Skip to main content

Baby Food Makers

Published January 2019

How we tested

While packaged baby purees continue to be popular, some parents opt to make homemade versions. It doesn't require much: just something to cook the food in, such as a steamer basket, microwave, or roasting pan, and a blender or food processor to puree the food. Many parents already have all the tools they need to cook for their babies, but a growing category of dedicated “baby food makers” promises a hands-off approach to preparing baby food from scratch.

These machines come in two styles: those that only puree food and those that both cook and puree food. We focused on the latter. We rounded up six of these small appliances, priced roughly $75.00 to $160.00, and used them to prepare recipes from our upcoming The Complete Baby and Toddler Cookbook for pureed peas, fresh mango, and sweet potatoes and apples. All the machines cook by steaming the food with water from a tank that you fill. As the water heats up, the steam is pumped into the cooking container. Once the food is soft, you either blend the food right in the steaming container or transfer the food to a second container for blending with the push of a button depending on the model. After we'd prepared our purees in the baby food makers, we compared the results to batches we'd either cooked on the stovetop in a steamer basket (peas) or roasted in the oven (sweet potatoes and apples) and then pureed in our favorite food processor or midpriced blender, depending on what the recipe called for.

The Advantage: Walk-Away Cooking

Baby food makers do offer one big advantage over traditional cooking methods: You can walk away without fear of burning the food. The machines stop cooking either when the timer goes off or when they run out of water, which is great for busy parents with roaming toddlers to watch over.

The Murky: Nutrition Claims

Many of these machines also claim that they allow you to better preserve nutrients that can be lost during cooking. In a traditional steamer basket, moisture from the food drips down into the cooking liquid. For our baby food recipes, we add some of that liquid—a mixture of food liquid and steaming water—to the solid food before blending because it's convenient and may contain a bit of flavor. However, the liquid collected in the baby food makers is more concentrated because it collects in a separate cup and doesn't mix with the steaming liquid. Before blending, this concentrated liquid can be added back in with the food in place of (or in addition to) water, formula, or breast milk. Manufacturers claim that this liquid is filled with nutrients that otherwise would be lost during cooking.

However, our science editor explained that this nutrition claim is murky at best. Steaming is already a great way to preserve nutrients in food; the amount of nutrients “lost” when vegetables are steamed is likely so minimal that the concentrated liquid is not a significant source of nutrition. While it's possible that the baby food makers may produce a more flavorful puree, our tasters didn't detect any flavor differences between the purees made in the baby food makers and those made conventionally.

The Drawbacks: Reduced Capacity, Less Precision, Extra Washing

That said, there were a lot of drawbacks to the machines. Our baby food recipes make about 24 ounces of food because we figure that if you're going through the effort of making it from scratch, it's nice to have extra to freeze. But most of the machines hold between 12 and 17 ounces of food in their steamer baskets. Only one model could cook an entire 24 ounces, and it even had room to spare—we managed to fit up to 42 ounces (though the company recommends no more than 28 ounces).

When we tried halving the recipes, many models could cook the food but still failed at pureeing it because of their inadequate blenders. The blades spun aimlessly under the food, leaving chunks of food untouched. Worse, some motors threatened to give out—three models smelled like burning rubber whenever we tried to blend for more than 20 seconds at a time. Only two machines were able to turn out fully pureed, smooth blends.

To determine why some of the blenders struggled to puree food, we looked at the wattage of the motors and the shape and structure of the blending blades. Our favorite midpriced blender and full-size food processor have 750 and 1,300 watts of power, respectively. These machines work quickly and efficiently. The power of the baby food makers paled in comparison: The machines ranged from just 110 watts to 250 watts. The three baby food makers that couldn't fully puree foods and smelled like burning rubber when they blended had especially low wattage—between 110 and 130 watts. Their blades were also flimsy, rattling around unsteadily as they blended and likely contributing to the unevenness of the purees. The model that could fully puree an entire batch of food had a sturdy, rigid blade and the most powerful motor of the bunch, which helped it blend the food quickly.

Many of the baby food makers were also a lot of work to use. Each has upwards of seven parts (base, jar, lid, blade, water cup, water tank, and steaming basket), the same number as (or more than) you would use to make the recipe using a stovetop steamer basket and blender, so we weren't left with any less washing to do. Plus, some had water tanks that were inaccessible for cleaning (much like a drip coffee maker), leaving them potentially prone to mildew and mold. These machines also didn't make the process of preparing a batch of baby food any faster. We still had to prep all the ingredients, load the steamer baskets, fill the water tanks, transfer the hot food to the blending container, package up the purees, and clean all the parts of the machine.

Finally, these dedicated baby food makers are less precise than typical cooking methods. Only two of the products we tested allow you to set a specific cooking time. The rest simply steam until they're out of water, so you use an included measuring cup to figure out how much water to add (using manufacturers' guidelines). All of them required trial and error on our part to figure out cooking times and water amounts. Products on which we couldn't set a specific cooking time made army-green, overcooked peas that were dull in flavor. We preferred the baby food makers with interfaces that allowed us to set a cooking time; we found that they churned out brighter, fresher-tasting purees because we could better control the cooking times.

One Good Baby Food Maker

Ultimately, a blender or food processor and a steamer basket (or even the microwave) is still our preferred way of making baby food. It's faster and easier, and the equipment is more versatile.

However, if you like the idea of walk-away cooking, we found one baby food maker we can fully recommend, the Babymoov The Duo Meal Station: 6 in 1 Food Maker. This machine had the most parts (10) and the largest footprint of any machine we tried—similar to an average toaster oven—but it made silky-smooth purees that rivaled the food made in our favorite midpriced blender and food processor. We particularly liked this machine's two-tier steamer, which allowed us to either cook a lot of something at once or cook different foods in separate baskets. The steamer was so big (42 ounces) that we could even fit adult-size portions, which, along with its bottle-warming, reheating, and sanitizing functions, gives this appliance a bit more versatility than just steaming and blending baby food.

That said, a good blender or food processor is just a little bit more expensive than our top-rated baby food maker and can be used for years after baby graduates from purees. . . or from college.


We tested six baby food makers, priced roughly $75.00 to $160.00, using them to prepare our recipes for mango, pea, and sweet potato and apple purees. A panel of tasters evaluated the taste and texture of the finished purees as compared with batches made with our winning steamer basket and our favorite midpriced blender or food processor. If a product could not accommodate an entire recipe, we tried again using a halved batch. We washed all products in the dishwasher five times. For our winning product, we used temperature-tracking software to evaluate its “sterilization” function. Results were averaged, and products appear below in order of preference.

Rating Criteria

Capacity: If you're taking the time to cook baby food from scratch, you should at least be able to make a sufficient amount to store and freeze. Our favorite product could hold more than 24 ounces of food—an entire recipe's worth. Low-ranking products held as little as 12 ounces.

Blending: We evaluated how well the products could puree fresh mango, steamed peas, and steamed sweet potato and apple. Top marks went to machines that made silky-smooth purees in less than a minute, while lower scores went to products that left behind whole chunks of food no matter how long we held down the blend button.

Ease of Use: We preferred machines with built-in timers and parts that fully and easily disassemble for cleaning. We docked points from products that lacked a precise timer, were fussy to assemble and clean, or had unreachable crevices we couldn't clean.

3 Sites. No Paywalls.

Included in your trial membership

  • 25 years of Cook's Illustrated, Cook's Country, and America's Test Kitchen foolproof recipes
  • NEW! Over 1,500 recipes from our award-winning cookbooks
  • In-depth videos of recipes and cooking techniques
  • SAVE all your Favorites for easy access
  • Up-to-Date reviews and product buying guides

Get America's Test Kitchen All Access — become the Smartest Cook you know, guaranteed.

Email is required
How we use your email address

The Results


Design Trifecta 360 Knife Block

Admittedly expensive, this handsome block certainly seemed to live up to its billing as “the last knife block you ever have to buy.” The heaviest model in our testing, this block was ultrastable, and its durable bamboo exterior was a breeze to clean. Well-placed medium-strength magnets made it easy to attach all our knives, and a rotating base gave us quick access to them. One tiny quibble: The blade of our 12-inch slicing knife stuck out a little.


Schmidt Brothers Downtown Block

This roomy block completely sheathed our entire winning knife set using just one of its two sides—and quite securely, thanks to long, medium-strength magnet bars. Heavy, with a grippy base, this block was very stable. An acrylic guard made this model extra-safe but also made it a little trickier to insert knives and to clean; the wood block itself showed some minor cosmetic scratching during use.


Schmidt Brothers Midtown Block

This smaller version of the Downtown Block secured all our knives nicely, though the blade of the slicing knife stuck out a bit. With a base lined with grippy material, this block was very stable. An acrylic guard afforded extra protection against contact with blades but made it a little harder to insert knives and to clean; the wood itself got a little scratched during use.

Recommended with Reservations

Swissmar Bamboo Magnetic Knife Block

This small, scratch-resistant model had a stable, rubber-lined base and could hold all our knives, though the blade of the 12-inch slicing knife stuck out a bit. But inch-long gaps between its small magnets made coverage uneven and forced us to find the magnetic hot spots in order to secure the knives. Its acrylic guard made it safer to use but harder to insert knives and to clean.

Not Recommended

Messermeister Walnut Magnet Block

This handsome block was done in by its shape—a tippy, top-heavy quarter-circle that wasn’t tall or broad enough to keep the blades of three knives from poking out. It lacked a nonslip base, and its extra-strong magnets made it unnerving to attach or remove our heavy cleaver. Finally, it got a bit scratched after extensive use.


Epicurean Standing Knife Rack 12"

This magnetic block sheathed all our knives completely, though with a bit of crowding. But it was hard to insert each knife without hitting the block’s decorative slats on way down, and because the block was light and narrow, it wobbled when bumped. Worse, we couldn’t take it apart, so splatters that hit the interior were there to stay. Additionally, the outside stained easily, and when we wiped it down, the unit smelled like wet dog.


Kapoosh Rondelle Knife Block

This model stabilized knives with a mass of stiff, spaghetti-like bristles that shed and nicked easily after extensive use, covering our knives with plastic debris. While all our knives fit securely, several of the blades stuck out, making this unit feel less safe overall. Finally, though the bristles could be removed and cleaned in the dishwasher, their nooks and crannies made this block hard to wash by hand.


Kuhn Rikon Vision Knife Block, Clear

This plastic block required us to aim each knife into the folds of an accordion-pleated insert that was removable for easy cleaning but got nicked easily with repeated use. Because we could only insert the knives vertically, longer knife blades stuck out; a cleaver was too wide to fit. The lightest model in our lineup, this block was dangerously top-heavy when loaded with knives.