Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
Fellowes AutoMax 100C - 200C vs AmazonBasics AU600MA-Parent
The Fellowes AutoMax 200C and AmazonBasics AU600MA make for very strong choices and are great Paper Shredders for their respective $490 and $46 asking prices. Depending on how much you're willing to spend, either of these options will serve you well.
The Fellowes AutoMax 200C was loved by reviewers at PCmag, a highly trusted source that performs reliable in-depth testing. It did great in its "The Best Shredders for 2023" roundup where it was named its "Ranked 2 out of 6", which, in itself, makes it a product worth considering.
Returning to the AmazonBasics AU600MA, Wirecutter, a source that's known for its high-quality in-depth testing, has great things to say about it. In fact, it was named its "The best small, light-duty shredder" in its "The Best Paper Shredders" roundup, which is quite a feat.
We couldn't find any sources that tested both of these Paper Shredders, so we only analyzed how they performed in reviews from different sites.
We first examined which sources rated each of these best and found that the Fellowes AutoMax 200C got its highest, 8, rating from PCmag, while the AmazonBasics AU600MA earned its best, 8, score from TechGearLab.
Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Paper Shredders on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Paper Shredders being 6.6 out of 10, whereas the Fellowes AutoMax 200C and AmazonBasics AU600MA managed averages of 8.0 and 8.0 points, respectively.
Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct Fellowes AutoMax 200C vs. AmazonBasics AU600MA comparison might not be entirely fair - some sources don't take value for money into account when assigning their scores and therefore have a tendency to rate more premium products better.
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing
analysis
Testing