Calphalon 8-in Chef's Knife (Control)

Kyocera Damascus 6-in Chef's Knife (P/N: KT-155-HIP-D)

Kyocera Revolution 6-in Chef's Knife (P/N: FK-160)

Jaccard 6-in Chef's Knife LX (P/N: 6160)

Shenzen 6-in Chef's Knife

URI Eagle 6-in Chef's Knife (P/N: Nu2006)

Victorinox 6-in Chef's Knife (P/N: 7.2003.15G)

I want to thank the following companies for providing samples for testing: Shenzhen, URI Eagle, Jaccard, and Victorinox. The market leader Kyocera refused to participate, so I would also like to thank Bed Bath and Beyond who was nice enough to supply the Kyocera and Calphalon knives. I tested the following ceramic knives (in alphabetic order):

The knives were chosen based on an internet search for ceramic knives and ranged in price from $40 to $200. I then proceeded to contact all of the vendors to determine if they would be willing to provide samples and participate. Here are the other brands that I was unable to contact and/or refused to participate: Asahi (ASKB8H7), Yoshi, Silicone Zone, Boker, Stoneline. Note: Even though Kyocera refused to provide me with a sample, I felt it was necessary to compare against since they are the current market leader.(see Chef's Knives Rated All of the knives were tested out-of-the-box because based on the same assumption made in the original test (i.e. that most readers will not be hand sharpening their knives). I felt this assumption was even more valid in the case of ceramic knives which pride themselves on holding an edge and not needing to resharpened. In addition, most manufacturers recommended knives be sent back for sharpening which I assume would return it to an out-of-the-box condition anyway.I followed the same test procedure as Michael to evaluate the knives and decided to add one steel knife as a control. Originally, I was going to take the top knife from the previous test but had trouble getting a sample and also wanted to compare it to a knife I was used to using. I therefore chose the Calphalon knife that I use and purchased a new one to ensure it would be tested in the same out-of-the-box condition.The following test procedures are taken from the original chef knife test performed by Michael Chu. The only change necessary for the ceramic knives was a small force was required to advance the knives. The ceramic knives weigh significantly less than steel counterparts and therefore the weight of the knife itself is not sufficient to complete the cut.Description: Unpeeled carrots were cut in two different ways. The first method started by positioning the carrot parallel to the counter and driving the heel of the knife into the carrot at a 30° (from horizontal) angle. The blade was driven in (like a wedge) for about 2 mm, enough for the knife to stay in place. The knife was then pulled from heel to tip along that groove. The motion was completed with a slight downward pressure. The result was examined - a sharp knife would be able to slice cleanly through the carrot, a duller knife might slice through most of the way but end with the carrot snapping off, while a very dull knife would simply slide in the groove. The second test method involved cutting thin (1 mm or less) cross-sectional slices from the carrot. The slicing was accomplished by starting the tip (about an inch from the point) of the knife on the surface of the carrot and pushing the knife forward and down (usually traversing only a couple inches) to cut through. The effort required to cut through as well as the cleanliness of the cut were compared to rank the knives.Description: A potato was first cut in half along its major axis (long side). A potato half was then set down on the cutting board with its cut side down to keep the potato from rolling or moving during the test. Thin slices of potato were cut off by starting the tip on the surface of the potato and pushing the knife forward. This technique was used to perform the majority of the ranking based on effort needed to cut through, cleanliness of cut, and how straight the cut was. In cases where it was difficult to determine if one knife was superior to another with similar performance, a reverse stroke was used as well: the stroke started with the heel of the knife and the knife was pulled back without any additional downward effort.Description: This is a very popular demonstration (although I'm not sure why - I've only seen extremely dull knives perform badly with tomatoes). Because, in my experience, all knives cut tomatoes reasonably well, I focused on the feel of the knife during the cut. Specifically, I watched for any slipping while cutting and the level of ease with which the knife slid through the tomato. None of the tomatoes were crushed, were mangled, or lost excessive juice during the test. The tomato was first cut in half through its axis of symmetry (through the stem to the tip) and laid down to prevent rolling. The heel of the knife was placed on the skin and the knife was pulled back allowing the weight of the knife to help the blade slide through the tomato.Description: The greens of fresh scallions were thinly sliced into circles using both a mincing motion (keeping the point anchored on the cutting board and pushing the heel of the blade down) and a short slicing motion (placing the point on the board and the scallions under the middle of the knife and sliding the knife forward about an inch). Both actions were repeated for several seconds as scallions were fed under the knife with the left hand. Both the feel of the knife and the cleanliness of the chopped scallions (clean cuts or signs of crushing, bruising, or tearing) were taken into account in this test.During my research, I came across a claim by Kyocera that their knives were the best because of the cleanliness of the cutting surface at high magnification. So, in addition to the performance testing, I decided it would be beneficial to look at the cutting edge under magnification to either validate or refute this claim. I have attached these images in the appendix.(in alphabetical order)

(control)Most common price: $29.95 ( Amazon.com

(P/N: KT-155-HIP-D)Most common price: $182 ( Amazon.com

(P/N: FK-160)Most common price: $53.95 ( Cutlery & More

(P/N: 6160)Most common price: $59.95 ( Cutlery & More ) - $37.95 ( Knife Center

(P/N: CK11A)Most common price: $39.95 ( Amazon.com

(P/N: Nu2006)Most common price: $51.95 ( ikitchen2000

(P/N: 7.2003.15G)Most common price: $78.43 ( Amazon.com

Rank Knife Notes O 1 Kyocera Revolution Cuts were effortless and extremely clean. E 2 Victorinox Cleanly cut through carrots. 3 Kyocera Damascus Cut cleanly through 3/4 of thick pieces and would snap through remaining. Knife cut better on smaller diameters and faster speeds. S 4 Calphalon (Steel) Cut cleanly on small diameters but did not cut all the way through thick pieces. 5 Shenzen Cut cleanly on small diameters but only cut half way through thick pieces. U 6 Jaccard LX Cutting of small diameter was rough and only made it 1/3 of the way through large diameter. 7 URI Eagle

Rank Knife Notes O 1 Kyocera Revolution Cuts cleanly with no effort required. E 2 Kyocera Damascus Cuts cleanly with very little effort required. Noticeably deeper and easier on reverse stroke. 3 Victorinox Clean cuts that required a small effort. S 4 Calphalon (Steel) Cuts are clean and smooth and weight helped to advance knife. 5 Shenzen Cuts are clean and smooth and a little force is required to complete cut which is probably due to the weight of the ceramic knives. URI Eagle U 6 Jaccard LX Large forces was required to cut through the potato. Slices were not straight.

Rank Knife Notes O 1 Kyocera Revolution Deep cut requiring no force (just the weight of the knife) - easy clean cuts. E 2 Victorinox Easy clean cuts that required very little force. Cuts went to approximately the same depth. Kyocera Damascus S 3 Shenzen Cuts cleanly but requires some force. The knife felt like it was catching as it advanced. 4 Calphalon (Steel) Cuts were smooth due to weight but did not start easily (a sign of a dull knife). 5 URI Eagle Cuts are hard to start and require more force to complete. U 6 Jaccard LX Cuts were hard to start and caused the tomato to be crushed on occasion.

I followed the same ranking system as Michael Chu described below:I've numerically ranked each knife starting with "1" as the best performing knife. Knives with the same ranking are so close in performance that I was not able to differentiate between the knives. Please note that these numbers are for ranking only and are not a relative performance level (for example the difference between a 1 & 2 ranking may be much smaller than the performance difference between a 5 & 6). Knives of the same ranking are listed in alphabetic order.In addition to relative ranks, a rating is assigned to each knife: U - Unacceptable; S - Serviceable; E - Excellent; O - Outstanding.knives do not cut as expected. Either the cuts were not clean (requiring excessive force or multiple strokes) or the blade bruised or crushed the ingredient to an unacceptable degree.knives performed their cutting action as expected. There is nothing exceptional about the knife - it simply performs as you'd expect an average knife to perform. More force is needed when using a serviceable knife than an excellent or outstanding one.knives slice with ease. The knives are properly balanced and sharp enough to feel as if the user is simply guiding the knife and the knife is performing the cutting.knives simply perform beyond all expectations. The knife's cutting ability is noticeably better than that of an excellent knife.These rankings do not take in account other factors such as cost, handle shape, and weight. They simply portray the cutting performance of the knife.Carrot testPotato testTomato test

I noticed that cutting performance may be simulated using the depth of various cuts during the Tomato test. This is mostly due to the weight difference between the ceramic knives and steel knives which most likely made this irrelevant in the previous testing done by Michael. However, as shown in this image, the depth of the cut utilizing no weight correlated well with the performance of the knives. (Click on the image for a larger version.)Note: The Calphalon knife was able to cut deeply but was also significantly heavier than the ceramic knives which is why it did not rank as high.}?>