Challenging the King of Containers
Does Tupperware still rule the refrigerator when it comes to storing leftovers?
C
jBY ADAM RIED AND INDIA KOOPMAN k
irca 1950, leftovers were stored in
Tupperware . . . period. Today, some
50 years later, you can store leftovers
in any number of containers made
from plastic, glass, or metal that include features such as vacuum sealing, stain resistance,
locking lids, and special venting. For a device
as seemingly simple as a food storage container,
the variety can be daunting. We wanted to find
out if any of the newer models offered a higher
level of protection for your food, more useful
features, or significantly better design than the
time-honored “King of Containers.”
P HOTOG R A P H Y: VA N ACK E R E
Sink or Swim, Stink or Stain?
the containers for three days, microwaving it to
serving temperature (about three minutes), and
then immediately running the containers through
the dishwasher. Last, to replicate the ravages of
time, we ran the containers through 100 cycles in
the dishwasher and then repeated every test.
Pretenders to the Throne
Our lineup of 12 containers (plus one, see
“Containers Pulling Double Duty,” below)
included Tupperware, two Rubbermaid models
(Seal’n Saver and Stain Shield), several competing plastic containers, two inexpensive disposable
containers, two vacuum-sealing models, and
models made from ovensafe glass and metal.
The Genius VakSet container, with its pumpoperated vacuum seal, performed impressively in
the sink, shake, and stink tests, both when it was
brand new and after 100 washes. Nonetheless,
we have reservations about it, owing largely to
the extra step of pumping. Some testers considered this to be a hassle, and some found the
vacuum release system to be confusing. The
good news is that several other containers with
tight-fitting lids, particularly the Tupperware,
both Rubbermaid models, and the Tramontina
stainless steel, held their own against the vice grip
of the Genius.
The stink tests produced no clear pattern
“Food storage containers?” grimaced one test
kitchen skeptic. “Just how do you rate those?”
After much discussion, we came up with several
reliable, if slightly unconventional, methods to
test the seal between the container and its lid. The
“sink test” was first. We filled each container with
21⁄4 pounds of pie weights topped with a layer of
sugar, and, with the lid in place, submerged the
whole thing in water. Then we fished out the
container, dried it, and inspected the sugar inside.
Wet spots were immediately obvious because the
sugar clumped. To further assess the seal, we
devised the “shake test.” We filled each container
with 2 cups of canned chicken barley soup, fixed
the lid in place, and shook
vigorously. If we ended up Stress Tests for Containers
wearing soup, the seal wasn’t
tight enough.
Preventing the transfer of
food odors is also the job of
the seal between container and
lid. After all, you don’t want
your last few bites of chocolate
mousse to smell like the anchovies next to it in the fridge, do
you? To gauge odor protection, we conducted “stink
tests” by loading slices of white
sandwich bread into each container, closing the lid, and stor- These photos were taken in the test kitchen while we performed stress
ing them all in the fridge with a tests on the containers. The Waist Flip (left): This stress test involved
huge, uncovered bowl of diced tripping as we carried the containers to send them flying from chest height.
raw onions. Over the course of In several cases, the lid came off as the container somersaulted through
five days, we sniffed the bread the air. This container managed to survive the flip test and was caught by
daily to see if we could detect the tarp we had rigged up to “catch” the containers. The Counter Drop
(right): This stress test involved knocking containers filled with chili off the
any onion scent.
We chose chili to test stain counter to see if the lid would stay affixed. This container failed miserably,
resistance, refrigerating it in sending chili flying all over the tarp we had set up to protect the floor.
SEPTEMBER
&
OCTOBER
25
2003
among the odor control champs, including the
Genius, GladWare, Tupperware, Tramontina,
Betty Crocker, and the Rubbermaid Seal’n
Saver, which just edged out the Rubbermaid
Stain Shield. The Pyrex glass container was a
loser in both the stink and sink tests. Clearly, the
container and lid did not form a tight seal.
The results of the staining tests, on the other
hand, did reveal a pattern. The winners were
made of the hardest materials. The glass Pyrex and
stainless steel Tramontina containers proved stain
resistant, though the same cannot be said of the
latter’s plastic lid. Among the plastic containers,
those made from hard, clear polycarbonate (the
same material used for lightweight eyeglass lenses
and compact disks), including the Tupperware,
Rubbermaid Stain Shield, Genius, and Snapware,
resisted stains best in our tests. The remaining
plastic containers were made of polypropylene,
Containers Pulling Double Duty
We all do it. Most of our test kitchen staffers do it
(in the privacy of their home kitchens, of course).
And we bet you do it, too. We’re talking about storing leftovers in containers once used as packaging for
store-bought foods.
Take the yogurt container, for instance. Most
everyone we asked admitted to saving one or two
old yogurt (or sour cream) containers in which to
stash odd morsels of this and that in the fridge. This
practice naturally begs a question, though: How
well will a yogurt container serve you, especially
when compared with fancier receptacles designed
specifically for this purpose?
We put a yogurt container through our full battery of tests and can report that it makes a perfectly
serviceable choice when the swankier containers
are occupied. The seal held strong, preventing leaks
in nearly all of the tests and staving off the invasion
of unwelcome food odors when new (its ability
to block food odors was compromised after 100
trips through the dishwasher). Though it did stain
from the chili and go disturbingly soft and squishy
in the microwave (it did not melt or
become misshapen, however), we
found that a yogurt container does
just fine when it comes to basic food
storage tasks. —A.R. and I.K.
F I N E I N A P I N CH
This 1-quart container held its own
among stiff competition, but don’t drop
it and expect to salvage the contents.
which, according to Rob Krebs, a spokesperson
for the American Plastics Council, is a somewhat
softer polymer that seems more susceptible to
staining, as we observed in our tests.
The Throne Is Secure
To our surprise, several containers matched or
surpassed the performance of the reigning king,
Tupperware. Strictly speaking, the vacuum-sealed
Genius VakSet edged out the Tupperware by one
point in the performance tests. Despite this stellar performance, we’re still not sold on it. We
fear that some cooks will lose the pump, rendering the containers useless. Also, no one in our
test kitchen could figure out how to release the
vacuum seal without first reading the instruction
manual. To put it plainly, throwing leftovers into
the fridge shouldn’t be any hassle at all. With the
Genius, it is.
That’s why our nod goes to the Tupperware, followed closely by the two Rubbermaid models. Their
performance was excellent, and you don’t have to
think twice to use them. If you want something
more high-tech, the Genius is your container.
Stress Tests for Containers
Our testing procedures had produced some clear
winners—at least according to fairly normal kitchen
conditions. But what about when things go wrong?
Cooks and their equipment face a constant barrage
of bumps, bashes, falls, wallops, and, well, abuse.
To evaluate how our containers would fare
under unfortunate but common circumstances, we
intentionally dropped them in three different ways
designed to replicate the types of accidents that
take place in home kitchens every day. We dubbed
them the “stress tests.” We knocked chili-filled
containers off the edge of a counter; stumbled
while carrying the containers so as to flip them
over from waist height; and dropped the containers, frozen and filled with a solid block of ice, from
chest height, as if the container had slipped out of
our hands while pulling it from the freezer.
Not a single contender survived these unusual
tests unscathed, so we did not factor them into
the containers’ overall ratings. We will say this,
however: These tests taught us to handle our
food storage containers with care, especially
when they’re full.
Stress Test Scores
The durability rating is an average of the scores the containers received on three stress tests: the counter drop, the
waist flip, and the freezer drop. The highest scores went
to containers that bore no sign of damage and whose lids
remained firmly sealed, thus protecting the contents.
Tramontina Stainless Steel Gourmet Collection
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Lid popped off completely in freezer drop, but
neither it nor container was damaged.
Rubbermaid Seal’n Saver
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

In freezer drop, lid stayed in place, but container
cracked. Crack became almost seamless with lid
on, but we wouldn’t trust it to hold liquids.
Rubbermaid Stain Shield
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Lid separated from container in freezer drop, but
neither lid nor container was damaged.
Betty Crocker Servables
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

In freezer drop, lid remained on container, but
container itself cracked in two spots.
Sterilite Ultra Seal
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Undone by freezer drop. Lid popped off, and big
pieces broke off container, which cracked badly.
Genius VakSet
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Handles broke off in counter drop and flip
tests, but seal held tightly in both instances. Lid
separated completely from container in freezer
drop test, but neither was damaged.
GladWare Containers
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :
T H E F R E E Z E R D RO P
We dropped containers filled with a solid block
of ice from chest height to simulate a common
kitchen accident—a container falling out of the
freezer. Several containers, like the one shown
here, sustained serious damage.

Leaked bit of chili in flip test and picked up hole
in freezer drop test.
Pyrex Storage Plus
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Though glass did not break in counter drop, lid
came loose and small amount of chili oozed out.
Snapware Snap N’ Serve
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

This “guaranteed unbreakable” container failed
counter drop test. Piece of lid broke off, and
small amount (about 1⁄ 4 cup) of chili spilled out.
Tupperware Rock ’N Serve
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Bombed counter drop test, covering everything
with chili. Lid separated partially from container
in freezer drop, but no damage to it or container.
Ziploc Containers
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Lid popped off and chili spilled out in counter
drop. Sustained worst damage of any container
in freezer drop.
SK Enterprises Vacuum Seal
D U R A B I L I T Y:
CO M M E N TS :

Counter drop test was total mess: chili everywhere. Vacuum-seal mechanism broke in
freezer drop.
COOK’S
ILLUSTRATED
26
How We Performed Our Tests
These criteria apply to the chart on page 27.
We tested 12 food storage containers, all with a
capacity of about 2 quarts and a square or rectangular shape. Whenever possible, we chose containers available singly from open stock, but in some
instances we had to purchase sets. Containers are
listed in order of preference based on the ratings they
earned for performance when new, performance
after 100 trips through the dishwasher (used) in
the testing labs at Consumer Reports, and design.
PRICE: Prices paid in Boston-area stores, in national
mail-order catalogs, and on Web sites.
MATERIAL: Primary material from which the container
itself is made.
DISHWASHER INSTRUCTIONS: Manufacturer’s
recommendations regarding washing.
SPECIAL NOTES: Important notes on use or care.
PERFORMANCE, NEW: We performed four tests
on each brand-new container to determine the quality
of the seal between container and lid, the resistance of
the sealed container to food odors, and the resistance
of the container to staining. To test the seal between
container and lid, we filled the container with soup,
affixed the lid, and shook vigorously. Containers that
did not leak were rated good. In a second seal test,
we filled the containers with pie weights and enough
granulated sugar (which clumped when moistened)
to cover the weights and submerged the containers in
water for 2 minutes. Containers that did not leak were
rated good. To test for odor protection, we filled the
containers with sliced bread and placed them in the
refrigerator next to a large, open bowl of diced onions
for several days. We opened the containers daily to
smell the bread. Containers that protected the bread
from onion odor for 5 days were rated good. Finally, we
tested stain resistance by storing chili in each container
for 3 days, heating it in a microwave oven to hot serving
temperature, emptying the container, and running it
through one dishwasher cycle immediately afterward.
Containers that showed no staining were rated good.
PERFORMANCE, USED: To help us determine how
seal, odor protection, and stain resistance change
with use, technicians from the testing laboratories
at Consumer Reports put each container and lid
through 100 cycles in the dishwasher, per the manufacturer’s washing instructions (if any). Back in the
Cook’s Illustrated test kitchen, we then repeated
each of the four tests outlined in the “Performance,
New,” section above on the “used” containers.
DESIGN: During the course of testing, it became clear
that certain design features—such as handles or a wide
rim for easy carrying and lids flat enough to allow other
items to be stacked on top—make containers easier to
work with. Containers with either handles or a rim and
with flat lids were rated good.
TESTERS’ COMMENTS: These comments augment the
information in the chart.
RATINGS
GOOD: 
RATING FOOD STORAGE CONTAINERS
FAIR: 
POOR: 
Brand
H I G H LY R E CO M M E N D E D
Testing Criteria
Tupperware Rock ’N Serve Medium
Deep Container
M AT E R I A L :
Plastic/polycarbonate
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : None
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Open vent in lid to microwave
Rubbermaid Stain Shield Square Container
MATERIAL: Plastic/polycarbonate-derived resin
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S :
Vent lid to microwave
Genius VakSet: Four Vacuum
S P E C I A L N OT E S :
$12.99
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS :
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$4.99
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS :
$57.99



T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS : Impressive performance comes with some
caveats: hassle factor of extra pumping step; vacuum-release
method, which some may find unintuitive; containers rendered
essentially useless if pump is lost.
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$4.99
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS :
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$3.99
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS : Decent, easy-handling container that didn’t
stand up too well to submersion and staining tests. So don’t sink it,
and store tomato products in another container.
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$2.89
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS :
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$2.99



T E ST E R S ’ C O M M E N TS : Only odor protection was truly subpar;
bread smelled like onions at end of day one. We’re not crazy about
flimsy feel and lack of handles or rim, but you can’t argue with this
container’s performance. Stained less after 100 washings than when
brand new.
PRICE:
$3.29
T E ST E R S ’ C O M M E N TS :
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$19.97
T E ST E R S ’ C O M M E N TS : Cracked during 100 dishwasher cycles,
which impaired seal in submersion and odor protection tests. Has
handles, but too small to help much when moving container hot
from microwave. We’re concerned about durability.
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$29.75



T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS : Despite good performance on virtually all
tests because of its superhero seal, testers found it so difficult to affix
lid to container securely (and, occasionally, to remove it, too) that
we would avoid this model. Besides that, it’s not microwave safe.
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$5.99
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS :
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
$19.94
T E ST E R S ’ CO M M E N TS : Vacuum mechanism seemed flimsy and
fussy to operate. It failed us occasionally, especially if fine food
particles such as sugar got into seal. Then, midway through testing,
mechanism broke and never worked again.
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polycarbonate
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : None
Well designed (handles, flat lid, vent for
microwaving), with performance almost to match. We’re concerned about durability, though, as cracks developed during 100
dishwasher cycles. These cracks caused leaking during a second
submersion test. Some testers found it tricky to seal at first.
PRICE:
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
PRICE:
Storage Containers with Pump
Testers’ Comments






Handsome, sturdy container with wide rim
for easy handling. Lives up to marketing claims of stain resistance.
Odor control performance not perfect, though.
Lid cannot be microwaved
Rubbermaid Seal’n Saver
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : None



Staining was only problem encountered in
this sturdy container with excellent seal.
R E CO M M E N D E D W I T H R E S E R VAT I O N S
Betty Crocker Servables Container
MATERIAL: Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Vent lid to microwave
GladWare Containers/Deep Dish Size
(pkg. of 3)
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Vent lid to microwave
Ziploc Brand Containers/Large Rectangle
(pkg. of 2)
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Vent lid to microwave
Sterilite Ultra Seal
P E R F O R M A N C E , N E W:
PERFORMANCE, USED:
DESIGN:
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : None
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Vent lid to microwave
Snapware Snap N’ Serve: Clear Stainproof
Six-Piece Food Storage Container Set
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/Polycarbonate
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : None
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Guaranteed unbreakable












Despite some staining and minor leaking,
good overall performer, which surprised us given its flimsy feel. We
were shocked that its performance improved after 100 washings,
particularly in shaking test. A good value.
We were stunned that performance
improved with use, but it did. Less leakage, less staining, and better
odor protection after 100 dishwasher cycles.
N OT R E CO M M E N D E D
Tramontina Stainless Steel Gourmet
Collection Storage Containers
M AT E R I A L : Stainless steel
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Lid is top rack–safe only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Not microwave-safe
P HOTOG R A P H Y: VA N ACK E R E
Pyrex Storage Plus/Rectangle Dish with Lid
MATERIAL: Ovenproof glass
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : Top rack only
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Avoid severe temperature changes
SK Enterprises: Vacuum Seal Storage Containers
(set of 3)
M AT E R I A L : Plastic/polypropylene
D I S H WA S H E R I N ST R U C T I O N S : None
S P E C I A L N OT E S : Lid lever must be “up” to microwave
SEPTEMBER
&
OCTOBER
27






2003
Stain resistant for sure, but also heavy and
hard to handle when hot. Seals poorly. Odor protection was minimal, and we wouldn’t store liquids in it.