Hamilton Beach 7-Speed Review
Pros: Planetary mixing action, inexpensive
Cons: Limited power, dubious durability
Manufacturer: Hamilton Beach
Compare to Similar Products
Hamilton Beach 7-Speed
|Price||$100 List||$500 List||$380 List|
$379.00 at Amazon
|$260 List||$350 List|
|Pros||Planetary mixing action, inexpensive||Powerful motor, simplistic design, large capacity bowl, planetary mixing||Powerful motor, simplistic design, sturdy platform||Powerful, affordable, easy to use||Compact, ample power, good kneading action|
|Cons||Limited power, dubious durability||Bulky, heavy, expensive||Tilt-head impeeds bowl access, medicore whipping action||Poor whipping action, requires bowl scraping||Limited volume, so-so whipping action|
|Bottom Line||This mixer is for small batch recipes that are made infrequently||A powerful, effective, easy-to-use, do-it-all stand mixer that looks sharp, too||A versatile stand mixer that will exceed most cook’s requirements at a manageable price||A stand mixer that will meet most people’s needs and budget||This standing mixer is a miniature of the classic KitchenAid tilt-head design, but the decrease in size comes at an increase in cost|
|Rating Categories||Hamilton Beach...||6-Qt. Professional...||Artisan||Classic Plus KSM75WH||KitchenAid Artisan...|
|Ease Of Use (30%)|
|Specs||Hamilton Beach...||6-Qt. Professional...||Artisan||Classic Plus KSM75WH||KitchenAid Artisan...|
|Bowl Capacity||4 quart||6 quart||5 quart||4.5 quart||3.5 quart|
|Standard Attachments||Whisk, flat beater, dough hook||Wire whip, flat beater, spiral dough hook||Wire whip, dough hook, flat beater||Wire whip, dough hook, flat beater,||Wire whip, flat beater, dough hook|
|Number of Speeds||7||10||10||10||10|
|Measured Dimensions (L x W x H)||14.5" x 10.75" x 14.25"||14.5" x 11.25" x 16"||13.25" x 8.75" x 13.5"||14.5" x 10.75" x 14.25"||12.25" x 7.75" x 12"|
|Measured Weight||9lbs. 14oz.||26lbs. 1oz.||22lbs. 13oz.||22lbs. 13oz.||17lbs. 1oz.|
Our Analysis and Test Results
As the saying goes, buy cheap, buy twice. The Hamilton Beach 7-Speed is one of the least expensive standing mixers in the class. This machine does not offer consumers much beyond an inexpensive way to get a mixer into the kitchen and a little help on low-demand tasks. If you have plans to put your mixer to work, this is not the machine for you. A high-quality hand mixer will cost you less, take up less space, and will be more dependable.
In comparison to its peers, there isn't a lot positive to say about the Hamilton Beach 7-Speed. However, it is light-weight, and it is inexpensive. So, it might offer some consumers access to the mixer market that would otherwise be less than willing to spend the money to get a quality machine.
The 7-Speed's one success in our testing regiment was in the whipping exercise. This machine will bring together a decent whipped cream if the user is willing to scrap the sides of the bowl to guide the cream back in contact with the whisk.
There is a lot to gripe about with this machine. However, the wellspring of these critiques is a machine built for limited use on recipes requiring minimal torque from the motor.
The body of the machine is almost entirely constructed of plastic, so durability is an issue. From the first test on, the motor issued whining, clicking noises when mixing. When set to more demanding tasks such as mixing cowboy cookies or kneading dough, the machine vibrated violently, and the motor would issue a burning smell. In both cases we had to turn the mixer off and finish the tasks by hand.
Despite the low cost of this machine we do not find it to be a good value. The machine can not reliably execute the tasks that warrant the purchase of a standing mixer in the first place. Based on our testing, the long (and short) term durability of this machine is in question.
The Hamilton Beach 7-Speed is an expensive stand mixer that will likely fail to perform the task for which it was purchased. Of the test recipes that it was able to satisfactorily complete, the user had to aid it with the spatula. More to the point, some of the tasks we used to test the machine required the user to manually complete as they would have broken the machine had we continued.
— Nick Miley and Michelle Powell