We had just bought a Panasonic iron, model NI-W810CS, 8 months before getting the TFAL model in the Vine program. I'll compare the two in this review, and also comment on the Panasonic in regards to its standalone merits.
Short Review: Pointy front edge and large reservoir are pros for the TFAL. The comparatively light weight and long cord of the TFAL can be pros or cons depending on your needs, as can the complex and comprehensive de-calcing system TFAL uses. Cons of the TFAL include the need to clean and decalc the iron once per month (at least if you take the instructions seriously) and the idiotic "pictorial only" manual, which will leave you confused and squinty-eyed. Biggest liability for TFAL is the entirely too vigorous steam system, which often sprays water out, drips from the front plate holes, and often makes the iron sound like Thomas the Tank Engine.
The Panasonic competitor is heaviver, with a shorter cord and smaller reservoir, but irons at least as well as the TFAL, and is easier to keep clean. The steam management is both powerful enough and at the same time well regulated. I would call the Panasonic generally more successful across the board and though it costs more, the difference in price is not enough to favor the TFAL in my opinion.
Full Details:
Iron Shape -- TFAL has point front, Pana is more or less symmetrical in shape, so the front is about as pointy as the rear of the face plate. This makes it easier to use TFAL to iron nooks and crannies in clothing, but makes it easier to reverse directions quickly with the Pana. All in all, I found the more traditional TFAL shape to be more useful.
Water Capacity -- TFAL is larger in capacity (9 oz vs 6.75 oz) and is much easier to fill, as the port is larger and can even be put directly under a tap faucet. The Pana is more old school, with a tiny port, complete with a flimsy cover that is just waiting to break off at the first mishap. Clear win for TFAL here.
Weight -- To get wrinkles out, pressure has to come from somwhere. Pana is heavier, TFAL lighter. Hence, TFAL is less fatiguing in theory, but you will have to press down more to get the fabric smooth. Choose your poison. I liked the weight of the Pana more myself, but there is no clear answer as to which is best.
Cords -- TFAL has 12 ft, Pana about 9 feet. Both cords manuever freely around 360 degrees, neither retracts. A long cord can be good or bad, depending on your specific ironing needs. My ironing board is really close to the outlet, so I like the Pana.
DeCalcinating -- Panasonic mysteriously just claims they have a system for this on the 810. They don't go into detail, and you the user don't have to do anything. It just works. Or does it? No idea, only had the iron for 10 months, and NYC has soft water, so it is not much of a workout for decalcing methods. TFAL in comparison has some wand gadget in the middle of the reservoir that needs to be cleaned separately once per month, and then cleaned again in the separate once per month iron cleaning. This seems like a bit of work for the user, and frankly, I don't think I am going to do it very often or at all. Will my TFAL iron calc up in no time? No idea. If I had hard water, I think I would go with the TFAL and follow the regimen, but for soft water and / or lazy ironers, the possible ineffectual though low effort Pana approach may have more merit. I personally think two different cleaning protocols once per month is rather excessive for a low cost appliance, but you may disagree. If the instructions were clearer, this would have been a neutral point for me, but see below for why this protocol and the lame instructions interacted to give a victory to Pana.
Manual -- Pana has a two page or so written manual with small print, and a few diagrams that is really nothing exceptional. Yet everything is clear enough. TFAL, either fearing an uptick in illiteracy and / or wanting to save money on localization costs of the manual around the world, has all features and instructions in minuscule pictograms that had me straining my eyes to see them. Even worse, TFAL had numerous instances of two pictures that look very much alike next to each other, one of which has an X through it (meaning "don't do this!!") and another with a smiley face ("yes, do this!") Good luck figuring out what you're supposed to do unless you're a professional sniper! Plus the pictograms are bundled into lengthy sequences - the monthly cleaning has roughly 17 steps! It's like the Common Core Curriculum approach to iron use and maintenance... This whole concept struck me as annoying and misguided, but showed how even a mediocre manual using old fashioned words can still be a better solution than hieroglyphic innovations for consumer products.
Steam -- Pana is 1500 watts, TFAL more than 1700. All my ironing was on the "cotton" setting for both units, i.e. near the max. The two irons are fairly evenly matched in quality of results produced despite the wattage difference. However, the real issue is the TFAL's "Raging Bull" steam system. The auto steam system has 4 settings plus off, and only on setting 2 is adequate steam produced with only occasional water emission. Setting 1 is virtually no leaks, but not much usable steam, and settings 3 & 4 produce a lot of leaks, plus water bubbling out through the faceplate. If you turn autosteam off and try to control the steam using manual bursts, you almost always get water coming out. Pana in comparison almost never has water leaks, even on highest autosteam and plenty of manual bursts. Maybe the lower wattage works in Pana's favor? Not sure, but in any case any possible benefit from more powerful TFAL steam is offset by the frequent leaks and lack of control in TFAL. Big win for the Pana.
Common Features: Both units had useful auto off systems that vary shut off time based on position of iron. Nice idea, well implemented in both. Both irons took the same time to heat up, and as mentioned earlier, produced usable ironing results that were comparable. No flaws or breakages, build quality appears similar for both. Both have a one year warranty. The main points of distinction between the two models are summarized above.
Bottom Line: The more precise steam control of the Pana makes it more useful for me. The TFAL has a few comparative strengths, but the undisciplined steam is a big issue for me. If the TFAL was a lot cheaper, I might forgive this, but as of this writing, the TFAL costs 20% less on Amazon, which to me is not enough of a differential to offset an annoying flaw. Panasonic for the win for me, and unless you are confident that my particular over-steaming TFAL was a lemon, you will probably be better advised to go for the Panasonic as well. (Unless the price for TFAL falls a lot, and / or you worry about calcination and think the TFAL overkill approach sounds like something you need.)
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Similar item to consider
Frequently bought together
$59.95
Get it as soon as Monday, May 6
In Stock
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Videos
Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1
Videos for this product
1:17
Click to play video
Panasonic Iron Review and Use
Pure Wyoming Productions LLC
Compare with similar items
This Item  Panasonic NI-W810CS Multi-Directional Steam/Dry Iron with Ceramic Soleplate, MEDIUM, Black |  |  |  |  |  | |
| Price | $59.95 | $59.99 | $59.99 | $44.99 | -10% $42.59 Typical: $47.39 | $44.41 |
| Delivery | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 | Get it as soon as Monday, May 6 |
| Customer Ratings | ||||||
| Temperature Control | ||||||
| Light weight | ||||||
| Easy to use | ||||||
| Safety Features | ||||||
| Value for money | ||||||
| Sold By | Pattern Professional | Britephase | Britephase | Royal Kitchen | Amazon.com | Amazon.com |
| base material | Ceramic | Ceramic | Ceramic | Ceramic | Ceramic | Aluminum |
| wattage | 1500 watts | 1700 watts | 1700 watts | 1700 watts | 1250 watts | 1800 watts |
| special feature | auto-shut-off | Powerfull Wattage, Rapid Heat Up, Auto Shutoff Safety, Extra Long Cord, Adjustable Steam | Lightweight, Adjustable Steam, Auto Safety Shut Off, Ceramic Soleplate, Extra Long Cord, Higher Wattage, Precision Tip, Rapid Heat Up, Self Clean, Nonstick | Auto Shutoff | Auto Shutoff | Programmable |
| frequency | 60 hertz | — | — | 50 hertz | 50 hertz | — |
| weight | 3 pounds | 2.76 pounds | — | 3.52 pounds | 1.2 kilograms | — |
Reviews with images
Awesome!
I am quite picky when it comes to ironing. So I spent a lot of time looking for something of high quality but not too expensive, and I got one!It may cost a little bit more than some other options that, despite getting the job done at the end probably, are going to cost you a lot of time and not satisfy you enough. And I don't think there's need to pay more than this for a normal use, and I doubt they will even work better than this.Does the design make a difference? Yes, it does. Sure it is not like a miracle or something, but you do feel the difference in the time needed and ease of use.All features work well, steam and water spray, the water tank is easy to fill and empty, the cord's length is just right.[Photos taken 11 months after purchase]
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Top reviews from other countries
Germain C. Yung
Excellent Steam Iron
Reviewed in Canada on December 24, 2021Color: BlackVerified Purchase
