Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C or Haier XF 6B2M3PW: 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.
Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C
Main drawbackEco electricity consumption among the highest declared figures
Read the full analysis →
Haier XF 6B2M3PW
Main drawbackLengthy eco programme is awkward when clean dishes are needed soon
Check price on Amazon → Read the full analysis →Our verdict based on your priority
- Priority: “Place settings”Haier XF 6B2M3PW 9.4 / 10 vs 8.2
- Priority: “Eco program electricity consumption”Haier XF 6B2M3PW 8.4 / 10 vs 7.7
- Priority: “Eco program duration”Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C 9.2 / 10 vs 7.7
- Priority: “Equipment”Haier XF 6B2M3PW 8.9 / 10 vs 6.6
By criterion
| Criterion | Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C | Haier XF 6B2M3PW |
|---|---|---|
| Place settings | 8.2 | 9.4 advantage |
| Noise level | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| Eco program electricity consumption | 7.7 | 8.4 advantage |
| Eco program duration | 9.2 advantage | 7.7 |
| Equipment | 6.6 | 8.9 advantage |
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
| Specification | Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C | Haier XF 6B2M3PW |
|---|---|---|
| Width | 60 cm | 59,7 cm |
| Height | 85 cm | 85 cm |
| Depth | 61 cm | 59,8 cm |
| Place settings | 14 place settings | 16 place settings |
| Noise level | 42 decibels | 42 decibels |
| Eco program electricity consumption | 75 kWh/100 cycles | 66 kWh/100 cycles |
| Eco program water consumption | 9,8 L/cycle | Not provided |
| Eco program duration | 198 min | 239 min |
| Number of programs | Not provided | 10 programs |
| Repairability index | Not provided | 9,3 out of 10 |
| Installation type | Freestanding | Freestanding |
| Wash programs | Eco | Eco |
| Drying technology | Not disclosed | Condensation |
Figures published by manufacturers and retailers, compiled in our reviews. “Not provided” means the figure could not be verified.
Which is right for you?
Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C
Leads on 1 criterion of 5 compared
- Eco program duration: 9.2/10 vs 7.7/10 (198 min vs 239 min)
Haier XF 6B2M3PW
Leads on 3 criteria of 5 compared
- Equipment: 8.9/10 vs 6.6/10
- Place settings: 9.4/10 vs 8.2/10 (16 place settings vs 14 place settings)
- Eco program electricity consumption: 8.4/10 vs 7.7/10 (66 kWh/100 cycles vs 75 kWh/100 cycles)
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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, Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C or Haier XF 6B2M3PW?
Haier XF 6B2M3PW scores 8.7/10, compared with 8/10 for Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C, using the same scoring criteria.
Which wins on “Equipment”?
Haier XF 6B2M3PW wins on “Equipment”: 8.9/10 compared with 6.6/10 for Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C.
Which wins on “Eco program duration”?
Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C wins on “Eco program duration”: 9.2/10 compared with 7.7/10 for Haier XF 6B2M3PW. Recorded values: 198 min versus 239 min.
Which wins on “Place settings”?
Haier XF 6B2M3PW wins on “Place settings”: 9.4/10 compared with 8.2/10 for Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C. Recorded values: 16 place settings versus 14 place settings.
Which wins on “Eco program electricity consumption”?
Haier XF 6B2M3PW wins on “Eco program electricity consumption”: 8.4/10 compared with 7.7/10 for Valberg 14S42 C XAD929C. Recorded values: 66 kWh/100 cycles versus 75 kWh/100 cycles.