Reviews you can trust.
See why.Meat Pounders
For flattening chicken and pork cutlets, we want a tool that combines force and finesse.
Top Picks
See Everything We TestedWhat You Need To Know
We use meat pounders to flatten boneless pieces of meat or poultry into evenly thin cutlets so that they can cook through quickly and consistently. There are three basic styles: short-handled pounders; long-handled (or offset) pounders; and mallet-style pounder/tenderizers, which look like small hammers with heads that have a flat side for pounding and a bumpy side for tenderizing. It had been a while since we last tested any of these tools, and we wanted to know if our former favorite, the short-handled Norpro Grip EZ Meat Pounder, was still the best option available. So we bought eight models, priced from about $11 to about $125—three short-handled meat pounders (including our former favorite), three long-handled meat pounders, and two mallet-style meat pounders/tenderizers—and had a variety of testers use them to pound chicken breasts and pork tenderloins into ¼-inch-thick cutlets.
Head Design Determines Performance
Differences emerged immediately. The style of the pounder—and the corresponding shape and size of its head—was critical to performance. While short- and long-handled pounders yielded evenly flattened cutlets, mallet-style pounders/tenderizers produced more ragged, uneven ones. In the past, we’ve found that the textured side of a mallet’s head tends to mangle, not tenderize, so we decided against using it while testing. But we were surprised to find that the mallets’ flat sides were almost as bad: If we weren’t careful, the corners of their square heads dug into the food, gouging it or tearing small holes. By comparison, the circular heads on the short- and long-handled pounders had no such corners and thus inflicted no damage, keeping the cutlets intact and smooth.
In addition, the heads on the mallet-style pounders/tenderizers were quite small, providing just 3 to 4 square inches of surface area for pounding; the heads of the short- and long-handled pounders were two to three times as big. Contrary to what we’d expected, these smaller heads didn’t slow us down—it took about the same amount of time to flatten cutlets with the mallets as it did to flatten them with some of the pounders that had much larger heads. But because their smaller heads could cover only a relatively small area at a time, they did make it harder to ensure that the cutlets were pounded to the same thickness from end to end. The larger heads on the short- and long-handled pounders covered more ground at a time, flattening bigger areas to the same thickness.
Weight—and Handle Style—Are Critical to Comfort
However, the mallets did have one advantage: They were the easiest and most comfortable of the pounders to use. Weighing just ...
Everything We Tested
Highly Recommended
- Ease of Use:: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 3 stars out of 3.
Recommended
- Ease of Use:: 2 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 3 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use:: 2 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 3 stars out of 3.
Recommended with reservations
- Ease of Use:: 2 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 2.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use:: 3 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 1.5 stars out of 3.
- Ease of Use:: 3 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 1.5 stars out of 3.
Like the other mallet-style pounder/ tenderizer we tested, this model was lightweight and easy to swing; a thick handle with rubbery inlays also made it easy to grip. But its head was small, so it couldn’t cover a lot of territory at a time, making it a bit tricky to get the entire cutlet to the same thickness. And if we weren’t careful, the corners of its square head dented or tore small holes in the cutlet.
Not Recommended
- Ease of Use:: 1 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 2.5 stars out of 3.
This long-handled meat pounder resembled a piece of abstract sculpture—and was about as functional. While its moderate weight and large head provided a boatload of power, allowing it to flatten meat and poultry evenly and efficiently, it was really hard to use. Its handle was set at a nearly vertical angle; if we weren’t careful, the back of the head hit the food first, denting it. When we tried to choke up on the slick metal handle to summon more control, our hands cramped, since the front part of the handle narrows to a mere 1.2 inches in circumference.
- Ease of Use:: 0.5 stars out of 3.
- Performance:: 2.5 stars out of 3.
This inexplicably expensive long-handled meat pounder promised great power but delivered great discomfort. While its big, heavy head was technically capable of flattening cutlets evenly, prolonged sessions left our hands and wrists aching as we labored to lift and swing it. Most users found themselves choking up on the slightly slippery metal handle to summon more control and prevent the back of the head from hitting the food first, which would dent it. Even when we made this adjustment, it was still unwieldy.
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.