Reviews you can trust.
See why.The Best Mixing Bowls
This most basic piece of cooking equipment might not seem worthy of scrutiny—until you have one that wobbles when you whisk, slips in your hand, or traps food in its crevices.
Published Sept. 1, 2014. Appears in Cook's Illustrated May/June 2009, America's Test Kitchen TV Season 15: Dinner in the Mediterranean
Top Picks
What You Need To Know
They may not be as sexy as chef’s knives or as cutting-edge as sous vide circulators, but when it comes to basic cooking tasks, plain old mixing bowls can’t be beat. We reach for them any time we mix up pancake batter or vinaigrette, or when simply melting butter. A good bowl should be so steady, durable, and comfortable to handle that it goes almost unnoticed while you work.
For those reasons, we shop carefully when outfitting the test kitchen with mixing bowls. Our criteria start with size: At the very least, we need small, medium, and large bowls—by which we mean 1- to 1 1/2-quart; 2 1/2- to 3-quart; and 4- to 6-quart, respectively. We also find it useful to have a set in both stainless steel and glass: The lightness of metal makes it easy to use, but only glass can go in the microwave. Plastic and ceramic bowls just aren’t practical: The former’s porous surface scratches and retains oils, while the latter is so heavy that it’s a detriment.
To single out a set of each, we scooped up three stainless-steel sets and four sets made of tempered glass (glass that has undergone a mechanical strengthening process to increase its impact and thermal resistance), all priced from $13.19 to $59.99. We bought nesting sets when possible and cobbled together a custom set if the sizes we wanted were available only as open stock. We then subjected the bowls to the core tasks that we think any mixing bowl should be able to handle. In each of the small bowls, we whisked oil into vinegar to make dressing. In the medium and large bowls we mixed up muffin and pancake batters. We also used the large bowls to mix bread dough and the medium bowls to melt chocolate in a jury-rigged double boiler, with the bowl set over a saucepan of simmering water.
Getting in Shape
Not all the bowls excelled at these basic functions. Some models even made easy work annoyingly difficult, thanks to a variety of design defects.
Take bowl height. A vessel’s walls should neatly contain the food but be shallow enough that users—particularly shorter folks—don’t have to strain to access the food. A side-by-side comparison of the 5-quart bowls from two different makers illustrated this point: Standing nearly 5 inches tall, one model forced some testers to reach farther up and over its rim than felt comfortable, while the the other, which was shorter by almost an inch, allowed easy access to the bowl’s contents.
Not only did some makers get the height right, they also got the shape of the walls right, too. In relation to their bases, these bowls’ sides curved gently, which made it comfortable for testers to not only reach into the bowls to stir but also hold the bowls aloft t...
Everything We Tested
Highly Recommended - Stainless-Steel Bowls
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 3 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 3 stars out of 3.
The broad, shallow shape of these inexpensive bowls put food within easy reach and allowed for wide turns of a spatula. These were also the lightest bowls in the lineup—the combined weight of all three that we tested was less than 1 1/2 pounds— allowing us to comfortably lift, scrape, and pour.
Recommended - Stainless-Steel Bowls
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 3 stars out of 3.
Though their relatively tall and narrow build made it a little challenging for shorter testers to access their contents, these bowls were lightweight and sported a generous rim—features that made them easy to grasp and hold while we scraped them clean.
Not Recommended - Stainless-Steel Bowls
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 1 stars out of 3.
Apart from having wide rims, these bowls were not user-friendly—and certainly not worth the high price. Their small, Santoprene-coated bases caused them to spin and almost tip over as we mixed. Plus, the company does not recommend using them in a double boiler, lest the exterior plastic coating come in contact with the pot and overheat.
Highly Recommended - Glass Bowls
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 3 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 3 stars out of 3.
Even though these bowls were heavy, they never felt cumbersome to handle, thanks to their shallow, gently curved walls and easy-to-grip rims. Notably, they did not break when we dropped them. A bonus: Tight-fitting lids kept food well protected.
Recommended - Glass Bowls
- Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 2.5 stars out of 3.
These shallow, wide bowls were easy to navigate with a whisk or a spatula. They were also one of the lighter glass sets, although they would have been easier to grip if they’d had rims instead of food-trapping collars. They survived the drop tests with minor scratches. A shopping note: Bowl sizes are listed by diameter, not volume.
Not Recommended - Glass Bowls
- Durability: 1 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 1 stars out of 3.
We would have appreciated the capacity of the 6-quart bowl more if it wasn’t unbearably heavy and hard to maneuver. The bowls’ collars protruded so much that food stuck to them during mixing. Duralex made the only bowl to shatter during the drop tests.
- Durability: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 0.5 stars out of 3.
- Performance: 1 stars out of 3.
As if the weight of these hefty bowls didn’t make them challenging enough to handle, their shallow collars barely helped with gripping. Reaching over their high, practically vertical sides was a struggle. The base developed hairline cracks during the drop tests.
Reviews you can trust
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. We stand behind our winners so much that we even put our seal of approval on them.
Kate Shannon
Kate is a deputy editor for ATK Reviews. She's a culinary school graduate and former line cook and cheesemonger.