Editor Tests 5 TV Gadgets, Backs SodaStream and Scrub Buddi Over Foreman Grill

Q: Why did the legendary grill that made George Foreman $137 million completely fail a modern 2026 cooking test?

It failed because the modern George Foreman grill tested by Tom’s Guide did not perform like a true grill in the ways that mattered most: heat, searing, and steak results. In the 2026 test, the editor found the current model felt cheap and underpowered. On a steak test, it compressed the meat rather than searing it properly. The result was a poor cook: the outside was undercooked while the inside ended up overcooked. That is the opposite of what buyers want from a grill, especially for steak, where high heat and a strong crust are essential. The design that made the product famous also worked against it in this test. The George Foreman grill uses contact heating from both sides and a sloped surface meant to drain fat. That can be useful for quick, lean cooking, but it is less suited to producing the kind of intense, one-sided sear associated with better indoor grills or outdoor grilling. The editor’s verdict was that it remains a budget appliance, not a serious option for proper grilling. That negative result stands out because the brand is still hugely recognizable. The grill debuted in 1994, sold more than 100 million units, and Foreman reportedly earned about $137.5 million from the endorsement. Some other reviewers still rate it as a decent value indoor grill, but the Tom’s Guide test suggests the current version no longer lives up to its legendary reputation.

Q: Which viral 2000s infomercial gadget is actually a total waste of money compared to today's cheap alternatives?

The viral 2000s gadget that looks most like a waste of money today is the Slap Chop. In Tom’s Guide’s 2026 retest, the manual chopper struggled with exactly the jobs it was famous for: it jammed on moist foods like onions, delivered uneven cuts, and often created more work than simply using a knife. The reviewer’s bottom line was that it was more hassle than help. The broader product evidence points the same way. Current kitchen testing and buying guides show that today’s low-cost alternatives are simply better. Manual choppers such as the Mueller Pro-Series, OXO Good Grips, and similar models in the roughly $25 to $35 range are widely rated as more effective, easier to use, and more consistent. If buyers want less effort, compact electric options like the Cuisinart Mini-Prep Plus are also inexpensive and outperform old slap-style designs. The George Foreman grill also disappointed in the Tom’s Guide test, but it still retains some value as a cheap indoor grill and remains well regarded in some broader reviews. The Slap Chop has a weaker case because modern alternatives are not just somewhat better; they are better enough to make the old infomercial version hard to justify at all. So if the question is which viral infomercial gadget has been overtaken by cheap modern replacements, the evidence most strongly points to the Slap Chop.

3 articles · Updated · Tom's Guide · Aug 8

Five classic “As Seen On TV” gadgets were retested for 2026 value, and only three made the cut: Pocket Hose scored 4/5, JML Scrub Buddi 4.5/5, and SodaStream 5/5.
SodaStream stood out on running costs and practicality: a $52 starter kit makes sparkling water for about 28 cents per 500ml glass, while the USB-C rechargeable Scrub Buddi impressed on limescale cleaning and the Pocket Hose on storage and pressure.
George Foreman’s $39 grill and the $25 Slap Chop both scored 2/5, with the grill criticized for weak heat and poor searing, and the chopper for uneven cuts, jams and messy cleanup.
The Foreman review also highlighted how the product’s value proposition has shifted: its 1997 $49 price equals about $104 today, suggesting today’s cheaper build reflects a steep inflation-adjusted drop.
The test suggests some infomercial survivors still solve real household problems in 2026, while nostalgia alone is not enough to justify older kitchen gadgets.