How We Pick Juicers
Auger & Pulp is a research and comparison desk, not a testing lab. This page says exactly what that means, because it is the difference between a figure you can rely on and a figure somebody made up.
What we do NOT do
Starting here, because it is the part most sites leave out and it is the part that makes everything below believable.
We do not test juicers. We have no test kitchen, no lab, no scale and no stopwatch. You will not find a sentence on this site saying “in our testing”, “we juiced” or “after six weeks with it”, because none of that happened. Every number here comes from a manufacturer or a cited third-party test, and each is labeled with which.
We do not publish a figure we cannot source. Where nobody publishes a number, our tables read “Not available”. In this category that happens constantly: almost no manufacturer publishes juice yield, cleanup time or a decibel level. Showing the gap is more useful than filling it.
We do not repeat the yield percentages circulating in this niche. Figures like “30 percent more juice” and “72 percent versus 45 percent on greens” appear across juicer content. The trails we followed led either to a brand’s own marketing or to no identifiable source. We will not restate them as findings.
We do not show prices. Prices change weekly and a number typed into a page is wrong within a month. We publish a price band derived from retailer listings and link to the live listing, so the figure you see is the current one.
We do not publish star ratings or customer testimonials. We hold no rating data of our own, and restating somebody else’s star average as ours would be dishonest. There is an editorial score, explained below, and it is clearly not a customer rating.
We do not take payment, product or placement from manufacturers. Not for a recommendation, not for a ranking, not for a mention. We earn an affiliate commission on purchases through our links, which is disclosed on every page.
We do not make health claims. We write about machines. We hold no medical or nutritional credentials, so you will not find a verdict here on what juice does or does not do, in either direction.
What we do
- 1.Identify currently-sold models from live retailer listings and current published reviews. Stale roundups are the dominant failure in this category - pages titled for 2024 still rank - so every machine we cover was verified as currently listed when the page was last reviewed, and that date is printed on the page.
- 2.Collect specifications from the manufacturer’s own documentation, and link to it. Not from a retailer listing, where figures routinely conflict. Where listings disagree with each other - as they do for the BLACK+DECKER CJ625’s wattage and for AMZCHEF’s warranty - we say so rather than picking the flattering one.
- 3.Collect test results from publications that actually handled the machine, cited and linked. Of the eight juicer publications we read while researching this category, one has a documented controlled method. We cite them where they tested something we cover.
- 4.Normalize everything into the same four criteria, in the same order, on every page: yield, pulp, cleanup time, price band. This is the actual product. Nobody else in this category does it, and it requires no lab.
- 5.Label every figure with its origin: Manufacturer claim, Published third-party test, Aggregated from published reviews, or Not available. There is no fifth category.
- 6.Recommend for a first-time buyer’s priorities, not for spec maximalism. Which is why the best-extracting machine on this site is one we tell almost everybody not to buy.
- 7.Re-check commercial pages and update the visible “Last reviewed” date when the content changes - and only when it changes. A date that advances on its own is a freshness claim with nothing behind it.
The four criteria
Every roundup, comparison and review on this site is organized around the same four things, in the same order, because that is what makes them comparable:
| Criterion | How it is expressed | How it is labeled |
|---|---|---|
| Yield | How much juice from a fixed input, or a dry-versus-wet pulp assessment | Manufacturer claim / Published third-party test / Not available |
| Pulp | Texture of the juice and dryness of the ejected pulp - two different questions | Same three labels |
| Cleanup time | Minutes where published, plus part count and dishwasher-safe status | Same three labels. In practice almost always Not available |
| Price | Band only: under $100, $100-200, $200-400, $400+. Never a figure | Derived from retailer listings, with the date checked |
The score, and what it is not
Products carry a score out of ten. It is our editorial weighting of the sourced data against a first-time buyer’s priorities. It is not a test result, not a measurement, and not a customer rating.
The weighting, stated so you can disagree with it:
- Yield — 30%What you get for your produce money
- Cleanup — 30%The most common reason juicing habits end
- Pulp — 20%Texture in the glass, and dryness in the bin
- Value — 15%What the price buys relative to the band
- Quiet — 5%Rarely published, so rarely decisive
Cleanup is weighted as heavily as yield, which is unusual and deliberate: a machine that extracts marginally more and takes four extra minutes at the sink loses to one that is slightly less thorough and washes in ninety seconds, because the second one still gets used in month three.
Worked example: a machine scoring 9 on yield, 8 on pulp, 6 on cleanup, 9 on value and 8 on quiet comes out at 7.9/10. The arithmetic is in the site code and the inputs are on every product block, so you can check it.
What this leaves you with
A page here will reliably tell you what a machine is designed to do, what the manufacturer commits to in writing, how many parts you will wash, what the warranty actually covers, and which produce the mechanism suits. It will tell you honestly where the published evidence runs out.
It will not tell you how dry the pulp came out, because we did not see the pulp. If that is what you need, the one publication in this category with a documented controlled method is Taste of Home, and we cite them where they tested a machine we cover.
Accountability
One named person writes and maintains every page on this site: Brijon M., owner-operator of MadGrey LLC. There is no anonymous panel and no rotating freelance byline.
If you find an error, send it to contact@augerandpulp.com. We check the source, and where a factual claim changes the page carries a dated correction note. Silent edits to factual claims are not acceptable — that is set out in our editorial policy.
How we are funded, and what that does and does not affect, is on the affiliate disclosure page.
About the photographs
Every image on this site is licensed stock. We have no manufacturer image library, so no photograph here is a picture of a specific reviewed unit, and none is captioned as though it were. Where the appearance of a machine matters to a buying decision — what a chute actually looks like, how the parts come apart — the manufacturer’s own product page is linked in the sources at the foot of every page.