- The unique specialized cleaning brush included with this juicer makes cleaning its filter basket very easy
- An oversized 3.5 inch feeding chute allows for more types of fruits and vegetables to fit into it whole
- This juicer’s 5-year warranty is the longest warranty you can get with the purchase of a centrifugal juicer (at least for those centrifugal juicers we tested)
- The juicer was able to obtain very high out of juicer yields
- A great juicer for consumers that like a juice with lots of pulp
- Not a great juicer for consumers that prefer a pulp-free juice
- The juicer obtained poor after sieve yields
- A lower quality juicer (in terms of build quality and the quality of the materials used for its construction) compared Breville juicers, offset somewhat by its much longer warranty
- 1 Category Scores
- 2 Assembly
- 3 Food Preparation
- 4 Performance
- 5 Cleaning
- 6 Ease of Use
- 7 Versatility
- 8 Durability
- 9 Value
|Ease of Use||3.0|
All category scores are out of 5.
- Food pusher
- Feed chute
- Juicer cover
- Filter basket
- Filter bowl
- Motor base (body)
- Juice container
- Pulp container
The Jamba Appliances 67901 features a fairly standard design for a centrifugal juicer and as such the steps required for its assembly are very similar to the steps required for most other centrifugal juicers we tested. Those steps, summarized, involve
- Fitting the pulp container onto the side of the main body of the juicer
- Fitting the filter bowl onto the top of the main body of the juicer
- Fitting the filter basket inside of the filter bowl and onto what is called a “motor coupling” that extends from the top of the main body through the hollow interior of the filter bowl
- Fitting the juicer cover over the filter bowl and pulp container and securing it in place using the juicer’s safety locking arm
- Placing the food pusher inside of the juicer’s feeding chute and the juice container underneath its juice spout
Step 1 (left), 2 (middle), and 3 (right) of assembly as described above.
Step 2 (middle) and 3 (right) of assembly shown again from a different angle. The motor base and motor coupling without any parts assembled on top of them are also shown (left). The motor coupling is the black plastic disc that extends from the top of the motor base.
Step 4 (left and middle) and 5 (right) of assembly as described above.
A somewhat unique feature to the Jamba’s design is the small rectangular plastic pedestal that extends from the bottom side of its main body. This pedestal has a cylindrical “bump” that fits into a matching groove on the bottom of the pulp container. The pedestal allows for the pulp container to fit more securely in place underneath the juicer cover and next to the main body of the juicer. This allows users to move the juicer, fully assembled, more easily from one location in the kitchen to another – such as when the juicer is moved in and out of storage or from one location where the juicer is used to another location where the juicer is cleaned. For comparison, none of the Breville juicers we tested have main bodies with such a pedestal. On these juicers the pulp container is held in place much less securely and moving such juicers, fully assembled, can be quite challenging because of it.
The plastic pedestal as described above is shown (left). The pulp container placed onto the pedestal (middle) and a Breville juicer without this pedestal design (right) is also shown.
Other than this plastic pedestal the Jamba’s design is fairly standard for a centrifugal juicer. It has a filter bowl, filter basket, cover, and safety locking arm just like most other centrifugal juicers we tested for review, including most Breville juicers as well. Its safety locking arm is moved from a horizontal “unlocked” position to a vertical “locked” position in which it slides over grooves on the top side of the juicer cover and secures all parts underneath in place exactly the same way as it does on the Breville Juice Fountain Plus, for example.
Because its design and the parts that make up its design are for the most part fairly standard for a centrifugal juicer, assembly of the Jamba isn’t any more or less difficult that it is for those other juicers. Centrifugal juicers, in general, are easier to assemble than slow juicers which is the reason why the Jamba 67901 and most other centrifugal juicers we tested for review all receive a perfect 5 out of 5 for assembly difficulty.
When juicing with a centrifugal juicer, the juicer’s chute size, or more specifically, the chute’s diameter, is the only factor that determines to what size produce needs to be cut before juicing it. The Jamba 67901 has the largest feeding chute of any centrifugal juicer we tested for review. It may in fact have the largest feeding chute of any centrifugal juicer on the market. Its feeding chute is a very wide 3.5 inches in diameter. The industry standard is about 3 inches. This half inch difference may not seem like much but consider the fact that the overall measurements we’re dealing with here are very small. This makes a half inch difference substantial. To put it another way, consider the fact that 3.5 inches is almost 20% more than 3 inches.
In any case, our experience using the Jamba was that its oversized feeding chute was very noticeable when we used it. It was noticeable in terms of the fact that we could tell just by looking at it that it was larger than the feeding chutes of other centrifugal juicers we had tested. But it was also noticeable in other ways. Because the feeding chute is so wide the food pusher that fits into the feeding chute needs to be wider also and so does its handle. The Jamba’s food pusher’s handle felt very large in the hand compared to other food pushers we had used before it (the Jamba’s oversized food pusher is something we’ll talk more about later in the review when we discuss the juicer’s ease of use). And while the Jamba’s larger feeding chute didn’t allow for any less cutting of the specific fruits and vegetables we juiced to test its performance, we can safely say that it definitely could allow for less cutting of certain produce, albeit not that which we tested for this review.
We juiced five different fruits and vegetables to test the Jamba’s performance – 1 lb. each of oranges, grapes, carrots, celery, and apples. Almost all of the slow juicers we tested required that each be cut into smaller pieces before it could be juiced. However, almost all of the centrifugal juicers we tested required that only apples be cut before they could be juiced. We were able to juice the oranges, grapes, carrots, and celery we used for testing whole using most of the centrifugal juicers we tested for review, most of which had 3-inch diameter feeding chutes. We had to cut apples into quarters for those juicers – something that we had to do all the same for the Jamba, despite its larger feeding chute. But, as we noted above, that is not to say that its larger feeding chute couldn’t allow for less cutting of produce in certain scenarios. We’re sure that there are certain varieties of oranges or some other fruit or vegetable that is just above 3 inches in diameter itself – too large to fit into a 3 inch feeding chute whole but able to fit into the Jamba’s 3.5 inch feeding chute whole without issue. Are these imaginary scenarios enough reason for us to recommend the Jamba 67901 solely based on its larger feeding chute? No, they absolutely are not. However, they are something to consider should you consider this juicer to be a viable purchase option in other ways as well.
We tested how well the Jamba Appliances 67901 could juice five different fruits and vegetables – oranges, grapes, carrots, celery and apples. We juiced 1 lb. of each of these fruits and vegetables and then measured the out of juicer yield. We then poured the out of juicer yield through a sieve and measured what we call after sieve yield. For more information on our testing procedures and these different types of yields please see here. Test data for the Jamba and the other centrifugal juicers we tested is tabled in our general buyer’s guide here.
Juicing Performance Summary and Score
As the table referenced above shows, the Jamba 67901 did quite well in our performance tests in terms of out of juicer yield while it performed quite poorly in terms of after sieve yield. As we explain in greater detail here, out of juicer yield is the quantity of juice as it came directly out of the juicer. For some juicers, this yield contained a lot of pulp. For others, it contained barely any pulp at all. We determined how much pulp was in this initial yield by pouring it through a sieve. The same sieve was used for all of the juicers we tested. For this reason, the after sieve yield for the Jamba and all other juicers we tested represents a quantity of juice with a consistent amount of pulp. The Jamba’s after sieve grape juice yield, for example, contains the same amount of pulp (the same size pulp fibers, more specifically) as the Breville Juice Fountain Plus’s after sieve grape juice yield. When we compare the Jamba and the Plus’s out of juicer yields one may have a greater yield than the other only because it contains more pulp. However, when we compare their after sieve yields, we know that each yield contains the same amount of pulp and so this yield is more representative of how much actual juice each extracted in the first place.
That all being said, let’s evaluate the Jamba’s test results. It was able to garner well above average out of juicer yields in all but one test – our orange juicing test. Its out of juicer grape juice yield of 13 oz. was good for first place among the 17 centrifugal juicers we tested for review. The same is true for its out of juicer carrot juice and celery juice yields. The Jamba’s yields juicing these vegetables were the greatest yields of any centrifugal juicer we tested. The Jamba’s apple juice yield of 11.3 oz. was good for fourth place among the 17 centrifugal juicers we tested.
On the flip side, the Jamba’s after sieve yields were much less impressive. Not surprisingly, its orange juice after sieve yield was well below average. But what’s especially concerning is the fact that its grape, carrot, and celery juice yields were only average when its out of juicer yields for all three types of produce were, as we just discussed in the previous paragraph, the best among the centrifugal juicers we tested. Also of note is the fact that its apple juice after sieve yield was well below average. It garnered an after sieve yield juicing apples of only 6.7 oz. – compare this result to the 11.3 oz. of juice it extracted initially.
What does all of this test data tell us? Well, it very clearly tells us that the Jamba 67901 is an excellent choice for those users that enjoy juice with a lot of pulp. If you’re the type of person that buys “Lots of Pulp” orange juice at the grocery store, the Jamba may very well be the juicer for you. On the other hand, if you’re the type of person that doesn’t enjoy pulp in your juice at all – if you’re the type of person that buys “Pulp Free” juice at your local grocery store – then the Jamba is absolutely not a viable option for you. Because it introduces so much pulp into the juice, the Jamba was able to garner above average yields in most of our tests – these above average yields do not mean that it was able to extract more juice than the other juicers we tested that garnered lesser yields. It only means that the Jamba introduced more pulp into those initial yields. For some, the pulpy juice the Jamba 67901 tends to extract will be a positive. For others, not so much. Note that you can still obtain a virtually pulp-free juice by using this juicer. However, you will need to use a strainer the same way that we did during testing. And after you use a strainer you will be left with less juice using the Jamba than you will using most other centrifugal juicers we tested (especially this one).
The Jamba Appliances 67901, compared to all of the other centrifugal juicers we tested for review, is perhaps the largest such juicer we tested. We already discussed its very large 3.5 inch feeding chute earlier in this review. But its oversized feeding chute is not the only of its parts that are larger than average. Everything from its cover to its filter basket to the main body of the juicer is bigger – wider and longer – than what is average for those same parts among most centrifugal juicers on the market. We found that the Jamba’s larger than average parts were easier to clean in some ways and more difficult to clean in other ways than comparable parts of other juicers. They were easier to clean in that it was easier to access some of their larger nooks and crannies. For example, the feeding chute’s larger diameter allowed us to comfortably wash the inside of this cylindrical part by hand. Cleaning the inside of a 3-inch diameter feeding chute is definitely more difficult, especially if you have big hands. Certain parts were ever so slightly more difficult to clean only because their larger surface area meant that there was more of them to clean.
The Jamba’s filter basket is also slightly larger than average. Its inside diameter (the central disc with razor blades) was measured to be 4 inches while its outside diameter (the whole filter basket including the outside mesh) was measured to be 6.5 inches. Most of the filter baskets for most of the other centrifugal juicers we tested had filter baskets with an inside diameter of 3.5 inches and an outside diameter of 6 inches.
You might be inclined to think that the Jamba’s larger filter basket was more difficult to clean because its larger surface area is a larger area that needs to be cleaned. However, this was not the case, for one reason – our purchase of the Jamba Appliances 67901 included a very unique specialized cleaning brush for cleaning the filter basket. This cleaning brush wraps around the outside mesh edge of the filter basket. It can then be rotated around the outer edge of the filter basket to clean it. We found that this specialized tool made cleaning the filter basket much easier than it would have been to clean it with a standard cleaning brush (such as those included with Breville juicers). Because the filter basket is the most difficult part of a centrifugal juicer to clean, this specialized brush and the improved efficiency with which it cleans the filter basket is a very large positive for the Jamba in terms of how easy it is to clean.
On the negative side of things, the Jamba’s juicer cover is designed in such a way that pulp tends to accumulate inside of it much more so than juicer covers of other juicers. This is mostly due to the square rectangular design of its cover. As pulp is flung from the filter basket up and onto the cover it should ideally hit the cover and then fall into the pulp container. Juicer covers normally have a rounded almost tubular design to facilitate this movement of pulp through the juicer. The Jamba’s juicer cover is square and angular which does not facilitate this movement nearly as well. The end result was our having to clean out the Jamba’s cover more so than we needed to clean covers for other juicers. Why is this an issue? Because the juicer cover has lots of nooks and crannies – many more such little crevices than the pulp container where most of the pulp should go. Cleaning the cover is already be a bit of a challenge and we found cleaning the Jamba’s cover (due to excessive pulp build-up) more difficult to clean than covers of most other juicers we tested for review.
Staining, Scratching, and Smudging
The Jamba 67901 is wrought with the same clear plastic parts as most other centrifugal juicers on the market. As we discuss in several other reviews including this one, these plastic parts have the unique quality of being highly susceptible to staining, scratching, and smudging. While we didn’t observe any staining of the Jamba’s plastic parts when we tested it, we did observe quite a bit of scratching of these parts just the same as we did for other such juicers with the same plastic parts.
Dishwasher Safe Parts
All of the Jamba’s parts are dishwasher safe although we do not recommend that it be cleaned in a dishwasher. We certainly didn’t do so when we tested it. Our reasoning behind hand washing juicers is explained in detail in this part of our general buyer’s guide.
Cleaning Summary and Overall Score
The Jamba earns strong marks in this category for its large, easy to access parts and the unique cleaning tool that it comes with that makes cleaning its filter basket an easier process than it was for most other centrifugal juicers we tested. It loses a few fractions of a point for the pulp accumulation problem in its cover and the susceptibility to staining, scratching, and smudging of its plastic parts. Overall, it earns an above average 4.5 out of 5 for cleaning difficulty, mostly because it was the only centrifugal juicer we tested with such a uniquely efficient filter basket cleaning tool.
Ease of Use
Most centrifugal juicers are similarly easy to use. However, there are a few juicer “characteristics” that differentiate the overall difficulty of using one juicer compared to another. Those characteristics are discussed below.
The Jamba 67901 is a two speed juicer. It can be set to a “Hi” setting for juicing harder produce or a “Lo” setting for juicing softer produce. Setting it to “Hi” sets the filter basket to rotate at a maximum speed. Setting it to “Lo” sets the filter basket to rotate at a much lower minimum speed. The manufacturer doesn’t actually specify exactly at what RPM the Jamba’s filter basket spins on each setting. However, it’s safe to assume that it spins above 10,000 RPM on the “Hi” setting and at about 6,000 RPM on the “Lo” setting. This assumption is based on known specifications for similar juicers that also feature two speeds. Examples are the Breville Juice Fountain Plus and Juice Fountain Elite.
As we discuss in the relevant section of this review, our test data shows no correlation between the number of juicing speeds and juicer performance. The juicer that performed the best in our tests, the Breville Juice Fountain Compact, is a single speed juicer. So if the Jamba’s multi-speed capability doesn’t improve its performance (its ability to garner greater yields), what exactly is its purpose? In other reviews we’ve theorized that it could perhaps improve the overall longevity of the juicer’s motor. We’ve also discussed how being able to set the juicer to a lower speed allows it to be run with less noise output – something that could be a benefit to some users.
Relative to ease of use, however, the Jamba’s two speed functionality is only a negative. Using a single speed juicer is simple – simply turn it on and start juicing. When using a multi-speed juicer such as the Jamba the juicing process requires one extra step – the user has to consider the type of produce they’re juicing and which speed to set the juicer to, to efficiently juice that type of produce. Inexperienced users will absolutely have to reference the juicer’s manual when making this consideration. The Jamba’s manual includes a section on “Juicing Tips and Techniques”. At the bottom of this section is a subsection entitled “Using the Correct Speed”. The manual recommends that the “Lo” setting be used for fruit and vegetables high in water content – it lists examples as being tomato, watermelon, and oranges. The manual recommends that the “Hi” setting be used for produce with higher fiber content – here it lists examples as being carrots, cabbage, and apples. So, an inexperienced user will likely reference the Jamba’s manual when first juicing with it, see these guidelines, and try to follow them as best they can. Are these guidelines sufficient for such a user to always correctly decide which setting to use for the type of produce they want to juice? We definitely don’t think they are. And so the difficulty of having to juice with a two speed juicer is compounded by the fact that we feel the Jamba’s included manual insufficiently explains how to use each setting correctly.
For comparison, Breville multi-speed juicers all have very detailed manuals with “speed selector” tables that list a myriad of different specific fruits and vegetables and the correct setting to use for each type of produce in the list. While this table isn’t 100% complete it is much more comprehensive and much more helpful than the guidelines set forth in the Jamba’s manual. We had the luxury of having tested other two speed juicers, including popular Breville multi-speed juicers, before we tested the Jamba 67901. As such, we were able to rely on past experience using those juicers (referencing their manuals) to help us determine which setting to set the Jamba to in order to juice the five fruits and vegetables we juiced to test the juicer’s performance. Without this background knowledge we would have likely had to test juicing certain fruits and vegetables on both settings before determining which setting is optimal for maximum yield. This same process of trial and error (to determine which speed setting is optimal for juicing different types of fruits and vegetables) is likely to be necessary for any new inexperienced users of the Jamba juicer. Note that this is a difficulty on top of the initial difficulty of having to even worry about setting the juicer to one of two different speeds in the first place.
Weight, Power Cord Length, Juice and Pulp Containers, and Other Considerations
We’ve already discussed how the Jamba 67901 was one of the larger (in terms of dimensions) centrifugal juicers we tested for review. It should come as no surprise, then, that it was also one of the heaviest such juicers we tested. Fully assembled, we measured the Jamba to weigh a shade under 13 lb. The body alone weighed a little more than 8 and a half lb. The Jamba’s fully assembled weight was only bested by the fully stainless steel Breville Juice Fountain Elite and Duo’s fully assembled weight. Both of these Breville juicers weigh about 14 lb. fully assembled. The smallest centrifugal juicers we tested, quite unsurprisingly, weighed the least. They weighed about 5 lb. fully assembled. Average fully assembled weight for the centrifugal juicer category was about 7 to 9 lb. Thus, the Jamba’s fully assembled weight is a full 5 or so lb. more than average.
The Jamba’s power cord length, the size of its juice and pulp containers, and corresponding averages for the centrifugal juicer category (Cent. Avg.) are listed in the table below. For additional information regarding how these characteristics and the others we’ve already mentioned affect the juicer’s ease of use please see here.
|Power Cord Length||36.5 in.||41 in.|
|Juice Container Volume||34 oz.||34 oz.|
|Pulp Container Volume||88 oz.||73 oz.|
As a final note regarding the Jamba’s ease of use, it would be remiss of us to neglect to mention its massive food pusher. We’ve already noted more than once in this review how the Jamba has the largest diameter feeding chute of any centrifugal juicer we tested for review. To accommodate such a large feeding chute it has to have a very wide diameter food pusher. The problem with this accommodation (as it relates to juicer ease of use) is that the food pusher’s handle or knob has to be even larger than the shaft that extends into the juicer’s feeding chute to prevent the bottom of the shaft from falling all the way down onto the juicer’s rotating filter basket. Thus, the handle of the Jamba’s food pusher is exceptionally large and makes handling the food pusher a bit of a challenge for users with smaller hands – a minor complaint but one that is still relative to this section of the review.
Ease of Use Summary and Score
The Jamba 67901 has multi-speed functionality, an above average weight, and a below average length power cord – all minor complaints but all complaints that make the Jamba less easy to use than other juicers we tested that feature only single speed functionality, are easier to carry (weigh less), and allow for more flexibility in terms of where they can be placed on the kitchen counter (have longer power cords). The Jamba therefore earns a below average 3 out of 5 for ease of use.
The Jamba Appliances 67901 is a centrifugal juicer and therefore lacks the versatility of a typical slow juicer. For more on this topic please see this part of our general buyer’s guide.
Build Quality and Materials
We consider Breville juicers to be the benchmark for centrifugal juicer quality – especially with regards to the quality of the materials used in their construction. That being said, we observed the materials used for the Jamba’s parts to be of a noticeably lesser quality than that of the same parts as they’re found on Breville juicers. The Jamba’s clear plastic parts were of an especially low quality. Did this affect the juicer’s performance during testing? Absolutely not. Are these parts made of such low quality plastic that they will break sooner than similar parts of Breville juicers? Maybe. We didn’t test the Jamba for a long enough period of time to be able to make that determination. What we can say, however, is that the low quality plastic used for these parts definitely scratched and scuffed easier than the same parts on those Breville Juicers we tested for review, namely the Juice Fountain Plus – a juicer very similarly priced to the Jamba, and one that is also a two speed juicer with a very similar design.
Brand Reputation and Quality of Support
Jamba Juice is a well-known brand in the United States. However, Jamba is well-known for its restaurants – its juice bars – not for its appliances. The exact origin of Jamba branded appliances is unknown. All that we know is that Jamba has thus far released only four different appliances – two different blenders and two different juicers. These appliances are sold at both online and brick and mortar retailers.
Jamba Appliances does have its own website separate from jambajuice.com at jambaappliances.com. The website lists product specifications for the four Jamba appliances we listed above and a toll free number to get in contact with their customer service. The toll free number listed is the same number listed in the juicer’s manual. Note that no customer service email or snail mail address is listed on the jambaappliances.com website or in the juicer’s user manual. There are very few consumer reviews for Jamba appliances online at the time of the publishing of this editorial review, and therefore it is unclear whether Jamba customer service exceeds or at least is on par with customer service from other popular juicer brands such as Breville.
The Jamba 67901 comes with the best warranty of any centrifugal juicer we tested for review. The juicer comes with a 5-year warranty. The manufacturer does state that the warranty does not cover “glass, filters, wear from normal use, …” – it is unclear whether the juicer’s filter basket is considered a “filter” but we would be inclined to think that it is not. The Jamba’s 5-year warranty is 5 times as long as the 1-year warranties that come with Breville juicers and more than twice as long as the 2-year warranties common among the less popular centrifugal juicers we tested for review.
Summary and Score
The Jamba Super Chute Juice Extractor (67901) definitely lacks the outstanding build quality of Breville juicers. Jamba Juice, as an appliance manufacturer is also an unknown commodity. Will Jamba Juice continue to manufacture appliances and support them well into the future? Only time will tell. That being said, the Jamba does come with the longest warranty you can get with a centrifugal juicer. If you’re the type of person that values a product having a long warranty and you feel confident that Jamba will continue to offer product support for at least the next five years, then the Jamba 67901 could just be the juicer for you. That being said, we give it only an average 3.5 out of 5 for durability.
Value and Recommendations
The Jamba 67901 normally retails for about $150 online. At this price point it is priced just about the same as the Breville Juice Fountain Plus and about $50 more expensive than the top rated Juice Fountain Compact. At the same price ($150) its about half as expensive as top rated slow juicers and about three times as expensive as the least expensive centrifugal juicers we tested for review. As to whether you should purchase the Jamba or spend more and purchase a slow juicer, we recommend that you read our general buyer’s guide which goes into great detail outlining all of the pros and cons of spending less on a centrifugal juicer compared to a slow juicer.
To put a bow on this review, let’s take a look at how the Jamba 67901 compares to the aforementioned Juice Fountain Plus and Compact. Both the Plus and the Jamba are two speed juicers while the Compact is a single speed juicer. We discussed our thoughts on multi-speed functionality earlier in this review. The Jamba does have a much more powerful motor than the Plus and the Compact. The Jamba’s motor is rated at 1100 watts while the Plus’s motor is rated at 850 watts and the Compact’s motor is rated at only 700 watts. This does not, however, necessarily translate into better performance. The Jamba was able to extract a greater out of juicer yield than the Plus and Compact in most tests but its after sieve yields are nowhere close to the Plus’s and Compact’s after sieve yields. The Jamba has a larger feeding chute (3.5 in. compared to the Plus and Compact’s 3 in. feeding chute) which can possibly make food preparation a bit easier with the Jamba, depending on what type of produce is juiced. The Jamba’s filter basket is also easier to clean because of the unique cleaning tool that comes with the juicer. The Compact and especially the Plus are definitely made of higher quality materials. However, they do come with a much shorter 1-year warranty compared to the Jamba’s 5-year warranty.
The bottom line – we recommend the Jamba 67901 only if you enjoy a juice with lots of pulp. Both the Juice Fountain Plus and Compact garnered much better after sieve yields and are also much better built juicers. Don’t forget that the Compact is also easier to use (it’s only a single speed juicer) and it’s less expensive. The small food preparation and cleaning advantages of the Jamba are not enough to sway us to recommend it over either Breville juicer. Our recommendation, overall, is the Compact over either the Plus or the Jamba. If you’re torn between the Jamba and Plus only, our recommendation is the Plus.