Mueller Ultra-Juicer MU-100 Review
Pros: Dual-speed, good with soft produce, good juice quality
Cons: So-so with carrots, beets, struggled with leafy greens
Compare to Similar Products
Mueller Ultra-Juicer MU-100
$69.97 at Amazon
$243.21 at Amazon
$144.99 at Amazon
$302 at Amazon
|Pros||Dual-speed, good with soft produce, good juice quality||Makes phenomenal juice drinks, fantastic at juicing leafy greens, super easy to clean||Excellent at juicing hard produce, easy to clean, great juice quality||Easy to clean, good hard produce yield, great juice quality||Extremely easy to clean, great at juicing leafy greens|
|Cons||So-so with carrots, beets, struggled with leafy greens||So-so at juicing hard produce, pricey||Substandard at juicing leafy greens, lackluster soft produce performance||Expensive, subpar juice yield with leafy greens||Subpar at juicing hard and soft produce|
|Bottom Line||If you are looking for freshly-squeezed juice at a bargain, we think this is a great middle-of-the-road option that won’t blow your budget||Delivering exceptional results across the majority of our tests, this is one of the best masticating models we have tested to date||Delivering an excellent performance at juicing hard produce and doing quite well across the board, this product definitely earned our praise||This appliance offers a larger pulp container and a sleeker design but can be a bit more expensive||If you are looking for a way to juice leafy greens on a budget, then this is a great option|
|Rating Categories||Mueller...||J8006HDS Nutrition...||JE98XL Juice...||800JEXL Juice...||Aicok Slow...|
|Juice Quality (25%)|
|Soft Produce (20%)|
|Hard Produce (20%)|
|Leafy Greens (20%)|
|Specs||Mueller...||J8006HDS Nutrition...||JE98XL Juice...||800JEXL Juice...||Aicok Slow...|
|Warranty||2 Year||15 Year||1 Year||1 Year||2 Year|
|Dimensions||16" x 8.1" x 16"||6.5" x 14.5" x15.5"||9" x 16" x 17"||9" x 16.5" x 16"||17.1" x 13.1" x 8.9"|
|Dishwasher Safe||Filter blade||Yes||Yes, most parts||Yes, most parts||Yes|
Our Analysis and Test Results
We do like that this juicer has a larger feed chute for bigger pieces of produce and that it has dual speeds to maximize your juice yield from both hard and soft produce.
We started off by making multiple different blended juice drinks and comparing the quality of the beverages produced. We made a predominately beet-based drink, a romaine, apple, orange blend, and an apple, beet, orange, sweet potato, and carrot concoction. Our judges looked at the taste, temperature, and texture of each drink, with our judges bestowing an overall above-average score to the Mueller Ultra-Juicer MU-100.
However, the Ultra-Juicer MU-100 did get off to a bit of a rough start with the "Can't Beet It" beverage, composed of apples, carrots, celery, beet root, cucumber, and ginger root. We found the final drink to be a bit on the watery side and the taste to be just a bit more bland tasting than when we made this beverage with some of the other juicers. We did appreciate that the Ultra-Juicer MU-100 produced minimal to no pulp and the drink wasn't gritty at all.
The MU-100's performance did improve quite a bit when it came to the romaine, apple, and orange drink. The texture did seem just a bit pulpy but we did like that the taste was refreshing and light — albeit with strong romaine overtones. It was definitely on the thicker side and had just a small amount of foam. This juicer did even better with the final blended juice cocktail. Our judges gave it very high marks both when it came to texture and taste, though it did create a beverage that had plenty of pulp.
While the final drink did score very well, we did notice that this juicer struggled quite a bit with the sweet potato and the beet. We also noticed that the motor would bog down with larger chunks of produce, forcing us to cut smaller pieces than other models required.
Our next set of assessments looked at the juice yield of the Ultra-Juicer with soft produce — namely cucumbers, celery, orange, apple. The Mueller did very well, producing considerably more juice than average with this type of produce and earning it one of the better scores of the group.
Starting with cucumbers, this juicer created 200 mL of juice from 12 oz. of peeled cucumbers, with only a small amount of pulp and a slight bit of foam and just a bit more than the group average of around 180 mL. Next, we moved on to juicing celery. The Ultra-Juicer generated an average amount of juice that had little to no pulp or foam but did separate on us.
The performance of this juicer did improve a bit when it came to orange juice, yielding just a bit more than the average product. There were only mild amounts of pulp but we did notice that the juice was very foamy. Finally, the Ultra-Juicer finished out this performance with an excellent performance in our apple juice test. It yielded considerably more than average, with negligible pulp and only a little foam.
Our next set of tests focused on the juice yield of the Ultra-Juicer when it came to hard produce, like carrots, beets, or sweet potatoes. We did notice a definite performance drop but still think this appliance did about average overall compared to the rest of the products.
The Ultra-Juicer got off to a solid start in our carrot juicing metric, yielding an above-average amount for 8 ounces of carrots. We got 105 mL of juice from this appliance and little to no foam or pulp. Unfortunately, there were some chunks that at the ends of the carrots that this juicer struggled a bit with.
However, the performance of this juicer plummeted quite a bit when it came to juicing beets. It yielded quite a bit less juice than the other models and had some non-trivial amounts of foam, though the juice was essentially pulp-free. We also noticed that it sounded like the juicer was struggling quite a bit with the larger chunks of beets, though this did get better when we cut up the produce smaller than we usually would.
The Ultra-Juicer rebounded a bit with our last hard produce test, yielding an average amount of sweet potato juice. It had mild amounts of pulp and just a bit of foam but the motor again sounded like it was substantially struggling with the larger pieces. All in all, this juicer wouldn't be our first choice if you are looking for a product exclusively to juice hard produce.
Our final juice yield metric focused on how the Ultra-Juicer handled leafy greens. Unfortunately, we weren't very impressed with this appliance's performance, which earned it one of the lower scores of the group.
This juicer struggled considerably with the wheat grass, having some of the lowest juice yield of the group. It barely made any juice, with none making it into the collection chamber without tilting the appliance. This juicer also didn't do much better with the spinach. It yielded about 50 mL of very foamy juice from 7 ounces of spinach, which was quite a bit less than the average yield of around 70 mL.
The Ultra-Juicer did finish out this metric with an above-average performance when it came to juicing kale. It yielded slightly more than the average amount of juice from 4.25 ounces of kale. However, it was a little on the foamy side.
Our last round of tests looked at how easy it is to clean the Mueller Ultra-Juicer once you are done juicing. We found this to be a fairly painless process, earning it a score above average.
We do like that the filter/blade piece is dishwasher-safe however the rest of the components can only be cleaned in warm soapy water. This appliance does include a crush that we found to be quite useful when it came to cleaning but we did notice that bristles would get pulled out whenever they got caught on the disc. We also found the plastic shields to be a bit of work to clean if bits of produce dried out in there but overall wasn't too bad to clean.
Overall, we think the Mueller Ultra-Juicer MU-100 is a great option if you are shopping on a budget and want a juicer that performs decently well at most things.
While this centrifugal juicer didn't do the best with some types of hard produce and with certain leafy greens, we were overall quite impressed with its performance — especially given its lower price tag.
— Austin Palmer and David Wise