Compare SMEG 50’s Retro Style Drip Coffee Maker vs OXO Cold Brew Coffee Maker

Packaging comments were positive where mentioned, especially the zero-plastic or recyclable-cardboard presentation.

Only one review evaluated packaging sustainability, criticizing the amount of single-use plastic despite acknowledging its protective effect.

Accessory evidence is limited, but one reviewer valued the included measuring scoop as helping portion grounds correctly.

Accessory feedback focused on paper filters: reviewers liked the filtration option but treated ongoing disposable filter purchases as a drawback.

Speed evidence was generally acceptable rather than fast; reviewers noted full jugs take several minutes but slower brewing helps avoid weak coffee.

Time was a recurring limitation: reviewers noted the 12-24 hour steep and slow drip or drain times, even when they liked the final coffee.

The water system was the most repeated complaint: reviewers criticized the narrow, awkward reservoir and, in some cases, overly frequent descaling alerts, though one long-term review praised easy descaling.

Cleaning impressions were mixed: some found parts easy or a breeze to clean, while others disliked hand-washing, messy grounds removal, and the amount of cleanup.

Value was one of the most divided areas: style-focused reviewers accepted the premium, but coffee-focused reviewers called it expensive for standard drip performance.

Most reviewers considered the OXO a good value because it saves café spending and performs well, though several noted it costs more than simpler cold-brew makers and one doubted the $50 price.

Design flaws centered on bulk, footprint and missing or imperfect convenience features, especially the lack of a standard brew-pause feature in one review.

Design flaws centered on imperfect instructions, missing coffee measurement marks, occasional rainmaker pooling, space demands, possible drips, and flavor loss when following included directions.

Beverage quality was acceptable to good for drip coffee, with praise for smooth, clean or tasty cups but repeated caveats that the coffee is standard rather than exceptional.

Reviewers consistently liked the drink quality, describing the concentrate as smooth, rich, flavorful, low-acid, and strong, though one reviewer treated the strength as preference-dependent.

Design is the strongest consensus point: reviewers repeatedly loved the retro styling, colors and countertop presence, while some still criticized its large footprint.

Design feedback was polarized: many liked the sleek look, nesting storage, and compact pack-away design, while others called it large, bulky, plastic, or not attractive enough for counters.

Capacity was usually adequate for households or multiple mugs, but reviewers repeatedly noted Smeg cup sizing makes the 10-cup claim feel smaller in real mugs.

Capacity was viewed positively by reviewers who valued batches that make many diluted drinks, with larger yield also tied to the appliance’s bigger footprint.

Overall experience varied widely: many found it simple, quiet and pleasant, while harsher reviews said the quirks and tradeoffs outweighed the looks.

Overall experience was usually praised as easy, hassle-free, satisfying, and worthwhile; the lone mixed review felt conflicted about whether it was easier than simpler DIY methods.

Build quality was split: some praised metal construction, sturdiness and long-term durability, while others criticized plastic parts, a flimsy handle or failure after extended use.

Durability evidence was limited and mixed: one long-term tester found the parts thick, durable, and intact after a year, while another worried about moving plastic parts.

The reusable filter was mostly praised for convenience, low waste and durability, though one reviewer only rated it decent rather than exceptional.

The filter system received mostly positive marks for washable mesh, optional paper filtration, reduced sediment, and clear coffee, though paper filters were an added consumable for the smoothest result.

Setup was consistently described as easy, with reviewers noting simple initial preparation and little to assemble.

Most reviewers found setup simple or easy, but a few noted the multi-piece assembly required directions, patience, or was not immediately logical.

Brewing performance was mostly positive for standard drip coffee: reliable, consistent and flavorful enough, though not positioned as specialty-level brewing.

The rainmaker and brewing process drew strong praise for even saturation, better extraction, consistent results, and smooth concentrate; the main dissent questioned whether the rain screen added enough benefit.

Carafe handling drew mixed reactions, with praise for ergonomics and pause-and-serve but complaints about non-dishwasher-safe glass and flimsy or awkward details.

Carafe feedback split between praise for sturdy storage, useful lids, and a satisfying vessel, and criticism that the glass could feel delicate, slippery, or awkward with the lid.

Popularity evidence was limited but positive, with one reviewer noting the machine had become a hit on Instagram.

Popularity evidence was limited but positive, with reviewers citing strong online review volume and broad reviewer/customer approval.

Reviewers generally liked the programmable timer and auto-start function, calling it convenient, easy to set and useful for wake-up coffee.

Heating performance evidence was negative where scored, with the warming function failing to keep coffee hot enough in one detailed review.

Cold-brew function quality was the strongest theme, with reviewers praising smooth, balanced, concentrated, café-rivaling iced coffee and one blind test placing it first.

Portability was mixed: one reviewer found it easy to move, while another emphasized its hefty weight and countertop bulk.

Pot and keep-warm performance was mixed: some found the warming program effective, while others complained that 20, 40 or 60 minutes was not enough for their habits.

Recognition was strong in the reviewed sources, with the maker named a top pick, holding a buying-guide top spot, and winning one blind taste test.

Warranty and support evidence was negative, with one long-term owner saying help was difficult after a breakdown and no remedy was provided beyond the 12-month warranty.