2022 test10 productsBlades, Bits & Abrasives
Which Chop Saw Metal Cutting Blade Brand Wins?
We compared 10 chop saw metal cutting blade options head to head. Makita came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Winner
Makita
Price shown in test: $127
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Budget pick
Irwin or Diablo
Price shown in test: $82
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 | Mild steel tube speed (1in x 3/32in, single cut) | Angle iron avg speed (3in/1.5in mild steel, 3-cut avg) / noise / dust | 4140 hardened steel speed / temp rise | Angle iron retest after 4140 exposure | AR400 armor plate speed | Final angle iron retest after AR400 exposure | Mild steel tube speed (single cut) | Angle iron avg speed / noise / dust | Angle iron speed / noise / dust | Mild steel tube speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Makita$127 | 0.6 seconds, fastest of all 10, smooth cut | avg 3.4 sec (3.23, 3.49, 3.44), 111.9 dB, 414 small / 35 large particles | 5.26 sec, 2nd place behind Oshlun; metal reached 97.5F, tied coolest with Evolution; only minor dulling | 3.74 sec, only 10% slower than its original average, moved into 1st place (ahead of Oshlun) on this retest | 22.82 sec, described as experiencing a lot of damage | 19.26 sec, described as experiencing a lot of damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Irwin$68 | not tested | not tested | 11 seconds, metal reached 113.4F, minor tooth wear | 6.03 sec, only 9.6% slower than original average, one of the most durable results | 17.18 seconds, 2nd fastest, described as very easy work | 12.57 seconds, 2nd fastest of the final retest, described as very respectable | 2.02 seconds, 80 teeth | avg 5.5 sec (5.72, 5.72, 5.11), 108.5 dB, 366 small / 46 large particles, least small-particle dust of all 10 blades | not tested | not tested |
| 3Diablo$82 | not tested | not tested | 8.97 seconds, fastest at the point it was tested; metal stayed relatively cool at 109.9F; teeth looked nearly as good as new | 5.98 sec, only 3.1% slower than original average, the most durable single-pass result of any carbide blade | 17.39 seconds, 3rd fastest, nearly as fast as Irwin | 15.73 seconds, 4th fastest of the final retest | 1.36 seconds, 72 cermet teeth, cut was slightly less clean than the Irwin's | avg 5.8 sec (5.82, 5.72, 5.72), 103.4 dB, quietest of all 10 blades; 574 small / 43 large particles | not tested | not tested |
| 4Oshlun$92 | not tested | not tested | 4.76 seconds, fastest of all 10; metal reached 102F, very little visible wear | 4.4 sec, 51% slower than original average (tied with DeWalt for largest relative slowdown among carbide blades), still 2nd fastest overall on this retest | 13.89 seconds, fastest of all 10 | 11.35 seconds, fastest of all 10 on the final retest | 0.95 seconds, tied 4th/5th with DeWalt, despite having 80 teeth (most of any blade) | avg 2.9 sec (3.13, 2.78, 2.93), fastest of all 10 blades; 105.4 dB, 790 small / 53 large particles | not tested | not tested |
| 5Evolution blade$87 | not tested | not tested | 5.77 seconds, took the lead from Diablo at the time; metal reached 97.5F, tied coolest with Makita; only a couple of chipped teeth | 4.96 sec, fastest yet at that point but 30% slower than its original average | 26.48 seconds, described as definitely not designed for high carbon steel | 17.23 seconds, described as experiencing quite a bit of damage | 0.75 seconds, 2nd fastest of all 10, took the lead from the Wen | avg 3.8 sec (3.95, 3.49, 4.0), tied with Wen; 110.9 dB, 497 small / 45 large particles | not tested | not tested |
| 6DeWalt carbide blade$135 | not tested | not tested | 8.77 seconds, metal reached 114.4F, several chipped teeth | 5.01 sec, 51% slower than original average (tied with Oshlun for largest relative slowdown) | 31.75 seconds, described as experiencing a lot of damage | 20.74 seconds, described as experiencing a lot of damage | 0.95 seconds, tied 4th/5th with Oshlun | avg 3.3 sec (3.18, 3.23, 3.54), 2nd fastest overall; 115.3 dB (very loud), 444 small / 36 large particles | not tested | not tested |
| 7Wen$48 | not tested | not tested | 9.38 seconds, started fast but slowed near the end; metal reached 108.4F, several chipped teeth | 7.64 sec, took twice as long as its original average, worst relative degradation among the carbide blades at this stage | about 40 seconds, described as experiencing a lot of damage | gave up after only 10 seconds, blade described as ruined | 0.85 seconds, 3rd fastest of all 10, clean cool cut | avg 3.8 sec (3.95, 3.64, 3.74), tied with Evolution; 107.7 dB, 521 small / 55 large particles | not tested | not tested |
| 8Lenox Diamond$85 | not tested | not tested | 9 seconds at 7.5 lb pressure; metal reached about 214F before the temperature-tape adhesive lost grip; blade still had plenty of diamond material left | 11 sec, no measurable change from its prior 11 sec result, one of only two blades (with the DeWalt abrasive wheel) to show no significant performance change | 34.24 seconds, described as cutting really slow | 13.79 seconds at 7.5 lb, 3rd fastest of the final retest, nearly matching Irwin | 13 seconds, much slower than the carbide blades, heated the metal and left a messy cut | not tested | 53 sec at 2.5 lb pressure, just under 17 sec at 5 lb, 11 sec at 7.5 lb (used as final figure); 115.7 dB, 1,300 small / over 100 large particles, among the dustiest results | not tested |
| 9DeWalt aluminum oxide abrasive wheel (4-pack)$32 for four wheels, $8 each | not tested | not tested | 9.83 seconds at 7.5 lb; metal temperature went well past 200F and melted the temperature tape | 8 seconds, no change from its prior result, one of only two products (with Lenox Diamond) to show no significant performance change | 29.26 seconds | not tested | not tested | not tested | 8 seconds at 7.5 lb pressure; 103.7 dB (quieter than most blades) but by far the dustiest result of all 10 products at 2,857 small / over 500 large particles | 52 seconds at only 2.5 lb pressure, cut was not clean and needed deburring |
| 10SATC$43 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 1 minute 29 seconds at 7.5 lb pressure, loudest of all 10 products at 118.6 dB, dustiest of the carbide/diamond blades at 1,260 small / 144 large particles, chipped teeth, heavy heat build-up and messy cut | failed to cut at 5 lb pressure after 30 seconds; needed 7.5 lb to finish in 16.5 seconds, with heavy heat build-up and a messy cut |
How it was tested
- mild steel tube speed test (1in x 3/32in), single pass
- angle iron speed test (3/16in x 1.5in mild steel), 3-cut average, with decibel and airborne dust particle counts
- 4140 hardened steel speed test (1/4in x 2in), single pass, with metal temperature rise
- angle iron re-test after 4140 exposure, to measure speed degradation vs the original average
- AR400 armor plate speed test (extreme hardness), single pass
- final angle iron re-test after AR400 exposure, to measure cumulative wear/abuse resistance
“If I had to choose this one blade, I would definitely go with the Makita, but it is very expensive. Also, I really like the Irwin and the Diablo.”