We tested over 30 different juicers, juicing over 200 lb. of produce in close to 200 different juicing performance tests. Why so many juicers, so much produce, and so many tests? Our goal was simple – we simply wanted to find the best juicer on the market for most people. Only by testing a large number of different juicers of different types and manufactured by a wide variety of different brands could we be sure that we would have a sample size large enough with enough variety within that sample to truly be able to say that we had found the best juicer out of all of the juicers currently available on the market. Only by juicing a substantial amount of produce with each juicer and only by subjecting each juicer to a sufficiently large number of performance tests could we say that we had tested each unit’s ability to extract juice sufficiently.
But we didn’t stop there. In addition to evaluating each unit’s juicing performance we also took time to evaluate certain factors not directly related to its ability to extract juice. Those factors would include assembly difficulty, food preparation requirements (how much cutting of produce is required before it is able to be processed by the juicer), cleaning difficulty, overall ease of use, versatility, durability, and value. Each juicer we tested was analyzed, head to toe, and scored in each of these non-performance categories as well. Thus, our reviews will show not only the best juicers for obtaining maximum yield, but also those juicers that are easiest to clean, those that are the most durable, those that are the best value, and so on and so forth.
The Roadmap for the Rest of this Guide
The rest of this buyer’s guide can be divided into three major sections:
- Juicer Types
- How We Tested
- Model Specific Recommendations
A quick summary of each section follows below.
Juicer Types – Understanding Them Is Crucial to the Juicer Buying Process
Before we get to our model specific top picks for 2018 we first need to get you familiar with all of the different types of juicers that you can choose from and give you a general idea of how they work. Only then will you be able to truly make an educated decision as to which specific model is going to be of the particular type that is going to be the best option for you. There certainly are a number of differences between different models of the same type. These differences allow us to recommend one particular model over another, as we do later on. However, there are much more substantial differences between different types of juicers. Understanding these type specific differences will be crucial to your making an informed decision about which specific model juicer you want to buy. As such, much of the rest of this guide will address type specific differences in tremendous detail. Only after we’ve discussed all of them with what we believe to be sufficient depth and clarity will we move on to the rest of the guide.
How We Tested – Review Categories Explained
Once you’re familiar with all of the different types of juicers on the market and all of the differences between them, it will be time to take a closer look at the actual process by which we evaluated each juicer we tested. This process is best explained by taking a tour of all of the scored review categories in our individual juicer reviews – categories that encompass a wide variety of different juicer features and general characteristics in addition to juicer performance. Review categories include assembly difficulty, food preparation requirements, performance (yield), cleaning difficulty, ease of use, versatility, durability, and value. We’ll discuss each of these categories and how we scored them in detail. We’ll also discuss general trends within each category as they apply to juicers of different types. What type of juicers scored best in the cleaning difficulty category? What type of juicer is best if your aim is to buy a juicer with the least stringent food preparation requirements? These are the types of questions we’ll answer in this section of the guide.
Model Specific Recommendations
Finally, we’ll discuss model specific recommendations. What is the best juicer for most people, for obtaining maximum yields, or for juicing oranges, or leafy greens, or carrots? We’ll answer all of these questions and more in this final section of the guide.
We understand that you may not be able to read our whole guide in chronological order. To jump to a specific topic use the table of contents box below.
Table of Contents
- 1 An Introduction To Juicer Types
- 2 How We Tested
- 3 The Best Juicers For 2018
- 4 The Best Juicers By Type
- 5 The Best Juicers For Juicing Specific Fruits and Vegetables
- 5.1 Citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, limes, and lemons
- 5.2 Grapes including black, white, red, and green grapes
- 5.3 Hard root vegetables including carrots, beets, and radishes
- 5.4 Celery and the stems of leafy greens
- 5.5 Apples and similar fruit such as pears, pineapples, and cucumbers
- 5.6 Leafy greens such as spinach, kale, and watercress
- 5.7 Wheatgrass
- 6 Juicer Comparison Tables
An Introduction To Juicer Types
Laying the Groundwork For A Well Informed Purchase
We like to look at all juicers currently on the market as being either slow juicers or fast juicers. In the fast juicer category is the only type of juicer that processes produce quickly – centrifugal juicers. In the slow juicer category are all of the types of juicers that process produce slowly. Those types of juicers include horizontal masticating, vertical masticating, twin gear, hydraulic press, and manual juicers. Of the 30+ juicers we tested, 17 were centrifugal, 5 were horizontal masticating, 7 were vertical masticating, one was a twin gear juicer, and another was a juicer that doesn’t fall into any of the subcategories listed above – the Champion juicer.
To demonstrate the differences between the different types of juicers currently on the market we’ll first explain how each type of juicer works. We’ll then describe the major positives and negatives of each type of juicer in list form. These positives and negatives will be further expounded upon in the next section of the guide.
We tested 17 different centrifugal juicers. To get you more familiar with this type of juicer let’s first take a quick look at how it works. To do so, let’s follow the path of produce through a typical centrifugal juicer.
The produce first enters through the top of the vertical hollow tube that extends from the top of this type of juicer – its feeding chute. From there it is either pushed into (if you use an included “food pusher” that fits into the inside of the chute) or simply falls onto (if you don’t use the food pusher) a very quickly rotating disc, called a filter basket. The filter basket is composed of two different parts – a flat center and a curved perimeter. The produce comes into direct contact with the flat center where it is immediately cut, sliced, chopped, etc. into much smaller pieces. The filter basket’s flat center has several sharp edges cut into it which facilitates this cutting and chopping of the produce. As the produce is cut by the flat center it is, at the same time, being pushed towards the filter basket’s perimeter. The perimeter is curved and has hundreds of tiny little holes. The liquid part of the cut produce, the juice, makes its way through these tiny little holes and splashes against the inner wall of a container that surrounds the filter basket on all sides. This container is called the filter bowl. At one end of the filter bowl is a hole that allows the juice to exit out of the juicer through a connected outlet, called the juicer’s juice outlet.
The dry part of the cut produce, the pulp, follows a much different path. It cannot make its way through the small holes of the filter basket’s curved perimeter. Recall that the filter basket is rotating very quickly. Now imagine this dry part of the produce being pushed away from the filter basket’s flat center and against its curved perimeter. The filter basket rotates fast enough so that the pulp is flung upward where it hits the bottom of the juicer’s cover. The cover is curved in such a way so that it redirects the flung pulp downward at an angle (instead of straight down in which case it would fall straight back down onto the rotating filter basket). The pulp falls into a container next to the filter bowl. This container is aptly named the juicer’s pulp container.
Let’s review all of the parts involved in the juicing process:
- food pusher – this is the part that fits into the feed chute and allows you to push produce down into the juicer
- juicer cover – this is the part that covers the filter basket and filter bowl beneath it
- filter basket – this is the quickly rotating disc that cuts and chops the produce at its center and strains juice through its perimeter. It normally rotates at speeds between 5000 and 15000 RPM (depending on model)
- filter bowl – this the container that surrounds the filter basket, collects the juice that is strained through the filter basket’s perimeter, and allows the juice to exit the juicer through an attached outlet
- motor base – sometimes called the main body, or simply the body of the juicer. This is the plastic shell that keeps the juicer’s motor protected and onto which all of the parts above are assembled
- juice container – this is the container that collects the juice (the liquid part of the produce that is processed) that exits the juicer through an outlet that’s part of the juicing bowl
- pulp container – this is the container that collects the pulp (the dry part of the produce that is processed)
Positives and Negatives of Centrifugal Juicers
- Easy to assemble
- Easy to prepare produce for – can accept most types of produce whole
- Obtain high yields juicing most types of produce, especially hard produce such as carrots
- Juice very quickly
- Lighter (weigh less) than other types of juicers which makes them easy to move in and out of storage and generally move around the kitchen
- Very affordable – most retail for under $100
- Juice leafy greens very inefficiently
- Cannot and should not be used for juicing wheatgrass
- Take longer to clean than most other juicer types mostly because of their filter baskets
- Not versatile – can only be used for juicing
- Most are made in China
- Not as well built and of high of a quality of parts as slow juicers
- Do not come with nearly as long of a warranty as those included with slow juicers
- Produce a lot of noise when used
- Do not produce as high of a quality of juice as slow juicers
We tested 5 different horizontal masticating and 7 different vertical masticating juicers. Let’s take a look at how each type processes produce and then the pros and cons of each.
Produce enters through the juicer’s vertically orientated feeding chute where it is pushed and pulled into a cylindrical horizontally orientated plastic container, called a drum, that surrounds a rotating auger. The produce is pushed into the drum using a food pusher and is also pulled into the drum by the auger. The auger pulls the produce through the drum and at the same time it also crushes it, grinds it, and eventually pushes it against a strainer that surrounds it. The liquid part of the crushed produce, the juice, is pushed through the strainer, falls through a hole in the bottom of the drum and collects in a container placed underneath it. The dry part of the produce, the pulp, is pushed all the way down the end of the auger to its tip where it exits through an attached drum cap and/or nozzle. The auger normally rotates at a speed less than 100 RPM compared to the 5000+ RPM rotating filter basket of a centrifugal juicer.
Positives and Negatives of Horizontal Masticating Juicers
- Easy to assemble
- Able to juice all types of produce including leafy greens and wheatgrass
- The easiest and quickest to clean of all of the juicer types
- Along with twin gear juicers, the most versatile of all juicer types
- Most are made in Korea, not China
- Most are very well built and with high quality parts
- Most come with very long warranties (usually 10+ years)
- The most affordable type of slow juicer – most retail for $300 or less
- Fairly quiet when in use
- Highly stringent food preparation requirements
- Take a long time to process produce
- Require a large amount of force to push produce into them (with a food pusher)
Produce is processed in much the same way in a vertical masticating juicer as it is in a horizontal masticating juicer. However, instead of a drum, this type of juicer employs what is called a juicing bowl. The produce enters this type of juicer through its feeding chute where it is once again both pushed into the juicer by a food pusher and pulled into the juicer by a slowly rotating auger. The major difference here is that the auger is orientated vertically so that it is in the same vertical plane as the feeding chute. Another major difference is that gravity is not a sufficient means by which juice can drip down and out of this type of juicer. It therefore is normally equipped with what is called a spinning brush that surrounds the auger in addition to a strainer. The spinning brush is attached to the rotating auger by a gear mechanism that allows it to rotate around the auger at the same speed. The spinning brush takes the juice that sprays out of the strainer and moves it along the bottom of the juicing bowl so that it can exit out of the juicer’s juice outlet.
Positives and Negatives of Vertical Masticating Juicers
- Less stringent food preparation requirements than horizontal masticating juicers
- Able to juice all types of produce including leafy greens and wheatgrass
- Processes produce faster than horizontal masticating or twin gear juicers
- Easier to clean than centrifugal juicers
- Generally easier to use than other types of slow juicers
- Require that very little force, if any, be used to push produce into them
- Most are made in Korea, not China
- Most are very well built and with high quality parts
- Most come with very long warranties (usually 10+ years)
- Fairly quiet when used
- Takes up less space on the countertop than any other type of slow juicer
- More difficult to assemble and clean and also generally less versatile and more expensive than horizontal masticating juicers
- Most are very tall and may not fit on the countertop underneath kitchen cabinets
We tested only one twin gear juicer, the Tribest Green Star Elite. It processes juice much the same way as a horizontal masticating juicer does. It also has a feed chute that is orientated in a plane perpendicular to that of the main assembly that processes juice. But, instead of an auger, it has two rotating gears that do all of the work of crushing and grinding the produce. The produce is fed into this type of juicer so that it lands at exactly the center of the two rotating gears. The gears then crush and grind the produce to convert it into two parts – a liquid juice part and a dry pulp part. The liquid component is pushed through a strainer and falls through a hole at the bottom of the twin gear juicer’s equivalent drum assembly where it is collected in a container underneath it. The pulp is pushed through the juicer’s equivalent drum assembly so that it can eventually exit the juicer.
Positives and Negatives of Twin Gear Juicers
- Able to juice all types of produce including leafy greens and wheatgrass
- Able to juice most types of produce and especially leafy greens more efficiently than any other juicer type
- Along with horizontal masticating juicers, the most versatile of all juicer types
- Most are made in Korea, not China
- Most are very well built and with high quality parts
- Most come with very long warranties (usually 10+ years)
- Fairly quiet when used
- Very difficult to assemble
- Highly stringent food preparation requirements
- Takes a very long time to process juice
- Very difficult to clean with lots of complex parts
- Very heavy and therefore difficult to move around the kitchen
- Require a large amount of force to push produce into them (with a food pusher)
- Very expensive
The Champion juicer combines the “technologies” of both masticating and centrifugal juicers. It has a feeding chute and drum assembly like a horizontal masticating juicer but instead of a slowly rotating auger it has a “cutter”. Part of the cutter is an auger that crushes and grinds produce and part of it has several tiny metal razor blades that cut into the produce. The cutter rotates at about 1700 RPM. Thus, it doesn’t rotate nearly as fast as a centrifugal juicer’s filter basket, but it also doesn’t rotate nearly as slowly as a masticating juicer’s very slowly rotating auger.
For positives and negatives as well as a detailed description of exactly how the Champion juicer works please see our review for the only model Champion juicer we tested.
We didn’t test any hydraulic press or manual juicers. Why? We didn’t feel that we needed to for several reasons. First among them is price. The best hydraulic press juicer currently on the market, the Norwalk Model 280, retails for close to $2500. At this price point it wouldn’t stand a chance of being the best juicer for most people which immediately disqualified it from contention as being a possible option we would recommend. Secondly, hydraulic press juicers are few and far between. There are currently only two viable options on the market – the aforementioned Norwalk Model 280 and the approximately $400 Samson Welles Press Juicer, sometimes called the People’s Press. With only two options and with such a large price and performance discrepancy between them, testing of each to make a recommendation of either really wasn’t necessary at all. Our recommendation to those consumers looking to purchase a hydraulic press juicer, even without testing either, would simply be to purchase the Norwalk 280 if they can afford it or purchase the Welles if they cannot.
How It Works
We mentioned a “performance discrepancy” above, something that we haven’t talked about yet but will discuss now as it leads us into a discussion of how this type of juicer works.
The Norwalk Model 280 processes juice in 2 steps. The first step involves grinding or cutting produce. The grinding is performed by what Norwalk calls a “helical cutter-grinder mechanism”, also called the triturator. This mechanism is seated inside of and at the halfway point (approximately) of a vertical stainless steel tube. Produce is first cut by hand so that it fits into this tube. The triturator then grinds the produce at the midway point of the tube. Beneath the triturator the tube continues. Attached to the bottom of the tube is a cloth bag. All of the processed produce falls into this bag once it’s been cut into smaller pieces by the triturator.
The second step of processing the produce involves pressing the produce inside of the cloth bag. To do so, you have to take the cloth bag (with cut up produce inside of it), remove it from the bottom of the vertical stainless steel tube and then place it on a rectangular stainless steel bed. You then hit a switch which causes a metal cylinder underneath the bed to move it upward so that it pushes against a stationary piece of flat stainless steel of approximately the same dimensions as the bed itself above it. This pressing of the bag in between two flat metal objects pushes juice out of the produce with tremendous force. At the edge of the metal bed there is a downward sloping piece of stainless steel that allows the pressed juice to fall down into a juice collection container placed beneath it.
The Welles juicer works quite differently. It doesn’t feature a triturator. Instead, cut produce is placed directly into a cloth bag and placed on a metal bed. Again, the bed is moved upward by a metal cylinder beneath it so that it presses against a stationary similarly sized rectangular piece of metal above it. However, instead of electricity facilitating the movement of the cylinder (and bed) upward as it does on the Norwalk, it is up to the user to push down on a lever to facilitate this movement with the Welles. In this way, the Welles juicer works much the same way as a car jack. Unlike the Norwalk, it uses hydraulics devoid of electricity to facilitate the movement of hydraulic parts. Again, it requires no electricity to work – a definite positive. However, this is also a negative as it reduces the efficacy of the machine overall. Only so much force can be generated manually with the Welles juicer. Much more force can be generated by the electrically powered Norwalk. With more force to push down on produce the Norwalk is able to push more juice out of a given quantity of dry produce than the Welles. It also has the added benefit of having pre-processed the produce through its triturator. Taking both of these benefits into account we can confidently say that the Norwalk is a much better juicer than the Welles, at least in terms of performance, and that it isn’t even close. Hence why we made the recommendation earlier that, should you be set on purchasing a hydraulic juicer, that you purchase the Norwalk if you can afford it and only purchase the Welles if you cannot.
Positives and Negatives of Hydraulic Press Juicers
We’ve already gone over two reasons why we didn’t test hydraulic press juicers – those being the fact that the best juicer in the hydraulic press category can only be had at an untenable price (at least for most people) and that there really are only two hydraulic press juicers on the market with major differences between them, most notably price and performance. These differences should be enough reason one way or the other for you to be able to make a purchase decision without our having to recommend or test either juicer.
We’ve given you reasons why we didn’t test this type of juicer but let’s say you’re willing to spend at least $400 on a Welles juicer or even up to $2500 on a Norwalk 280. Why would we not recommend this type of juicer over other types of juicers? Under which circumstances would we recommend it? Let’s take a look.
- The Welles juicer can be operated without electricity. If you want to purchase a juicer for use in an environment in which you don’t have access to electricity the Welles may be a good option for you.
- The Norwalk juicer, because of the way in which it functions (electrically powered hydraulic press), is highly likely, at least theoretically, to be able to obtain greater yields than even the best performing non-hydraulic press juicers we tested. If you want to purchase the juicer that is able to obtain the absolute best yields possible at any price, then the Norwalk is likely to be the best juicer your money can buy.
- The Norwalk 280’s price of approximately $2500 (not to mention the added cost of shipping) is obviously a very big negative. The Welles juicer, at approximately $400, is also very expensive.
- Both juicers require the use of cloth bags when juicing. Using these bags (moving them onto and out of the juicer) is likely to make a much bigger mess than what is typical when juicing with any other type of juicer. They are also additional consumable “parts” that are absolutely necessary for juicing. You will need to replace them over time and this adds to the overall cost of the juicer.
- The Norwalk juicer is extremely heavy. It weighs well over 50 lb. The Welles juicer is also very heavy. It weighs close to 30 lb. For comparison, most non-hydraulic juicers we tested weighed between 5 and 15 lb. fully assembled.
- Both the Norwalk and Welles juicers are also very large. They leave a much larger footprint on the countertop. They’re also very tall and deep. Definitely look into their dimensions before you purchase either to make sure you’ll have sufficient countertop space for it.
- Both juicers share many of the shortcomings of other types of slow juicers – they require at least some preparation (cutting, etc.) of most types of produce and they take a long time to process the produce (compared to fast centrifugal juicers).
We also didn’t test manual juicers. Juicers of this type include what we refer to as basic press (hand press, manual press, etc.), hand-crank, and citrus juicers.
We didn’t test juicers of this type for many reasons, the two most important of which are listed below.
- They are highly limited in the types of produce they are able to juice. Basic press juicers cannot process most vegetables including carrots, celery, leafy greens, and wheatgrass. Hand-crank juicers are usually limited to only being able to juice wheatgrass. Citrus juicers can only be used to juice fruits high in water content (of which most are citrus). We wanted to test only those juicers that are capable of juicing most types of produce. This cannot be said of most manual juicers currently on the market.
- They take a lot of effort over a long period of time to make very little juice. Basic press and citrus juicers can only process one half of a particular fruit at a time. Hand-crank juicers take a considerably long time involving a lot of “cranks” to juice even a small amount of wheatgrass. All three types of juicers are, for the most part, more difficult to use and are substantially less efficient (in terms of the yield that they are able to obtain from a given quantity of dry produce) than those juicers that we actually tested for this guide.
How We Tested
A Detailed Analysis of Juicer Features, Performance, and General Characteristics
In order to find the best juicer on the market we needed to break down our analysis of each specific model juicer we tested (31 models total) into 8 different review categories:
- Assembly Difficulty
- Food Preparation Requirements
- Cleaning Difficulty
- Ease of Use
The “Performance” category (#3 in the list above) was so important that it was further divided into 7 different subcategories, each also scored out of 5:
- Soft produce
- Hard Produce
- Leafy Greens
- Pulp Free
In each of our model specific juicer reviews (such as our Breville Juice Fountain Compact review, for example) we break down our analysis of the juicer into the 8 categories and 7 subcategories listed above . This breakdown normally consists of (a) written analysis for each category/subcategory and (b) a score out of 5 for each category/subcategory. The category and subcategory scores are then added up to give each juicer a cumulative score. It is largely (but not necessarily only) this cumulative score that we use to determine the best juicer of a particular type, the best juicer overall, etc.
The “Leafy Greens” and “Wheatgrass” subcategories are only scored for slow juicers. Our centrifugal juicer reviews will not include discussions or scoring for these two subcategories because we didn’t test juicing either leafy greens or wheatgrass with most of the centrifugal juicers we tested. The end result is that slow juicers are scored out of 5 in a grand total of 14 different review categories/subcategories. Centrifugal juicers are scored in only 12 different review categories/subcategories. This means that slow juicers will generally have higher cumulative scores than centrifugal juicers, not necessarily because they are generally better juicers, but rather because they have been scored in more subcategories.
What we’d like to do next is go over all the variables we considered in determining a score out of 5 for each review category for each juicer we tested. We’ll also discuss the general trends we observed in each review category among all of the juicers we tested. Please note that this discussion will only involve comparing the performance of different types of juicers in each category, not the performance of specific models.
To evaluate a particular juicer’s assembly difficulty, we looked at the following:
- The number of parts required for assembly – the parts that have to be assembled/disassembled each time the juicer is used
- The number of parts not required for assembly but that are also removable – parts that can be assembled/disassembled each time the juicer is used but do not have to be
- The time it that it takes to assemble the juicer for new users or for experienced users that don’t fit together all parts together perfectly the first time – a realistic time
- The time that it takes to assemble the juicer in a perfect run – the best possible time
- Unique additional parts not found in other juicers of same type
- Uniquely difficult to assemble parts not found in other juicers of same type
- Those aspects of the juicer’s assembly unique to the type of juicer that it is
Centrifugal and horizontal masticating juicers were equally difficult to assemble and took just about as long to assemble – they were also the easiest to assemble of all of the types we tested. Vertical masticating juicers took longer to assemble and were slightly more difficult to assemble mostly because of their slightly more complex design. The one twin gear juicer we tested took the longest and was the most difficult to assemble because it was the most complex and had a greater number of parts required for assembly.
Food Preparation Requirements
To evaluate each juicer in this category we looked at the following:
- Feed chute size: by this we mean the diameter or dimensions of the opening at the top part of the feeding chute – not how long it is vertically.
- Juicer type
- Produce type
The primary factor that dictates how much cutting of produce is required before it can be juiced is feed chute size. If the produce won’t fit into the juicer’s feed chute, then it obviously cannot be juiced. Conversely, if it is cut to a size that fits into the juicer’s feed chute then it can, in most cases, at the very least be processed by the juicer, but perhaps not very efficiently. In addition to feed chute size, other more nuanced factors also need to be taken into consideration for you to be able to juice as efficiently as possible. Those factors are juicer type and produce type. Let’s take a look at juicer type first.
Different types of juicers process produce in different ways. We’ve already looked at those differences in fairly good detail earlier in this guide (in the section on different juicer types). Horizontal and vertical masticating juicers are a classic example here. The feeding chute of a horizontal masticating juicer is in the vertical plane while its drum assembly (and the auger inside of it) is in the horizontal plane – the feed chute and drum assembly are perpendicular to each other. The feeding chute and drum assembly (juicing bowl) of a vertical masticating juicer are both in the vertical plane – they are parallel to each other. A horizontal masticating juicer’s auger and strainer are tightly fitted inside of the drum. There’s very little space between them and between the auger and the interior wall of the drum – there’s very little space for produce to fit into. The vertical masticating juicer’s auger and strainer are much less tightly fitted together and there’s much more space in which produce can fit between them.
Those qualities that we described above make for large discrepancies between the food preparation requirements of a horizontal compared to a vertical masticating juicer, even if a particular horizontal masticating juicer and a particular vertical masticating juicer have a similarly sized feed chute. For example, carrots can fit into a vertical masticating juicer’s feed chute whole because of the fact that the feed chute and juicing bowl are parallel to each other. Carrots absolutely have to be cut before they can be processed by a horizontal masticating juicer. Juicer type comes into play in other ways as well. For example, a celery stalk can easily fit into the feed chutes of almost all juicers on the market. It can be processed as one long piece by a centrifugal juicer’s fast rotating filter basket quite easily. However, it has the tendency to wrap around and thereby inhibit the rotation of a horizontal masticating juicer or vertical masticating juicer’s slowly rotating auger. For this reason, celery stalks have to be cut into smaller pieces when they are juiced with either a horizontal or vertical masticating juicer.
This ties into the final factor we listed above – produce type. It is absolutely imperative that you take into account how the consistency, hardness, etc. of the particular type of produce you’re trying to juice might impact the way in which the juicer processes that produce and whether it has to be cut to a certain size or shape to better accommodate that process.
We took into account all three of these factors when evaluating the size and shape to which we needed to cut the produce we used for juicing with each of the 30+ juicers we tested. Once we established the size of the cuts that were required we measured how long it took to make those cuts for a given quantity of produce (usually 1 lb.) for a particular juicer. We logged those model specific times and then averaged them out to find the average time it took to cut a particular type of produce to a particular size. In this way, feed chute size, juicer type, and produce type gave us a theoretical starting point as to which juicers should perform better in the category compared to others. Measured time gave us the real-world implications of these differences.
When conducting testing, we did our best to keep all variables as consistent as possible with each test. We made sure that each time we juiced a particular fruit or vegetable with a particular juicer that it was the exact same weight as what we juiced with every other juicer we tested. We painstakingly weighed each fruit or vegetable until it weighed 1 lb. exactly. Sometimes we could simply place whole fruits or vegetables on the scale but most of the time we would have to cut them to meet the 1 lb. weight requirement. The time it took us to perform this cutting is absolutely not considered part of the food preparation time we are discussing now.
As we measured the weight of each fruit and vegetable we quickly noticed that in order to meet the 1 lb. weight requirement, we wouldn’t always have the exact same number of that particular fruit or vegetable on the scale. Sometimes it would take more than 2 apples to get to 1 lb. and other times it would take less than 2 apples. Sometimes it would take a little over 10 celery stalks to get to 1 lb. and sometimes it would take over 20. The point is that, due to the fact that we didn’t use exact clones of fruits and vegetables for our testing, there was quite a bit of variance in the size of the fruits and vegetables we used for juicing and therefore there was a substantial amount of variance in the number of a particular fruit or vegetable that would be juiced by any particular juicer. The weight was always 1 lb. but the number of fruits or vegetables that were required to get to that 1 lb. would vary. For example, the number of celery stalks we used for testing masticating juicers varied between as few as 13 to as many as 24.
This variance is important because it means that we can’t take all of our model specific food preparation times at face value. Just because it took us 141 seconds to cut celery for the BJS600XL, for example, does not mean that it will take as long to cut the same amount of celery to the same size for most people in most instances. It took us less time to cut the same quantity of celery to the same size when we cut it for juicing with both the Kuvings B6000 and the SKG wide chute juicer. Why did it take us less time? Because in both cases we had to cut a fewer number of celery stalks.
And so, we use only the average time it takes to cut a particular fruit or vegetable to a particular size when evaluating the food preparation requirements of a particular model juicer. We cut celery to small less than 1 inch pieces three times in preparation for juicing with the masticating juicers we tested. It took us an average of time of 121 seconds to do so. We use this average number when comparing how long it takes to prepare celery for the other eleven masticating juicers we tested.
Note that in addition to affecting preparation time, the variance in the number of a particular fruit or vegetable that we used to get to the 1 lb. weight requirement, also impacted how long it took us to juice that particular fruit or vegetable. While it didn’t have that much of an impact, it still did, which is something we want all of our readers to be aware of.
In general, those centrifugal juicers we tested had much less stringent food preparation requirements than the horizontal masticating, vertical masticating, and twin gear juicers we tested. This was because of the way in which centrifugal juicers processed produce but also because most had extra wide 3 in. feeding chutes while most masticating juicers we tested had much smaller approximately 1.5 to 2.5 inch feeding chutes.
Table 1 below lists all of the specific model slow juicers we tested, the size of the cuts required for each of the fruits and vegetables used in our tests (that actually required cutting before they could be juiced), the average time it took to cut 1 lb. of each type of produce to that size, and the total of all of those average times combined.
|Legend for Table 1|
|Cutting Size for Oranges||CSO||Whole||W|
|Time to Cut Oranges||TCO||Halves||H|
|Cutting Size for Carrots||CSK||Quarters||Q|
|Time to Cut Carrots||TCK||Sixteenths||S|
|Cutting Size For Celery||CSC||1/32||T|
|Time to Cut Celery||TTC||Smaller pieces 1 to 2 inches long||X|
|Cutting Size for Apple||CSA|
|Time to Cut Apples||TCA|
|*All times are in seconds|
Note: The full brand and model names corresponding to the abbreviated model names for the juicers listed above can be found here.
Table 2 below lists the same model juicers that were listed in table 1 but in order from low total food preparation time to high total food preparation time. The table repeats the total times given in the first table in seconds, but also shows this time in minutes. The same table also shows, of those models listed, the type of juicers that they are and their feeding chute size.
|Legend for Table 2|
|Total Time in Seconds||SEC|
|Total Time in Minutes||MIN|
|Chute Dimensions in inches||CD|
Note: If a single number is listed under chute dimensions then it is simply a diameter for a circular feeding chute. If two numbers are listed they are the width and length of a rectangular or bean shaped feeding chute.
Table 3 below lists the same data listed in the first table for slow juicers but for only a few of the centrifugal juicers we tested. Only a few models are listed because almost all of the centrifugal juicers we tested have the exact same 3 inch diameter feeding chutes and therefore the exact same food preparation requirements. It would therefore be needlessly redundant to list food preparation data for all of them. That being said, the two outliers in terms of food preparation requirements in the centrifugal juicer category are listed. Both juicers, the Juiceman JM250 and Black+Decker JE2200B have much smaller than 3 inch diameter feeding chutes.
|Breville JE98XL Plus||W||0||W||0||W||0||Q||18||18|
|Breville 800JEXL Elite||W||0||W||0||W||0||Q||18||18|
|Breville BJE200XL Compact||W||0||W||0||W||0||Q||18||18|
|Jason Vale Fusion||W||0||W||0||W||0||Q||18||18|
Note how those juicers with larger feed chutes generally required less cutting of produce. Also note, however, that certain juicers with similarly sized feed chutes had much different cutting requirements – for example, cutting requirements between horizontal and vertical masticating juicers for carrots. Finally, note how much total time it took to prepare produce for those juicers that required the most cutting of produce (horizontal masticating) compared to those juicers that required the least (centrifugal).
Our Testing Methodology
Selecting What Produce To Juice
We wanted to test each juicer’s ability to extract juice as completely and comprehensively as possible. In order to do so we needed to subject it to a wide variety of produce ranging from the softest easiest to juice high water content produce to the hardest most difficult to juice low water content produce. The former type of produce falls into what we call the soft produce category while the latter type of produce falls into what we call the hard produce category. Note that the way in which we refer to certain produce as “hard” or “soft” not only here but also in our individual juicer reviews is not the conventional way of doing so. Normally, calling a fruit a “hard fruit” means that it ships more easily and has a longer shelf life than a “soft fruit” and so oranges and apples are both “hard fruit”. However, within the context of this guide and our reviews, we will refer to produce as being hard or soft solely based on how hard or soft it is to the touch.
In the soft produce category, we juiced oranges and grapes. In the hard produce category, we juiced carrots, celery, and apples. Note that we also made sure to have some variety within each category in order to avoid redundancy in our testing. We didn’t test carrots, beets, and ginger in the hard produce category – only carrots. The other two types of produce we tested in the hard produce category have much different characteristics than carrots. While carrots are brittle celery is not – when crushed it decomposes into fibrous strands – something that doesn’t happen with carrots. Apples are also an entirely different consistency than carrots and how well any particular juicer juices apples often differs dramatically from how well it can juice carrots or celery. In the soft produce category, we also made sure to have some variety. Oranges are fairly large and have a pith that’s fairly difficult for some juicers to process. The grapes we tested were small and also had very small seeds inside of them which presented an altogether different and unique challenge to certain juicers as compared to oranges.
Hard produce and soft produce were not the only two types of produce we tested. It was also important for us to test how well slow juicers, in particular, could juice leafy greens and wheatgrass. Leafy greens are much more difficult to juice than even hard produce such as carrots or celery and wheatgrass is perhaps the most difficult to juice of all the different types of produce we tested. This is because the leaves of leafy greens and the blades of wheatgrass are paper thin. It takes a lot of work and special mechanics to crush them enough to extract juice from them.
Note that even if we didn’t test a particular fruit or vegetable that you might want to juice our test results are still applicable.
In the interest of fairness, we wanted to put each juicer we tested in the best possible position to succeed. This meant that we needed to juice in a way – using specific methods – that would allow each juicer we tested to extract a maximum amount of juice. We met this requirement by always juicing as slowly as what was required to extract a maximum amount of juice from each juicer we tested. Produce can be fed into a centrifugal juicer almost at lightning speed. However, doing so will not allow it to extract a maximum amount of juice. We therefore fed produce into the centrifugal juicers we tested much more slowly than what was possible. Produce cannot be fed into a masticating juicer very fast and so applying our “slow as necessary for maximum yield” methodology to testing this type of juicer wasn’t as difficult. That doesn’t mean that it took us an equally long time to juice with each masticating juicer that we tested. For each masticating juicer we tested there was a distinctly different threshold of speed at which we could feed produce into it for maximum yield. Our aim was to meet that threshold as closely as we could for each juicer that we tested.
By following the methodology outline above the time that it took us to juice any particular fruit or vegetable was often much higher than it could have been if our goal had been to juice as fast as possible instead of juicing for maximum yield. Note that if this describes your intentions (juicing for speed over yield), you can still use our test data to compare the time to juice of two different juicers – to determine whether one juicer can juice a certain type of produce faster than another. Yes, we did juice very slowly but we did so consistently throughout.
To explain this point let’s imagine that you’re comparing two juicers – juicer A and juicer B. We juiced with juicer A just as slowly compared to maximum juicing speed as we juiced with juicer B. And so, should you compare the time it took us to juice with each juicer, you can rest assured that if it took us longer to juice a particular fruit or vegetable with juicer B under our test conditions (juicing as slowly as possible), it will also take longer to juice that same fruit or vegetable with juicer B if you’re juicing as fast as possible. For example, if it took us 1 minute to juice oranges with juicer A and 3 minutes to juice oranges with juicer B in order to extract a maximum amount of orange juice from each juicer, you can rest assured that juicer A juices oranges faster than juicer B even if the goal is to juice as fast as possible as opposed to juicing for maximum yield.
As another example, let’s say it took us 10 minutes to juice spinach using Juicer A and 15 minutes to juice spinach using Juicer B. If you double the rate at which you juice spinach with each juicer as compared to how fast we juiced spinach in our tests you could juice spinach in 5 minutes with juicer A and 7.5 minutes with juicer B – juicer A still juices spinach faster, just as our initial test results showed.
Testing Centrifugal Juicers
We followed a different procedure for testing centrifugal juicers than that which we followed for testing slow juicers. For testing the former we juiced 1 lb. each of the following:
Each of the fruits and vegetables listed above were measured to an exact weight of 1 lb. before it was juiced. We then measured the weight of the out of juicer yield and afterwards measured the weight of the after sieve yield.
Note that each of the fruits and vegetables listed above were juiced individually in 5 different individual tests. In our orange juicing test we only juiced 1 lb. of oranges. In our grape juicing test we only juiced 1 lb. of grapes, and so on and so forth.
We then juiced a combination of the produce listed above in a sixth test – a combination performance test. We did not measure the exact weight of the produce that was juiced in the combination test and neither did we measure the weight of the yield we obtained in the same test. Instead, we used the combination test to determine the following:
1. How well the juicer could juice leafy greens. From prior research we knew going into testing that centrifugal juicers do not do well juicing leafy greens. We wanted to confirm that this was indeed the case for each specific model centrifugal juicer that we tested. We therefore juiced approximately 8 oz. of baby spinach by itself at the start of each combination test. We then observed (by eyeballing the volume of the collected juice in the juice container) the amount of juice that was extracted which was normally between 1.5 to 2.5 oz. Such a low yield (well under 50%) would be sufficient for us to confirm that the juicer would not be recommended for juicing leafy greens and that we did not need to test juicing an exact measured quantity of leafy greens with that particular juicer.
We went into testing leafy green performance in this way with this same mentality for each centrifugal juicer we tested, each time having an open mind that if it did in fact perform very well juicing the approximately 8 oz. of spinach that we would test its leafy green performance in earnest with an exact measured dry weight of spinach and an exact measured yield to compare to those yields obtained by the slow juicers we tested. Not once did a centrifugal juicer manage to accomplish an approximate yield tested in this way that gave us reason to test it in earnest.
2. How well it could process spinach. Our testing confirmed that juicing leafy greens with a centrifugal juicer was highly inefficient but we still wanted to see how well the particular model juicer we were testing could process leafy greens in case certain users wanted to juice leafy greens despite this inefficiency. We therefore made sure to note any overheating or other problems caused by juicing spinach by itself. We also took care to note how well the spinach was processed when we juiced it in combination with other fruits and vegetables.
3. How fast it could process fruits and vegetables juiced in combination. As we discussed earlier we juiced each fruit and vegetable very deliberately in the first 5 tests to obtain maximum yield. Once we were done juicing the first batch of spinach we then proceeded to juice the rest of the fruits and vegetables very quickly to see just how well the juicer could handle a large quantity of produce being fed and pushed into its feed chute in rapid succession.
Testing Slow Juicers
To test slow juicers we conducted the exact same first five tests that we conducted with centrifugal juicers. We juiced 1 lb. each of the following with each fruit or vegetable being juiced individually:
Following these first five tests we juiced 1 lb. of spinach. We bought the spinach pre-packaged and pre-washed. It came prepared in 1 lb. containers. Regardless, we still measured the spinach to an exact weight of 1 lb. We then juiced it by itself in a sixth test. The extracted spinach juice was weighed exactly the same as the other juices – an out of juicer yield was measured and an after sieve yield was measured.
We then proceeded to a seventh test in which we juiced only 4 oz. of wheatgrass. We lowered the dry weight requirement for our wheatgrass juicing test in particular for two reasons. For one, 4 oz. is about half the weight of the total amount of wheatgrass we could harvest from the 12 in. by 12 in. flats that we used to harvest from. If we juiced any more or any less than 4 oz. it would unnecessarily complicate the math of predicting how many flats of wheatgrass we needed to buy for testing and would unnecessarily complicate the math of predicting how much wheatgrass we needed to cut from each flat from testing. We tested 14 different slow juicers and so we could easily predict that we needed exactly 7 flats of wheatgrass for our tests and exactly half of each flat for each test. The second reason why we went with a lower weight for our wheatgrass test is that it’s highly unlikely that anyone would want to juice more than this amount of wheatgrass in a real world application. Thus, if we juiced more than this amount, we would be juicing wheatgrass to an extent that would not be indicative of real world applications. This same reasoning can be applied to all of the produce that we tested. Why did we only juice 1 lb. of oranges, grapes, carrots, etc.? Because we felt that such a quantity would be most indicative of a typical real world juicing session, assuming of course that only one type of fruit or vegetable is juiced at a time (which is what we did for those tests).
This leads us into a discussion of our eighth and final performance test for slow juicers – a combination test. While we felt that 1 lb. was a sufficient quantity to juice of only one fruit or vegetable at a time, we felt that this quantity needed to be doubled to be indicative of a real world scenario in which more than one fruit or vegetable is juiced at the same time. We also wanted to have at least one test in which we required the juicer to process a fairly large quantity of produce. Thus, for the combination test we juiced 2 lb. of produce – 1 lb. of oranges and 4 oz. each of apples, carrots, celery, and spinach.
The only major downside of juicing such a large quantity of produce was that it was no longer feasible for us to measure an after sieve yield. We could still measure an out of juicer yield in a reasonable amount of time. But it would have taken several hours of waiting for the collected juice to slowly make its way through the sieve we used to collect after sieve yield, for us to be able to measure an after sieve yield for this test. We therefore, quite regrettably, did not measure an after sieve yield for the combination test.
Determining Yield: Out of Juicer Yield vs After Sieve Yield vs % Yield
In the tables and discussions that follow and also in all of our individual juicer reviews for specific models we will be referring to three different types of measured values with regards to juicer yield: (1) out of juicer yield, (2) after sieve yield, and (3) percent yield. Out of juicer yield is self-explanatory – this number represents the quantity of juice that came directly out of the juicer. Compare the out of juicer yield of different juicers if you’re looking to make juice with as much pulp in it as possible. After sieve yield describes the yield after the out of juicer yield was poured through a sieve. We used the same fine sieve for each juicer that we tested. After sieve yield is the best way to compare the yield of different juicers if you’re looking to make juice with as little pulp in it as possible. Finally, % yield is the % of juice extracted from the initial quantity of the fruit or vegetable that was juiced (normally 1 lb.). For example, if we were able to extract only 4 ounces of juice from 16 ounces (1 lb.) of spinach the % yield would be 4/16 * 100% = 25%.
Determining Time To Juice
We already discussed how our testing methodology affected how long it took us to juice each quantity of produce in each test with each juicer. However, we didn’t cover how we actually went about calculating that time. The “time to juice” as we like to call it begins when first touching the first piece of produce to put it into the juicer’s feed chute and ends when the pusher is first pushed all the way down the feed chute for the last piece of produce OR it ends when the last piece is placed into the feed chute if there’s a big time gap between doing so and pushing down on the pusher or if no pusher is used to push down on the produce.
We gave all juicers scores not only for overall performance, but also for specific performance categories. All those categories (and the overall performance category) are listed below:
- Soft produce – based on yields obtained juicing oranges and grapes.
- Hard produce – based on yields obtained juicing carrots, celery, and apples.
- Leafy Green – based on yields obtained juicing spinach.
- Wheatgrass – based on yields obtained juicing wheatgrass.
- Combination – based on yields obtained juicing a combination of produce.
- Pulp Free – based on pulp content of initial out of juicer yield. A lower score was given if most out of juicer yields were high in pulp. A higher score was given if most out of juicer yields were low in pulp.
- Overall – based on yields obtained in all tests but also takes into consideration pulp content of out of juicer yields and any performance related issues not directly related to yield or pulp content.
Note that for each category a strong emphasis is placed on after sieve yield in determining the score for that category. Also note that because we didn’t measure a combination yield or wheatgrass yield for centrifugal juicers they are not scored in those categories. This also reduces their cumulative scores compared to slow juicers.
|Out of Juicer Yield||OJ|
|After Sieve Yield||AS|
|*Each numeric value listed below is a weight in ounces|
|HB Big Mouth Pro||12.4||10.1||12.8||11.7||9.9||8.7||12.7||11.7||11.7||9.4|
|Jason Vale Fusion||11||9.1||11.6||11.2||8.7||8.3||10.6||10.3||10.4||8.2|
Note: The full brand and model names corresponding to the abbreviated model names for the juicers listed above can be found here.
What can be gleaned from all of the data above? At the end of this guide we’ll discuss how this data can be used to determine which specific model juicer is best for which applications. For now, we only want to look at what this data says about different juicer types. To do so, we’ll focus on the average yields for each type shown above. Below we list all of the fruits and vegetables we tested and what the data (average yields) above show to be the best type of juicer for juicing that specific type of produce.
- Centrifugal slight edge over slow
- Slow better than centrifugal
- Centrifugal much better than slow
- Centrifugal ever so slightly better than slow
- Centrifugal better than slow
Leafy Greens and Wheatgrass
- Leafy greens and wheatgrass are so much more efficiently processed by slow juicers that we didn’t even bother testing centrifugal juicers for leafy green performance. This is why data for leafy greens and wheatgrass is missing from the centrifugal juicer test data table above.
When testing slow juicers, we had to clean each juicer a total of 8 different times because we conducted 8 different performance tests. When testing centrifugal juicers, we had to clean each juicer only 6 different times because we conducted 2 fewer tests. Each time that we cleaned each juicer we made sure to clean it as thoroughly as possible to preserve the integrity of our test data. If we left even a small amount of juice or pulp in any of the juicer’s parts after a particular cleaning it would have affected measured values in the subsequent performance test.
Cleaning By Hand Vs Cleaning In The Dishwasher
To ensure that we cleaned all of a particular juicer’s parts as thoroughly as possible we always washed each juicer by hand. We never washed any of the juicer’s we tested in a dishwasher. We washed by hand instead of washing in a dishwasher for the following reasons:
- There wasn’t enough time in between tests to clean the juicer’s parts using a dishwasher
- Some juicers were safe to wash in the dishwasher while others were not. If we washed those that could be washed in a dishwasher in a dishwasher and washed those that couldn’t by hand it would unnecessarily complicate comparing the cleaning difficulty of both types of juicers
- Certain parts even of mostly dishwasher safe juicers have to be cleaned by hand anyway. If we were to wash those parts that could be washed in a dishwasher in a dishwasher and washed the other parts by hand this would once again complicate comparing the cleaning difficulty of different juicers
- Pulp has to be removed from certain parts by hand anyway. If we removed pulp from certain parts by hand and then washed them in a dishwasher it would once again unnecessarily complicate our evaluation of the overall cleaning difficulty of the juicer
- If we did clean dishwasher safe parts in a dishwasher and they came out of the dishwasher less than perfectly clean we would have had to wash them by hand anyway. This risk was eliminated by washing by hand from the start.
- Certain parts may have been too large to fit into the particular model dishwasher we had available to use.
There are also reasons why we didn’t wash in a dishwasher which would compel us to advise that you don’t do the same at home:
- Most dishwasher safe parts are normally only top shelf dishwasher safe. They cannot be placed on the bottom rack because it is too close to the dishwasher’s heating element which can cause such parts to melt and deform. It’s very easy to forget, especially after several months or years of ownership that you cannot place the juicer’s parts on the bottom rack. The risk of doing so is removed if you always wash by hand.
- Certain parts, if they are not cleaned properly reduce the efficiency of the juicer and can even become clogged to the point of being unusable over time. This risk of not cleaning parts properly is elevated when cleaning them in a dishwasher. If you clean, let’s say a slow juicer’s strainer by hand, you can inspect it as you clean it to be absolutely sure that you’ve de-clogged all of its holes each time you clean it. If you wash the same part in the dishwasher it’s easy to forget to inspect it and you may even use it while it’s still clogged, thus reducing the efficiency of the juicer. Over time, this clogging can get to the point where it causes permanent damage to the strainer.
Note that only 2 of the 14 slow juicers we tested were composed of dishwasher safe parts. Most of the centrifugal juicers we tested, on the other hand, were composed of mostly dishwasher safe parts. Thus, it wasn’t even an option for us to wash most of the slow juicers we tested by hand. It was, however, something that we could have definitely done for the centrifugal juicers we tested. We did not for all of the reasons we listed above.
What We Looked For To Determine A Cleaning Difficulty Score
Each juicer’s cleaning difficulty score is based on the following factors:
- The number of parts that need to be cleaned. Juicers with a greater number of parts that needed to be cleaned scored lower.
- The complexity of the parts that need to be cleaned. Juicers composed of parts with lots of nooks and crannies scored lower.
- The size of the parts that need to be cleaned. At times, larger parts made for easier to access nooks and crannies. At other times, they only provided more surface area that needed to be cleaned.
- The type and quality of the materials used for the construction of parts that need to be cleaned. Plastic cleans much differently than stainless steel. High grade stainless steel cleans much differently than low grade stainless steel.
- The stain and scratch resistance of parts. Those juicers that were constructed of highly stain resistant and scratch resistant parts were scored much better than those juicers that were not.
- The number of parts that are dishwasher safe. Even though we do not recommend that a juicer’s parts be cleaned in a dishwasher even if they can be, we still feel that giving the consumer the option to do so is a positive in the category.
- The time it takes to clean all removable parts. This was perhaps the greatest factor of all. Regardless of difficulty, if a certain juicer took longer to clean than another it would be highly unlikely for us to score it any better in the category.
- Strainer cleaning difficulty for slow juicers and cleaning brush quality for centrifugal juicers. These factors are discussed in greater detail below.
Most parts of most of the juicers that we tested were fairly easy to clean. We only needed to use soapy warm water and a microfiber cloth to clean them. There were two exceptions, however – the strainers of slow juicers and the filter baskets of centrifugal juicers. Each of these parts was exponentially more difficult to clean than any other part of any of the juicers we tested. Of the two, the filter baskets of centrifugal juicers were generally more difficult to clean than the strainers of the slow juicers we tested.
Slow Juicer Strainer
For those slow juicers we tested, the overall difficulty of cleaning such a juicer would often be largely determined by the design of its strainer. If the strainer had lots of complexity to it, it would be more difficult to clean than if it did not. Take a look at the two photos below. The top photo shows a strainer that lacks complexity – the metal part of the strainer is one (cylindrical) piece. It was fairly simple to clean and therefore the corresponding juicer was fairly simple to clean. Further down below is a photo of a strainer with lots of complexity – there are a myriad of different plastic “bars” that hold together the many metal parts of the strainer. Each of these overlapping “bars” creates a corner or nook that has to be inspected and cleaned individually.
Centrifugal Juicer Filter Basket
Similar to the relationship between the cleaning difficulty of a slow juicer’s strainer and the overall cleaning difficulty of that particular type of juicer is the relationship between a centrifugal juicer’s filter basket and the overall cleaning difficulty of such a type of juicer. However, unlike that which we described above – that the complexity of the strainer would dictate how difficult it was to clean – it was not the complexity of a centrifugal juicer’s filter basket that would make it any more or less difficult to clean. Instead, it would be the quality of the included cleaning brush for each particular filter basket.
You see, centrifugal juicer manufacturers understand the unique difficulty of cleaning a centrifugal juicer’s filter basket. The metal disc at its center features severely sharp razor blades while the fine mesh around its perimeter is composed of 100s of tiny little holes. These holes get clogged with pulp each time the juicer is used. Thus, they have to be unclogged each time the juicer is cleaned. The problem is that, for one, there’s several hundred of them but also that they are very, very small. The tool that is used to clean them has to be uniquely designed so that it is able to penetrate all of these small holes to clean them efficiently and it also has to be durable enough to withstand direct contact with the razor blades at the filter basket’s center. Thus, the cleaning brush included with a centrifugal juicer is normally unlike any other brush or tool you may have lying around the kitchen. Certain models of centrifugal juicers include a much better cleaning brush than others. Those juicers that do come with an exceptionally high quality brush are normally much easier to clean because their most difficult to clean part, their filter basket, is easier to clean because of it. Those juicers also normally score much better in the category than juicers that do not come with a high quality brush.
Generally, we found that horizontal masticating juicers were easier to clean and took less time to clean than vertical masticating juicers. This was mostly due to the fact that they were less complex in their design. Both of these types of masticating juicers were easier to clean and took less time to clean than centrifugal juicers. The filter baskets of centrifugal juicers pushed their overall time to clean back far enough for them to take slightly longer to clean on average. The two juicers that took the longest to clean and were the most difficult to clean overall were the only twin gear juicer we tested, the Tribest Green Star Elite, and the Champion juicer. The overall time to clean for these two specific models and type averages for the rest of the juicers we tested are listed in the table below.
|Horizontal Masticating||5 minutes|
|Vertical Masticating||6 minutes|
|Tribest GSE||9 minutes|
General Ease of Use
Those factors and juicer characteristics we evaluated to determine each juicer’s overall ease of use are listed below.
- Assembly difficulty – this factor was scored in its own separate category but was also taken into account to determine each juicer’s general ease of use score. The same applies for the next two factors on the list as well.
- Food preparation requirements
- Cleaning difficulty
- How difficult it is to push produce into the juicer. We noticed a distinct difference in the difficulty with which produce needed to be pushed into certain types of juicers compared to others. This is discussed in further detail below.
- Juicer weight and carrying handle. Those juicers that were lighter were easier to move in and out of storage and generally easier to move around the kitchen. Those juicers with handles were easier to move than those that did not have handles.
- Buttons and controls. Those juicers with more clearly labeled and easier to reach buttons/controls were scored higher than those of which the opposite was true.
- Juicer movement. Some juicers such as the Tribest Solostar 4 moved around on the countertop while we were juicing with them. This movement made juicing with them more difficult.
- Power cord length. Every kitchen has only so many wall outlets and so much counter space available. A juicer with a longer power cord allows you to have more flexibility in terms of where you can place it in the kitchen.
- Manual quality. A juicer’s manual has to do the job of educating new users how to properly use and care for it. If it does a really good job – if it’s a high-quality manual – then the juicer instantly becomes easier to learn how to use. If it doesn’t – if it’s a low-quality manual – then the juicer becomes much more difficult to operate the first few times it is used.
- Juice container and pulp container volume. The larger in volume these parts are, the easier the juicer is to use when juicing large quantities of produce. This is true because when you juice a large quantity of produce, chances are that you could very well make more juice than what the included juice container can hold and at the same time make more pulp than what the included pulp container can hold. The larger both containers are the less likely it will be that the juice or pulp you’ll make will exceed the volume of the containers. If the juice and pulp you make do not exceed the volume of the containers you won’t need to stop juicing midway through to empty and replace (place them back underneath the juicer) both containers. If the juice and pulp you make do exceed the volume of the containers, the larger the containers are, the less frequently you’ll need to empty and replace them.
Note that for certain types of juicers we evaluated certain factors/characteristics not listed above. For example, for vertical masticating juicers we looked at whether a particular model came equipped with a juice cap or not. Those that did were scored higher than those that didn’t. For centrifugal juicers we looked at the number of speeds the juicer could be set to. Those juicers that featured a fewer number of speed settings were scored better than those juicers that featured a large number of different speed settings.
We’ve already discussed the general trends for the first three factors listed above. We’ll discuss the fourth in detail further down below. For now, we’ll focus on factors/characteristics 5 through 10.
Centrifugal juicers were generally about 5 lb. lighter fully assembled than the slow juicers we tested. The bodies of the former were also generally about 5 lb. lighter than the bodies of the latter. There really weren’t any standouts as far as button/controls were concerned for either type of juicer. The vast majority of juicers we tested had clearly marked buttons and controls regardless of what type of juicer they were. We noticed certain centrifugal juicers moving on the countertop while we were juicing with them but we noticed the same with certain slow juicers as well. Note that this movement was unique to only a few models of each type. Most of the slow juicers we tested came equipped with power cords well over 5 ft. in length. Most centrifugal juicers came with shorter power cords – just under 4 ft. long on average. Manual quality varied according to manufacturer, not according to type. Breville juicers came with exceptionally high-quality well done manuals, for example. Most other centrifugal juicers came with manuals that were not nearly of as high a quality. Juice container volume for slow juicers varied between 20 and 42 oz. For centrifugal juicers the smallest measured volume recorded was less – 11 oz. – but the highest measured volume was greater – 48 oz. Pulp container volume for slow juicers varied between 24 and 58 oz. All of the centrifugal juicers we tested came with pulp containers with a volume of at least 34 oz. The maximum measured volume for a pulp container for a centrifugal juicer was 108 oz. – much greater than the maximum measured volume for slow juicers – 58 oz.
We noticed that it was distinctly more difficult to push produce into those horizontal masticating juicers we tested compared to the vertical masticating and centrifugal juicers we tested. The reason why it was so difficult relates to the fact that a horizontal masticating juicer’s feeding chute lies perpendicular to its rotating auger. In order to better understand why this is problematic let’s quickly revisit the path of produce through a horizontal masticating juicer.
Produce is fed into the juicer through its feeding chute. Once it reaches the bottom of the feeding chute it makes contact with the juicer’s rotating auger where it gets pulled into the drum assembly. Within the drum assembly the produce is further cut and then crushed into the juicing strainer. The liquid part of the produce leaves the drum assembly through the juice outlet on the other side of the juicing strainer. The fibrous part of the produce continues to be pushed forward through the drum assembly until it exits through the drum cap and juicing nozzle.
The problem area (relevant to this particular discussion) is where the feeding chute meets the drum assembly. When produce is pushed down the feeding chute using the food pusher it makes contact with the side of the auger. In order for the produce to make its way sideways towards the drum cap side of the drum assembly it has to either (1) be cut small enough prior to being fed into the juicer so that it’s able to fit in between the outside of the auger and the inside of the drum and eventually the juicing strainer or (2) it has to be crushed into the auger using the food pusher for the same purpose – so that it can fit in the space between the auger and the inside of the drum and eventually the juicing strainer. The problem is that most consumers cut produce so that it will fit into the juicer’s feeding chute, not so that it will fit in between the outside of the auger and the inside of the drum and strainer. Most such consumers are simply not aware of the fact that it’s in their best interest to cut produce to the size specified in option (1) above which will make it easier for the auger to pull the cut produce through the juicer and process it. Such consumers will either have to take time to learn exactly how to cut each type of produce in the correct way (to the correct size and shape specified in option 1) so that it can easily be pulled through the juicer or they’ll have to deal with the difficulty of forcing the produce down into the juicer by applying considerable force using the food pusher (option 2).
Note that this is only an issue when juicing with this type of juicer. Vertical masticating juicers have their augers lying in a plane parallel to that of the feeding chute. This orientation makes movement of the produce through the juicer much easier and more efficient. Centrifugal juicers have very quickly rotating filter baskets. These filter baskets have very sharp razor blades that immediately decimate the produce they come into contact with.
To score juicers in this category we looked at two different things:
- Is the juicer able to function as more than a juicer. If so, what else can it do?
- If it can do more than just extract juice how many and what type of extra accessories are included to facilitate this added functionality?
First of all, we noticed a distinct difference in the versatility of centrifugal juicers compared to slow juicers. The vast majority of centrifugal juicers on the market can only make juice. Conversely, the majority of slow juicers can do more than just make juice. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, slow juicers are much more versatile than centrifugal juicers. What keeps centrifugal juicers from being more versatile is the mechanism by which they process produce. Recall that centrifugal juicers process produce by cutting it at a very high RPM (at the center of the filter basket) and then forcibly pushing it through a strainer (around the perimeter of the filter basket) by centrifugal motion. Slow juicers, on the other hand, process produce by crushing and grinding it with a slowly rotating auger, a process that is much more compatible with the processing of food items other than produce for the purpose of crushing and grinding them down into butters (we use the term “butter” loosely here to refer to the final crushed form of the original whole food item).
Within the slow juicer category, we have horizontal masticating, vertical masticating, twin gear juicers, and the Champion juicer. The Champion juicer can only be used as a juicer, thus it is just as versatile as most centrifugal juicers – in other words, not versatile at all. Of the remaining three, horizontal masticating and twin gear juicers are generally more versatile than vertical masticating juicers. Most horizontal masticating juicers we tested include an extra blank strainer for the purpose of homogenizing (sometimes called mincing or food processing), the process that involves crushing/grinding hard food items into creams and/or butters. Most also come with a number of different nozzles that change the shape of the extruded processed food item depending on which nozzle is used. The only twin gear juicer we tested, the Tribest Green Star Elite, comes with a myriad of different accessories equivalent to the blank strainer and nozzles included with most horizontal masticating juicers. Several vertical masticating juicers on the market cannot be used as homogenizers at all. Those that can are often not as efficient at homogenizing as their horizontal counterparts for two reasons. First, recall that there is generally more space in between the auger and strainer of a vertical masticating juicer as compared to a horizontal masticating juicer. This extra space is not conducive to efficiently grinding and crushing especially hard food items, which are the only types of food items you’re even going to want to homogenize. Second, vertical masticating juicers do not come equipped with nozzles that shape the extruded processed food item.
So, in summary, horizontal masticating juicers and twin gear juicers are generally the most versatile, followed by vertical masticating juicers, followed by centrifugal juicers and the Champion juicer for the reasons reiterated in list form below:
- 5,000 RPM+ spinning filter basket doesn’t allow for processing of anything other than produce
- These juicers also don’t come with extra accessories to facilitate homogenizing/mincing
- Most can be used for homogenizing/mincing
- Most come with blank strainer/screen
- Most come with several different nozzles for differently shaped extrusions (flat and round pasta nozzles, for example)
- Because they include such nozzles they can be used for making pasta and breadsticks
Twin Gear Juicers
- The only one we tested comes with a number of different bonus accessories including the equivalent of a blank strainer/screen and extra nozzles
- Because it includes nozzles it can be used for making pasta and breadsticks
- Many can only be used for juicing
- Those that can be used for homogenizing/mincing usually are less efficient than horizontal masticating counterparts
- No nozzles are included for differently shaped extrusions which means that these juicers cannot be used for making pasta or breadsticks
The terms homogenizing, mincing, and food processing are used interchangeably by most manufacturers. The bottom line is that regardless of what the process is called, it involves the crushing and/or grinding of hard food items that have very little to no water content or much lower water content than produce.
To score each juicer for durability we looked at a variety of factors including:
- Build quality and the type and quality of the materials used for the construction of the juicer.
- Whether there were certain design flaws present that would inherently reduce the longevity of the juicer.
- What consumers have to say about the juicer. Many consumer reviews are written after several months or even years of ownership. If the juicer or certain parts of the juicer break after such continued use we noted it, made comment about it in the juicer’s individual review, and also factored this into the durability score.
- Brand reputation and quality of support. Here we took a look at the history of the brand, its reputation in the juicer industry and sometimes generally, in the kitchen appliance industry. We also surveyed consumer reviews and looked for any patterns of either poor or especially good customer support.
- Warranty duration and terms. Those juicers with longer and/or more inclusive warranties were generally scored higher in the category than those of which the opposite was true.
As was to be expected, we generally observed a very strong correlation between price and quality when inspecting each juicer’s overall build quality and the quality of the materials used for its construction. Those juicers that retail for less were generally observed to be built using lower quality parts than those juicers that retail for more. There were of course a number of different exceptions and those are noted in applicable model specific juicer reviews.
The biggest difference between juicers of different types in the durability category pertains to the typical warranty included with each. Centrifugal juicers generally come with only a 1 or 2 year warranty. Slow juicers, on the other hand, generally come with at least a 10 year and many times a 15 year warranty. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, if you’re the type of person for whom a warranty is important, then a slow juicer manufactured by any major brand is a far better option than any centrifugal juicer currently on the market.
|Slow||Length (yrs)||Centrifugal||Length (yrs)|
|Solostar 4||15||BJE200XL Compact||1|
|HB 67950A||3||Cuisinart CJE-1000||3|
|BJS600XL||1||HB Big Mouth Pro||1|
|Jack Lalanne||60 days|
|Jason Vale Fusion||60 days|
Country of Origin
Within the centrifugal juicer category we observed Breville manufactured juicers to generally be made much better and of higher quality parts than juicers made by most other manufacturers. In the slow juicer category we observed a distinct difference between Korean made and Chinese made units. Those differences are discussed in detail next.
China and Korea
Almost all centrifugal juicers on the market are manufactured in China. Yes, even Breville juicers. Slow juicers, on the other hand, are mostly manufactured in Korea. Those slow juicers that are not, are usually manufactured in China. The difference between made in China centrifugal juicers and made in China slow juicers is that while the former (centrifugal) was observed to be, for the most part, of a reasonable build quality (especially Breville juicers), despite being made in China, the latter was observed to be of a distinctly low quality because of it – of such a low quality that we didn’t even test two of the four made in China slow juicers we purchased for review.
We purchased a total of 14 different slow juicers to test for this guide. Nine of them were made in South Korea, four of them were made in China, and one was made in the USA (the Champion juicer). Only two of the four made in China were tested – the Hamilton Beach 67950A slow juicer and the SKG wide chute juicer. As we discuss in their individual reviews, both juicers were observed to be of a fairly low build quality and both came with uniquely short warranties; however, they were both of sufficient quality to warrant our testing them. The other two were not tested – the Gourmia GSJ-300 and a VonShef slow juicer (without a specific model number). Both juicers came out of the box with chipped augers. Take a look at the photos below. We took each juicer’s auger out of the box and after handling either for just a few seconds we noticed plastic chips coming off of it. These plastic pieces came off of each auger after handling it for just a few seconds. How much more plastic might have chipped off if we actually used these augers – if we assembled them into these juicers and actually juiced with each juicer? How much plastic might chip off and find its way into your juice if we were to recommend either juicer to you? We obviously would not be able to recommend either juicer because of this design flaw. And if this precludes us from recommending either juicer, what then is the point of testing them in the first place? Which is the reason why we didn’t test either and packed each straight back into its box after we received it for testing.
Nine of the ten other slow juicers we tested were made in South Korea. These juicers were generally of exceptionally high quality and came with very long warranties. Each of the nine juicers was manufactured by one of five different companies – Tribest, Omega, Kuvings, Hurom, and Breville. We immediately want to remove Breville from the discussion that follows since they only have ever manufactured one slow juicer, the Breville Juice Fountain Crush (BJS600XL), and are likely to have outsourced their manufacturing of this particular model to one of the four other companies listed anyway (several reputable online sources have claimed that the Breville BJS600XL is manufactured in the same factory as Kuvings juicers). This leaves us with four “made in Korea” manufacturers – Tribest, Omega, Kuvings, and Hurom. Of the four, two are actually headquartered in Korea – Kuvings and Hurom. Kuvings actually has US offices and therefore provides US customer service themselves. Hurom does not have US offices but instead outsources US customer services to a third party – Roland Products, Inc. The remaining two companies appear to be headquartered in the United States although both still outsource all manufacturing to Korea. Those two companies are Tribest and Omega.
As a final note, the only made in USA juicer we tested was the Champion. Unfortunately, it performed very poorly in our juicing performance tests and in several other of our review categories as well. Its poor performance wasn’t due to poor workmanship or low quality materials. It was, rather, due to its archaic design. We discuss the full breadth of problems caused by its lackluster design in our review for this unit which you can read here.
In order to assess the value of each juicer we tested, we took into account the following three factors:
- Initial cost – any discussion of value obviously has to take into account the initial price of the unit and how it compares to the pricing of comparable units.
- Long term cost – here we looked at the durability of the juicer, the duration and terms of the included warranty, and most importantly of all, the efficiency of the juicer (juicer performance)
- Bonus accessories – here we asked the question: does the juicer come with extra accessories that make it more versatile or improve the overall experience of using the juicer? Those accessories we looked for include the following:
- a blank strainer
- a smoothie strainer
- an extra juicing strainer (some juicers came with both a coarse strainer for making juice high in pulp and a fine strainer for making juice with as little pulp as possible)
- a tofu frame
- a sieve
- a separate recipe book
- extra cleaning tools
- other bonus accessories (a bonus DVD, extra plunger, etc.)
- the number of nozzles included (vertical masticating and twin gear juicers only)
In terms of overall value, much more important than the initial cost of buying a juicer, is the long term cost of owning the juicer. Factors impacting long term cost are juicer durability, warranty, and performance. The first two factors are self-explanatory. The better the juicer’s durability, the less likely it is to break, and the less likely it is that you’ll have to pay to have broken parts replaced or the whole juicer replaced. Whether you have to pay at all and if so, how much you have to pay is dependent on the included warranty. If the part that breaks is covered then the cost is less (you’ll only need to pay shipping costs). If the part that breaks is not covered it will need to be replaced at your cost or the whole juicer might need to be replaced if the specific part is not for sale separately.
The third factor impacting the long term cost of juicer ownership is the juicer’s performance. Let us explain with a comparison. When you buy a microwave it doesn’t have any other associated long term costs that relate to its performance. That is because the quantity of the final product (the microwaved dish) does not change depending on the microwave’s efficiency. The same is true for most other kitchen appliances also. When you buy a juicer, however, you’re not only taking on the cost of the product itself, but you’re also taking on the cost of turning the produce you will be juicing with it into juice. The more efficient the juicer is at turning produce into juice, the less produce you’ll need to buy to make the same amount of juice. Thus, the more efficient the juicer, the less money you’ll need to spend on produce to make the same amount of juice. The end result is a better long term value the more efficient the juicer is at turning produce into juice.
Here’s a real world example. Let’s say you’re debating between purchasing the Tribest Green Star Elite and the Tribest Slowstar. You also plan on using your juicer to juice a lot of leafy greens. Let’s say that over the next few years you want to make 100 lb. of spinach juice or a juice of an equivalent leafy green (we’re using a weight and a round number here for easier math). The average price for 1 lb. of spinach in the United States in 2015 was $2.51. According to our testing the Green Star Elite (GSE) was able to extract 9.8 oz. (after sieve) of juice from 1 lb. (16 oz.) of spinach. The Slowstar was only able to extract 7.1 oz. of juice. Converting oz. to lb. we have a yield of 0.6125 lb. for the GSE and 0.44375 lb. for the Slowstar per 1 lb. of dry produce. We then divide these numbers by 100 to give the total number of pounds of dry produce that would have to be juiced to make 100 lb. of juice with each. This gives us a total of 163.27 lb. for the GSE and 225.35 lb. for the Slowstar. We then multiply these quantities by $2.51 to give the cost of that much spinach. 163.27 x $2.51 = $409.80 while 225.35 x $2.51 = $565.63.
If the math above seems a bit convoluted, don’t worry. It’s even difficult for us to follow without a spreadsheet of all of this data in front of us. In any case, the bottom line is that in order to make 100 lb. of spinach juice the cost of the dry spinach required to make that amount of juice is $409.80 for the GSE and $565.63 for the Slowstar, a difference of more than $150. Thus, in the long term, in a scenario in which you’re only juicing spinach and only juicing up to 100 lb. of spinach, you’re saving $150 in produce cost when juicing with the GSE as compared to the Slowstar, which more than makes up for the GSE’s much higher initial price.
Keep in mind that this is only one example. The GSE also obtains better yields than the Slowstar juicing grapes, carrots, and celery. If you plan on primarly juicing any of these types of produce then the GSE becomes an even better value. On the flip side of things, the Slowstar obtains better yields juicing oranges, apples, and wheatgrass. If these are the types of produce you plan on primarily juicing then the Slowstar is an even better value compared to the GSE than its lower initial price already indicates.
Note that this same reasoning (and math) can be applied to any juicer that outperforms another in a particular test. It should be clear now that juicer performance makes a tremendous difference in terms of the long term cost of juicer ownership, and therefore the overall value of the juicer. At the same time, it’s imperative that you know what type of produce you’re going to primarily be juicing in order to use our test data to make appropriate value comparisons.
Extra Review Categories (not scored)
The two review categories listed below were not scored in individual juicer reviews.
We measured the noise output of each and every juicer we tested with a sound meter. We noticed a difference in noise output between different types of juicers but not much of a difference between different models of the same type. Therefore, instead of posting model specific tabled data we will simply say the following: The noise output of slow juicers was generally measured to be around 66 to 70 dB. The noise output of centrifugal juicers was measured to be around 75 dB on low speed and about 91 dB on high speed. Thus, slow juicers are a substantially better option if you’re at all concerned about the noise output of your juicer (if you want to make juice early in the morning when other people in your household are sleeping, for example).
We noticed a distinguishable difference in the quality of the juice extracted by slow juicers as compared to the juice extracted by centrifugal juicers. To put our observations in a few words: the juice extracted by slow juicers simply tasted better. But why? To answer this question, we have to revisit our comments regarding how each type of juicer processes produce.
Recall that centrifugal juicers process fruits and vegetables by cutting them up into thousands of tiny little pieces and then pushing those pieces by centrifugal motion through a strainer. The cutting and the straining is done by the filter basket, a disc that spins at 5000+ RPM. The fast rotation of the filter basket and the mechanism by which it processes the produce (the fast cutting and straining at high RPM) is such that it introduces quite a bit of air into the juice that it extracts. This air manifests itself mostly in the form of a frothy layer of juice that settles on top of the rest of the rest of the juice that the juicer extracts. To combat this frothy layer most centrifugal juicers come with a juice container equipped with a froth separator which catches it (essentially leaves it behind in the container) when the extracted juice is poured out of the container. The problem is that most of the time, not all of the froth is caught. Some of it always finds its way into the rest of the poured juice. In addition, there is also a certain amount of air in the juice itself, not just in the froth. This air in the juice itself, in addition to the small amount of froth that slips through the froth separator, gives juice extracted by centrifugal juicers a distinct, what we like to call “airy” taste.
Slow juicers process fruits and vegetables quite differently. The auger of such a juicer slowly and methodically grinds and crushes the produce into a strainer that surrounds it to extract juice. The juice extracted by such juicers has a much more authentic fresher taste, if you will, than the juice extracted by centrifugal juicers.
Other than taste differences, there are other observable differences in the juice extracted by these two types of juicers also. Centrifugal juicers tend to extract a juice that separates into layers. This doesn’t happen with juice extracted by slow juicers. The juice extracted by slow juicers also tends to be more vibrant in color than the juice extracted by centrifugal juicers.
As a final note it would be remiss of us not to mention the fact that juicing certain types of produce also introduces certain unique problems for centrifugal juicers, in terms of the taste of the juice they extract. When juicing oranges, for example, such a juicer’s quickly rotating filter basket cuts up the different parts of the orange that it comes into contact with so efficiently that it literally chops up the pith of the orange as well. The pith gets chopped and sliced to such an extent that it’s small enough to fit through the strainer component of the filter basket. As an end result, this pith gives orange juice extracted by centrifugal juicers a slightly more bitter taste than orange juice extracted by slow juicers.
The Best Juicers For 2018
We introduced this guide by talking about how our goal, when we began this project, was to find the one best juicer on the market – one juicer that would clearly stand above the rest as being the best option above all others. What we found, after conducting all of our testing, was that this goal was near impossible to reach. You see, saying that one particular juicer is the one best juicer on the market is kind of like saying one pair of running shoes is the best pair of running shoes on the market. You can’t really do it. A running shoe recommendation will differ depending on your weight, the arch of your foot, how often and how far you run, what type of surface you primarily run on (on hard pavement or a dirt trail), and so on and so forth. In much the same way, a juicer recommendation will differ depending on a variety of factors also. Choosing which juicer to buy ultimately is a personal choice based on what factors, features, and specifications are most important to you.
This is why we spent so much time talking about the different types of juicers on the market and how each type works at the beginning of this guide. This is why we then spent quite a bit of time talking about how we went about analyzing each juicer we tested – a discussion that hit on all of the features and characteristics a particular juicer might have. All of this was done to help you become a more educated buyer and therefore be better equipped to choose that specific model juicer that would best fit your particular requirements.
The next section of this guide aims to bridge the gap between having the knowledge of what exactly you might need and want in a juicer (knowledge that you should have acquired reading the beginning of this guide) to being made aware of those specific model juicers that will fit your needs and wants the best (our model specific recommendations). We begin our recommendations with a general one – recommending the one juicer that we believe will meet or exceed the needs of most consumers. It’s not a perfect juicer by any means. But, it can be purchased at a very affordable price point, is easy to use, is easy to clean, and obtains very good yields. In other words, it performed the best in more review categories than any other juicer we tested. We then go on to recommend the one juicer that performed the best in our juicing performance tests, specifically – the one juicer that is able to extract more juice per given quantity of produce than any other juicer. Unfortunately, the particular model that we recommend is very expensive so we then go on to recommend an alternative that also obtains very good yields but that isn’t as expensive. Next, we make type specific recommendations. What is the best centrifugal juicer, the best slow juicer? Those are the types of questions we aim to answer in this section of our recommendations. Finally, we make produce specific recommendations. Are you primarily planning on juicing a specific type of produce? If so, this is the part of our recommendations that you’re likely to be most interested in.
The Best Juicer For Most People
If we absolutely had to pick only one juicer to recommend that would be the best choice for most people it would be the Breville Juice Fountain Compact (our full review). The Compact was the best centrifugal juicer we tested. Of all of such juicers (centrifugal) we tested, it performed the very best in almost all of our juicing performance tests. It obtained the best after sieve yields (compared to the 16 other centrifugal juicers we tested) in all but one test, our apple juicing test – a test in which it missed obtaining the best result by only 0.1 oz. In terms of performance, there isn’t a better centrifugal juicer on the market. The Compact’s performance also compares very favorably to those slow juicers we tested. Its after sieve orange juice yield of 11.5 oz. is more than 1 oz. better than the top after sieve orange juice yield among the slow juicers we tested. Its after sieve carrot juice and apple juice yields are also substantially greater than the best measured yields in those tests among the slow juicers we tested.
The Compact is also extremely easy to assemble, easy to clean, and generally easy to use. It comes equipped with a 3-inch-wide feeding chute and it is also a centrifugal juicer. Therefore, very little food preparation is required for this juicer. Of all of the fruits and vegetables we juiced with the Compact, only apples needed to be cut before they could be juiced and they only needed to be cut into quarters. The oranges, grapes, carrots, and celery we juiced with the Compact required no cutting at all. Compare these food preparation requirements to those of a typical slow juicer which would require that all of the above-mentioned produce except for grapes be cut before it could be juiced.
Not a perfect juicer
Our recommendation of the Compact comes with only one caveat which happens to be one that not only applies to the Compact, but to all of the centrifugal juicers we tested for review. And that is that this juicer is absolutely not recommended if you plan on juicing a lot of leafy greens and/or wheatgrass. The Compact is certainly able to juice leafy greens such as spinach, kale, and chards. However, it does so with much less efficiency than a slow juicer. According to what we observed through testing, centrifugal juicers such as the Compact are typically only able to extract about 1.5 to 2.5 oz. of juice from 16 oz. of leafy greens such as spinach. This is much less than the 8 to 10 oz. that a typical slow juicer is able to extract from the same quantity (16 oz.) of leafy greens.
Why are centrifugal juicers incapable of juicing leafy greens efficiently? The problem lies with their method of extraction. Recall that such juicers have a very fast spinning disc (called a filter basket) that cuts into produce at 5000+ RPM and then slings it by centrifugal motion to its perimeter where it separates the liquid juice component from the dry pulp component through a mesh grill. Here’s the problem. When most types of produce first come into contact with this disc they don’t bounce off of it because they are large and/or heavy enough to slowly get cut down by the disc’s razor blades as one piece. Leafy greens are light. When they come into contact with the fast spinning disc they essentially “bounce” off of its center (where they should be getting cut into small pieces) and immediately get flung to the disc’s perimeter. At the disc’s perimeter the whole leaves (or parts of whole leaves) are too large to fit through the mesh grill and are therefore flung straight up into the juicer’s cover where they bounce down at an angle into the juicer’s pulp collection container. This is why the pulp collected after juicing leafy greens with a centrifugal juicer mostly consists of wet but mostly whole small leaves and/or large parts of large leaves. The leaves are wet because they started getting cut up by the disc’s center but they were too light to stay there and be properly cut to size so that the liquid (juice) component of the leaf could properly separate from the dry (pulp) component and be properly strained through the disc’s fine mesh perimeter. Note that we described above is the reason why wheatgrass cannot be processed by a centrifugal juicer at all. The blades of grass are even lighter than the leaves of leafy greens. Instead of the partial processing that occurs with leafy greens, no processing occurs when wheatgrass is fed into a centrifugal juicer. Centrifugal juicers are simply incapable of extracting any juice at all from wheatgrass.
Wrapping leafy greens around other fruits or vegetables is often recommended as means to combat the problems described above. However, in doing so, the leaves of leafy greens still mostly separate from the produce around which they may be wrapped on their way down the juicer’s feeding chute.
The Juice Fountain Compact processes leafy greens highly inefficiently and cannot juice wheatgrass. Does this make it a “bad juicer”? Absolutely not. Again, as we implied earlier, no juicer is the perfect juicer. No juicer checks all of the boxes, so to speak. You will have to make concessions somewhere. The Compact is highly affordable. It normally retails for only about $100 – a fraction of the cost of a typical slow juicer. The Compact outperforms such juicers, in terms of yield, juicing most types of produce. It just doesn’t outperform slow juicers juicing leafy greens or wheatgrass. The Compact also extracts a juice that is very low in pulp content. The difference between a juicer’s out of juicer yield and after sieve yield gives us a good idea of the pulp content in the original out of juicer yield. Why? Because we pour the out of juicer yield through a sieve to find the after sieve yield. And what gets collected in the sieve? Mostly pulp. The difference between the Compact’s out of juicer and after sieve yields are shown in the table below. Also shown are these differences for a few highly rated slow juicers. Note how little pulp is contained within the Compact’s initial yields comparatively. This means that if you prefer your juice low in pulp, that you’ll be able to enjoy the juice that is extracted by the Compact right out of the juicer, something that cannot be said of most slow juicers we tested.
Note: In the table above “DIF” = the difference between out of juicer (OJ) and after sieve (AS) yield. Also, the full brand and model names corresponding to the abbreviated model names for the juicers listed above can be found here.
The Compact is also much easier to use than slow juicers. Recall how little food preparation is required to use it. You don’t have to cut most types of produce nearly as much for juicing with the Compact as would be necessary for juicing with the typical slow juicer. Another time save is in the juicing process itself. We juiced very slowly and deliberately when testing centrifugal juicers because we wanted to allow each juicer to be able to extract as much juice as it possibly could. When juicing at home, you can juice much more quickly than we did during testing and still obtain reasonably high yields. This same possibility does not exist for slow juicers. Juicing even as much as 5 to 10 lb. of dry produce with the Compact takes only a few minutes at most. Juicing the same quantity of produce with a slow juicer would take much more time. Why? Because of the way in which each type of juicer processes the produce. Just as much as the way in which a slow juicer slowly but surely crushes and grinds produce to process it is an advantage for it in terms of the yields it is able to obtain juicing certain types of difficult to juice produce (leafy greens and wheatgrass are two examples), it just as much a disadvantage in terms of the time that it takes to process that same produce. The auger of a slow juicer takes its time to slowly crush and grind produce. Centrifugal juicers have a quickly rotating disc that instantly processes produce. The time it takes you to juice with such juicers only depends on how quickly you can feed produce into them.
The Best Juicer For Maximum Yields
The Tribest Green Star Elite (our full review) receives our recommendation as being the best juicer on the market if your goal is to obtain maximum yields from most types of produce, including leafy greens and wheatgrass. The Compact cannot be recommended in this category because it cannot juice leafy greens efficiently and it cannot juice wheatgrass at all. The Green Star Elite (GSE) was the only twin gear juicer we tested for review. It was mostly because of its twin gear design that it was able to garner well above average yields in most of our juicing performance tests. The GSE was especially capable when it came to juicing leafy greens. It was by far the best juicer we tested for juicing spinach, kale, swiss chard and similar vegetables. It also did very well juicing oranges, grapes, carrots, celery, and apples. On the flip side, its performance was only average (compared to the 13 other slow juicers we tested) when juicing wheatgrass (in our wheatgrass test) or a combination of fruits and vegetables (in our combination test). That being said, its performance in these two tests was by no means terrible. Its yield in our combination performance test, for example, of 20.4 oz., fell within 0.3 oz. of being a top 3 result in the category.
All in all, as far as performance is concerned, the GSE is probably the best juicer we tested. And keep in mind that we tested over 30 different juicers. Why then, would you possibly want to buy any juicer other than the Green Star Elite? Why did we recommend the Breville Juice Fountain Compact, and not the GSE as the best juicer for most people? The answer to these questions can be summed up in one word – time.
Juicing with the GSE takes a very long time – much longer than it takes for any other juicer we tested. Assembly is complex and difficult – it takes time to learn how to do it properly and even after you learn how to do it quickly and efficiently, it still can take several minutes to do. Preparation of fruits and vegetables for juicing also takes time, although it takes about the same amount of time preparing produce for juicing with the GSE as it does for most other slow juicers we tested. Once you’ve prepared produce items for juicing it’s time to juice them. And juicing most fruits and vegetables takes longer to do with the GSE than it does for even the slowest masticating juicers we tested. Finally, you’ll need to clean the juicer. Doing so once again takes several minutes more to do with the GSE than it does for any other juicer we tested.
The bottom line is that the Green Star Elite is absolutely not recommended if you’re looking to juice quickly and with as little effort as possible. To the contrary, juicing with the GSE takes a lot of time and quite a bit effort. This juicer is therefore only recommended if you are dedicated to the juicing lifestyle and have the time to use it. If this does in fact describe you, you’ll find juicing with the GSE to be a highly rewarding experience – an experience that you’ll be able enjoy for many years, even decades, to come as the GSE is also one of the most durable juicers we tested. If you decide to purchase this juicer, you’ll be juicing with one of the best juicers on the market – a juicer that will bring you the highest yields possible and one that will bring you the best tasting juice possible as well. Not to mention the fact that you’ll also be able to get a great value out of the juicer as you continue to buy produce for juicing over time. The fact that the GSE is able to obtain such high yields means that you’ll need to buy less produce for juicing which results in a lower cost of juicer ownership over time.
A Capable More Affordable Slow Juicer
The GSE was the best slow juicer we tested. But it is also very expensive. When it comes to evaluating the value of a juicer we try to look past its initial cost and put emphasis on the long term cost of juicer ownership instead. Why? Because long term cost ends up exceeding initial cost (the original price of the juicer) over time. This long term cost is directly related to juicer performance as we explained earlier in this guide. Because the GSE is the best performing juicer we tested and because it obtained especially high yields compared to the competition juicing the most expensive type of produce, leafy greens, the GSE turns out to be a tremendous value over the course of time despite its high initial price. That being said, we understand that some consumers simply may not be able to plunk down the $500+ it takes to purchase one. And, in light of that fact we want to recommend a more budget friendly alternative – a slow juicer that can maybe not obtain quite as high of yields as the GSE but is still more than capable of juicing leafy greens and wheatgrass, is similarly versatile in that it is capable of homogenizing/mincing and making pasta, and does all of these things at a lower initial cost.
Our pick as the best alternative to the Tribest Green Star Elite is the Omega NC800 (our full review). The NC800 performed very well in most of our juicing performance tests. It obtained the second best after sieve spinach juice yield – second only to the GSE. Otherwise, it obtained at least average yields in most tests. It was also very easy to clean and was highly stain resistant as well. We also observed it to be highly durable – it is constructed of very high quality durable and resilient materials, it comes with a very long 15-year warranty and is manufactured by a company, Omega, that is very well respected in the juicer industry – a company that is also known for offering outstanding customer service. The fact that the NC800 is a horizontal masticating juicer and that it comes with a blank strainer and several different extrusion nozzles means that it is also one of the most versatile juicers we tested. It’s far more versatile than any centrifugal juicer we tested and is also more versatile than most vertical masticating juicers we tested.
Sure, the NC800 is an excellent juicer in terms of performance, cleaning difficulty, durability, and versatility but what is perhaps its biggest strength more than any other is its strong pedigree. You see, the NC800 is a 6th generation juicer. Previous to it, Omega had released 5 different iterations of this particular model over the course of the last 20+ years. With each new iteration came several different refinements and improvements. These improvements have all culminated in the NC800. We saw this clearly demonstrated when we tested the 6th generation NC800 directly next to its highly popular 4th generation counterpart, the Omega J8006. The J8006 is an excellent juicer in its own right. It performed very well in our juicing performance tests, is highly durable like the NC800, and is similarly versatile as well. But, it does have some shortcomings – shortcomings that have been “fixed” with the NC800. For example, the J8006 comes with a very poorly designed food pusher – a design that was greatly improved upon with the NC800. Another significant difference between the two juicers is with regard to how fast they are able to juice certain types of produce. We observed the NC800 to be able to process certain types of especially difficult to juice produce much faster than the J8006. For example, it took us over 11 minutes to juicer 1 lb. of spinach with the J8006. We were able to juice the same quantity of produce in under 7 minutes with the NC800. In any case, the bottom line here is that the NC800 is the latest iteration of what has been very long line of high quality horizontal masticating Omega juicers. And it is perhaps for this reason more than any other that it is our pick as the best masticating juicer currently on the market and at the same time, the best cost-friendly alternative to the Tribest Green Star Elite.
The Best Juicers By Type
Model Specific Recommendations Based on Features and Functionality
The winner in this category is also the juicer we recommend as the best juicer for most people, the Breville Juice Fountain Compact.
The winner in this category is the juicer we recommend as the best juicer if your priority is being able to obtain maximum yields – the Tribest Green Star Elite.
The winner in this category is the juicer we recommend as the best alternative to the Tribest GSE – the Omega NC800.
Horizontal Masticating Juicer
The best horizontal masticating juicer is also the best masticating juicer – the Omega NC800.
Vertical Masticating Juicer
The best vertical masticating juicer we tested is the Tribest Slowstar (our full review). The Slowstar scored very well in most review categories. But what makes it stand out compared to the other masticating juicers we tested more than anything else is the fact that it did not perform particularly poorly in any one particular test. Most masticating juicers we tested performed well below average in at least one test. This was not the case for the Slowstar. Its performance was at least average in all of our tests. Thus, if you’re looking for a juicer that may not be able to obtain the best yields juicing most types of produce but will also not juice any particular fruit or vegetable particularly poorly the Slowstar may very well be the best juicer for you.
Another thing we really liked about the Slowstar is the fact that it comes with an entirely different housing and feeding chute assembly for homogenizing (as compared to those that are employed when its used as a juicer). Most other vertical masticating juicers we tested were either not even capable of homogenizing at all or came with a blank strainer that simply replaced the juicing strainer for when the juicer was to be used as a homogenizer. Take a look at the photos below. In the first photo notice how the Slowstar’s mincer housing is smaller than the housing it replaces – the juicing bowl on the left. Also note the other design differences such as its singular outlet compared to the juicing bowl’s multiple outlets. These differences go a long way in optimizing the Slowstar’s ability to homogenize.
Twin Gear Juicer
The best twin gear juicer is also the juicer we recommend as the best juicer for maximum yields, the Tribest Green Star Elite.
The Best Juicers For Juicing Specific Fruits and Vegetables
Note that many fruits and vegetables that we did not test are very similar in consistency to those fruits and vegetables that we did test. Because of this similar consistency they will be processed by the juicer much the same and therefore the juicer will extract juice from such produce with similar efficiency.
For example, the Breville BJS600XL (Juice Fountain Crush) was one of the best juicers we tested for juicing oranges. It obtained an out of juicer yield of 11.1 oz. and an after sieve yield of 10.1 oz. juicing 16 oz. (1 lb.) of oranges. Because it was one of the best juicers we tested for juicing oranges we can confidently say that it was also one of the best juicers we tested for juicing most other types of citrus fruits as well. Oranges are, after all, a citrus fruit and most other citrus fruits have a very similar consistency to oranges. Think about the consistency of oranges, lemons, and limes, for example. Oranges have a sweet taste and lemons and limes obviously have a more bitter taste but the consistency of each fruit is much the same. The bottom line here is that should you juice almost any type of citrus fruit with the BJS600XL, you can rest assured that it will outperform most other juicers we tested juicing that particular type of fruit. Why? Because it was one of the best juicers we tested for juicing oranges and oranges are a sort of archetypal citrus fruit.
Below we list those fruits and vegetables we did test and similar fruits and vegetables beneath them that we did not. If you want to juice any of the fruits and vegetables listed below that is not a particular fruit or vegetable we tested, simply look to see what “archetypal” fruit or vegetable is listed above it. Then look at each juicer’s test results juicing that particular “archetypal” fruit or vegetable. For example, let’s say you’re looking forward to juicing kale. In the lists below kale, a leafy green we did not test, is listed underneath spinach, a leafy green we did test. If you want to know how well the juicer you might be interested in buying is able to juice kale, simply look at the spinach test results in the guide below and in all of our individual juicer reviews as well.
Here’s how that process might go: Let’s say you’re considering buying the Omega NC800. In our Omega NC800 review you’ll find it listed that the NC800 was able to obtain an out of juicer yield of 9.9 oz. and an after sieve yield of 8.5 oz. juicing 16 oz. of spinach. Its out of juicer yield was a top 4 result and its after sieve yield was a top 2 result compared to 13 other slow juicers we tested juicing spinach. You therefore know with confidence that the NC800 was one of the best juicers we tested for juicing spinach. At the same time, you can also know with confidence that it would be a very good juicer for juicing other leafy greens, including that particular leafy green you want to juice the most – kale. Here are the lists:
- Black grapes
- White grapes
- Red grapes
- Green grapes
- Most other root vegetables
- A lot of vegetables considered to be leafy greens have stems that closely resemble the consistency of celery stalks. If you plan on juicing chard, for example, with its stem, certainly look to spinach test results to see how well the juicer you want to buy will be able to juice its leaves but look to celery test results to see how well the juicer will be able to process its stems.
- Peaches (without pit)
- Apricots (without pit)
- Plums (without pit)
- Chards including swiss chard
- Mustard greens
- Collard greens
- Turnip greens
- Lettuce (romaine and iceberg)
How To Use The Guide Below
Below we list the top three centrifugal and the top three slow juicers for juicing each of the six types of produce we listed above and also wheatgrass. We list both the top three out of juicer yields and the top three after sieve yields for each juicer type (centrifugal and slow). If you prefer your juice with more pulp or if you don’t mind pulp in your juice, then we recommend a juicer that was able to obtain a good out of juicer yield. If you prefer a virtually pulp free juice or a juice that contains very little pulp, then we recommend a juicer that was able to obtain a good after sieve yield.
Note that the guide below should only be used if you plan on primarily juicing only one type of produce or if one type of produce is of especially high priority for you. For example, if you plan on using your juicer to make orange juice 99% of the time and you like your orange juice with lots of pulp you can use the guide below to find that the Hamilton Beach Big Mouth Pro is the best centrifugal juicer and really the best juicer overall for that purpose – it obtained an out of juicer yield of 12.4 oz. juicing 16 oz. of oranges – the best such yield recorded among all 30+ juicers we tested.
We’ve categorized the lists below according to juicer type (centrifugal vs. slow) for two reasons. First, it shows you how the best of each type of juicer performs in each produce category. For example, you’ll be able to see first-hand how centrifugal juicers generally outperformed slow juicers juicing orange juice. Second, it allows you to choose a juicer not only based on how well it performed in a produce category, but it also allows you to choose a juicer based on type. You may want to spend as little as possible on your purchase – in that case you would select a centrifugal juicer. You may want to purchase a juicer with a long warranty and that’s more versatile – in that case you would choose a slow juicer. In any case, we recommend, no matter what specific model you choose, that you click on the model name of the juicer and read our model specific review of that juicer before you buy it. In that review we’ll discuss the juicer in great detail and make sure that you’re as informed as you possibly can be about it before you buy it.
The Best Juicer For Juicing…
Citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, limes, and lemons
|HB Big Mouth Pro||12.4||Omega VRT350||11.3|
|Juiceman JM400||11.9||Breville BJS600XL||11.1|
|Breville Compact||11.8||Hurom HU-100||10.9|
|Breville Compact||11.5||Omega VSJ843QS||10.3|
|Breville JE98XL Plus||11.1||Breville BJS600XL||10.1|
|Breville 800JEXL Elite||10.7||Tribest Slowstar||9.8|
Note: Each number listed in the table above and in the rest of the tables in this section below is a weight in ounces – the higher this number the higher the yield. OJ = out of juicer yield and AS = after sieve yield. Remember, only the top 3 performers in each category of each juicer type are listed. Clicking on a model name will take you to our full review of the juicer.
Grapes including black, white, red, and green grapes
|Jamba 67901||13||Tribest Solostar 4||14|
|HB Big Mouth Pro||12.8||Omega VSJ843QS||13.8|
|Breville Compact||12.7||Kuvings NJE-3580U||13.8|
|Breville Compact||12.1||Tribest Solostar 4||13.9|
|HB Big Mouth Pro||11.7||Kuvings NJE-3580U||13.6|
|Jason Vale Fusion||11.2||Tribest GSE||13.5|
Hard root vegetables including carrots, beets, and radishes
|Breville BJE820XL Duo||11||Tribest GSE||8.1|
|Breville JE98XL Plus||10.5||Tribest Solostar 4||7.7|
|Breville JE98XL Plus||10.3||Tribest GSE||7.6|
|Breville 800JEXL Elite||10||Tribest Solostar 4||7|
Celery and the stems of leafy greens
|Jamba 67901||13.2||Tribest GSE||12.9|
|Breville BJE820XL Duo||12.9||Omega J8006/8004||12.4|
|Breville Compact||12.9||Tribest GSE||12.7|
|Breville JE98XL Plus||12.6||Omega J8006/8004||12.2|
|Breville BJE820XL Duo||12.5||Tribest Solostar 4||11.7|
Apples and similar fruit such as pears, pineapples, and cucumbers
|Breville Compact||12.2||Breville BJS600XL||11.8|
|Breville 800JEXL Elite||11.9||Omega J8006/8004||11.7|
|HB Big Mouth Pro||11.7||Tribest Slowstar||11.5|
|Breville 800JEXL Elite||11.4||Omega J8006/8004||10.6|
|Breville Compact||11.3||Tribest Slowstar||9.6|
|Breville BJE820XL Duo||10.7||Tribest GSE||9|
Leafy greens such as spinach, kale, and watercress
|Tribest Solostar 4||10|
|Tribest Solostar 4||8.4|
|Tribest Solostar 4||2.8|
|Tribest Solostar 4||2.6|
Juicer Comparison Tables
The following comparison tables list all of the juicers we reviewed in order according to their cumulative score. Slow juicers are listed first followed by centrifugal juicers. Note that centrifugal juicers were scored in fewer categories which is the reason why their cumulative scores are generally lower.
|Legend||the higher the score…|
|Cumulative Score||CTV||the greater the total of all of the scores below|
|Assembly Difficulty||ABY||the easier the juicer is to assemble|
|Food Preparation Difficulty||FP||the less cutting of produce is required before juicing|
|Soft Produce||SPP||the better it performs juicing this type of produce|
|Combination||CP||the better it performs juicing a combination of produce|
|Pulp-Free||PF||the less pulp in the original out of juicer yield|
|Overall Performance||OP||the better the overall performance|
|Cleaning Difficulty||CLD||the easier it is to clean|
|Ease of Use||EOU||the easier it is to use|
|Versatility||VER||the more verstatile it is|
|Durability||DUR||the more durable it is|
|Value||VAL||the better its value|
|HB Big Mouth Pro||41.0||5.0||5.0||4.5||4.0||2.5||4.0||2.5||3.0||3.0||3.0||4.5|
|Jason Vale Fusion||35.0||4.5||5.0||4.0||2.5||2.5||3.0||3.0||3.0||3.0||2.0||2.5|
Note: The full brand and model names corresponding to the abbreviated model names for the juicers listed above can be found below.
Below is a complete list of all the juicers we’ve tested so far. Next to the full brand and model name of each juicer we also list the corresponding abbreviated model name we’ll use in tables, charts, and graphs.
|Full Model Name||Abbreviated Name|
|Tribest Green Star Elite GSE-5000 / GSE-5010 / GSE-5050 / GSE-5300||GSE|
|Champion Juicer 2000 G5-PG-710||Champion|
|Omega NC800 HDS / NC800 HDR / NC900 HDC||NC800|
|Kuvings NJE-3580U / 70U / 40U / 30U||NJE-3580U|
|Tribest Solostar 4 SS-4200-B / SS-4250-B||Solostar 4|
|Hamilton Beach 67950A||HB 67950A|
|Omega J8004 / J8006*||J8004/J8006|
|Breville Juice Fountain Crush BJS600XL||BJS600XL|
|Tribest SW-2000-B Slowstar||Slowstar|
|Omega VSJ843QS / QR / QW / RS / RR||VSJ843QS|
|Hurom HU-100 / HU-100SB||HU-100|
|Kuvings Whole Slow Juicer B6000S / C7000S||B6000S|
|SKG New Generation Wide Chute Juicer||SKG|
|Omega VRT350 / VRT350HD||VRT350|
|Breville JE98XL Juice Fountain Plus||JE98XL Plus|
|Breville BJE820XL Juice Fountain Duo||BJE820XL Duo|
|Breville 800JEXL Juice Fountain Elite||800JEXL Elite|
|Breville BJE510XL Juice Fountain Multi-Speed||BJE510XL M-Speed|
|Breville BJE200XL Juice Fountain Compact||BJE200XL Compact|
|Cuisinart CJE-1000||Cuisinart CJE-1000|
|Jamba 67901||Jamba 67901|
|Hamilton Beach Big Mouth Pro 67608A / 67602A / 67601A||HB Big Mouth Pro|
|Dash Premium Juice Extractor||Dash|
|Big Boss Juice Extractor||Big Boss|
|VonShef Wide Mouth Juicer||VonShef|
|Juiceman JM400||Juiceman JM400|
|Juiceman JM250||Juiceman JM250|
|BLACK+DECKER JE2200B||B+D JE2200B|
|Jack Lalanne's 100th Anniversary SLH90||Jack Lalanne|
|Jason Vale Fusion Juicer / Jack Lalanne's PJE||Jason Vale Fusion|
Note: model names separated by “/” are the exact same juicer but with a different model name (usually corresponds to a different color)
*At some online retailers the model number is preceded by the letter “J” as it is shown here. It is also common to find the model number not preceded by the letter “J”. In this case either model would simply be the 8004 or the 8006.