Why You Can Trust CNET Sharp R-820JS Convection Grill Microwave Oven review: Not as sharp as we had hoped
The microwave gets it right half the time, but half the time isn't worth $289.99.
Except for advances in moisture sensors and convection cooking boasted by some newer models, microwaves haven't received the volume of updates or attention of other kitchen appliances. The few updates they have received, however, have created great disparity in prices. For example, I can go to my local superstore and find a countertop microwave for about $60. I can also order one online and pay more than $1,000.
Sharp R-820JS Convection Grill Microwave Oven
The Good
The Bad
The Bottom Line
With that spectrum in mind, the Sharp R-820JS' $289.99 price tag isn't so shocking. However, as our basic expectations of microwaves involve reheating leftovers or frozen meals and making popcorn, that very price range raises some questions. While it is certainly not the most expensive in the category, I would hope that, for $290, the Sharp would perform better than the bargain, $60 model. For $290, I expect to be wowed.
It gets it right about half the time.
If you completely ignore this model's presets, the Sharp R-820JS performs adequately. It reheats as well as any of its competitors, but presets are important features, so we cannot ignore them in our analysis. With this model, many of these presets resulted in epic failures. These shortcomings became all the more obvious when we compared the Sharp's inconsistent presets with the presets on the rest of the models in our test group, like the Whirlpool WMC50522AS, which boasts far more consistency in that regard.
The design of the R-820JS is, for the most part, what you would expect from a microwave. It features a silver-colored metal exterior and a stainless-steel interior. It would look more durable and less inexpensive if it had a stainless exterior like the Panasonic NN-SD997S does, or, at the very least, if it had a stainless-steel front or trim.
The Sharp is the smallest microwave in this initial test group by a fairly wide margin, with an interior of only 0.9 cubic feet and a 12.75-inch carousel. That internal measurement isn't the best indicator of usable space, however, when you consider that the next-biggest unit, the Amana AMC2166AS, has a 1.6-cubic-foot interior, but a carousel that is only .025 inch larger.
If the Sharp is a respectable size for a small-to-midsize countertop microwave, it pales when you compare it with larger microwaves, like the 2.2-cubic-foot Whirlpool and the Panasonic, both of which boast 16-inch-plus turntables.
I'll be honest: next to the other microwaves in our test group, the Sharp doesn't look as if it should be the second most expensive one. The R-820JS isn't a bad-looking microwave, but the display is unreadable unless you're standing right in front of it, and the buttons look like they belong on a toy microwave rather than a real one. If you're buying a microwave for looks alone, unless you like the look and feel of a grown-up Easy-Bake Oven, this probably isn't the unit for you.
For more practical-minded buyers, it's the guts of the machine that are more important. Here's where that spotty performance I mentioned earlier will be an issue.
We devised a battery of tests to examine the core features claimed by each microwave's manufacturer. We also tested the functions we thought might be useful for the average consumer.
As a baseline, we tested how long it would take each microwave to bring a cup of water to a rolling boil. As it's a lower-wattage microwave, the Sharp took longer than the other models, requiring 3 minutes and 30 seconds, compared with 2 minutes and 20 seconds from the higher-powered Whirlpool.
We then completely disregarded the directions of every popcorn manufacturer, and tested the popcorn preset.
The Sharp's popcorn preset is, in a word, abysmal. A 3.2-ounce bag of popcorn contains, on average, 448 kernels. In all of our preset test runs, Sharp only popped an average of 36 kernels. That's popping efficiency under 10 percent. It's as if Sharp didn't account for its own microwave's lower wattage.
I then made a bag of popcorn according to the instructions on the popcorn box. This method produced 69 unpopped kernels, a number much closer to what you would expect and on par with the performance of the Panasonic's preset. The Sharp can make popcorn well enough, you just can't use the preset to do so.
Going farther down the preset rabbit hole, I tested the potato preset function. Rather than using sensors like the Panasonic, the Sharp asks for the number of potatoes you plan to cook and calibrates its time accordingly. I ran this test three separate times, each with an Idaho potato ranging in weight from 11.5 ounces to 14.3 ounces.
The Sharp's preset allotted 5 minutes of cooking time for one potato, plus 5 minutes of resting time. The result was two potatoes that were greatly underdone in the center or, in the case of the largest potato, almost raw. The Amana also asks for the number of potatoes, rather than their weight, but it cooked them more thoroughly.
Presets that determine cooking time based on a number of items rather than by weight seem like a design flaw for microwaves like the Sharp that lack a moisture sensor, especially when the foods in question, like potatoes, lack uniformity.
I'm not sure even a sensor would help the Sharp, given that its presets didn't perform much better when it came to frozen dinners. We tested Stouffer's single-serving lasagna and macaroni and cheese, the former for its density, the latter for the fact that it's fairly representative of the category of frozen dinners.
Frozen lasagna in the microwave is notorious for coming out overdone on the outside and underdone in the middle. Also, in order to be truly safe for consumption, Stouffer's recommends that you cook the lasagna to an internal temperature of 160 degrees. Each time we used the frozen dinner preset, the lasagna's internal temperature was below 100 degrees and was, in some places, still frozen.
The macaroni and cheese fared no better, yielding temperatures around the outside of the dish of between 170 and 190 degrees, but temperatures in the center of only 70 to 100 degrees, representing yet another preset failure.
When prepared according to the instructions on the box, the Sharp cooked both the lasagna and the macaroni to a safe temperature, and the dishes looked and tasted as expected.
The next big test came with omelets. Up to that point, the Sharp had performed so far below our other microwaves that I expected utter failure with eggs. For our omelets, we melted a tablespoon of butter, cooled it, then whisked in two eggs and 2 tablespoons of milk. With the Sharp, I cooked the eggs in a covered glass dish at 100 percent power for 1 minute, stirred, and then cooked for an additional 3 minutes.
The result was a fluffy omelet that was consistently well-cooked throughout, nearly perfect for a microwave. It was the best of the bunch, in fact. As the prior tests were designed to assess the quality of the presets and not so much the core microwave function, I was encouraged. Certainly, the presets had been a failure thus far, but that didn't necessarily mean that this was a bad microwave.
The Sharp is a lower-wattage microwave than the others, emitting 900 watts, compared with the 1,250-watt Panasonic and 1,200-watt Whirlpool and Amana. Higher wattage means faster cooking, but manufacturers claim that it also means more even cooking. There are applications, however, where lower power is better, as with eggs, where foods are more delicate. In terms of reheating, for instance, higher wattage did not seem to be an asset.
We reheated slices of takeout pepperoni pizza using the pizza presets. The Sharp's reheat preset shone here. The pizza was good, as good as the Amana's pizza and better than the Panasonic's and Whirlpool's. The cheese was melted appropriately, and the crust wasn't soggy or spongy. It wasn't as good as fresh pizza, certainly, but if you're not a cold-pizza lover like me, this preset works well.
Getting into more-specific functions, Sharp claims that this microwave makes excellent burgers, thanks to its grill rack. The other microwaves cooked burgers in 4 minutes or less. The Sharp required 19 minutes because of its lower-power grill function. I expected results similar to our toaster oven burgers, aka the experience that nearly drove some of us to vegetarianism and convinced those vegetarians among us never to look back.
Much to our surprise, the burgers from all of our microwaves were good and many were better than a lot of fast-food burgers. The Sharp's was the most evenly cooked and juicy, and we voted it the best, though not by a wide swath. The take-away? You can, in fact, make a good burger in a microwave, grill rack or no.
As a final function test, we defrosted chicken legs. One chicken leg weighed too little to use the autodefrost preset, so we had to manually defrost. In every case, the middle, near the bone, was still frozen or nearly frozen while the outsides were defrosted and the parts in contact with the glass container had begun to cook. This was disappointing, though not much different from results with our other microwaves, all of which performed inconsistently in this test.
Microwave defrosting seems to be more art than science, as it's inconsistent and can't defrost your food completely throughout without some parts beginning to cook. And let's not forget that people tend to appreciate microwave defrosting not so much for its performance as for its convenience. For delicate foods, it's best to defrost for an appropriate time in your refrigerator to ensure even thawing without accidental cooking.
While we had all of that defrosted chicken on our hands, I decided to try the Sharp's grill functions again and placed 1 pound of the chicken legs on the rack. Under the preset for grilling "chicken pieces" (vague and a bit gross-sounding), the microwave automatically set the timer for 17 minutes and 15 seconds. The result was "OK" chicken. It was a little rubbery, but not dry. Some of the skin was crisp, some was not. You may be intrigued by this technology but, then again, in 17 minutes, you could have better chicken legs from a traditional grill.
As I said in the beginning, the Sharp performed well about half the time. The Sharp's popcorn, potato, and frozen entree presets were terrible failures, while the pizza and grill presets worked as well as we expected. In the case of the burgers and omelets, the Sharp was a top performer. With the exception of pizza, the Sharp was either the top performer or the worst performer, an inconsistency that doesn't instill a lot of confidence.
On top of this inconsistency, the Sharp's $289.99 sticker price makes it the second most expensive microwave we tested in this group. In a perfect world this would be, consistently, the second-best performer. Sadly, we don't live in that place.
Conclusion
On the one hand, the grilling and convection functions are an added bonus to the traditional microwave. When they work, they're appreciated. But I can't see using this microwave in a way that would justify them, at least not very often. If you plan to use your microwave as a replacement appliance for all other appliances (I'm looking at you, dorm-dwellers), you might give the Sharp R-820JS some consideration. You'll have to set your own timers more often than not and not rely on presets, but you also won't have to go to the dining hall every time you have a hankering for a decent burger.
For the rest of us, the Sharp R-820JS' smaller capacity and inconsistent presets diminish its value. While it's not the most expensive microwave in the category, at $290 you should demand better functionality than from a $60 alternative. It's also troubling that for $10 more you can get the Panasonic NN-SD997S, and for $10 less you can get the Whirlpool WMC50522AS, both of which are larger units with more consistent performance records.
In short, the Sharp simply doesn't offer enough bang for your buck. Then again, with the exception of larger capacity, none of the models we tested in this set really distinguished itself from a basic $60 unit.