How we rate coffee pods

A sealed capsule takes every brewing decision away from the drinker, so what is left to judge is what the roaster put in it. The dose in grams does most of that work: capsules run from about five grams to about twelve, and no amount of technique closes that gap.

What we can actually read: The dose is published, but never beside the price. Nespresso states a net weight for the sleeve in its Contents and Allergens panel and Nescafe puts it on the nutrition table, which is why this figure is recorded here for seventeen capsules and blank for the rest.

Scored from figures that predict it, because the thing itself is not published.

The 4 rules below score this criterion out of 10, and they add up to 10 exactly. That result is then worth 26 of the category's 100 points.

• Dose4 of 10

  5.5 g or less

  1.5 pts

  over 5.5 g, up to 7 g

  2.5 pts

  over 7 g, up to 9 g

  3.5 pts

  over 9 g

  4 pts

• Tasting notes published2 of 10

  published at all

  2 pts

• Origin structure2 of 10

  single origin, single-origin

  2 pts

  blend

  1 pt

• Not flavoured2 of 10

  absent

  2 pts

10 of 10

Two numbers, because one of them lies. The pod is what the box is priced in and what anybody actually compares, so it is scored first. But a capsule holding twelve grams and one holding five are not the same purchase at the same price, and per pod alone says the opposite of the truth about which system is expensive. Every product here is priced on the largest box its maker states a price for, which is the floor of what it can cost you.

What we can actually read: Both worked out from the box price and the capsule count, never estimated, and the per-kilo rule needs a published dose on top of that. Where the dose is missing the rule scores nothing rather than guessing, which is why some capsules carry a price per pod and no price per kilo.

Scored directly from published figures.

The 2 rules below score this criterion out of 10, and they add up to 10 exactly. That result is then worth 22 of the category's 100 points.

• Cost per pod7 of 10

  0.45 or less

  7 pts

  over 0.45, up to 0.6

  6 pts

  over 0.6, up to 0.8

  4.9 pts

  over 0.8, up to 1

  3.5 pts

  over 1, up to 1.25

  2.1 pts

  over 1.25

  0.7 pts

• Cost per kilo3 of 10

  $70 or less

  3 pts

  over $70, up to $110

  2.4 pts

  over $110, up to $150

  1.8 pts

  over $150, up to $190

  1 pt

  over $190

  0.4 pts

10 of 10

The heaviest environmental criterion on the site, because this is the one product category where the packaging outweighs the coffee and the buyer throws it away every single day.

What we can actually read: Scored on four separate facts rather than the word "recyclable", which is true of aluminium in principle and, in most of the US, only through a mail-back bag. Whether it goes in the kerbside bin is a different question and it is the one people are actually asking.

Scored directly from published figures.

2 of the 4 rules below are struck through in this category, because too few makers publish the input. The 2 that remain score this criterion out of 10 between them: a struck rule leaves the sum entirely rather than counting as a zero. That result is then worth 18 of the category's 100 points.

• Capsule material3 of 10

  home compostable

  3 pts

  compostable, plant-based, fibre, fiber

  2.5 pts

  aluminium

  2 pts

  plastic

  0.5 pts

• Home compostablenot scored here

  Fewer than one maker in four publishes this here, so its 3 points leave the sum rather than being guessed at.

  present

  3 pts

• Kerbside recyclablenot scored here

  Fewer than one maker in four publishes this here, so its 2 points leave the sum rather than being guessed at.

  present

  2 pts

• Take-back scheme named2 of 10

  published at all

  2 pts

10 of 10

Which system it fits, what size cup it is built for, and whether the range has a decaf. Compatibility is scored as transparency: a pod that says plainly which machines it works in earns the points, because a surprising number bury it.

What we can actually read: System is nearly always stated by the roaster. Cup size is stated by Nespresso and Vertuo and rarely by anybody else.

Scored directly from published figures.

The 4 rules below score this criterion out of 10, and they add up to 10 exactly. That result is then worth 18 of the category's 100 points.

• System stated plainly3 of 10

  published at all

  3 pts

• Cup size stated2 of 10

  published at all

  2 pts

• Decaf in the range2.5 of 10

  present

  2.5 pts

• Box size2.5 of 10

  10 or less

  1 pt

  over 10, up to 30

  2 pts

  over 30

  2.5 pts

10 of 10

How much the roaster will say about where the coffee came from. Deliberately the same shape as the instant coffee criterion, because it is the same question.

What we can actually read: Origin and certifications are usually published. A named farm almost never is, and that is not asked of a blend.

Scored directly from published figures.

1 of the 4 rules below are struck through in this category, because too few makers publish the input. The 3 that remain score this criterion out of 10 between them: a struck rule leaves the sum entirely rather than counting as a zero. That result is then worth 16 of the category's 100 points.

• Origin published3 of 10

  published at all

  3 pts

• Roaster named2.5 of 10

  published at all

  2.5 pts

• Certifications2.5 of 10

  2 or more

  2.5 pts

• Direct tradenot scored here

  Fewer than one maker in four publishes this here, so its 2 points leave the sum rather than being guessed at.

  present

  2 pts

10 of 10