Published November 1, 2004. From Cook's Illustrated.
Some models cost almost $300, while others are sold for relatively small change. Do the big bucks guarantee a better machine? And what about all those attachments?
What should a food processor—at minimum—be able to do? For starters, it ought to chop, grate, and slice vegetables; grind dry ingredients; and cut fat into flour for pie pastry. If it can’t whiz through these tasks, it’s wasting counterspace. The cheaper models failed most of these basic tests.
Considering that these cheaper food processors had a hard time with basic tasks, we had little hope that they could manage more challenging jobs, such as kneading bread dough or pureeing soup. Sure enough, the cheaper models lived down to their reputation when it came to making pizza dough. As for pureeing soup, all three bargain machines leaked soup from the bottom of the bowl. (The puree itself turned out OK.)
In the end, then, we cannot recommend any of the three cheaper food processors we tested, and it was clear that more money does buy a better, more heavy-duty processor. The blades for our two favorites are among the sturdiest and appear to be the sharpest. Their motors had more weight, ran quieter, and did not slow down under a heavy load of bread dough. But when it came to pureeing soups, the results were more mixed. Only one model could handle a lot of liquid without leaking. We finally chose two favorites; with our final recommendation being the pricier contender, thanks to its ability with vegetable preparation.
Finally, many food processors come with attachments. As you might expect, some are completely useless, while others are surprisingly well designed. Of the attachments that came with our various models, we especially liked mini bowls and compact covers.
