Which Circular Saw Blades Brand Wins?

197 grams, made in China

194 grams, country of manufacture not stated

183 grams, made in China

each, 185 grams, made in China; the least expensive brand tested; claims to last 6x longer than regular blades

217 grams, made in Japan

187 grams, made in Italy

224 grams, made in China; laser-cut Japanese steel, welded tungsten carbide tips

185 grams, made in Vietnam; patent-pending Tough Track Tooth, 18-degree hook angle

207 grams, made in Vietnam

249 grams (a pretty heavy blade), made in China; claims up to 60x longer life than steel blades

246 grams, made in Vietnam; no laser-cut vents, heat-expansion slots, or stabilizer vents, precision-ground teeth

made in China; weight figure is missing from the transcript ('the norski is the lightest yet at only [gap] grams') so weight could not be captured; radical bi-directional tooth profile claimed to double cutting life, C3 microgreen carbide, Japanese tool steel

274 grams (heaviest at that point in the sequence), made in China; expansion slots, claims tougher tungsten-carbide tips, anti-kickback shoulder

(the most expensive blade tested), 335 grams (by far the heaviest), designed in Germany and made in China; only blade with 20 teeth (all others have 24); claims '100 percent fast cut', carbide cutting surface, marketed for wood with nails/aluminum/plastics

2.42, 2.32 seconds, recap average 2.39 seconds (2nd place, took the lead from Ryobi)

2.57, 2.57 seconds, perfectly consistent, took the lead from Spyder at that point in the narration

2.83, 2.83 seconds, recap average 2.78 seconds (3rd/4th place)

2.83, 2.78 seconds, average 2.81 seconds (fastest until Ryobi/Bosch/Makita later beat it)

2.93, 2.83 seconds (4th place behind Spyder)

2.98, 2.98 seconds, average 2.91 seconds

2.98, 3.03 seconds (3rd position behind Spyder)

3.03, 3.03 seconds, perfectly consistent (5th place)

3.49, 3.39 seconds (2nd place behind Spyder on the 3rd pass)

3.79, 3.79 seconds, perfectly consistent, a little slower than average

4.3, 4.3 seconds, average 4.33 seconds (about a second and a half longer than Spyder)

5.87, 5.35 seconds, average 5.35 seconds (slightly faster than Mastec)

5.42, 5.98 seconds, progressively slower each pass (blade slowing down as it heats up)

(pass 1, slower than average), 4.35 seconds (pass 2, +0.3s), 3rd-pass time not spoken in the transcript (only described as 'slowed down a little bit more')

(4th place in final recap)

(2nd place in final recap)

(2nd place overall behind Makita in final recap)

(tied with DeWalt for 3rd/4th place in final recap)

(a little faster than average at that point)

(slowed about 1.5 seconds from its earlier pace)

(tied with Milwaukee for 3rd/4th place)

(2nd place behind Spyder at that point in the narration)

(a little faster than Norske)

(about a second and a half longer than Spyder)

(slowed 0.6 seconds, about 2 seconds longer than average)

(worst on record at that point in the narration; Falkenwald was later described as finishing behind Mastec, i.e. even slower)

(last place, behind Mastec)

('nearly as fast as the spider'), blade temp 77F (6 degrees cooler than Metabo HPT's 83F); recap confirms Bosch stayed near-coolest at 77F

(fastest yet at that point in narration; final recap places it 3rd behind Makita 7.4 and Flex 10.9), blade temp close to 80F

(2nd place), blade temp 78F

blade temp 76F, stayed the coolest blade of the whole video per the closing recap

(a little slower than DeWalt), blade temp close to 84F

(quite a bit faster than most other brands), blade temp 83F

tied for 3rd place with Craftsman; blade temp 83F, the hottest yet at that point

(2 seconds slower than Bosch), blade temp 85F, the hottest yet at that point

(2nd fastest at that point), blade temp 79F

(2nd slowest), blade temp 77F

described as 'took four seconds longer than the spider' at 21.4 seconds (the stated 4-second gap does not match the actual 9.4-second gap versus Spyder's 12 seconds; kept verbatim, flagged as an unresolved caption inconsistency), blade temp 80F

blade temp 81F

(slowest yet at that point), blade temp 80F

(a little slower than Skil), blade temp 85F (warmest of that test)

fast blade but a lot of damage; nail-embedded cut 8.16 seconds; transcript states 271 percent longer for the follow-up clean cut, giving 8.87 seconds (raw numbers do not reconcile with a 271 percent gap; kept verbatim); teeth experienced a lot of small chips

nail-embedded cut 4.7 seconds (2nd place behind Spyder); clean-board baseline 3.49 seconds; recap-confirmed percentage increase of 35.8 percent; no missing teeth, only minor damage

fastest cut through the nails at that point, 2.93 seconds; transcript states the blade took '58 longer' (percent implied) for the follow-up clean cut, giving 4.4 seconds; no missing teeth, only minor damage

nail-embedded cut 3.39 seconds; clean-board baseline 3.13 seconds; recap-confirmed percentage increase of 11.26 percent (lowest of the brands given a recap figure); lost 2 teeth, rest of the teeth still in good shape; became the fastest blade in the nail-durability final ranking at 3.13 seconds post-damage

made quick work of the nails at 3.39 seconds; transcript then says the blade is 'nearly as fast as the dewalt at 3.89 seconds' for what appears to be the follow-up clean-board comparison (ambiguous which number is nail-cut vs clean-cut; kept both verbatim); recap-confirmed percentage increase of 35.9 percent; very little damage to the blade

fastest cut through the nails at that point, 3.13 seconds; transcript states '25 percent longer after hitting the nails' for the follow-up clean cut, giving 3.64 seconds (raw ratio is closer to 16 percent, not an exact match); recap gives a separate percentage-increase figure of 24.9 percent for Diablo, which does not fully reconcile with the mid-narration 25 percent/3.13/3.64 figures either; all kept verbatim; teeth still in pretty good shape

nail-embedded cut 5.67 seconds; transcript states '112 percent longer' for the follow-up clean cut, giving 6.33 seconds (raw numbers do not reconcile with a 112 percent gap; kept verbatim); teeth experienced a lot of small chips

performed better than average, nail-embedded cut 5.06 seconds; clean-board baseline 3.59 seconds; very little damage to the blade; recap-confirmed percentage increase of 18.5 percent

nail-embedded cut 5.98 seconds; transcript states '41 percent longer' for the follow-up clean cut, giving 4.86 seconds (raw ratio is closer to 23 percent, not an exact match; kept verbatim); teeth in pretty good condition with minor chipping

nail-embedded cut 4.7 seconds; transcript states the clean-board follow-up cut took 80 [percent] longer, giving 6.84 seconds; some dulling but no missing teeth

nail-embedded cut 38 seconds; clean-board baseline 33 seconds; catastrophic failure, all 24 carbide teeth came out

the only blade tested bi-directionally; forward direction: nail-embedded cut 4.6 seconds, clean-board follow-up '38 [percent] longer than new' at 7.4 seconds; reverse direction: took even longer at 11.35 seconds, with damage to both the leading and trailing teeth

nail-embedded cut 10.29 seconds; clean-board baseline 9.5 seconds (no percentage figure given); no teeth lost but quite a bit of dulling

nail-embedded cut 8.87 seconds; transcript states '233 [percent] longer' for the follow-up clean cut, giving 14.3 seconds; no missing teeth but quite a bit of dulling and chipping

rating 1 (best tier)

rating 1 (best tier)

rating 1 (best tier)

rating 1 (best tier)

rating 2 (not in the named best tier)