Reviews you can trust.
See why.The Best Fat Separators
Fat separators allow you to easily skim fat off liquids for gravy or soup. Which one is best?
By Updated May 1, 2021
Since we last named a winner, readers reported that the Cuisipro Fat Separator cracked and leaked during use. When we first tested this model we also noticed some superficial cracking, but the performance was not affected. Recently a new product, the OXO Good Grips Good Gravy Fat Separator–4 Cup, entered the market; it has the same bottom-draining style as our winner. We tested the new model next to our old winner. We still recommend our old favorite—this time around, it didn't crack or leak. (For better longevity, we recommend washing it on the top rack of the dishwasher, as the manufacturer suggests.) But we like the OXO model even better; it has clear measurement markings, a finer strainer, and a tight release valve that makes it even easier to control the flow of liquid. It is our new winner.
Top Picks
What You Need To Know
In the test kitchen, we often refrigerate stocks overnight so we can skim off the hardened fat the next morning. But if you’re making gravy or soup on a shorter timetable, you can use a fat separator to defat stocks and pan juices almost immediately. To find a favorite, we tested six 4-cup models (including our prior winner from Trudeau) priced from $11.99 to $33.95, using them to strain aromatics and separate fat from both 2-quart and 1-cup volumes of stock.
There are two types of separators—pitchers and bottom-drainers; we tested four of the former and two of the latter. With both types, you pour your stock or sauce into the separator through a built-in strainer at the top and wait a few minutes for the fat to rise to the top of the liquid. If you’re using a pitcher, you then pour off the liquid from a spout set into the base. If you’re using a bottom-drainer, you pull a lever set in the handle to release a plug at the bottom of the separator, allowing the liquid to drain out. Either way, the fat is left behind in the separator.
In our testing, we found that the two bottom-drainers we tested were generally more efficient than the pitchers at decanting both large and small volumes of liquid while keeping fat out. With the pitchers, some fat usually entered their pour spouts from the get-go, and as the liquid drained down to the last ¼ cup, it was harder to prevent fat from exiting, too. Bottom-drainers didn’t have this problem; because the fat stayed on top of the liquid, all we had to do was keep an eye on it and stop releasing the liquid when the fat got close to the bottom of the canister.
Defatting ability aside, certain models were just easier to use. Large-mouthed strainers provided us with bigger targets to hit when pouring stock and mirepoix from an unwieldy roasting pan. Strainers with sides taller than 1 inch acted as splash guards and helped keep solids in. And strainers with lots of little holes allowed stock to drain quickly into the separators without letting through any small aromatics. In addition, we preferred separators with large handles that were comfortable for testers of all hand sizes to grip.
A previous testing of fat separators showed us that a 4-cup capacity was the best size, giving users the flexibility to defat both large and small volumes of stock. Despite their manufacturers’ claims, however, several of the models we tested couldn’t actually hold 4 cups of liquid without overflowing. Two of the models had inaccurate measurement lines, and others had measurement lines that were too light to read. Few of the separators were easy to clean by hand; we needed fine bottle brushes to clean the pitche...
Everything We Tested
Recommended
- Accuracy: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 3 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 3 stars out of 3.
This fat separator had a large strainer dotted with many small perforations for fast and efficient filtering. It also had easy-to-read measurement lines written on its side in red. Most impressive, it had a tightly sealed bottom release valve, ensuring no leaks, even after we opened and closed the valve 150 times and washed the model on the top rack of the dishwasher 10 times. The only small issue: It requires a strong squeeze to open it.
- Accuracy: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 2 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 3 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 2.5 stars out of 3.
With a large, tall-sided, highly perforated strainer and a well-controlled release valve, this bottom-draining model defatted the most stock in every test. And its detachable canister made it the easiest separator to clean by hand. It did have hard-to-read measurement lines, and superficial cracks developed around the drainage hole after 10 washes and 150 times opening and closing it, though it remained leakproof. After complaints from readers about this model’s durability, we retested it and experienced no cracks or leaks during use.
- Accuracy: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 2 stars out of 3.
This low-riding pitcher, our former favorite, had the largest strainer, providing plenty of room to pour stock into it. And it was almost as good as our winner at defatting large and small volumes of stock. A few minor problems: The measurement lines were hard to read, its handle was small, and the strainer warped slightly after a few washes (but was still fully functional).
- Accuracy: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 2 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 2.5 stars out of 3.
This pitcher uses a removable (and easy to lose) silicone plug to create air pressure that prevents fat from entering the spout from the bottom; this feature works well with larger volumes but not when separating smaller amounts of liquid. Still, its handle was comfortable, it held 4 cups of stock, and its red measurement lines were easy to read. But while its strainer was large and tall-sided, its holes were so big that some peppercorns filtered through.
Recommended with reservations
- Accuracy: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 2.5 stars out of 3.
This bottom-draining model yielded nearly fat-free stock. But its strainer was small and short-sided and lacked holes in the center, causing stock to splash back at users. And its handle was cramped by a lever that released the drainage plug unexpectedly and allowed too much liquid out too quickly. Worse, it held just 3.5 cups and had measurement markings that were off by a tablespoon.
Not Recommended
- Accuracy: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 1 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 0.5 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 2 stars out of 3.
This tiny-handled watering-can-style pitcher was awkward to use, featuring a narrow, low-riding pour spout that was impossible to clean and spilled more fatty liquid than it decanted. A mesh strainer withheld all aromatics but was the tiniest in our lineup, making it hard to pour into. And while its measurement lines were easy to read and accurate, it didn’t quite hold 4 cups of liquid.
- Accuracy: 0.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use: 0.5 stars out of 3.
- Fat Separation: 1 stars out of 3.
- Cleanup and Durability: 1 stars out of 3.
This pitcher’s strainer was small and had too few perforations, taking forever to drain stock into the separator. Its narrow, low pour spout spilled fatty juices everywhere, and its thin handle was unpleasant to hold. It held just over 3 cups and had measurement lines that were off by as much as 1/2 cup—not that you could read them, since they became nearly invisible after 10 washes.
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.
Miye Bromberg
Miye is a senior editor for ATK Reviews. She covers booze, blades, and gadgets of questionable value.
0 Comments
