Step Drill Bits 2024 Test: Which Brand Wins?

third place; four years ago this same brand made the pilot hole in 11 seconds

four years ago this same brand was one of the slowest in the lineup at 34 seconds

described as making pretty slow progress compared to CB, DeWalt, and Teemo

took the lead at that point in the video

took the lead at that point; four years ago this same brand needed 17 seconds

very close to 13 seconds, second place behind the Sharptool

described as not making very fast progress compared to many less expensive brands

took the lead at that point

about twice as fast as the OXMUL, very impressive, new fastest time at that point

four years ago this same brand was pretty fast at just 10 seconds, a significant slowdown this time

a little faster than average

(transcript shows a stray '%' character after this number, treated as caption noise rather than a real value)

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

four years ago this same brand was one of the slowest at over a minute

four years ago this same brand drilled the pilot hole in 18 seconds, a significant slowdown this time

one of the slowest in the lineup

one of the slowest in the lineup

making very slow progress, the slowest brand in this test

(transcript renders this as '6.3 4', a caption-split decimal kept verbatim and treated as 6.34)

very close to 6 seconds, the fastest at that point in the test

trailing the Greenlee

third fastest pilot hole in this test (per the closing recap for this segment)

fastest pilot hole of this segment

not separately stated in the transcript

the same speed as the Irwin

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

came to a stop at 3/4 of an inch, did not fully complete the 7/8 in hole

drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 11.15 seconds, third place among the seven brands that completed this hole

could not quite finish the job, coming to a stop at 9/16 of an inch

ran out of steam early at 0.68 in, did not complete the 7/8 in hole

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)

drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 10.17 seconds, third place among the seven brands that completed this hole

came to a stop at approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/ in')

also trailed the Greenlee here, coming to a stop at 0.68 in

outperformed the Hercules, coming to a stop at just over approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/2 in')

the spiral flute design pulled the bit into the cut too fast and it ran out of steam at 0.44 in

not stated in the transcript

drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 9.39 seconds, second place among the seven brands that completed this hole

drilled completely through to the 7/8 in hole in 20.18 seconds

came very close to finishing, stopping at 0.81 in (just short of the 7/8 in / 0.875 in target)

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

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)

almost crossed the finish line but came up short at 0.82 in, just under the 7/8 in target

came to a stop at just over 1/2 in

see above; final hole size not reliably determinable from the transcript

largest hole at that point in the test at 0.74 in, and the bit still looked as good as new afterward

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

hole, looked nearly as good as new (nearly as good as the Teemo)

(5/8 in) hole, with a small amount of wear on the chisel point

hole, still in pretty good condition

hole size just over approximately 0.5 in (transcript shows a garbled fraction rendered as 'a/2 in'), bit still in very good condition

hole, chisel point in the best shape of any brand yet

hole, with some wear to the chisel

hole, still in very good condition

hole, still in very good condition

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

hole, with quite a bit of wear and tear

hole, smaller than average, with more wear and tear than most other brands

the stainless steel was too hard for the Irwin; chisel point left flat and damaged, no hole completed

performed reasonably well overall but the stainless steel proved too hard; chisel point left flat and dull, no meaningful hole completed

the stainless steel proved way too much for the Diablo; narrator attributes this to a poorly shaped chisel point

struggled and was unable to drill a hole, with quite a bit of visible wear and tear

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

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

the only one of the 20 brands to completely drill through the AR500 plate, at around 18 seconds, while still in very good condition

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

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

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)

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

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

stopped making progress at around 12 seconds with quite a bit of wear and tear, reaching 7.4 mm depth

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

short life at around 11 seconds, chisel described as pretty dull afterward, reaching only 6.86 mm depth

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

quick to fail, at around 5 seconds, with significant damage; reached only 2.8 mm depth

finished after about 2 seconds with lots of damage to the chisel, reaching only 1.26 mm depth, a pretty shallow hole

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

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

not tested; excluded because it could not drill through stainless steel

fastest at that point in the test

took the lead at that point

but barely made progress before the stainless steel became too hard

slightly faster than the Sharptool

a little slower than average

faster than the Hercules

by far the fastest of all 20 brands on this test

almost as fast as the DeWalt

slower than average