchen staff writer Michael Sullivan, who contributed to our 2016 update, has reviewed everything from wine glasses to toaster ovens for Wirecutter. He is a graduate of The International Culinary Center, where he also worked as an editor. He previously worked as a recipe tester for the cookbook Meat: Everything You Need to Know. Sharon Franke, who worked on our 2018 update, tested and wrote about kitchen equipment at the Good Housekeeping Institute for more than 30 years. Before that she spent seven years wielding a knife and wrangling pots and pans as a professional chef in restaurants in New York City.

In 2015, we spoke with Rudy Speckamp, a former restaurateur who logged countless hours using immersion blenders as an instructor at the Culinary Institute of America, as well as Volker Frick, who worked with immersion blenders for 20 years as the executive chef at the soup manufacturer Kettle Cuisine. In our research we also read reviews in Cook’s Illustrated (subscription required) and Serious Eats, and we looked closely at owner ratings on retailer sites such as Amazon, as well as comments from Wirecutter readers.

Who should get this

An immersion blender is definitely worth investing in if you make pureed soups. “You could use a blender or a food processor, but an immersion blender just makes it one-pot cookery,” chef Rudy Speckamp told us. Having an immersion blender makes it easy to puree soup directly in the stockpot, rather than ladling the cooked ingredients into a blender in several batches and then pouring each batch into another bowl or pot before finally combining them and reheating them in the pot. Immersion blenders also work well for small batches of smoothies, baby food, or even dips, pesto, or mayonnaise. If yours comes with a whisk attachment, it can make whipped cream to top a pie or an ice cream sundae.

An immersion blender won’t work for heavier tasks, and most won’t make a silky-smooth texture. A food processor, with its various blades and disks, works best for most chopping, dicing, or shredding, and a full-size blender makes smoother purees and smoothies. (If you want more details on the differences between blenders, processors, and mixers, we’ve covered the subject in some depth.)

An immersion blender is definitely worth investing in if you make pureed soups.

We recommend upgrading from an old immersion blender only if your current model fails to make smooth textures, if it’s difficult to hold and use, or if you want more attachments, such as a mini chopper or whisk.

How we picked

For our 2018 update, we tested six new models against our previous top pick, the Breville Control Grip (second from right). Photo: Michael Hession

For our 2018 update, we checked to see what new models had been introduced since our last guide, as well as whether any models we’d previously reviewed had been updated or discontinued. We read the latest reports from other review sites and looked at the best sellers on Amazon and other retailer sites. We also paid close attention to comments on our existing guide as well as on Amazon, noting the design features that people loved or hated. Taking all of that into consideration, along with all of our past research into immersion blenders, we established the following criteria for a good model.

Purees quickly and smoothly

The most important feature of an immersion blender is its ability to puree to a fairly fine texture in a reasonable amount of time. An immersion blender’s motor needs to have enough torque to create a vigorous vortex so that food circulates in the mixing vessel and passes through the rotary blade multiple times. “If there’s a lot of movement, that’s good,” said Volker Frick, the executive chef at Kettle Cuisine at the time of our interview in 2015. “How deep does [the vortex] go? And how quickly does it spit it back up?” An effective vortex creates a smooth puree, while a subpar one leaves stringy or chunky bits in soup or smoothies.

Comfortable to use

Because these machines are designed to be used one-handed (you’ll probably hold a pot or mixing cup with your other hand), the best ones are comfortable to hold. That means the controls should be easy to press or adjust, the handle should feel good in your hand, and the machine should be light enough for you to grip without fatigue for at least a minute. (Many non-commercial immersion blenders aren’t designed to be used for longer than a minute at a time, or they’ll overheat.)

Removable blending wand

Immersion blenders with detachable blending wands are easier to clean without risk of getting the motor wet. These designs also allow you to connect different attachments (such as a food chopper or whisk), and some are even dishwasher safe. That said, more expensive models (such as those by Bamix) and those made for commercial use typically have wands that don’t come off. In part, the fixed wands may be why these pro-grade blenders tend to be more durable than home models; they simply have fewer pieces that can break. (We couldn’t find an official appliance engineer to confirm this theory, but we spoke with a process engineer who agreed with this assessment.) But we haven’t had any durability problems with the detachable wand of the Breville during more than five years of testing, and we ultimately prefer that style for its convenience.

Stainless steel construction

We preferred models with wands that were primarily made of stainless steel because, in addition to being more durable, they’re heat resistant. Plastic components have the potential to warp in a batch of hot soup (or if they touch the hot side of a pot). We read at least one Amazon review and a mention in the comments of this Kitchn article complaining about just that problem with cheaper, all-plastic models.

The shape and size of the cage around the blade varies, but we preferred designs that were mostly or entirely stainless steel and wouldn’t warp. Photo: Michael Hession

Minimal spattering

In our tests for the 2018 update to this guide, we noticed that the least expensive models we tested had openings in the cage that surrounded the blade. These models were the only ones that spattered during our blending—which wasn’t pleasant when we were pureeing hot soup, and in one case left us with lots of messy splotches to clean off the countertop, cabinets, wall, and clothing.

Useful attachments

As for attachments, many models come with a food chopper and whisk. Chefs Volker Frick and Rudy Speckamp agreed that these attachments were really just gravy, since the main task of an immersion blender is to blend. In our own testing, we’ve found a chopper attachment useful for grinding small batches of bread crumbs, blending a quick vinaigrette, or making filling for ravioli, but it’s not always great for chopping things like onions, which it tends to pulverize. And more often than not, we found dirtying the mini chopper attachment to be more trouble than it was worth. Whisk attachments, meanwhile, were particularly useful for whipping cream quickly, and gave us much fluffier results than the blending wand.

Length of the blender

Some brands make models with taller wands, advertising them as better for blending in deep pots. Speckamp agreed: “[Length is] important, especially for quantity cooking, because you want it to go to the bottom of the pot for pureeing. If the shaft only goes to the middle of the pot, I don’t think it’s as successful.” The flip side is that if it’s too tall, the immersion blender can become more cumbersome to maneuver, which we experienced during testing.

Other features to look out for

Multiple speeds are nice to have, as it can be helpful to start slow and progressively increase the speed to prevent spattering, but not necessary. However, our testing confirmed that people really need only two speeds: low and high.

You can also find a variety of cordless immersion blenders, but these tend not to be as powerful as their corded counterparts. In our 2015 review, we didn’t find any cordless models that topped editorial or buyer reviews, and we decided not to include any in our testing.

Nearly every major brand that manufactures small kitchen appliances makes an immersion blender, but there’s not much consensus—at least in editorial reviews—about which brand makes the best. America’s Test Kitchen (subscription required), Good Housekeeping, and Serious Eats tested different models, and we didn’t find any agreement in the smaller reviews we read, so comparing results was difficult. Because of this, we looked at Amazon reviews more closely than we would usually.

For our 2018 update, we tested six models—the Bella Hand Immersion Blender, the Braun MultiQuick 5 Hand Blender MQ505, the Braun MultiQuick 7 Hand Blender MQ725, the Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-175, the Hamilton Beach 2-Speed Hand Blender, and the Philips ProMix Hand Blender HR1670/92—as well as our previous top pick, the Breville Control Grip. Across our previous reviews over the past five years, we evaluated 57 models.

How we tested

We pureed large batches of soup—containing fibrous root vegetables, ginger, and almond—directly in a 6-quart pot. Photo: Michael Hession

In previous tests, we started by pureeing a full pot of root-vegetable soup until it looked smooth (which is how most people use their immersion blender at home). We timed how long it took, and then we strained the results to see if the blender left behind any chunks. For our 2018 update, we decided to test each blender for exactly four minutes, after noting that most of the models in our lineup took around that long to produce a smooth-looking pot of soup. Again, we pureed large batches of soup consisting of fibrous root vegetables, ginger, and almond directly in a 6-quart pot, straining the results to look for any unblended bits. We also made smoothies with kale, frozen strawberries, a few ice cubes, orange juice, and yogurt in each blending cup (or in a Pyrex 4-quart glass measure for models that didn’t come with a cup). Although we recognize that many immersion blender manufacturers don’t recommend using their blenders to pulverize frozen ingredients or ice, we know that many smoothie recipes call for ice and frozen fruit, and that some people like to make smoothies with their immersion blenders. As with the soup, we strained the smoothies after blending.

We made smoothies to see how effectively the immersion blenders could pulverize frozen ingredients and ice. Photo: Michael Hession

To judge how efficiently the immersion blenders could emulsify, we made small batches of mayonnaise using both the blending wand (attempting to make quick immersion blender mayonnaise by blending all the ingredients at once) and the whisk attachment (adding oil in a slow drizzle). In the process, we noted how easy it was to maneuver each blender in the blending cup and whether the cup stayed stable on the countertop as we worked.

We made small batches of quick mayonnaise to judge how efficiently the immersion blenders could emulsify. Photo: Lesley Stockton

During testing, we also checked to see if the blender suctioned to the bottom of the cup or pot, which can make it difficult to continue blending without pulling up and causing spatter. In addition, using the whisk attachment—or if the blender didn’t come with one, the blending wand—we whipped heavy cream, measuring the result to see if the volume at least doubled. In the chopper attachment (if the blender came with one), we diced onions to judge whether the machines could chop them evenly without pulverizing them.

Our pick: Breville Control Grip

Photo: Michael Hession

In our tests, the Breville Control Grip immersion blender processed soups and smoothies to an even texture and did so quickly. We also found it easier and more pleasant to use than most other hand blenders, which means it’s more likely to get regular play in the kitchen. A rubberized handle and a power button that you squeeze like a trigger make it one of the most comfortable models to operate of all the blenders we tested, and it didn’t spatter or suction to the bottom of our pot or our mixing cup. The Breville’s 42-ounce cup has almost twice the volume of the cups that come with other blenders we tested—enough for two smoothies. And its wide range of speeds and its useful attachments help elevate it above the competition.

In our original 2013 tests and those for our 2016 update, the Breville made the smoothest pureed soups and left almost zero food waste behind when we strained the results through a sieve (impressively, it even ground peanuts into a smooth peanut butter). Our 2018 test played out much the same even when we pureed a soup of fibrous root vegetables, ginger, and almond, although two of the new models we tested made soup with a silkier texture. The Breville left behind only a few pieces of almond skin. Maybe best of all, it didn’t splatter in the process.

In our smoothie test, the Breville created a thick texture with very small flecks of kale and only fractions of an ounce that didn’t pass through a fine sieve. Photo: Michael Hession

None of the blenders we tested previously excelled at green smoothies, but the Breville has always come out on or near the top in that regard. In 2018, when we used ice cubes in our smoothie recipe, we found that the Breville, as well as several others, created a thick texture with very small flecks of kale and only fractions of an ounce that didn’t pass through a fine sieve. In a previous test, the Dualit Hand Blender was only about on a par with the Breville, even though it’s a much more powerful immersion blender (400 watts versus the Breville’s 280 watts). This year we found that the Philips ProMix Hand Blender HR1670/92 (our upgrade pick, 300 watts) and the Braun MultiQuick 7 Hand Blender MQ725 (400 watts) produced even smoother results—virtually no bits or pieces remained when we strained their smoothies.

In addition to blending well, the Breville was one of the most comfortable blenders to use.

The Breville’s low and high speeds were more extreme than those of the other models we tested, and its noticeably higher high may be why it blends efficiently. Although we found the 15 available speeds mostly overkill, that range was helpful when we needed to start slow and gradually increase the speed to prevent ingredients from spattering. A small dial at the top of the blender controls the speeds, and it’s easy to adjust as you blend.

In addition to blending well, the Breville was one of the most comfortable blenders to use; as a result, we more easily processed things that took several minutes (such as our pot of soup or mayo). Parts of the Breville’s handle are covered in rubber, so they’re easy to grip. Because you hold the Breville trigger style and rest the side of your finger on the power button rather than depressing it with a fingertip, the Breville is also among the easiest models to operate.

The Breville is one of the few models we’ve tested over the years with a plastic rim around the base of the metal cage, which prevented all but slight suctioning to the bottom of the mixing cup or pot. We also appreciate that the nonstick surface keeps the blender from scratching the bottom and sides of pots.

Left to right: the jars that come with the Breville Control Grip, the Braun MultiQuick 5, and the Philips ProMix. Photo: Michael Hession

Over our years of long-term testing, we haven’t used the Breville’s mixing cup all that often, but we do appreciate that it’s bigger than the cups that come with other models. At 42 ounces to the top fill line, it’s close to twice the size of others we tested, and it was the only cup in our 2018 testing that comfortably accommodated the ingredients for two smoothies. Its larger capacity made it easier for us to maneuver the hand blender around when we used it to make traditional mayonnaise (slowly drizzling in oil). For storage, the cup comes with a lid, which then snaps onto the bottom of the cup to keep the container from moving on the countertop when you’re blending. For other functions, such as making a smoothie, the handle on the jar gave us a good grip. The Breville’s mini chopper also fits directly into the cup to save space when you aren’t using them.

The Breville comes with a large pitcher, and both a chopper and a whisk attachment. Photo: Sarah Kobos

The Breville comes with a selection of high-quality extras, including a mini chopper, a whisk, and a guard for the blade. In our tests, the chopper evenly diced an onion in mere seconds, and using the whisk we were able to make clouds of whipped cream and creamy mayonnaise. We’ve also appreciated the guard over the past few years; it will save you from accidentally slicing a hand on the blender while the machine is stowed in a utensil drawer.

The chopper attachment stores neatly inside the pitcher. Photo: Sarah Kobos

The Breville has a rather average one-year limited warranty. We expected more coverage, considering that the motor on the company’s food processor has a 25-year warranty, but many of the immersion blenders we’ve evaluated have had similarly short warranties. And in our years of long-term testing since 2013, the Breville has held up well.

Flaws but not dealbreakers

Although Braun and Philips do not put limitations on how long you can use their respective hand blenders continuously, Breville recommends that you use the Control Grip for only a minute at a time, with a minute of rest between blendings. However, this is customary procedure for many hand blenders, and it helps to prevent the machine from overheating and therefore keep it in good working order longer. In some of our tests, we tried using the Breville continuously for up to four minutes, and it did not overheat or stall.

In our tests, the Breville couldn’t make super-speedy mayo (which involves combining all of the mayo ingredients in the cup and emulsifying them with the blending wand). That said, the recipe for basic mayonnaise included in the Breville instruction booklet says to “gradually drizzle oil into [the] egg mixture.” When we used this more traditional method, the Breville made mayonnaise effectively, taking only about a minute or two longer than with the speedy method. We don’t think this is a dealbreaker because most people don’t make homemade mayo on a regular basis, if at all, anyway.

The Breville can’t make “speedy mayo” (when you combine and blend all of the ingredients in the cup together), but it does a great job when you slowly drizzle the oil into the egg mixture. Photo: Lesley Stockton

Also, if you’re not careful, the Breville will totally pulverize an onion in its chopper attachment. We suggest pulsing judiciously and checking the consistency of the items in the chopper attachment after just a few seconds to keep from overprocessing.

And in our long-term testing, we’ve noticed that the Breville is a little tricky to clean under the blades, particularly after we’ve used it for thick purees or mayo. But this is a problem with all immersion blenders. Sometimes, getting the gunk out requires a little prodding with a utensil (never, never do this while the blender is plugged in). Running the immersion blender in a cup of soapy water also makes for easier cleanup.

Long-term test notes

Several Wirecutter staffers have helped us long-term test the Breville Control Grip over the past five years, and we now use it in our test kitchen. We’ve made smoothies, pureed soups, created fillings for ravioli and other recipes, and used the whisk attachment to whip up batches of egg whites. Some of the printing on the side of the handle has worn, but the blender still performs as if it were new.

Budget pick: Braun MultiQuick 5 Hand Blender MQ505

Photo: Michael Hession

Although the Braun MultiQuick 5 Hand Blender MQ505 is only about half the price of the Breville Control Grip, it is almost as good at pureeing. When we strained our root-vegetable soup, barely any vegetable fiber or almond skins were left behind. This blender easily handled kale, frozen strawberries, and ice, turning them into a thick, drinkable smoothie. What you don’t get for a lot fewer bucks is the ease of use and versatility of the Breville. To operate the Braun, you have to depress either the low-power or high-power button with one fingertip the entire time you’re blending, which gets tiresome. On the Breville, you can squeeze the on button with the side of your finger as you hold it trigger style. Even though the Braun has only two speeds, we didn’t find that to be much of a handicap; after starting out on low, we used high speed most of the time and got very good results.

The Braun MultiQuick 5 Hand Blender MQ505 comes with a mixing cup and a whisk. Photo: Michael Hession

One of the best things about the Braun MultiQuick 5 is that in our tests it didn’t spatter or suction to the bottom of the pot, things that were real problems with the other budget-priced models we tested, including the Cuisinart, Bella, and Hamilton Beach blenders. It also did an excellent job of whipping up a speedy immersion-blender mayo, whizzing it to a fluffy texture in under a minute. In the manual we found no limitations on how long to run the blender continuously, whereas the makers of most other hand blenders we tested (including Breville) caution against running the motor for longer than a minute without rest. And when we used the Braun for four minutes, we did not experience any problems. The wand is removable and safe for dishwasher cleaning.

Although you get a mixing cup with the Braun, it’s less than half the capacity of the Breville’s and has no handle so it’s not as convenient to use. You also get a whisk but not a chopper.

To operate the Braun, you have to depress either the low-power or high-power button with one fingertip the entire time you’re blending, which gets tiresome. Photo: Michael Hession

Overall, this Braun model comes close to the Breville Control Grip at blending soup and smoothies, and with its whisk it does as good a job of whipping cream. If you’re not quite ready to commit to a more expensive model, we think this one is a great choice.

The Braun MultiQuick 5 is among the highest-rated hand blenders on Amazon at this writing, and its two-year limited warranty beats the one-year warranty of the Breville.

Upgrade pick: Philips ProMix Hand Blender HR1670/92

Photo: Michael Hession

The Philips ProMix Hand Blender HR1670/92 was simply the best at pureeing in our tests, and it came the closest to producing professional results. It created silky textured soups, leaving virtually nothing behind, and it blended a smoothie so thick and smooth that the result resembled the machine-made frozen margaritas you can get at happy hour. As with the Breville Control Grip, you hold the Philips ProMix trigger style, with the side of your finger resting on the wide power bar, so it’s comfortable to use over several minutes. But despite costing the same as the Breville, it doesn’t come with any accessories other than a blending cup.

The Philips has a clever speed-control mechanism: To adjust the speed, you put more or less pressure on the power bar, so changing the setting with one hand is easy. In truth, however, we found that after exerting light pressure initially, we tended to grip tightly, increasing the pressure to high and keeping it that way throughout the remainder of the blending process. In comparison, on the Breville you spin a dial on top of the handle to change speeds.

To adjust the speed on the Philips ProMix, you just put more or less pressure on the power bar; changing the setting with one hand is easy. Photo: Michael Hession

Philips’s manual for this model gives no limitations on how long the blender can operate continuously; we were able to use it for four minutes without any signs of it overheating or struggling. The removable blending wand attaches with a satisfying click and is safe for dishwasher cleaning. However, because the bell-shaped cage surrounding the blade is deep, cleaning this model’s blending wand by hand takes a little more effort.

In spite of this Philips model’s virtues, we are not recommending it as our top pick because for its steep price tag, you get only a 24-ounce beaker and no other accessories. You can choose the even pricier Philips ProMix Hand Blender HR1686/92, which does come with a whisk and chopper, but at $150 currently, that version costs way more than what we think most people want to spend on a hand blender considering how capable the Breville Control Grip is at a much lower price. The whisk and chopper accessories are also available for purchase separately.

As a whisk attachment was not included with the Philips model, we used the blending wand to make both whipped cream and mayonnaise. It was able to thicken cream only slightly, failing to produce the kind of fluffy whipped cream that you can swirl on top of a pie or a bowl of ice cream or fold into a mousse. We were able to make a good quick mayonnaise with the blending wand, though not as quickly as we could with the Braun (this may have had to do with the nearly triangular shape of the blending jar, which was a bit harder for us to maneuver in).

The Philips ProMix comes with a 24-ounce beaker and no other accessories—although you can purchase a whisk and a chopper attachment separately. Photo: Michael Hession

Like the Breville Control Grip, the Philips ProMix comes with a one-year warranty. If you puree soups on a regular basis, prefer a velvety texture, and don’t mind spending more while skipping on accessories, the Philips could be a very good addition to your kitchen.

Care and maintenance

If you’re used to the multitude of safety features on food processors, you might find immersion blenders a little less, well, idiotproof. In January 2013, The New York Times (now the parent company of Wirecutter) published an article (“Bandages Not Included“) about how easy it is to hurt yourself with an immersion blender. The author mangled two fingers on her immersion blender and quotes multiple other people who have cut themselves.

As the author writes, it’s apt that these machines are often called “hand blenders.” Unlike with food processors, the only thing protecting you from the whirring blade of an immersion blender is the cage that surrounds it. Always be mindful of where you’re pointing the blade end of the blender, don’t put your free hand in its path, and unplug it when you aren’t using it.

If you’re used to the multitude of safety features on food processors, you might find immersion blenders a little less, well, idiotproof.

However, the experts we spoke with said the greater danger is spattering yourself with hot liquid. “The biggest thing is probably getting burnt,” culinary teacher Rudy Speckamp told us. To avoid this fate, soup pro Volker Frick said, always use the lower speed or pulse setting if you’re working with a smaller pot or saucepan.

Immersion blenders tend to have short duty cycles. Many of the manufacturers of these machines advise against running them for more than one minute at a time, and they recommend giving the blenders one to three minutes to rest before using them again. It’s important to follow these directions, or you risk overheating the motor and ultimately breaking it. In our 2015 test, we accidentally did this with the Panasonic immersion blender we tried. In 2018, we deliberately ran all of the models in the test group for four minutes continuously; although none of them stalled, the Cuisinart CSB-175 became uncomfortably hot to hold at the end of the four-minute time period.

According to the manual for the Breville Control Grip (PDF), owners should operate that model for only one minute at a time, with a one-minute cooling period before running it again. (When you’re blending especially thick or heavy mixtures, the Breville manual says to operate the machine for only 15 seconds, with one minute between each use.)

You can also burn out an immersion blender by using it for heavier tasks that it’s not suited to handle. For example, although we’ve found the whisk attachment on the Breville useful for whipping eggs or cream, avoid using it for something like a thick meringue. Opt for a hand or stand mixer instead.

Immersion blenders are generally easy to wash. Wipe the motor base with a damp cloth and wash the wand with soap and water. Running the immersion blender in soapy warm water in the blending cup should loosen thick or sticky ingredients that lodge in the blade housing.

The competition

The Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-175 has replaced the CSB-75, our previous budget pick. Like its forerunner, the CSB-175 pureed soup evenly and quickly, but it was the only model we tested that couldn’t crush ice, even though the manual includes recipes with ice cubes. After blending longer than the time required by any of our other models to make a smoothie, it left two cubes totally unblended. This Cuisinart model also spattered a bit, and it became too hot to hold when we used it to blend for four minutes (the manual recommends blending for no more than a minute at a time, but the same is true for other blenders that didn’t overheat when we ran them for a longer stretch). This model also has the same safety lock that we (and many owners on Amazon) found particularly irritating on the CSB-75.

The Braun MultiQuick 7 Hand Blender MQ725 produced silky-smooth soup and thick smoothies, besting the Breville Control Grip on both tests. Like the Philips ProMix, this model is designed for you to hold it trigger style, and it has a power button that you press harder to increase the speed. Unlike the Braun MultiQuick 5, this model comes with a full array of accessories, including a beaker, a whisk, and a chopper. Unfortunately, the Braun MultiQuick 7 features a safety lock similar to the one on the Cuisinart CSB-175, but you have a few seconds after pressing the unlock button to press the start button (whereas on the Cuisinart you have to press both simultaneously). This design makes the MultiQuick 7 slightly less inconvenient than the CSB-175 but still creates an annoying additional step.

For its low price, the Hamilton Beach 2-Speed Hand Blender performed surprisingly well, and was even able to crush the ice in our smoothie recipe. Unfortunately, it suctioned to the bottom of our pot during blending and spattered badly. If our soup ingredients had been any hotter, it could have been dangerous; as it was, we had quite a mess to clean up. And when you attach the blending wand, you need to be careful to turn it to lock it into place so that it won’t fall off in your soup.

A top seller on both the Amazon and Walmart sites, the Bella Hand Immersion Blender is usually available for under $20. In our 2018 test, we found it hard to control and noticed that it tended to spatter and suction to the bottom of a pot. It is, however, able to puree soup, if not quite as smoothly as other models, so if spending as little as possible is your main priority and you won’t be using your blender often, this model might be worth considering. Although it doesn’t come with a beaker, a whisk attachment is included.

We found the Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-75 (our former budget pick) to be a surprisingly efficient blender given its low price, although it produced a slightly chunkier puree. In previous tests, it blended soup on a par with the Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-77, the KitchenAid 3-Speed, and the KitchenAid 5-Speed but left behind pieces of ginger and parsnip. It made a pretty good smoothie too. Cuisinart has discontinued this model, replacing it with the Smart Stick CSB-175, described above.

The Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-100 boasts 700 watts of power, about 400 more watts than the Breville Control Grip offers. But watts aren’t everything—as our testing proved. This Cuisinart model still left behind small bits of almonds after pureeing soup, which wasn’t the case with the Breville. We also found the safety-lock feature particularly irritating: You can’t start the blender unless you press the safety-release button and the power button at the same time. Although you can release the safety button once the machine is running, it’s an annoying, unnecessary step.

Even after nearly 5 minutes, 40 seconds of blending, the KitchenAid 3-Speed Hand Blender left behind a chunky soup. Our testers had problems with this model suctioning to the bottom of the pot, and complained that it spattered a lot. It also didn’t puree smoothies as well as competitors, leaving behind small nut pieces and raspberry seeds.

The KitchenAid 5-Speed Hand Blender was well-reviewed at the time of our 2013 testing, with higher ratings than the KitchenAid 3-Speed. It comes with a big box of attachments, including interchangeable blades, a chopper, and a whisk. But in our tests, the 5-Speed didn’t perform any better than the 3-Speed, and we didn’t think we’d use all of the attachments.

The All-Clad KZ750D left behind two large pieces of ginger that were virtually untouched after pureeing. This model doesn’t come with any accessories—not even a cup—yet still costs around $100 at this writing. This was one of the tallest and heaviest immersion blenders we tested, and it was more cumbersome to maneuver compared with the Breville.

The Dualit Hand Blender, despite its obnoxiously large, vibrating handle, performed as well as or came in second to the Breville in almost all our tests in a previous year. It actually has a nicer chopper attachment (the only chopper attachment we’ve seen with a feed tube). But we couldn’t get past the uncomfortable handle, and we found that twisting the blending wand on and off was tricky, particularly if it was slicked with oily ingredients. The Breville’s snap-on handle is a much better design. The Dualit is also expensive, and we don’t think it’s worth the extra money over the Breville.

Several years ago, Good Housekeeping chose the Cuisinart Smart Stick 2-Speed Hand Blender CSB-79 as one of its top picks, writing, “It offers excellent performance and it’s easy to use.” Food & Wine also recommended this model at that time, saying, “The noticeably sharp blade purees beautifully, and the hood around the blade is extra-deep, which helps pull food through the blender.” In our 2013 testing, this model pureed on a par with the less expensive KitchenAid 3-Speed, KitchenAid 5-Speed, and Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-75, but was nowhere near as effective as the Breville.

We had high hopes for the Bamix Mono, as the Bamix brand has a reputation for making sturdy, long-lasting machines. We chose the Bamix Mono because it’s one of Bamix’s least expensive models, and at the time it had great reviews on Amazon. In testing, we found that it had a comfortable handle and easy-to-push buttons, but sadly the blender failed to create a great vortex and therefore was notably slow in blending soup and smoothies. Surprisingly, it was the worst in our puree test, leaving a ton of fiber in the sieve. Also, the blending wands of all Bamix models are permanently attached (although most come with interchangeable blades), which makes them more difficult to clean than models with detachable wands.

As with Bamix, we were intrigued by Waring’s professional-grade immersion blenders because they seemed particularly durable. The Quik Stik is the smallest model that Waring makes, and like the Bamix Mono it has a fixed wand and no attachments. The Quik Stik actually did a better job of pureeing than the Bamix or the Cuisinart and KitchenAid models we tested, and like the Bamix Mono, it felt very sturdy. But this model doesn’t come with a blending cup and isn’t as convenient as the Breville Control Grip with its removable shaft and attachments. If you were doing major quantity cooking and actually needed a pro-level tool at a moderate price, this model would be one to consider, but most people are better served by the power and speed of the Breville.

In our 2015 testing, we found that the Panasonic MX-SS1 pureed decently but required a lot more maneuvering around the pot than the Breville or even the Cuisinart Smart Stick CSB-75, which put a lot more strain on our wrists. The blending cup doesn’t come with a handle and is rather small, but in our tests the food-chopper attachment worked nicely to dice onions. Unfortunately, the Panasonic died on us midway through testing, perhaps because we ran it past the duty cycle of one minute. To be fair, you should run most immersion blenders for a maximum of one minute, and we ran the Panasonic for at least two on several occasions. Still, we did the same with all the other blenders in our test group, and none of them died.

This guide may have been updated by Wirecutter. To see the current recommendation, please go here.

When readers choose to buy Wirecutter’s independently chosen editorial picks, Wirecutter and Engadget may earn affiliate commissions.