The Electrolux was the winner, getting there in about 8 and a half minutes compared to 11 minutes for Whirlpool. Still, the Whirlpool's fast preheat time was down 20 percent from the normal time of 13.5 minutes, so I have to call the feature a success -- just not quite as much of a success as Electrolux, which sped things up by about 30 percent and won the race with time to spare.
As for the Whirlpool's cooking chops, it proved to be a dependable performer in our test kitchen. We ran it through the usual barrage of tests -- everything from roasted chicken to broiled toast -- and never caught it acting abnormally. Everything cooked evenly and as expected, whether we were baking or broiling. Even in difficult tests, like baking two racks of biscuits at the same time, the Whirlpool rose to the occasion.
Still, it wasn't a perfect performer. As we monitored the oven's average temperature throughout a cooking cycle, we found a greater range of fluctuation than we saw with either the Electrolux or the KitchenAid models. On average, the Whirlpool hit the mark, but it did so by overshooting the target temperature, then over-cooling to compensate, then repeating.
This was the most evident during our chicken tests. That red line in the graph above is the Whirlpool's average temperature as it cooks a chicken at 375 degrees. Compared with the Electrolux (blue) and the KitchenAid (green), the cooking performance is clearly less precise.
The Electrolux did the best of three, staying within roughly five degrees of the target temperature for the majority of the cooking time. KitchenAid was also steady, although it was about 25 degrees too cold. The Whirlpool was able to hit the target, but it definitely wasn't able to stay there.
This didn't translate to much of a difference in the quality of the chicken. The Electrolux and Whirlpool birds both tasted about the same to our taste testers -- decent, but not mind-blowing. The difference came in the cooking time. Since it couldn't hold steady at 375 like the Electrolux could, the Whirlpool took an extra 15 minutes to cook to temperature. This wasn't as slow as the KitchenAid chicken, which needed an extra 40 minutes to cook.
Still, since it's a steadier performer, the KitchenAid Architect II might actually be the easier oven to cook with. All you'd need to do is remember to bump the temperature up by 25 degrees. With the Whirlpool's wider temperature fluctuations, it'd be harder to compensate, and more difficult to hit precise cooking times.
Also of note: Like the one in the KitchenAid oven, the Whirlpool's broiler element isn't as wide as you'll find in the Electrolux. In our toast tests, we saw this translate to slightly more even broiling performance from Electrolux, which might be the ideal approach for something that's spread out, like a tray of French fries. It's a minor difference, but one you should be aware of.
All in all, I came away pleased with the performance I got out of the Whirlpool, whether I was cooking roast chicken, frozen pizza, M&M cookies, or fudge brownies. None of the oven's imperfections were ever serious enough to compromise a recipe, which is the most important thing of all.
The Whirlpool Gold isn't an exciting range. Its list of features is short and succinct, and those that it does have aren't all that unique. Compared to ranges like the Samsung Flex Duo, I have to say that the WFE720H0AS is downright boring.
But still, this Whirlpool is good where it counts. It cooks decent food, it's easy to use, and it doesn't suffer from over-design like the comparably equipped Electrolux EI30EF35JS, which costs $300 more. If you want an appliance with lots of bells and whistles, look elsewhere, but if all you need is a steady new kitchen companion, this is a range you can count on.