Reviews you can trust.
See why.The Best Bento-Style Lunchboxes
These Japanese-inspired containers make it easy to pack a variety of foods into one meal. Which one was our favorite?
Top Picks
See Everything We Tested
What You Need To Know
Bento-style lunchboxes are compartmentalized containers inspired by the Japanese bento, a single-serving, portable, boxed meal that according to some sources dates back to the 12th century. In Japan, a traditional bento box commonly contained rice, pickled vegetables, and fish or meat, but today they often include a wide variety of foods—sometimes shaped and arranged to resemble cartoon characters, flowers, animals, or other objects.
But no matter the composition of your meal, a multicompartment, fairly compact container can be convenient. To find out which bento-style lunchbox is best, we selected six widely available models ranging in size, all under $40.00. Four had individual containers that stacked vertically; three of these were held together with an elastic band, while one had latches. The other two models were essentially large containers with dividers inside and either a simple lift-off lid or latches that snapped shut. We included lunchboxes made of both metal and plastic, and because we wanted a product that anyone could use, we excluded those designed specifically for kids.
To test the lunchboxes, we measured capacity—we didn't want to be left hungry after lunch—and checked whether any leaked. We filled them with both smelly and stain-inducing foods to see if any models retained odors or stained easily, and we opened and closed them multiple times to determine whether doing so was easy or not. We also dropped each model a few times, repeatedly washed each one, and asked colleagues to use the boxes for one week to find out how they fared in the real world with real lunches.
All the bento-style lunchboxes were easy to clean and satisfactorily resistant to stains and odors. They all also held up well to repeated dishwasher cycles. But there were key differences in size, ease of use, and leakage that determined our rankings.
Size: We Liked a Larger Capacity and Deeper Containers
The models in our lineup ranged in capacity from 3⅔ to 8 cups. Inside each one, we attempted to fit a reasonably sized lunch that, in the tradition of these containers, included a variety of foods: a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, five broccoli florets, six baby carrots, 10 grapes, 12 almonds, and two dark chocolate squares. We also shook them with the lunch inside to see if the food shifted substantially.
All the lunchboxes accommodated a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with no squishing necessary—although some did so with nary a millimeter to spare. But three containers were too small to fit all the additional snacks. The smallest model forced us to leave out the most food: Nearly all the grapes, a carrot, and a couple of broccoli florets...
Everything We Tested
Highly Recommended
- Size: 3 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 3 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2.5 stars out of 3.
Our winner had the largest capacity in the lineup, with two 4-ounce containers that could be used together or separately—the latter option allowing us to pack different foods or prep two meals at once. Both containers were more than 2 inches deep, so it was easy to stir in and eat from them without spilling. The airtight lids sometimes required a bit of strength to remove, but we didn't mind because it was the only container that never leaked. This plastic model retained a barely noticeable sardine smell after one wash, but that faded after a second wash. This model is available in a variety of colors.
Recommended
- Size: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 2 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 3 stars out of 3.
Users loved the sleek design of this plastic model and found it very easy to open and close, with a simple lid secured by an elastic band. It fit most of the test lunch, and at-home testers found the capacity mostly sufficient but occasionally too small to easily stir ingredients. It leaked when we rotated it with water inside, and the hard plastic lid cracked the third time we dropped it, but our designated tester (who used a separate copy of the box and did not drop it or store liquids inside) gave it high marks across the board.
Recommended with reservations
- Size: 3 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 2 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2 stars out of 3.
This plastic model's 5-cup capacity was plenty for us, and we appreciated that we could use the top compartment on its own, too, simply by changing the direction of the elastic band. There was some leaking when we filled it with water, though, and the lid didn't always shut tight—we had to give it an extra-firm push to fully close it. It also came with a fork, knife, and spoon that were stored between the compartments, but users found this to be more of an inconvenience than an asset because the utensils didn't easily click into place and moved around during transport.
- Size: 2 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
We liked this metal model's capacity and easy-to-operate lid (which was a simple lift-off lid without hinges), but it had fixed compartments that limited our food options. One tester couldn't pack a large salad, and the peanut butter and jelly sandwich had to be sliced and stored in separate compartments. The dividers also didn't sit flush with the container bottom, so salad dressing shifted from compartment to compartment, and the entire container leaked when we rotated it with water inside. Additionally, the low walls sometimes made it hard to eat from because, as one tester noted, there was “not a lot of extra head space” for mixing or stirring foods. This container also was not microwave-safe.
Not Recommended
- Size: 2 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 1 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 2 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
Even though this metal (and therefore nonmicrowavable) model had a decent capacity, it was slightly too small for the test lunch. The bottom container was shallower than was ideal, and since the top compartment nested into the bottom one, we lost some valuable space. There was also no divider between the two compartments, so food from the bottom container hit the underside of the top container, resulting in a mess at lunchtime. Besides that, the top container didn't always settle easily in the bottom one, requiring some maneuvering, and this was the only model that leaked both water and salad dressing.
- Size: 1 stars out of 3.
- Leaks: 2 stars out of 3.
- Durability: 2 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1 stars out of 3.
This plastic model had the smallest capacity, so we had to omit a lot of the test lunch. We also spilled food while eating from it because of the shallow compartments—only about 1¼ inches deep—and it wasn't easy to open or close because the lid didn't always sit flush. The top was curved instead of flat, making it hard to stack other items on top of it, and the container had a chopsticks holder (with chopsticks included) that gave us another compartment to clean. This lunchbox leaked, and a handle popped off when we dropped it, but we were able to reattach it.
Reviews you can trust
The mission of America’s Test Kitchen Reviews is to find the best equipment and ingredients for the home cook through rigorous, hands-on testing.
0 Comments
