2024 test20 productsBlades, Bits & Abrasives
Which Step Drill Bits Brand Wins?
We compared 20 step drill bits options head to head. DeWalt came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video. Shoppers cross-shopping countersink drill bit, countersink bit, drill bit sharpener and step drill bit land here for the head to head that settles it.
Winner
DeWalt
Price shown in test: $30
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Budget pick
TEMO
Price shown in test: $30, the same price as the DeWalt
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 pilot hole time (3/16 in step) | Medium hardness steel, pilot hole time | Medium hardness steel, outcome | Stainless steel, pilot hole time | Stainless steel, outcome | AR500 armor plate outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1DeWalt$30 | 6.55 seconds, second place behind the CB/KSEIBI; four years ago this same brand cut through mild steel in around 8 seconds | 3.29 seconds, second fastest | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 7.79 seconds, the fastest full completion of the seven brands that finished this hole | 2.67 seconds, second fastest | made the biggest hole at that point in the test at 0.64 in, though with some visible wear to the chisel | only lasted about 2 seconds, with the leading edge of the flutes and the chisel in very bad condition afterward; reached only 1.67 mm of depth, described by the narrator as last place on this specific test |
| 2TEMO$30, the same price as the DeWalt | 7.53 seconds, third place; four years ago this same brand made the pilot hole in 11 seconds | 4.74 seconds | came to a stop at 3/4 of an inch, did not fully complete the 7/8 in hole | 3.18 seconds, third fastest | largest hole at that point in the test at 0.74 in, and the bit still looked as good as new afterward | the only one of the 20 brands to completely drill through the AR500 plate, at around 18 seconds, while still in very good condition |
| 3Klein Tools$34 | just over 12 seconds; four years ago this same brand was one of the slowest in the lineup at 34 seconds | 6.34 seconds (transcript renders this as '6.3 4', a caption-split decimal kept verbatim and treated as 6.34) | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 11.15 seconds, third place among the seven brands that completed this hole | 3.55 seconds | left the largest hole at that point in the test at 0.77 in, with a little more wear and tear than the Teemo; finished 2nd overall in final hole-size ranking at 0.77 in behind Milwaukee's 0.785 in | finished in about 18 seconds with some visible wear to the chisel and leading edge of the flutes, reaching 10.21 mm depth, described as quite a bit better than average |
| 41WANUE$30 | 12.23 seconds, described as making pretty slow progress compared to CB, DeWalt, and Teemo | 6.75 seconds | could not quite finish the job, coming to a stop at 9/16 of an inch | 4.27 seconds | 0.59 in hole, looked nearly as good as new (nearly as good as the Teemo) | lasted about 15 seconds before running out of steam with quite a bit more wear and tear than the Teemo; reached 11 mm depth, good enough for second place overall behind the Teemo's full penetration |
| 5Sharptool$18 | just over 11 seconds, took the lead at that point in the video | around 6.5 seconds | ran out of steam early at 0.68 in, did not complete the 7/8 in hole | 6.65 seconds, fastest at that point in the test | 0.625 in (5/8 in) hole, with a small amount of wear on the chisel point | stopped making progress at around 23 seconds, reaching 10.81 mm depth, described as very good and finishing third overall behind Teemo (full penetration) and 1WANUE (11 mm) |
| 6Hercules$40 for two bits, or $20 each | 8.57 seconds, took the lead at that point; four years ago this same brand needed 17 seconds | very close to 6 seconds, the fastest at that point in the test | came to a stop at approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/2 in', kept verbatim and read as roughly 1/2 in) | 3.6 seconds, took the lead at that point | 0.56 in hole, still in pretty good condition | started off strong but stopped making progress at around 19 seconds with quite a bit of wear and tear, reaching 10.16 mm depth, almost as good as the Sharptool |
| 7Norseman$27 | 10.17 seconds | just under 6 seconds | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 10.17 seconds, third place among the seven brands that completed this hole | 5.1 seconds, but barely made progress before the stainless steel became too hard | hole size just over approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/2 in'), bit still in very good condition | described as 'immediately squealing like a pig' but kept going, stopping at around 19 seconds; reached 9.03 mm depth, good enough for third place at that point in the narration |
| 8PIT$19 | very close to 13 seconds, second place behind the Sharptool | 7.73 seconds | came to a stop at approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/ in') | 6.55 seconds, slightly faster than the Sharptool | 0.58 in hole, chisel point in the best shape of any brand yet | stopped making progress at around 12 seconds with quite a bit of wear and tear, reaching 7.4 mm depth |
| 9Toolant$53 | 12.34 seconds, described as not making very fast progress compared to many less expensive brands | just over 7 seconds, trailing the Greenlee | also trailed the Greenlee here, coming to a stop at 0.68 in | 6.24 seconds, a little slower than average | 0.56 in hole, with some wear to the chisel | started off strong but stopped making progress at around 10 seconds with a lot of wear and tear on the chisel, reaching 7.02 mm depth, described as a pretty good amount of progress |
| 10OXMUL$22 | just over 8 seconds, took the lead at that point | 4.43 seconds, third fastest pilot hole in this test (per the closing recap for this segment) | outperformed the Hercules, coming to a stop at just over approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/2 in') | 3.39 seconds, faster than the Hercules | 0.54 in hole, still in very good condition | short life at around 11 seconds, chisel described as pretty dull afterward, reaching only 6.86 mm depth |
| 11KSEIBI$27 | 4.17 seconds, about twice as fast as the OXMUL, very impressive, new fastest time at that point | 2.26 seconds, fastest pilot hole of this segment | the spiral flute design pulled the bit into the cut too fast and it ran out of steam at 0.44 in | 1.27 seconds, by far the fastest of all 20 brands on this test | 0.61 in hole, still in very good condition | started off strong but became stuck quickly (the flute design pulled the bit into the work piece too aggressively); the narrator released it several times but it kept sticking; reached only 5.86 mm depth, the least progress of any brand up to that point in the narration |
| 12Milwaukee$150 for three bits, or $50 each | just over 30 seconds; four years ago this same brand was pretty fast at just 10 seconds, a significant slowdown this time | not separately stated in the transcript | not stated in the transcript | 3.23 seconds, almost as fast as the DeWalt | made the largest hole of any brand overall at 0.785 in, though with some wear and tear to the chisel and leading edge of the flutes | quick to fail, at around 5 seconds, with significant damage; reached only 2.8 mm depth |
| 13Greenlee$53 | 8.41 seconds, a little faster than average | over 6 seconds | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 9.39 seconds, second place among the seven brands that completed this hole | 4.17 seconds | 0.61 in hole, with quite a bit of wear and tear | finished after about 2 seconds with lots of damage to the chisel, reaching only 1.26 mm depth, a pretty shallow hole |
| 14Snap-on Blue Point$123 before shipping, handling, and tax, or $160 with it | 15.48 seconds (transcript shows a stray '%' character after this number, treated as caption noise rather than a real value) | 8.2 seconds, the same speed as the Irwin | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 20.18 seconds | 7.63 seconds, slower than average | 0.44 in hole, smaller than average, with more wear and tear than most other brands | started well but was out of steam at around 20 seconds with the chisel and leading edge of the flutes pretty much worn out, reaching 5.3 mm depth, around half the progress of the $18 Sharptool |
| 15Irwin$8 | transcript states '2.79' seconds while also describing it as 'still pretty slow'; four years ago this brand drilled the pilot hole in 30 seconds. The 2.79 figure is inconsistent with the 'still pretty slow' description and is likely a dropped leading digit (plausibly closer to 20+ seconds); kept verbatim and flagged rather than corrected | 8.2 seconds | came very close to finishing, stopping at 0.81 in (just short of the 7/8 in / 0.875 in target) | not tested | the stainless steel was too hard for the Irwin; chisel point left flat and damaged, no hole completed | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
| 16Neiko$9 | just over 14 seconds; four years ago this same brand was one of the slowest at over a minute | just over 7 seconds | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 21.8 seconds, one of only seven brands to complete this hole, though the slowest of the seven | not tested | performed reasonably well overall but the stainless steel proved too hard; chisel point left flat and dull, no meaningful hole completed | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
| 17Diablo Freud Diablo$35 | just over 30 seconds; four years ago this same brand drilled the pilot hole in 18 seconds, a significant slowdown this time | just over 9 seconds | drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 17.29 seconds (transcript shows a stray '%' character after this number, treated as caption noise) | not tested | the stainless steel proved way too much for the Diablo; narrator attributes this to a poorly shaped chisel point | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
| 18Mac Tools$100 | 24 seconds, one of the slowest in the lineup | 11.77 seconds | almost crossed the finish line but came up short at 0.82 in, just under the 7/8 in target | not tested | struggled and was unable to drill a hole, with quite a bit of visible wear and tear | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
| 19EZARC$33 | 25.82 seconds, one of the slowest in the lineup | 11.87 seconds | came to a stop at just over 1/2 in | not tested | the stainless steel was way too hard for the EZARC; narrator says the chisel does not seem to have the right geometry for cutting efficiently | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
| 20Anfrere$7, the least expensive of all 20 brands tested | just over 1 minute, making very slow progress, the slowest brand in this test | transcript reads '32.441748 in hole', likely a merged/garbled figure combining the pilot hole time (around 32.44 seconds) and a partial hole diameter reached; kept verbatim rather than split apart, since the true boundary between the two numbers is not clear | see above; final hole size not reliably determinable from the transcript | not tested | unable to drill into the stainless steel at all; the steel became too hard from heat and the chisel point was left flat and, per the narrator, 'pretty much ruined for a budget step' bit | not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel |
How it was tested
- mild steel pilot hole (3/16 in step) speed test under 54 lbs of downward force at 990 RPM
- Rockwell-style hardness scratch test on the tester's own pick, used only as background context, not a per-brand metric
- medium hardness steel (about half the thickness of the mild steel) pilot hole speed test, then continued drilling to a 7/8 in hole where possible
- stainless steel pilot hole speed test, then continued drilling as far as possible, noting final hole size and chisel wear or failure
- AR500 armor plate (extremely hard steel) test under about 200 lbs of downward force with cutting oil, for the 14 brands that survived the stainless steel test; measuring time survived and hole depth in mm, or full penetration
“the DWT came out on top with an average finish at Fourth Place”