The Royal HD1400MX offers slightly above average performance and the security level of cross-cut. However, it falls behind many of the comparably priced models, making it a poor choice for most 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.
Royal HD1400MX Review
Pros: Large bin, above average performance
Cons: More expensive than some higher performing models
Compare to Similar Products
|Price||$200 List||$318 List|
$217.59 at Amazon
$176.60 at Amazon
$194.98 at Amazon
$172.16 at Amazon
|Pros||Large bin, above average performance||Fast, powerful, relatively quiet||Fast, powerful, relatively quiet||Incredibly fast, high capacity||Fast, user friendly|
|Cons||More expensive than some higher performing models||Expensive, large||Very large||Expensive||Expensive|
|Bottom Line||Shreds well but is fairly slow for a high capacity model||A fantastic option for those that shred hundreds of pages per day||A great and fast model, but if you're looking for speed there are better options in the same price range||If your shredding jobs reach triple digit page numbers, this machine will make your life a lot easier||Good all-around performer, but not worth the high price|
|Rating Categories||Royal HD1400MX||Fellowes...||Basics 24-Sheet...||Fellowes...||Fellowes...|
|Shredding Quality (40%)|
|Ease Of Use (15%)|
|Specs||Royal HD1400MX||Fellowes...||Basics 24-Sheet...||Fellowes...||Fellowes...|
|Bin Capacity||6.2 gallons||9 gallons||7 gallons||6 gallons||6.1 gallons|
|Advertised Sheet Capacity||14||18||24||16||12|
|Measured Sheet Capacity||14||18||26||14||12|
|Dimensions||13.5"x 17.2" x 20.9"||17.3 x 11.4 x 25.2||11.9" x 16.3" x 26.2"||21.3" x 15.4" x 10.4"||19.4" x 15.5" x 10.37|
|Weight||25||36.38||36.5 lb||28.22||19 lb|
|Shred Size||5/32" x 1 1/2"||5/32" x 1-1/2"||7/32" x 1 27/32"||5/32" x 1-1/2"||5/32" x 1-1/2"|
|Warranty||1 Year||2 Year Machine / Lifetime Cutter||1 Year Limited||2 Year Machine / Lifetime Cutter||2 Year Machine / Lifetime Cutter|
|Maximum Sheets per Minute||60||185||114||140||109|
Our Analysis and Test Results
Criteria for Evaluation
Keep reading to find out how the Royal HD1400MX fared in all of our individual tests.
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 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.
Ease of Use
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.
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.
The Royal HD1400MX lists for quite a hefty price. 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 there are still other models in this lower price tier that outperform it.
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