So why, if #4 is the ORD Bot Hadron, and the notes specifically distinguish it from the ORD Bot Quantum -- so they're clearly aware there are two versions -- why, then, do they use the picture of an ORD Bot Quantum?
The reviews seem to be based on little more than generally available information, and they don't seem to have involved actual testing of any of these printers. If someone tests printers, I expect to see several test objects, printed with each printer, photographed in great detail -- not just reviews based on appearance, price, press releases, and other people's opinions. For a fair rating, I'd expect the criteria to be at least outlined, if not formally described and scored. It helps to know how heavily price weighted -- for instance, is the Buccaneer #3 because it prints so-so but it's very cheap, or is its print quality superior to the ORD Bot? Does the fact that a printer is available fully assembled matter in the ranking? Is the author of the reviews affiliated with any of the manufacturers or designers? Did the author receive donations, fees, free or discounted machines, paid advertising, or other benefits? What was the field out of which these ten machines were selected -- is <name printer here> not on the list because it's not in top ten, or just because it wasn't considered? Without all this information, the ranking is nearly worthless.
Edit: I take my last sentence back, specifically, the word "nearly". The reviews are utterly worthless, as they aren't even reviews: some are placeholders, some are copy&paste from the manufacturer's website. See, for instance, the tell-tale description of the CartesioLD:
The Cartesio L(arge)D(epth) V0.7 has a very large build volume of 200x400x200mm and comes standard with a 3D print extruder and a large Heated build platform
If you want other tools (engravers, plotters,…), please select them in the Tools category.
and compare with
this.
What's the point of that site?