Compare OXO Brew 9 Cup Coffee Maker vs Black+Decker Thermal Coffeemaker, 12-Cup CM2035B

Accessory feedback was limited but positive, with reviewers calling the included measuring spoon a convenient or nice touch.

Home testing supported the core thermal-carafe claim, with the reviewer reporting coffee stayed warm for hours and remained enjoyable without reheating.

Setup and basic operation were described as quick, easy, intuitive, and low-effort across multiple reviews.

Setup was described as quick and straightforward, with the home reviewer saying initial setup took only a few minutes.

Automated features were a major strength, including auto-brew scheduling, bloom/pre-infusion behavior, freshness timing, and helpful brew adjustments.

Automation features were useful rather than flashy: reviewers valued the freshness timer, auto-brew programming, and safety-minded auto shutoff.

Most reviewers saw the brewer as consistent in flavor, temperature, saturation, and timing, though one comparison found the 9-cup less consistent than the 8-cup.

Brew performance was mixed-positive: several reviewers liked the balanced extraction and flavor, while one lab review criticized below-ideal brew temperatures.

Build quality was praised as well-made and high quality, with one long-term review saying the machine still worked like new after more than three years.

Build quality drew split reactions: reviewers liked the stainless or insulated carafe, but one home test found the plastic body flimsy and not built to last.

Cable feedback was limited to one review, which found the cord somewhat short despite describing the routing options.

Capacity sentiment was mixed: the nine-cup size was useful, but reviewers cautioned that small pots were weaker and larger-capacity buyers may need another machine.

Capacity was a clear strength, with reviewers noting the full 12-cup output works well for larger households, offices, or frequent entertaining.

The carafe often earned praise for heat retention and smooth pouring, but several reviewers reported awkward last-pour behavior, spills, or cleaning challenges.

Carafe handling was mixed: most reviewers liked the pour quality and wide-mouth cleaning, but one found the press-to-pour lever hard for smaller hands.

Design feedback was strongly positive on looks and countertop appeal, but the tall body and large footprint were repeated ergonomic drawbacks.

Reviewers generally liked the compact footprint, readable controls, appearance, and counter-friendly design, though ergonomics were not uniformly perfect.

Design flaws centered on the narrow or awkward carafe, tall/wide footprint, and one reviewer's early plastic-smell problem.

Design flaws centered on the press-to-pour carafe and a break-prone lid-lever warning, making the carafe less carefree than the rest of the machine.

Reviewers mostly praised the brewed coffee as rich, smooth, tasty, delicate, or fantastic, while one Chemex-focused reviewer found the flavor weaker than their preferred manual brew.

Beverage quality was generally pleasant but not elite, ranging from smooth and drinkable in lab testing to very good in a user review.

Filter and water-dispersion feedback was favorable, with praise for pour-over-like setup, an even showerhead, and a drip-stopping filter basket.

The lack of a permanent filter was a drawback because it adds ongoing paper-filter costs and unnecessary waste.

Dosing guidance was a weakness in two reviews, with recommended ratios producing coffee that testers found too strong or hard to dial in.

Heating performance was praised for hot water, hot brewed coffee, and operation within proper brewing-temperature parameters.

Heating performance was inconsistent: some users measured or tasted very hot coffee, while the lab review found the water heated slowly and below ideal.

One reviewer specifically praised disposal because the paper filter came out quickly and cleanly into compost.

Overall experience was mostly excellent, with many reviewers recommending or enjoying the machine for simple, convenient coffee, though one reviewer found it a poor match.

The overall experience was positive for everyday use, with intuitive controls and simple operation offset by a short learning curve in one lab review.

Popularity evidence was limited to one review noting that the model or its predecessor had been a top pick across major review blogs and websites.

Portability evidence was limited to one long-term user who valued carrying the thermal carafe upstairs for shared work-from-home coffee breaks.

Pot brewing was seen as a strength, with reviewers praising ready-when-you-wake scheduling, strong full-carafe results, and hot coffee storage.

The thermal pot function was the strongest point, with every relevant review saying the carafe kept coffee warm for hours or consistently hot.

Certification was treated as a meaningful strength, with reviewers pointing to SCA or Gold Certification as a reason for trust and purchase interest.

Speed was generally positive, with reviewers reporting full pots in roughly six to eight minutes, though one nine-cup test called one cup per minute merely standard.

Speed was acceptable but not a standout: one review called it standard, while others found it not the quickest or relatively long.

Value opinions were mixed: reviewers acknowledged a premium price, but some felt the convenience, coffee quality, and feature set justified the spend.

Value was a major strength, with multiple reviewers framing it as a budget-friendly brewer that outperforms its low price.

Warranty and support feedback was positive, especially Wirecutter's staff experience with responsive OXO service and Forbes's view of the two-year warranty supporting the investment.

Maintenance feedback was mostly favorable thanks to removable parts, descaling reminders, and simple cleanup, but the carafe and small parts made cleaning harder for some reviewers.

Maintenance was mixed: cleanup and dishwasher-safe parts were praised, but regular carafe cleaning, descaling time, and a fixed reservoir created hassles.