The idea came from a simple frustration: every time we needed to evaluate a new liquid handler or plate reader, we were stuck relying on vendor demos and conference gossip. There’s no neutral, structured place where scientists share honest feedback on the equipment they actually use daily. So I built one.
What it includes:
130+ instruments catalogued across liquid handling, plate readers, centrifuges, dispensers, and more
Reviews across 6 dimensions: ease of use, reliability, durability, API quality, customer support, and value for money
Verified reviewer badges for institutional and LinkedIn sign-ins
Fully transparent scoring methodology, no black box
Free forever, no ads, no vendor influence
It’s completely free. The goal is simple: the next lab manager deciding between two $300K liquid handlers deserves honest peer feedback, not a sales pitch.
Since I built this largely on my own, there are definitely gaps in the catalog, missing instruments, and things that could be better. If you try it and something is missing or doesn’t feel right, I’d genuinely appreciate the feedback.
And if you’ve used any of the instruments in the catalog, even a short review would mean a lot and help the community enormously.
Feel free to share with your lab or network if you think it’d be useful
Thank you @evwolfson, would really appreciate your input, this would greatly help the community.
That is a great question and concern. There are actually multiple layers in place that would prevent this from happening. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest upon submission (such as working for the manufacturer). We also capture submission metadata internally so we can detect patterns like multiple reviews origination from the same corporate network. (See https://labunboxed.com/privacy) . Finally, reviews from users with ‘disclosed conflicts’ are handled separately from the score so they don’t inflate ratings.
Price estimates are primarily based on new purchase prices, whether that is OEM or 3rd party purchases, this is why the range can be so big. There are many cases where this data is not available and prices are estimated based off used/resale sites.
Seriously, any feedback is welcome. I really believe this could be extremely helpful to others, if you have any issues or ideas on how to make reviews easier let me know!
What do you think about giving people the option to discuss the review (ask questions, share tips for problem solving if the reviewer has experienced those and so on)?
Great idea - Wish you success. I have submitted some of our instruments for you.
Only suggestion would be that you could expand the website to include consumable items too.
Thank you so much for adding those , really appreciate it! Will give it serious thought! The only issue right now is these wouldn’t map nicely to the current review dimensions, so would have to create a new rating system. Thank you for the support!
This is great, thank you for making this. I’ll be contributing some reviews!
I wonder if it would be good to add an optional section of “nuances” or “important things to know” that one only finds out after years of working with the device. Sometimes nuances aren’t necessarily pros or cons, just “things to keep in mind”. As an example: “This plate sealer works really well, note that the nest has tall sides so you will need to grip your plate higher up on the skirt”
Really appreciate it @Brad , looking forward to your reviews! That’s a great idea! That example is great and it can save someone else an afternoon of troubleshooting, I will definitely add this to the roadmap (probably soon since its a small addition)/
@silvioo this is a fantastic resource - thank you. In my field, Qiagen robotics have often been used (qiacube, qiagilities, EZ1/2, qiasymphony) - in case you wanted to add another manufacturer (though many are shifting towards Hamilton/Tecan etc). Once again thank you!
