These machines do their job with enormous confidence while often failing where it counts most.
On an ordinary afternoon in a London café, two specialty coffee professionals sat blindfolded before four of the market's most sophisticated automatic espresso machines, tasked with a deceptively simple question: does price predict quality? What they discovered — that the humblest machine in the room outperformed an $800 Swiss rival — speaks to a tension as old as craft itself: the belief that cost and complexity are proxies for excellence. The test did not merely crown a winner; it quietly reminded us that no machine, however confident in its automation, has yet learned to replace the human understanding of what makes something truly good.
- Two expert baristas, tasting blind, expected premium pricing to signal premium results — and were quietly dismayed when it didn't.
- The $800 Jura E8 delivered overheated milk and an underextracted espresso with a salty, seaweed-like finish, a technical failure that no reputation could disguise.
- The Philips Café Aromis — the cheapest machine, the least expected contender — was the only one to achieve genuine balance in both the latte and the espresso.
- Every machine in the test offered deep customization menus, yet the experts noted a painful irony: the entire promise of automation is that you shouldn't need to use them.
- The test lands not as a product verdict but as a philosophical one — automatic machines are consistent approximations of great coffee, not replacements for the skill that makes it.
On an unremarkable afternoon in a London café, two specialty coffee professionals — Adam Cozens of Perky Blenders and his commercial manager Calum Hunt — were handed eight unmarked drinks and asked to do something deceptively simple: taste them, and tell the truth.
WIRED had gathered four of the most sophisticated fully automatic espresso machines on the market: the Terra Kaffe TK-02, the Swiss-made Jura E8 at the top of the price range, the De'Longhi Eletta Explore, and the Philips Café Aromis, the least glamorous of the four. Each machine was capable of producing dozens of drinks at the push of a button. The experts were given beans they knew intimately — a Forest Blend with notes of dark chocolate, molasses, and nuts — and asked to evaluate lattes and espressos on flavor, milk texture, crema, temperature, and extraction alone.
The results unsettled even the people delivering them. The Philips Café Aromis won decisively, producing the only drinks that achieved genuine balance between sweet and bitter, with the chocolate and nutty notes the blend promised. The De'Longhi finished second, praised for its beautiful microfoam, though its espresso divided the two experts on acidity. The Terra Kaffe disappointed — its latte used too little milk, robbing it of sweetness, and its espresso lacked intensity. The Jura E8, despite its premium price and reputation, finished last: its milk came out overheated, its espresso underextracted, producing a salty, off-putting taste neither expert could recommend.
What the afternoon ultimately revealed was something the machines themselves could not compute. All four offer extensive customization — grind size, temperature, foam density, intensity — but the promise of automation is precisely that you shouldn't need to reach for those settings. These machines are consistent and self-sufficient, but consistency is not the same as excellence. The uncomfortable conclusion, delivered not with triumph but with quiet resignation, is that there may still be no shortcut to a truly exceptional cup. Skill, precision, and genuine understanding of the craft remain, for now, irreplaceable.
Two coffee professionals sat down in a London café on an ordinary afternoon with their eyes covered, about to overturn everything they thought they knew about expensive automatic espresso machines. Adam Cozens, who co-founded Perky Blenders, a specialty coffee brand in East London, and his commercial manager Calum Hunt, were handed four unmarked lattes and four unmarked espressos. They knew the machines were in the room—labeled only A, B, C, and D—but not which drink came from which one. Their job was simple: taste, evaluate, and rank them by flavor alone.
WIRED had assembled four of the market's most sophisticated fully automatic espresso machines, each capable of producing more than fifty different coffee drinks at the push of a button. The Terra Kaffe TK-02, a New York-based machine with a glass milk pitcher and touchscreen interface. The Jura E8, a Swiss-made powerhouse that costs $800 more than its nearest competitor. The De'Longhi Eletta Explore, known for its milk-steaming capabilities. And the Philips Café Aromis, a machine not typically associated with serious coffee culture. The test wasn't about ease of use, app functionality, or cleaning cycles. It was about whether these machines could actually produce café-quality coffee when it mattered most: in the cup.
Cozens and Hunt were given the coffee shop's own Forest Blend beans to work with—a blend they knew intimately, with notes of dark chocolate, molasses, and nuts, a creamy body, low acidity, and a sweet finish. They knew exactly how these beans should taste. For each machine, the experts evaluated the appearance of the drink, the quality of the milk foam, the crema on the espresso, the temperature, the extraction, and ultimately, the flavor. A latte, they explained, should combine a double espresso with whole milk steamed to between 130 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit, creating a fine microfoam. The ratio matters: one part espresso to three to five parts milk in a six to eight ounce cup. When poured correctly, the result is balanced, slightly sweet, still recognizably coffee.
The results surprised no one more than the experts themselves. The Philips Café Aromis, the cheapest machine in the test, won decisively. It was the only one that nailed both the latte and the espresso. Hunt described finding exactly what he was looking for: chocolate and nutty flavors, the right level of sweetness, coffee and milk mixed well together. Cozens, more reserved, acknowledged it had more coffee flavor than the others, though it leaned slightly bitter. When they compared notes on the espresso, both agreed: Philips achieved the only real balance between sweet and bitter, with proper intensity.
The De'Longhi Eletta Explore finished second. Its steamed milk was visibly the most beautiful of the four, and both experts praised the microfoam. But the espresso divided them. Cozens found it too acidic for the Forest Blend; Hunt enjoyed it and said if he were choosing based on espresso alone, he'd pick the De'Longhi. The Terra Kaffe TK-02 was, in Hunt's words, forgettable. Cozens had expected it to perform as well as it looked, but the latte used noticeably less milk than the others, robbing it of the sweetness a proper latte should have. The espresso lacked intensity and strength. The Jura E8, despite its reputation and premium price, was the clear loser. The milk came out overheated, closer to a cappuccino than a latte. The espresso was underextracted—a technical failure that produced a salty, seaweed-like taste that neither expert enjoyed.
What the test revealed is that automatic machines, no matter how sophisticated or expensive, are approximations of barista-made coffee, not replacements for it. Yes, all four machines allow deep customization: you can adjust grind size, intensity, volume, temperature, even milk foam texture. But the whole point of buying an automatic machine is that you shouldn't have to. You're paying for the machine to think for you. These machines are not bad. They're consistent, self-cleaning, and offer menus longer than Starbucks on Halloween. But they do their job with enormous confidence while often failing where it counts most. The uncomfortable truth is that there may be no shortcut to perfect coffee. It still requires skill, precision, and the willingness to learn.
Citas Notables
The latte has the chocolate and nutty flavors I'm looking for, with the right level of sweetness and coffee and milk mixed very well together.— Calum Hunt, describing the winning Philips machine
This is a classic case of underextraction. It tastes quite salty and acidic, which in the industry is often described as a bit seaweed-like.— Adam Cozens, on the Jura E8's espresso
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that a cheaper machine beat the expensive ones? Isn't that just a curiosity?
Because people spend serious money on these machines believing price correlates with quality. When a $3,000 Jura underperforms a machine that costs less, it suggests the market isn't actually rewarding what matters—taste—but rather brand reputation and features.
But couldn't someone just adjust the settings on the Jura to make it better?
Technically yes, but that defeats the purpose. You buy an automatic machine because you don't want to become a technician. The promise is push-button café quality. If you have to tinker with temperature and extraction time, you're doing a barista's job.
The Philips won despite looking different—Hunt mentioned brown foam on top. How did appearance not matter?
Because they were tasting blind. The foam looked odd, but the flavor was right. It's a reminder that our eyes lie to us about coffee. We expect certain aesthetics, but taste is what actually goes in your mouth.
What does this say about the future of home coffee machines?
That automation has limits. These machines are getting smarter, but they're still machines. They can't replicate the intuition a trained barista develops over years. Maybe the real lesson is that some things still require human skill, and no amount of engineering changes that.
So should people just give up and buy cheap machines?
Not necessarily. The Philips won this test, but it's still not café-quality coffee. It's the best these machines can do. If you want truly exceptional espresso at home, you probably need to learn to make it yourself.