How we rate pour over

The geometry of the cone is the brewer. Ribs let air escape so the paper does not seal against the wall; a flat bed extracts more evenly than a cone; the material decides how much heat is stolen from the water.

What we can actually read: Rib design, hole count, bed shape and material are all published, and unlike most categories they are the actual mechanism rather than a proxy for it.

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.

• Ribs3 of 10

  Also read under Flow Rate & Control, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  Not asked of a product whose filter type is mesh or micro-filter or stainless steel filter or reusable stainless or double-layer stainless.

  spiral

  3 pts

  straight

  2.5 pts

  none, smooth, no ribs

  1 pt

• Material3 of 10

  Also read under Build Quality & Durability, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  ceramic, copper

  3 pts

  glass

  2.5 pts

  stainless steel

  2 pts

  plastic

  1.5 pts

• Drainage holes2 of 10

  Also read under Flow Rate & Control, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  Not asked of a product whose filter type is mesh or micro-filter or stainless steel filter or reusable stainless or double-layer stainless.

  1 or less

  1.5 pts

  over 1

  2 pts

• Bed shape2 of 10

  conical

  2 pts

  flat

  1.7 pts

10 of 10

How much the brewer decides and how much you do. One large hole hands the pace to whoever is pouring; three small ones hold it steady whatever you do.

What we can actually read: Hole count is published. Hole diameter rarely is, which is why the count carries this criterion.

Scored directly from published figures.

1 of the 3 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.

• Drainage holes4 of 10

  Also read under Brew Quality & Consistency, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  Not asked of a product whose filter type is mesh or micro-filter or stainless steel filter or reusable stainless or double-layer stainless.

  1 or less

  2 pts

  over 1, up to 3

  3.5 pts

  over 3

  4 pts

• Hole diameternot scored here

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

  Not asked of a product whose filter type is mesh or micro-filter or stainless steel filter or reusable stainless or double-layer stainless.

  10 mm or less

  2 pts

  over 10 mm

  3 pts

• Ribs3 of 10

  Also read under Brew Quality & Consistency, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  Not asked of a product whose filter type is mesh or micro-filter or stainless steel filter or reusable stainless or double-layer stainless.

  spiral

  3 pts

  straight

  2.5 pts

  none, smooth, no ribs

  1 pt

10 of 10

A dripper is a simple object, so this is mostly about what survives being knocked off a counter and what goes in the dishwasher.

What we can actually read: Material, dishwasher safety and country of manufacture are published.

Scored directly from published figures.

The 3 rules below score this criterion out of 10, and they add up to 10 exactly. That result is then worth 16 of the category's 100 points.

• Material5 of 10

  Also read under Brew Quality & Consistency, which asks a different question of the same fact.

  stainless steel, ceramic, copper

  5 pts

  glass

  3.5 pts

  plastic

  2 pts

• Dishwasher safe3 of 10

  present

  3 pts

• Manufacture location published2 of 10

  published at all

  2 pts

10 of 10

Needs a judgement no specification carries: how forgiving the brewer is of an uneven pour. A flat bed forgives, a single-hole cone does not, but the difference is a matter of use rather than a published figure.

What we can actually read: Deliberately unscored. The criterion is left without a number rather than filled with a proxy that would not mean anything.

Not scored. No specification answers this, so it is left without a number.

The permanent cost. A proprietary paper you can only buy from one maker is a subscription attached to a $50 object, and it is the thing people regret.

What we can actually read: Whether the filter is proprietary, what 100 cost, and whether a reusable exists are published or checkable.

Scored directly from published figures.

1 of the 3 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 14 of the category's 100 points.

• Filters not proprietary3 of 10

  absent

  3 pts

• Filter cost per 100not scored here

  Fewer than one maker in four publishes this here, so its 4 points leave the sum rather than being guessed at.

  5 or less

  4 pts

  over 5, up to 10

  3 pts

  over 10, up to 15

  2 pts

  over 15

  1 pt

• Reusable filter available3 of 10

  present

  3 pts

10 of 10

Points per pound against the category median, and worth reading beside the filter criterion rather than alone.

What we can actually read: Needs a published price here and on at least three rivals.

Computed from price, not from a rule list

Value is the only criterion here with no thresholds of its own, because it cannot be read off one product. It asks what else the same money buys in this category, so it needs the category. That result is then worth 12 of the category's 100 points.

Points already earned on everything else

out of 10

Multiplied by the category median over this price

median ÷ price

Capped at

10

No price published, or fewer than 3 priced rivals

5 of 10

Half marks is not a verdict, it is a refusal to guess: with nothing to compare against, a product is neither good value nor bad, and scoring it either way would invent a finding. It corrects itself as the category fills.