2022 test12 productsBlades, Bits & Abrasives
Which Annular Cutters Brand Wins?
We compared 12 annular cutters options head to head. Champion came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Winner
Champion
Price shown in test: $183 for three cutters or $61 each
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Runner-up
Euroboor
Price shown in test: $44
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Budget pick
Euroboor
Price shown in test: $44
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.
| Product | Aluminum Cut Time | Mild Steel Cut Time | Medium Hardness 4140 Cut Time | Spring Steel Cut Time | Mild Steel Retest Performance Loss | Ar 500 Cut Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Champion$183 for three cutters or $61 each | 44 seconds | 25.2 seconds, fourth best result, teeth still looked new | 11.1 seconds, best result of all cutters tested | 31 seconds, tied for the best result with Hougen Copperhead, teeth still in great shape | 27.6 seconds on the retest, only 2.4 seconds slower than the first pass, a 9.52 percent loss, third best durability result | 24 seconds, best result of the three cutters that cut all the way through the AR500 plate, teeth in very good shape with only minor wear |
| 2Euroboor$44 | 50.5 seconds, slowest result of all cutters tested at that point | 29.3 seconds, teeth still looked as good as new | 12.1 seconds, second best result | 34 seconds, third best result, still very sharp with no chips; the drill press struggled to supply enough torque and had to be released and restarted several times | 31.2 seconds on the retest, a 6.48 percent loss, second best durability result; an earlier mention in the transcript of a 62 percent slower figure for this same result appears to be a transcription artifact missing a decimal point | 30.1 seconds, second of the three cutters that cut all the way through the AR500 plate, teeth in very good condition with just a small amount of wear |
| 3Hougen Copperhead$269 for five cutters or $54 each | 64 seconds, slowest result of all cutters tested | 31.3 seconds, slowest result, but teeth held up very well and still looked new | 13.8 seconds | 31 seconds, tied for the best result with Champion, teeth in very good condition | 33.1 seconds on the retest, only a 5.75 percent loss, the best durability result of all cutters tested | 34.6 seconds, third of the three cutters that cut all the way through the AR500 plate, about 10 seconds slower than Champion, very clean hole with only minor wear |
| 4Evolution Cyclone$30 | 48 seconds, 2 seconds faster than Steel Dragon at the time | 25 seconds, third best result, experienced a couple of chipped teeth | not tested | 38.2 seconds, fifth best result, still faster than Steel Dragon | 30.1 seconds on the retest, about 20 percent longer than the first pass | did not cut through, ran out of steam after about 40 seconds, made slightly more progress than Steel Dragon before the cutters were in bad shape |
| 5Hermes$42 | 36 seconds, third best result, only 1 second slower than Unibor | 28 seconds, lost some sharpness with a couple of chips | not tested | 36.2 seconds, fourth best result, took the lead from Evolution at the time, some visible wear | 34.3 seconds on the retest, over 6 seconds slower than the first pass | did not cut through, lasted around 40 seconds before progress stopped, finished third by depth among the high speed steel cutters behind Steel Dragon and Evolution |
| 6DeWalt$43 | 38 seconds, fourth best result | 26.7 seconds, became stuck at breakthrough, minor wear and tear | 12.8 seconds, described as the second fastest pass at the time, just behind Unibor | 53.1 seconds, second slowest result, quite a bit of visible wear | 35 seconds on the retest, about 31 percent longer than the first pass | did not cut through, made about the same amount of progress as S&F |
| 7Unibor$33 | 35 seconds, second best result | 23.4 seconds, best result of all cutters tested, no chips but some wear | 12.8 seconds, third best result | 54.2 seconds, 12 seconds slower than Steel Dragon, lost a lot of sharpness | needed almost 40 seconds on the retest, described in the transcript as 7 percent longer, though the raw times given (23.4 seconds to almost 40 seconds) suggest a much larger increase; kept as stated due to a likely transcription error | did not cut through, described as too dull to take a bite out of the AR500 and mostly scratched the paint |
| 8S&F$34 | 49 seconds, about the same pace as Steel Dragon and Evolution | 25.9 seconds, minor chips and some sharpness loss | not tested | 51.8 seconds, quite a bit of visible wear | 34.8 seconds on the retest, about 34 percent longer than the first pass | did not cut through, was nearly out of steam before the test even started, made a little more progress than Unibor |
| 9Steel Dragon$29 | 50 seconds, doing a great job of chip removal | 31 seconds, minor chip on one tooth | 14.85 seconds, second place behind Unibor at the time | 42.7 seconds, quite a bit of visible damage to the cutters | 35.3 seconds on the retest, a 13.9 percent loss in cutting speed | did not cut through, made it about two thirds of the way through before giving up after about 40 seconds, cutters in bad shape |
| 10Jestuous$237 for 13 cutters or $18 each | 46 seconds, about the same pace as Steel Dragon and Evolution | 23.7 seconds, second best result, minor wear | 14.35 seconds, beginning to lose speed compared to the carbide brands | 40.5 seconds, quite a bit of visible wear | 34.2 seconds on the retest, a 44.3 percent loss, the worst durability result among the cutters with a stated percentage | did not cut through, described as way too hard for its high speed steel cutters, left only claw marks and the cutters were wiped out |
| 11Slugger by Fein$362 for 11 cutters or $33 each | 39 seconds, fifth best result | 25.8 seconds, experienced a chip and some sharpness loss | not tested | 54.5 seconds, lost a lot of cutting speed, cutters left in pretty poor condition | 32.8 seconds on the retest | did not cut through, cutters walked sideways and failed to make progress beyond scratching the surface, cutters wiped out |
| 12Milwaukee$39 for nine cutters or $34 each | 28.7 seconds, best result of all cutters tested, credited to its 20 percent thinner wall construction | 28.8 seconds, lost quite a bit of sharpness | 13.8 seconds, lost quite a bit of speed | did not finish, the spring steel completely wiped out the cutters and the test had to be stopped | could not complete the retest, the cutters were finished | did not cut through, cutters were finished, only scratched the paint |
How it was tested
- cutting speed through 3/4 in aluminum
- cutting speed through 3/8 in mild steel
- cutting speed through medium hardness 4140 steel
- cutting speed through 7/16 in spring steel
- cutting speed and performance loss on a mild steel retest after the harder metal tests, used to measure durability
- ability to cut all the way through 3/4 in AR500 hardened steel plate
“Champion definitely seems to make the best cutter but it is very expensive for that reason I would likely go with the euroboor if the price was right”