What's new

Baratza Vario VS Cimbali Max Hybrid (Black Cat Honey Badger)...

full


So in doing the coffee comparo tests (still in progress, taking longer than expected) i've come to a very interesting conclusion... for myself and the three other tasters who have participated in this comparison - the $450 (MSRP) Baratza Vario absolutely wipes the floor with the $895 (MSRP) Cimbali Max Hybrid - in the cup. Not just with one coffee, but shot after shot, blend after blend - Baratza was the blind preference.

Using the cupping notes from just one example, Black Cat's Honey Badger Espresso Blend - here are the categories and the ranking key:

Fragrance/Aroma: 1-10 (1=poor, 10=outstanding)
Acidity: 1-10 (1=very flat, 10=very bright)
Flavor: 1-10 (1=very poor, 10=outstanding)
Body: 1-10 (1=very thin, 10 very heavy)
Aftertaste: 1-10 (1=very poor, 10 outstanding)
Balance: -5 to +5 (-5:not rated, +5 outstanding)

Methodology: Each taster was required to read the coffee cuppers handbook prior to participating in the tasting as well as reading the SCAA's cupping guide. Each tester was pulled one shot of espresso, and was asked to quietly rank/review each shot without sharing their opinion with the group, using the standard SCAA Cupping Evaluation Single Sample Grading Form. Each shot was pulled at 201F and all tamps were done in a consistent manner with an Espro tamper which was "clicking" at a measured 32lbs. Each shot was timed to a precise 25 seconds (I was pulling doubles) to ensure a consistent extraction/grind between the two grinders.

full


Espro:
full


The beans used in the test below (personally I was not keen on them)...
full


full


full


Quantitative Results:
Taster #1 (me) - Black Cat Espresso Blend - Honey Badger

Baratza Vario Fragrance/Aroma: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Fragrance/Aroma: 4
Baratza Vario Acidity: 3
Cimbali Max Hybrid Acidity: 8
Baratza Vario Flavor: 7
Cimbali Max Hybrid Flavor: 6
Baratza Vario Body: 3
Cimbali Max Hybrid Body: 4
Baratza Vario Aftertaste: 4
Cimbali Max Hybrid Aftertaste: 2
Baratza Vatio Balance: 0
Cimbali Max Hybrid Balance: -2

Male Taster #2 - Black Cat Espresso Blend - Honey Badger

Baratza Vario Fragrance/Aroma: 8
Cimbali Max Hybrid Fragrance/Aroma: 6
Baratza Vario Acidity: 7
Cimbali Max Hybrid Acidity: 8
Baratza Vario Flavor: 7
Cimbali Max Hybrid Flavor: 5
Baratza Vario Body: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Body: 4
Baratza Vario Aftertaste: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Aftertaste: 4
Baratza Vatio Balance: 0
Cimbali Max Hybrid Balance: -1

Female Taster #3 - Black Cat Espresso Blend - Honey Badger

Baratza Vario Fragrance/Aroma: 8
Cimbali Max Hybrid Fragrance/Aroma: 7
Baratza Vario Acidity: 7
Cimbali Max Hybrid Acidity: 9
Baratza Vario Flavor: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Flavor: 3
Baratza Vario Body: 3
Cimbali Max Hybrid Body: 3
Baratza Vario Aftertaste: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Aftertaste: 4
Baratza Vatio Balance: +2
Cimbali Max Hybrid Balance: -2

Female Taster #4 - Black Cat Espresso Blend - Honey Badger

Baratza Vario Fragrance/Aroma: 7
Cimbali Max Hybrid Fragrance/Aroma: 6
Baratza Vario Acidity: 4
Cimbali Max Hybrid Acidity: 8
Baratza Vario Flavor: 6
Cimbali Max Hybrid Flavor: 4
Baratza Vario Body: 5
Cimbali Max Hybrid Body: 5
Baratza Vario Aftertaste: 6
Cimbali Max Hybrid Aftertaste: 5
Baratza Vatio Balance: +1
Cimbali Max Hybrid Balance: -2

When you combine the above - the totals are-

Baratza Vario Fragrance/Aroma: 28
Cimbali Max Hybrid Fragrance/Aroma: 23

Winner = Baratza Vario by 5 points

Baratza Vario Acidity: 21
Cimbali Max Hybrid Acidity: 33

Winner = Baratza Vario by 12 points (Cimbali was consistently too bright/acidic)

Baratza Vario Flavor: 25
Cimbali Max Hybrid Flavor: 18

Winner = Baratza Vario by 7 points

Baratza Vario Body: 16
Cimbali Max Hybrid Body: 16

Winner = TIE!

Baratza Vario Aftertaste: 20
Cimbali Max Hybrid Aftertaste: 15

Winner = Baratza Vario by 5 points

Baratza Vatio Balance: +3
Cimbali Max Hybrid Balance: -7

Winner = Baratza Vario by 10 points

The above results are consistent with the results polled with all four other coffee blends sampled.

Quantitative Results:

Overall I much prefer the Baratza Vario to the Cimbali Max Hybrid for a multitude of reasons, ranging from a fluffier, less clumped grind, to better taste in cup - all the way to a more efficient, "home friendly" design.

The Grind: Pictures tell the tale. The Baratza Vario's grind is gorgeous, fluffy and positively clump free. Very little to be desired here, and the electronic timer, dosing right into the portafilter does a lovely job evenly distributing grinds in the portafilter, provided you give it a little help by rotating the portafilter and allowing even distribution.

Gorgeous...
full


The Cimbali Max Hybrid on the other hand, no matter what I did, would not deliver a clump free grind. Even the ole rapid "thwap thwap" of the doser wouldn't get the job done. The Cimbali required the Weiss distribution method to battle clumps and distribution inconsistencies. Despite running 30lbs of beans through this grinder in an effort to "break in" the burrs, I simply couldn't get clump free results.

Cimbali leaves much to be desired....
full


In the Cup: Not only did the Vario carry higher scores, but the espresso just plumb looked better. Better crema, and deeper, richer coloring - with the Vario delivering a lovely smattering of oil particles evenly distributed across the crema. While it may not carry properly in pictures, or with different monitors, rest assured in person, the visual differences were both noticeable and compelling.

Vario...
full


full


Cimbali Max Hybrid...
full


full


Features/Convenience: This one is simple - the Baratza is the hands down winner in this category. Not only is it smaller/more compact, but it's bristling with features, from a timer, to programmable buttons, super quick adjustments (from french press to espresso in 1 second), ceramic burrs (last 2X longer than steel), DC belt driven motor, quiet operation, and can be used one dose/shot at a time. What I mean by that is you can weigh your beans, say 18gr, drop them in the hopper, grind the beans and experience little to no loss, and have no issues with grinding a small amount of beans. The Cimbali on the other hand cannot do this. It requires the weight of beans on top of your desired dose in order to achieve consistent results (they'll popcorn without the weight) and you'll lose a fair amount of ground coffee, both within the internals, and shot to the left of the portafiler when dosing. This leads to a fair amount of waste, and it's very difficult to only grind as much coffee as you intend on using each time. With the Vario - it's a snap. Also, you cannot deny the value of having the micro and macro adjustments on the vario. What I personally do, is have my Vario dialed in to provide the optimal grind on the first (finest) espresso setting (you can do this by playing with the included allen wrench to modify the distance between blades) and I keep the micro adjustment bar (left bar) where it needs to be for espresso (which can change based on the bean). I then use the macro adjustment ONLY if I aim to grind for french press, or drip. This allows me to quickly flick on bar on the right to french press - and grind away (never using the micro adjustments for anything but espresso - as the margin of error and the "forgiveness" factor of the other methods doesn't seem to be impacted by a static micro setting), so that when i'm ready to go back to grinding espresso, I merely push the right adjustment bar all the way to the finest setting, and the un-touched micro adjustment will have me bang-on where I need to be. SUPER handy.

Well - is there anything good about the Cimbali? Well, yes. It appears to be built well, and i'm sure it would easily last a decade of commercial use if treated well - where as I couldn't say the same about the Vario. Don't get me wrong, I think for 99% of HOME users, either grinder would last a considerable amount of time, but the Baratza is clearly not built to take a beating - just pulling the hopper on/off a few times, and you feel as though you might break one of the tabs holding it in place. Again though, don't get me wrong, for home use, the Vario is a tremendous piece of machinery, but it simply cannot and should not expect to compete with the Cimbali in the build quality department. Why? Well, it's 9lbs, and quite small (see comparo pic at the top) and the Cimbali is a whopping 32lbs, and is substantially larger. In fact, the doser on the Cimbali is close to the size of the body of the Vario.

Another good thing about the Cimbali is it's grind adjustment mechanism. While the Vario sports micro adjustments, they're still steps, where as the Cimbali has a worm drive, completely stepless adjustment system, allowing for more finite modifications to your grind. Also, for whatever reason (maybe it was the distribution method) the shots pulled from the Cimbali tended to be more consistent than that of the Varios - in that, I mean when pulling the shots from a naked portafilter, there was ZERO sputtering/streaming from the Cimbali, and the speed at which the espresso would flow was always consistent and "honey" like. The Baratza for whatever reason would occasionally have a "streamer" out of the naked portafilter, and tended to have a "ramping" flow profile, in that as the shot progressed, the flow would increase, not abruptly as it would if it were "channeling" - but it wasn't the "gooey honey" as you'd get with ease from the Max Hybrid.

Overall though, the Vario was just plumb better in almost every quantitative and qualitative category, and left much to be desired. As a result of the experiences above - corroborated by three other unbiased individuals, i've returned the Cimbali Max Hybrid. For some inexplicable reason, I still have an urge to further explore commercial grinder options (i've since replaced the espresso machine depicted, for a commercial, plumbed in machine), however based on my research, it appears as though the only "superior" grinder (aside from my Vario, apparently) will be a large conical, like a K10. While I have no immediate plans (or space) to add a monster 4 foot grinder to my kitchen, the sad truth is that it's inevitable and when that happens, stay tuned for a Vario VS commercial conical!

All in all, the Vario is one HELL of a grinder. For $450 new, and $360 refurbished, it's a giant killer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great write up mate, if only the Baratza / Mahlkonig Vario were better priced here... they run around $700 in Australia

I hope you keep these reviews coming, they are a great read
 
Great write up mate, if only the Baratza / Mahlkonig Vario were better priced here... they run around $700 in Australia

I hope you keep these reviews coming, they are a great read

Can you buy from the US and ship it to AUS? Even if shipping was $100 (which it isn't) you could get a refurb shipped for $460.

In any case (don't tell Baratza) but i'd pay $700 for it. I don't think there's another grinder under $800 that can compete with the total Vario package.
 
Dang Joel. Another good write up. And well done on the espresso. You most certainly can tell the difference in the crema between the two grinders and I am certainly no judge of espresso.

Regards, Todd
 
:blush:I thought this was going to be a post about an Italian boar brush vs a brush made out of Honey Badger!! I've got to get out more.:blushing:
 
I kind of hate Joel for posts like this... it was one such post that resulted in my matcha setup, as well as pushing me over the edge toward my first yixing.

Luckily, my Breville has been performing better at finer grinds that it was at coarser ones, so I don't feel upgraditis at the moment.
 
Tell us about your espresso machine??? What model is that? Is that a temp gauge? PID control???

Hi Paul - that is an Expobar Brewtus IV, dual boiler (1.7L steam boiler, 1.7L brew boiler) with Gicar PID (comes on all new Brewtus IV's). I will be doing a detailed review on the machine, but this particular machine had some issues with consistent brew pressure, some fit and finish issues, and the tubes going into the water tank were too short (you could only use 70% of the water in the tank).

All in all, as you'd expect from a PID double boiler e61 machine, it made great espresso... WHEN IT COOPERATED, but my particular model (the IV just came out in the last few months, so it might be a new model thing) had too many issues and was quite inconsistent/problematic - so I ended up returning it. Right now i'm running my Delonghi Super Automatic while I finalize what I replace the Expobar with, but it'll be another double boiler PID machine.
 
I just happened across this thread while googling something else, and felt compelled to register here to say that the methodology in this grinder comparison is flawed.

There was no description of how or whether each grinder was optimized so that each test shot represented the grinder's best capability. I'm not saying that the Baratza's shots weren't better, but don't know why I shouldn't attribute that to luck. It takes me three or four shots at a minimum to dial in a grinder with which I'm familiar. More coffee still with one with which I have little experience. What was done here?

Time duration of shot is a horrible test parameter unless grind size and dosing are EXACTLY identical. In fact, ending the shot by time is a better way to skew results than isolate the underlying variables (brew ratio and degree of extraction). If I had to guess at one thing which explained the (well photographed, described and detailed) results of the tests, it would be that the Cimbali's shots were relatively under-extracted. That's not a problem with the grinder, but with grind and dose.

A higher dose with that grind setting, or the same weight of grind but tighter certainly would have changed the Cimbali's results. For the better? I can't say, but as I said before, I'd do a lot of tweaking before trying to draw conclusions.

Part of the discussion included clumping and rated the Vario as better for its fluffier grind. But another part of the discussion rated the Cimbali's pours as better looking and also remarked that they displayed no channeling. You have to understand that clumping only is as clumping does. If the cone forms quickly and without channelling, and if the pour is thick and good looking -- clumping is not a problem. This isn't poor methodology per se, but points to some fundamental understandings about what roles the grinder and grind play, and which roles they don't.

There are other test design errors as well, mostly having to do with identifying and isolating variables.

Nice try for sure, but the experiment needed refinement. It's not exactly Young's double slit. Just sayin'.

BDL
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom