Which Insulated Water Bottles Brand Wins?

claimed 11 hours cold / 36 hours iced, marketing claims of surviving -70 wind chill, speeding bullets, 4,000 ft drops, and category 5 hurricanes, lifetime warranty, dishwasher safe

cold / 11 hours hot claimed, spill-proof, 24 oz

TempShield double wall vacuum insulation, claimed 24 hours cold / 12 hours hot

claimed 24 hours cold / 6 hours hot, priced $3 more than the standard mouth version

hot / 65 hours cold claimed, 20 oz, claimed to not shatter, BPA- and toxin-free

hot / 24 hours cold claimed, double wall vacuum insulated, holds 21 oz, marketed as eco-friendly

keeps liquid hot or cold, double wall and vacuum insulated, extra wide mouth

vacuum insulated, 18/8 stainless steel, per the brand's website claimed 48 hours cold / 12 hours hot

vacuum insulated, claimed 20 hours cold

per the brand's website claimed 24 hours cold / 12 hours hot

dishwasher safe, 18/8 stainless steel, no information available on the brand's website regarding hot/cold retention duration

unique built-in filter claimed to last up to 40 gallons (the only brand in this video with this feature), claimed 24 hours cold; not designed for hot contents and excluded from the hot-retention tests

claimed 24 hours cold / 10 hours hot, 20 oz

stays cold, leak-proof, BPA-free, lifetime guarantee; not designed for hot contents and excluded from the hot-retention tests

second lightest of all 14 products

tied for heaviest up to that point in the video with Coleman

by far the heaviest of all 14 products (too heavy for the narrator's scale to weigh as a single unit; weighed as thermos and lid separately)

the lightest of all 14 products

the best (coldest) result of all 14 products, won this test outright

4th best of all 14 products

tied for 5th of all 14 products (tied with Hydro Flask Sport)

tied for 5th of all 14 products (tied with Hydro Flask Standard Mouth)

3rd best of all 14 products, essentially tied with Aquatec's 52.8

2nd best of all 14 products

described as struggling, one of the weaker results of the 14 products

described as struggling despite being by far the heaviest product

described as not quite as good as most of the other brands

the worst (warmest) result of all 14 products, described as really struggling; also showed a lot of heat loss on the 30-minute thermal-camera check early in the test

a loss of 70 F, 4th best in the final ranking of this test

a loss of only 57 F, the best result up to that point; finished 2nd overall behind Hydro Flask Sport by a very narrow margin

a loss of 56.5 F, the best result of all 14 products, narrowly beating the standard mouth version

a loss of 72 F

a loss of 70 F, essentially tied with Coleman; finished 5th in the final ranking of this specific test at a stated loss of 70.4 F

a loss of 74 F

a loss of only 63 F, the best result up to that point in the video; finished 3rd overall in the final ranking

a loss of 71 F

a loss of 75 F

a loss of 88 F, the worst result of all products in this test

a loss of almost 78 F, one of the worse results of the 14 products

experienced a large dent

experienced a pretty large dent

captioned in the transcript as 'E-trim', did very well, no specific damage described

a transcript passage reading 'HydroFlask held up really well with only minor damage' appears in the position expected for this brand based on price-ascending testing order (immediately after a passage that itself appears to be a mislabeled Thermos Flask result); given 'Hydrology' and 'Hydro Flask' are phonetically close and Hydro Flask's own two variants are both accounted for elsewhere in this same list, this passage is tentatively attributed to Hydrology here and flagged rather than treated as certain

very minor damage

a transcript passage reading 'The Hydro Flask experienced a pretty large dent, too' appears in the position expected for this brand based on price-ascending testing order, immediately before another passage that itself appears to be a mislabeled Hydrology result; tentatively attributed to Thermos Flask here and flagged rather than treated as certain, since 'Thermos Flask' spoken aloud could plausibly be auto-captioned as 'Hydro Flask'

described as 'also a tank', very minor cosmetic damage

experienced a rather large dent

survived with a very small dent

survived with minor damage

little water seepage, a very small crease to the side, the mouthpiece came detached but was described as likely re-attachable; overall described as doing 'just fine' with 'very little damage'

held up just fine with a little cosmetic damage; a big dent in the side but still held water

performed poorly, described as spewing water everywhere; narrator categorizes it as 'light duty'; lid broken, quite a bit of damage to the side

survived without any issues, described as very durable, a very small crease to the side; the lid came partially off but resealed fine after being screwed back on

performed poorly, quite a bit of water loss on impact, the cap cracked and no longer holds water

the cap held fine, held up very well, a crease to the side but still holds water

described as 'up there with the Coleman' for durability, a very durable Thermos, no damage other than a very small crease

the worst functional failure of the lid-drop test: began blowing water out everywhere, and the plastic at the top of the container totally disintegrated, no longer able to hold water

survived but with quite a bit of damage, especially to the lid, which broke but remained functional; described as bouncing 'more than an over inflated basketball'

not given a specific number in the transcript, but explicitly stated to have finished 5th, a large improvement from 8th place in the no-preheat version of this test

loss, 4th best, the same rank order as the no-preheat version of this test

loss, 2nd best of all products, just behind Hydro Flask Sport

loss, the best of all products

loss, 3rd best of all products

did not survive; narrator notes 'that's a lot of damage' and that none of the tested containers could withstand this test

described as 'in pretty bad shape' afterward, one of only 4 brands individually described in this bonus test

did not survive; lid stayed on but the container itself was described as ruined

narrator notes the vehicle's wheels did not pass directly over this container, so it avoided the heavier damage other brands sustained in this specific test