The world's most in-depth and scientific reviews of tech gear

Royal HD1400MX Review

Good performer, but lacks some speed for a high capacity model
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Price:   $200 List | $147 at Amazon
Pros:  Large bin, above average performance
Cons:  More expensive than some higher performing models
Manufacturer:   Royal
By Max Mutter and Steven Tata  ⋅  Oct 25, 2016
  • Share this article:
Our Editors independently research, test, and rate the best products. We only make money if you purchase a product through our links, and we never accept free products from manufacturers. Learn more
65
OVERALL
SCORE

RANKED
#6 of 11
  • Shredding Quality - 40% 7
  • Speed - 35% 6
  • Ease of Use - 15% 7
  • Noise - 10% 5

Our Verdict

The Royal HD1400MX offers slightly above average performance and the security level of cross-cut. However, it falls behind the comparably designed and more inexpensive AmazonBasics 12-Sheet Micro-Cut in a few key categories, making it a poor choice for more users. Namely, it struggled a bit at its advertised maximum capacity, and we recorded its maximum speed at 55 sheets per minute, nearly 20 sheets per minute slower than the AmazonBasics. This speed felt a bit slow for a model that is clearly meant for larger shredding jobs.

Having trouble finding the royal HD1400MX? We are too! This model is listed as temporarily out of stock at most retailers. However, it is still listed as a featured product on Royal's website, so we believe more units will be available soon.


Compare to Similar Products

(change comparison)
 
This Product
Royal HD1400MX
Awards  Top Pick Award Editors' Choice Award   
Price $200 List
$147.22 at Amazon		$270 List
$215.30 at Amazon		$108 List
$84.99 at Amazon		$165 List
$164.99 at Amazon		$240 List
$187.49 at Amazon
Star Rating
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pros Large bin, above average performanceFast, powerful, relatively quietHigh security, powerful, reasonably fastFast, powerful, relatively quietIncredibly fast, high capacity
Cons More expensive than some higher performing modelsExpensive, largeSmall bin windowVery largeExpensive
Bottom Line Good performer, but lacks some speed for a high capacity modelThe best option for those that shred hundreds of pages per dayCan handle any shredding job, and does so with top notch security and decent speedA great and fast model, but if you're looking for speed there are better options in the same price rangeIf you shred 50 or more pages at a go, this model will save you oodles of time
Overall Score Sort Icon
100
0
65
100
0
85
100
0
78
100
0
78
100
0
75
Rating Categories Royal HD1400MX Fellowes... Basics 12-Sheet... Basics 24-Sheet... Fellowes...
Shredding Quality (40%)
10
0
7
10
0
8
10
0
9
10
0
7
10
0
6
Speed (35%)
10
0
6
10
0
10
10
0
7
10
0
9
10
0
9
Ease Of Use (15%)
10
0
7
10
0
6
10
0
7
10
0
6
10
0
8
Noise (10%)
10
0
5
10
0
9
10
0
7
10
0
9
10
0
7
Specs Royal HD1400MX Fellowes... Basics 12-Sheet... Basics 24-Sheet... Fellowes...
Bin Capacity 6.2 gallons 9 gallons 6.7 gallons 7 gallons 6 gallons
Advertised Sheet Capacity 14 18 12 24 16
Measured Sheet Capacity 14 18 12 24 14
Type Cross-Cut Cross-Cut Micro-Cut Cross-Cut Cross-Cut
Dimensions 13.5"x 17.2" x 20.9" 17.3 x 11.4 x 25.2 24.2" x 17" x 13.4" 11.9" x 16.3" x 26.2" 21.3" x 15.4" x 10.4"
Weight 25 36.38 25.8 36.5 lb 28.22
Shred Size 5/32" x 1 1/2" 5/32" x 1-1/2" 5/32" x 15/32" 7/32" x 1 27/32" 5/32" x 1-1/2"
Warranty 1 Year 2 Year Machine / Lifetime Cutter 1 Year Limited 1 Year Limited 2 Year Machine / Lifetime Cutter
Maximum Sheets per Minute 60 185 72 114 140

Our Analysis and Test Results


Criteria for Evaluation


Keep reading to find out how the Royal HD1400MX fared in all of our individual tests.

Shredding Quality


The Royal HD1400MX scored a 7 in our shredding quality testing. This put it not far off from the top score of 9, and reasonably ahead of the low score of 4. It lost some points in relation to the micro-cut models because of the relatively lower security of cross-cut. Normally it was able to handle its advertised maximum capacity of 14 sheets, but it sounded like it was straining to do so, and did jam once when we put a 14 sheet stack in. If you're using the Royal for a big shredding job we would suggest keeping the stack size at 12, it is much happier in that range. Thick junk mail envelopes, on the other hand, presented no challenge, it ate these up with gusto. In reading through hoards of user reviews online we were not able to find any indications of manufacturing flaws or durability issues. As long as you're complacent with the security level of cross-cut, you won't be disappointed by the Royals' shredding performance.

The HD1400MX is a cross-cut model providing an adequate level of security for most people.
The HD1400MX is a cross-cut model, providing an adequate level of security for most people.

Speed


The Royal scored a 6 in our speed testing, making it just about average in a metric that saw scores ranging between 3 and 9. It threw down a respectable pace of 55 sheets per minute in our maximum capacity speed testing. However, This was far off the 140 sheets per minute pace of the top scoring of the Fellowes Powershred 79Ci, and even comparably priced models like the AmazonBasics 12-sheet-Micro-Cut were able to best it by almost 20 sheets per minute.

Ease of Use



The Royal's dual slots make feeding things like CDs and credit cards easier.
The Royal's dual slots make feeding things like CDs and credit cards easier.

The Royal was one of the better scorers in our ease of use testing, earning a 7. This put it just behind the top scorer, which received an 8, and better than the bottom score of 4. Its relatively large 6.2-gallon, drawer style bin is very easy to pull out and empty. The entire front of the bin is transparent enough that it's easy to see how close to full it is, but not so transparent that it feels like a very visible pile of paper shreds is messing with your clean office aesthetic. A nice set of pivoting wheels makes it easy to roll the shredder around. This is quite useful if you want to hide it away somewhere and only roll it out for shredding jobs. The shredding slot has a lip that facilitates inserting paper from an angle, perfect for if it is kept under a desk. There is also a separate slot that feeds straight down into the shredding blades for non-bendable items like credit cards and CDs. It has just three buttons, one on/off button and a pair of forward and reverse buttons for working through jams. We didn't find the forward button to be particularly useful, but it's always nice to have a little extra versatility. Three lights right next to the shredding slot indicate whether it is on, if it is overheating, and if the load of paper being fed through is too thick. The only reason the Royal missed out on the top slot was because it lacked some of the nice extra features of the Fellowes Powershred 79Ci, like a digital full indicator and safety sensor.

We liked the semi transparent front of the Royal's bin.
We liked the semi transparent front of the Royal's bin.

Noise


The Royal fell right in the middle in our noise testing, scoring a 5 in a metric that saw scores ranging between 3 and 7. Its motor had a relatively pleasant low pitched hum, but the blades made such a noticeable and grating paper crinkling sound that the advantages of that low hum were completely canceled out. All in all, it was not the worst noise produced by one of our shredders, but certainly wasn't the best.

Value


The Royal HD1400MX lists for $200. Considering its performance this is a very poor value as similar performers are readily available for much less. At the time of this writing, the Royal could be found online for nearly half of its list price. Even at this price, however, the Royal isn't a great value as you can get the AmazonBasics 12-Sheet-Micro-Cut, which matched or outperformed the Royal in every one of our testing metrics, for just $100.

Conclusion


The Royal HD1400MX is a well-designed shredder that offers above average performance. However, its high cost and the presence of many equal or better performers in the same price range make it less attractive.



— Max Mutter and Steven Tata