Top 10 household wall breaking machines:
Ranking NO.1 Yitong wall breaking machine
Yitong fully researches and continuously innovates products, eighth The concept of breaking walls has been mastered in modern products. In terms of materials, all parts that come into contact with food are made of food-grade materials, which is absolutely healthy and safe. The blades are made of secondary forged 304 stainless steel. You must know that this ultra-high-tech process not only retains the original blade hardness, but also ensures the food-grade safety of the blade. The built-in high-speed motor can reach an astonishing rotation speed of 58,000 per second.
Ranking NO.2 Jieshi
Jieshi wall breaker is similar to Yitong wall breaker. In terms of design technology, Jieshi is at the forefront among many brands. .
However, in terms of materials, the blades of Jie's wall breaker are not as good as Yitong's. Jie's uses ordinary one-time forged 304 stainless steel. For hard ingredients, this kind of blade cannot effectively break the wall, and the blade is easily damaged and deformed.
Ranking NO.3 Westinghouse
The Westinghouse wall breaker is an American brand. It is characterized by ultra-large capacity and ultra-powerful power. However, this feature causes Westinghouse to be too loud when used. Westinghouse uses intelligent dual protection, infinite speed change function, and the wall-breaking effect is okay, but the price is a bit expensive.
Ranking NO.4 Guge
When the Guge wall breaker was put into the market, it was positioned as a high-end product. In fact, its design was average, and the steam technology was still a patent purchased from Yitong. Nowadays, Guge often has the problem of steam vent clogging. Its price is generally more than 2,000.
Ranked NO.5 Greiss
The Greiss wall breaker is liked by many people, mainly because it is a pocket-sized wall breaker and its operating system design It is relatively simple and uses the intelligent cloud recipe function. Although the operation steps of Greis are simple and easy to use, it has always had problems with environmental protection, which greatly reduces the overall quality.
Ranked NO.6 Philips
Philips is very well-known in China. The Philips wall breaking machine adopts surround three-dimensional heating technology, which has better heat transfer performance and protects the nutritional content of food ingredients. It also uses a color touch screen. Its blade is petal-shaped, which plays a better role in breaking walls. However, the Philips wall breaker has some problems in terms of noise and body stability. Compared with other brands, Philips is still okay.
Ranking NO.7 European and American Jazz
The European and American Jazz wall breaker is designed to imitate the American Vitamax. Overall, it looks good. The materials are safe and reliable, and the blade structure is excellent. As with Vitamax, it cannot be heated. This feature cannot meet the requirements of some users.
Ranking NO.8 Midea
Midea’s wall breaking machine is generally considered to be better. In terms of materials, very safe and environmentally friendly materials are used. In terms of performance, the blade has a high rotation speed, high power, good wall-breaking effect, and very detailed grinding. Midea's wall breaking machine is positioned in the market as a mid-to-low-end product with a medium price, but its service life is short.
Ranked NO.9 Joyoung
Joyoung is a well-known old brand. It is most famous for its soybean milk machine. For Joyoung wall-breaking machine, due to the short development time, the machine The performance is poor among similar products, the functions are single, and the user experience is not high. Moreover, Joyoung's wall breaking machine is still produced by other factories, so the quality cannot be complimented.
Ranking NO.10 Jiabao
The Jiabao wall breaking machine market is positioned as a mid-to-low-end product, but the price is a bit high. It is produced in cooperation with a third party. The Jiabao wall breaking machine uses better environmentally friendly and healthy materials in terms of materials. However, in terms of performance, due to insufficient R&D investment, it cannot meet the requirements of many users.