Head to head

Candy CF 5C6F0W or Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos: which should you choose?

Comparison of the two dishwashers using our catalogue's scoring criteria, value by value. Scores are relative to all the models we have analysed.

Candy CF 5C6F0W, studio product shot

Candy CF 5C6F0W

7.8/10

Main drawbackAbove-average eco water consumption

Read the full analysis →
Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos, studio product shot

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos

8.7/10
Overall rating

Main drawbackBulky cookware can still push the available loading space

Read the full analysis →

Our verdict based on your priority

  • Priority: “Place settings”Candy CF 5C6F0W 9 / 10 vs 8.2
  • Priority: “Noise level”Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos 8.5 / 10 vs 7.1
  • Priority: “Eco program electricity consumption”Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos 9.2 / 10 vs 7.7
  • Priority: “Eco program water consumption”Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos 9.2 / 10 vs 7

By criterion

Comparison of Candy CF 5C6F0W and Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos by criterion
Criterion Candy CF 5C6F0W Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos
Place settings 9 advantage 8.2
Noise level 7.1 8.5 advantage
Eco program electricity consumption 7.7 9.2 advantage
Eco program water consumption 7 9.2 advantage
Eco program duration 7.8 8.2

A gap of less than half a point does not count as an advantage: our scores are relative to the catalogue, and using them to pick a winner would imply a level of precision we cannot offer.

Side-by-side specs

Specifications for Candy CF 5C6F0W and Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos
SpecificationCandy CF 5C6F0WMiele G 7600 SC AutoDos
Width59,7 cm59,8 cm
Height85 cm84,5 cm
Depth59,8 cm60 cm
Place settings15 place settings14 place settings
Noise level46 decibels42 decibels
Eco program electricity consumption75 kWh/100 cycles54 kWh/100 cycles
Eco program water consumption10,9 L/cycle8,4 L/cycle
Eco program duration237 min230 min
Number of programs8 programsNot provided
Repairability index8,6 out of 109,3 out of 10
Installation typeFreestandingFreestanding
ColorWhiteWhite
Energy classCA
End of cycleAutomatic door openingAutomatic door opening
Cutlery storageCutlery basketCutlery drawer
Basket layoutHeight-adjustable upper basket, Foldable tinesHeight-adjustable upper basket
Wash optionsHalf loadHalf load
Drying technologyAutomatic door opening, CondensationCondensation

Figures published by manufacturers and retailers, compiled in our reviews. “Not provided” means the figure could not be verified.

Which is right for you?

Candy CF 5C6F0W

Leads on 1 criterion of 5 compared

  • Place settings: 9/10 vs 8.2/10 (15 place settings vs 14 place settings)
View Candy CF 5C6F0W →

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos

Leads on 3 criteria of 5 compared

  • Eco program water consumption: 9.2/10 vs 7/10 (8,4 L/cycle vs 10,9 L/cycle)
  • Eco program electricity consumption: 9.2/10 vs 7.7/10 (54 kWh/100 cycles vs 75 kWh/100 cycles)
  • Noise level: 8.5/10 vs 7.1/10 (42 decibels vs 46 decibels)
View Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos →

Comparison based on published specifications and our scores, calculated using the same criteria for every model. Our methodology →

Frequently asked questions

Which is rated higher, Candy CF 5C6F0W or Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos?

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos scores 8.7/10, compared with 7.8/10 for Candy CF 5C6F0W, using the same scoring criteria.

Which wins on “Eco program water consumption”?

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos wins on “Eco program water consumption”: 9.2/10 compared with 7/10 for Candy CF 5C6F0W. Recorded values: 8,4 L/cycle versus 10,9 L/cycle.

Which wins on “Eco program electricity consumption”?

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos wins on “Eco program electricity consumption”: 9.2/10 compared with 7.7/10 for Candy CF 5C6F0W. Recorded values: 54 kWh/100 cycles versus 75 kWh/100 cycles.

Which wins on “Noise level”?

Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos wins on “Noise level”: 8.5/10 compared with 7.1/10 for Candy CF 5C6F0W. Recorded values: 42 decibels versus 46 decibels.

Which wins on “Place settings”?

Candy CF 5C6F0W wins on “Place settings”: 9/10 compared with 8.2/10 for Miele G 7600 SC AutoDos. Recorded values: 15 place settings versus 14 place settings.

More useful comparisons

Spotted an error on this page? Report it