- A top performer juicing oranges and a reasonably good performer juicing grapes – a good juicer for juicing softer produce
- Above average build quality at its price point
- An average to well below average performer juicing harder produce
- Especially poor performance juicing celery
- Juice extracted from softer produce is very high in pulp (the converse is true for harder produce)
- Its uniquely removable feed chute and food pusher cap make it more difficult to clean and assemble
|Ease of Use||3.0|
All category scores are out of 5.
Table of Contents
Before we begin this review, we feel it’s important to note that two different versions of the Juiceman JM400 are currently available online. The two versions appear to be exactly the same juicer except for the following differences:
- One has a stainless steel finish while the other has a white plastic finish
- The stainless steel version comes with a black plastic filter bowl and a clear plastic cover, pulp container, and juice container with a dark The white version appears to come with a grey plastic filter bowl and a clear plastic cover, pulp, and juice containers with a much lighter tint.
- The stainless steel version comes equipped with a control dial with three different settings marked “OFF, LOW, and HI”. The white version comes equipped with what appears to be exactly the same control dial but one that is marked “0, 1, and 2”.
- The stainless steel version comes with a juice container that does not have a lid while the white version comes with a juice container that does have a lid
- The white version appears to be the newer version because it comes with a manual copyrighted in 2015 while the stainless steel version came with a manual copyrighted in 2008
Note that we tested the stainless steel version for this review. But, as we mentioned earlier, the white version appears to be exactly the same juicer – with the same motor, same performance, etc. of the stainless steel version, except for the small mostly cosmetic differences noted above. As such, the review that follows applies to both versions.
- food pusher
- juicer cover
- feed chute
- filter basket
- filter bowl
- motor base (main body)
- juice container
- pulp container
Unique Design Features
The JM400 has several unique design features not found on most other centrifugal juicers we tested for review. Those features are:
- A removable feeding chute
- A removable food pusher cap
- A juice container with no lid
- A safety locking arm with a unique locking mechanism
The JM400’s feeding chute was completely removable from its cover. All of the other centrifugal juicers we tested came with feeding chutes that were permanently attached to their covers. The JM400’s feeding chute is removed from its cover by rotating the chute in a clockwise direction and pulling it up and out of the cover. It can be fitted back into the cover by pressing it down into the location where its seated in the cover and rotating it in a counterclockwise direction. We found that the juicer’s removable feeding chute did little to improve the ease of cleaning either the cover or the feeding chute and only made assembly of the juicer more time consuming. Fitting the feeding chute properly into the cover is a relatively simple process and isn’t very difficult but it is an extra step required for assembly – one that isn’t required for most other centrifugal juicers.
The JM400’s food pusher comes with a removable cap. The cap is clearly marked “REMOVE FOR CLEANING”. Once again, we felt that this extra removable part (the cap) did little to improve the ease of cleaning the part from which it was removed (the pusher). The only thing it did was add an additional step required for the juicer’s assembly and disassembly.
The juicer’s lack of a lid for its juice container didn’t affect assembly difficulty at all compared to other centrifugal juicers. Note that only the stainless steel version of the juicer – the version we tested for this review – comes with a juice container without a lid.
Finally, let’s talk about the JM400’s unique safety locking arm. Most other centrifugal juicers come equipped with a (usually) tubular stainless steel safety locking arm. The locking arm is pulled up and over the cover of such juicers to secure the cover and all parts underneath the cover in place. The safety locking arm accomplishes this locked position and secures all the parts underneath it in place by fitting over two grooves on the top of the cover – one at the front of the cover and one at the back of the cover. The JM400’s locking arm is also pulled up and over the juicer’s cover, but it locks into place not by being pushed over grooves on the cover. Instead, it locks into place through a mechanism installed on the actual arm itself. This mechanism locks into a plastic hook on the side of the juicer’s feeding chute. The safety locking arm is released from this locked position by pressing a button on the arm marked “SAFETY LOCK BUTTON”.
When we initially wrote this review we thought that the manufacturer made the juicer’s feeding chute removable in order to facilitate easier cleaning of both the chute and the cover to which it’s attached. Having the parts separated didn’t really improve the ease with which either part could be cleaned in practice (in our experience cleaning both parts separately was even more of a chore than cleaning them as one piece), but we thought that it was the manufacturer’s opinion that it would which is why this design choice was made (to make the feed chute removable). However, after giving this design choice a bit more thought, we realized that the much more likely reason why the juicer’s feed chute is a separate part is because it has the plastic hook to which the safety locking arm attaches to secure the juicer’s cover in place. The manufacturer most likely felt that it was likely for this plastic hook to break with continued use of the juicer over time, and therefore wanted to offer the chute as a separate less expensive part that could be replaced at a lower cost than if it had to be offered as one piece – as a part of the cover.
Summary and Conclusion
The JM400’s unique safety locking arm doesn’t make it any easier or less difficult to assemble than the other centrifugal juicers we tested for review. Its extra removable parts – its removable feeding chute and its removable food pusher cap – are extra parts that make assembly of the juicer a bit more time consuming, but not necessarily more difficult. That being said, the score we give each juicer for “assembly difficulty” does take into consideration assembly time. We therefore give the JM400 a slightly lesser score than most other centrifugal juicers we tested – a 4.5 out of 5.
The JM400 features a 3-inch diameter feeding chute. This was, by far, the most common diameter for a feeding chute among the centrifugal juicers we tested for review. Twelve of the sixteen other centrifugal juicers we tested also came with 3-inch diameter feeding chutes. Only one juicer (the Jamba 67901) came with a larger feeding chute (3.5 inches in diameter). Three came with a smaller feeding chute.
Four of the five fruits and vegetables we juiced with the centrifugal juicers we tested with 3-inch diameter feeding chutes could fit into their feeding chutes whole. The table below lists the specific fruits and vegetables we juiced with such centrifugal juicers and how much cutting of the produce was required.
|Fruit/Veg.||Size of Cuts||Time to Cut||Avg. Time to Cut|
|Oranges||no cutting required|
|Grapes||no cutting required|
|Carrots||no cutting required|
|Celery||no cutting required|
|Chute Size||3" diameter|
Note: the time above is in seconds. For a comparison of “time to cut” vs. “avg. time to cut” see here.
In order to test the JM400’s ability to juice different types of produce we used it to juice five different fruits and vegetables – the same five fruits and vegetables listed in the table above. Test results for the JM400 and all other centrifugal juicers we tested are listed in this table.
Juicing Performance Summary
The JM400 did very well juicing oranges. Its out of juicer orange juice yield of 11.9 oz. was a second place result in the category. Its after sieve orange juice yield of 10.6 oz. was a fourth place result in the category. The juicer did marginally worse juicing grapes. Its out of juicer and after sieve grape juice yields were only average compared to the other centrifugal juicers we tested.
The JM400 again garnered average results in our carrot juicing test – it obtained a tenth place out of juicer carrot juice yield and a ninth place after sieve carrot juice yield.
Where the juicer’s performance took a nosedive was in our celery juicing test. Its out of juicer celery juice yield of 9.7 oz. was a last place result compared to 16 other centrifugal juicers with which we juiced exactly the same amount of celery (1 lb. or 16 oz.). Compare this result to the 13+ oz. obtained by two other juicers, the 12+ oz. obtained by seven other juicers, and the 11+ oz. obtained by six other juicers. The JM400’s 9.2 oz. after sieve yield in the same test was also a last place result. Compare this result to the 12+ oz. obtained by four other juicers and the 11+ oz. obtained by six other juicers in the same test.
The juicer’s performance stabilized somewhat when we tested its ability to juice apples. Its out of juicer yield was a well below average 9.8 oz. but its after sieve yield was an almost above average 8.6 oz.
The JM400 produced quite a bit of pulp in most tests. In four of five tests we collected 1+ oz. of pulp in the sieve we used to strain the out of juicer yield to find after sieve yield. We do not recommend this juicer to those consumers looking to purchase a juicer that produces a virtually pulp-free juice right out of the juicer.
Cleaning difficulty will vary depending on whether you end up purchasing the stainless steel or white plastic version of this juicer. The stainless steel version we tested for this review came with a stainless steel body, a black plastic filter bowl, and a clear plastic cover, feeding chute, juice container, and pulp container. The clear plastic parts all had a very dark tint. This tint was applied by the manufacturer to make the clear plastic more resistant to staining. The white version of the juicer appears to come with clear plastic parts that do not have the same dark tint or at least not as dark of a tint as that of the stainless steel version’s clear plastic parts. This would make the white version’s clear plastic parts somewhat more susceptible to staining. The white version’s body is also much more susceptible to staining and so is its filter bowl. The stainless steel version’s stainless steel body is highly resistant to staining and we found it quite easy to wipe clean. Its black plastic filter bowl is also very stain resistant. The white version’s white plastic body is more susceptible to staining simply because its white. Its grey plastic filter bowl is less stain resistant than that of the stainless steel version’s black plastic filter bowl.
The bottom line – the stainless steel version of the juicer is easier to clean and keep clean and is also more stain resistant than the white plastic version.
Dishwasher Safe Parts
The juicer’s manual instructs that “occasionally any removable parts may be washed in a dishwasher, ONLY if they are placed on the top shelf. Washing in warm, soapy water after each use, however, should be sufficient.” We have to give the manufacturer credit in that they do not simply specify that the juicer’s parts are dishwasher safe. They make sure to qualify the statement that its parts are dishwasher safe by saying that “occasionally any removable parts may be washed in a dishwasher”. We feel even more strongly about trying to avoid washing juicer parts in a dishwasher. Our recommendation is that juicer parts should never be washed in a dishwasher, if at all possible.
Cleaning Summary and Overall Score
Compared to the other centrifugal juicers we tested, the JM400 is only more difficult to clean because it has more parts to clean. Its food pusher is disassembled into two different parts that each have to be cleaned and dried separately. The food pusher of most other centrifugal juicer’s is only one part – only one part that needs to be cleaned. Similarly, the JM400’s cover and feed chute are two separate parts. Each part has to be clean and dried separately. Cleaning the covers of other juicers was easier simply because it was only one part that needed to be cleaned. All things considered, we give the stainless steel version of the JM400 a 4 out of 5 for cleaning difficulty. The white plastic version would have received a 3 out of 5 because its composed of more stain susceptible parts.
Ease of Use
The JM400 features multi-speed functionality. It can be set to two different speeds – a low speed at which its filter basket spins at a lower RPM and a high speed at which its filter basket spins at a much higher maximum RPM. We discuss the impact of multi-speed functionality on ease of use in other reviews such as this one.
Of special note is that the white colored version of this juicer comes with a much different manual than the one included with the stainless steel version we purchased for this review. Both manuals are of a relatively high quality but the white version’s manual is of especially high quality as its in full color (the stainless version’s manual is in black and white) and it comes with photos instead of diagrams describing the different parts of the juicer and how to assemble it. The white version’s manual also includes several different recipes and is better organized.
Weight, Power Cord Length, Juice and Pulp Containers
The JM400 weighs about 8 lb. fully assembled. The body alone weighs about 5 and a half pounds. This makes it one of the lighter centrifugal juicers we tested.
The juicer’s power cord was measured to be about 40 inches in length – only 1 inch less than average for all of the centrifugal juicers we tested.
The juicer’s juice container was measured to have a volume of 20 oz. which was well below average for the centrifugal juicer category. Compare this volume to the 40+ oz. juice containers of seven of the sixteen other centrifugal juicers we tested. The JM400’s small juice container means that you’ll have to empty and replace this container quite often when juicing large amounts of produce. Its pulp container’s volume is much closer to average but still below average at 45 oz. Compare this volume to the 80+ oz. volume of such containers of eight of the seventeen centrifugal juicers we tested for review.
Ease of Use Summary and Score
The JM400 is a two speed juicer and comes with below average sized juice and pulp containers – all negatives for this juicer in the ease of use category. On the positive side of things it is quite light and comes with a power cord of average length. It earns a 3 out of 5 for ease of use.
For a detailed breakdown of our thoughts regarding juicer versatility, in general, and how the versatility of centrifugal juicers compares to that of slow juicers, please see here.
Build Quality and Materials
We found the parts composing the JM400 to be made of above average quality materials compared to other juicers in its price range (around $60 to $80). This juicer is definitely built better and made of higher quality materials than the Dash, Big Boss, Bella, or VonShef centrifugal juicers we tested, to list a few examples. We did observe it to not be made of as high quality parts and materials as those used for the construction of most centrifugal juicers we tested which retail for more than $100.
Brand Reputation, Support, and Warranty
This juicer is made by the same company and comes with the same 2-year warranty as the Juiceman JM250. Please see our thoughts regarding the Juiceman brand and the warranty included with their juicers as they’re explained in our JM250 review.
Summary and Score
The JM400 receives above average marks in this category mostly because of its above average build quality (for its price) but also because of its fairly lengthy (for a centrifugal juicer) 2-year warranty. It earns a 4 out of 5 for durability.
Value and Recommendations
The JM400 normally retails for anywhere between $60 and $80, depending on version (white or stainless steel) and where it is purchased from. At this price point, it is very similarly priced to juicers by Dash, Big Boss, Bella, and VonShef. We do feel that the JM400 is a better juicer than all four of those juicers. That being said, we make the same recommendation regarding purchase of the JM400 as we do for those same four juicers. And that is that the best juicer in the $50 to $80 range is the Hamilton Beach Big Mouth Pro and that we recommend the Hamilton Beach over any other juicer available at the same approximate price point – this includes the Juiceman JM400. If you’re on a tight budget and want to buy a centrifugal juicer, the Big Mouth Pro is the best way to go. If you’re able to spend $20 to $50 more then the (approx.) $100 Breville Juice Fountain Compact is our #1 recommendation in the centrifugal juicer category. It is the best quality best performing centrifugal juicer we tested, outperforming juicers more than three times its price. If you’re looking to purchase the best centrifugal juicer, period, our recommendation is the Breville Compact.