A review of various attachments for an oscillating tool

Last year I posted a review of a multitool, and as everyone knows, without various saw blades, sanding attachments, and so on, it’s not much use around the house. So I decided to stock up on a range of attachments. Partly, this was thanks to a gift card I received from one of the websites; partly, I simply wanted to buy some useful things. Read on for the full story in this review.


As I mentioned, some of the attachments were bought with a gift card. The store had nothing to do with it: I received the card as a prize for winning a review contest. At first, I planned to limit myself to what I could buy with the card, but in the end I ordered almost everything they had in stock.
That’s why the link, which would normally take you to a specific product, goes to the store section containing almost all of these attachments. I’ll include direct links in the review itself. I think that makes more sense, since this review covers 36 products at once.
I ordered most of them one at a time, but bought a few items in pairs.

Of course, you’ll ask: why so many? It’s simple: I wanted to try them all, then figure out which attachments would come in handy and were worth buying more of, and which were pointless or didn’t meet my quality expectations.

My order arrived in several packages, since there were so many items and quite a few weren’t in stock right away.
In the end, I had this pile on my desk.


I was pleasantly surprised that:
1. They got nothing mixed up
2. They didn’t forget anything :)

In the end, I could barely fit everything laid out in the frame.


Before getting to the review, here’s a video showing how different attachments are used. It’s an ad, of course, from the well-known Fein, but it’s useful and interesting in its own way.


And here’s a short version explaining what a multitool is.


But today I’ll start the review not with a product, but with a brief explanation.
The tool known as a multitool or oscillating saw used to be made only by Fein, so compatibility between attachments was straightforward. As soon as other companies were able to make their own versions of the tool, things immediately got complicated when it came to the attachment mounting systems.
Some of the major brands quickly settled on the same type of mounting system, differing only in the clamping mechanism, not the shape of the mounting interface. These were Bosch, Makita, Milwaukee, and Skil.
Rockwell decided not to reinvent the wheel and used Fein’s mechanism outright, while Craftsman made something similar to Fein’s. The rest went their own way.
In my opinion, Bosch, Makita, Milwaukee, and Skil have the best attachment mounting system. The loads on this assembly are quite high, which is exactly why the attachments need to be secured properly. Any play in an attachment during use will simply wear out the locking mechanism.
Attachment manufacturers realized that a universal design was the way to go, and made the holes so these attachments would work with most of the tools on the market (and for that, they have my thanks).
So this is where things stand today: most attachments are universal and fit tools from the brands listed above.
There were rumors, though, that Bosch tried to introduce an alternative mounting system. After all, they’d like to sell not just the tools, but also the consumables—and how can they do that when everything is universal?


If your tool can’t use the common attachments, you can look for adapters. It’s not the best option, but it’s perfectly workable. Don’t forget to check that the attachments are securely fastened; I explained why above. If there’s even a little play, it’s better to look for another option. Tool repairs—especially for a branded tool—can be expensive.


The attachments I bought come with four mounting variations. The mounting interface itself is essentially the same, but there are a few differences:
1. Standard version.
2. Version with a slot at the back. It makes changing attachments a little easier: you don’t have to unscrew the locking screw all the way, just loosen it partway. It really helps.
3. Version with an extra hole at the front. It serves the same purpose as option 2, but is much less convenient. In my case, for example, the hole is slightly smaller than the screw head, so to slip the head through sideways, you have to unscrew the screw almost all the way.
4. Version with a large hole. It’s about as convenient as option 2, but because it may reduce rigidity, it can only be used on attachments with a large surface area, such as sanding attachments.


The thickness of the attachment shank can also make a difference, and sometimes it can be critical, so I recommend checking that too. The photo shows one of the thinnest attachments installed.
By the way, the mechanisms on Fein, Rockwell, and Craftsman tools allow only 8 mounting positions (at least with the attachments reviewed here), while the others offer 12, which is also convenient.


Now we can finally get to the review. At first, I planned to describe each attachment individually, but there are 36 of them, with at least 3 photos each—that's over a hundred photos just showing what they look like... No.
In the end, I simply sorted everything I received into groups. Another reason is that most attachments (saw blades, for example) differ only in the width of the cutting edge, while otherwise being identical, so I don't see the point in describing each one separately.

First up is a large group of saw blades. Cutting is probably one of the most common uses for a multitool. But even here, there are differences.

There are at least two types of blades: straight ones, like the one in this picture.


They're used for trimming and for cutting holes "in the middle of a wall."


And disc-shaped ones. They can be fully round or have one side cut off.


These blades are suitable for simple, straight cuts. Round ones are for ordinary surfaces; the ones with a flat side are for cutting right up against a wall or baseboard (or, more precisely, starting from the wall or baseboard).


Besides their shape, attachments (regardless of type) also differ in whether they're straight or offset. I mean the blade itself: the cutting area is either in the same plane as the mounting mechanism or offset by 10-15 mm. The second type is handy when working flush with a surface, since the clamp doesn't get in the way. You'll see this later in the review.

But there are also small differences within each blade type, so they can be divided into additional groups.

Group 1: saw blades with medium, straight teeth and no set (or very little).


These blades are handy because they make a thin, neat cut, but they're not very productive. They're also not very effective when cutting thick material, as the blade gets noticeably hot during use.
Next I'll list the dimensions, current price, and a link.
The dimensions are: distance from the cutting edge to the center of the mounting hole, width of the cutting edge, thickness of the cutting edge, and shank thickness. For round attachments, the first dimension is the radius instead. To avoid unnecessary text, I'll just list the numbers.

1. 80/65/1.25/0.8 mm. YYP - 651K, $1.78, link
2. 80/45/1.25/0.8 mm. YYP - 451C, $2.15, link
3. 80/65/1.25/0.8 mm. YYP - 6C1K, $1.33, link
4. 44/88/1.25/1.0 mm. YYP - 8C4C, $2.21, link
5. 80/10/1.25/0.8 mm. YYP - 101K, $1.85, link
6. 40/80/0.8/0.8 mm. YYP - 804C, $3.91, link


As I said, the teeth are straight, with no set, about 1 mm long, and reasonably sharp.


There's one interesting detail, though. The photo above shows two disc-shaped blades, one straight and the other curved (if that's the right word). The straight one is completely ordinary, with the same thickness across its entire surface. But the one with a raised section for the mounting mechanism caught my eye. You can see in the photo that there's a rim along the edge, which increases the tooth width to 1 mm, even though the blade itself is 0.8 mm thick. This is to make cutting easier, since the teeth have no set.
The sharpening on this blade also had a few minor flaws, visible in the photo, though they didn't really affect cutting.


The multitool with one of the blades installed.


An example of cutting pine paneling. Of course, all of this will be in the video, but I decided to add photos for more detail.
The cut is fine, no complaints.


I made several cuts like this: one for the video, one for the photo, and a couple of "practice" cuts. The blade shows no signs of wear.


This blade looks like one of the ones I showed above, but it has one significant difference.
First, the dimensions.
50/100/1.25/1.0 mm. YYP - AC1K, $3.07, link

There's also a difference in blade thickness. The previous ones were 0.8 mm thick, while this blade is thinner, at 0.65 mm, but its cutting edge is 1.0 mm wide.




But here's the difference: the teeth on this blade are set. You can see this from the difference between the blade thickness and the width of the cutting edge.
The teeth need to be set so the blade doesn't bind while cutting. The tradeoff is a wider kerf: 1 mm here, compared with 0.8 mm.


By the way, the teeth can be set in different patterns. A common one is the so-called “standard set,” where every other tooth is set, with one tooth left unset between them. As far as I know, this is usually used on wood saws.
Alternative patterns:
“Raker set”: the teeth are set alternately. This type is quite versatile.
“Wave set”: the teeth are set at different angles to form a wave. I’ve seen this type of set on hacksaw blades.

There is also a “progressive” set and tooth pattern, where the teeth vary in height as well as being set. But I haven’t come across any blades like that for a multi-tool.


And this is what it looks like on the blade itself.


The cut isn’t much different from the previous one; it cuts a little faster.


But the blade suffered a little more during the experiments. Though “suffered” is a bit of an exaggeration: the paint came off.


Next up are blades with fine teeth.
1. 80/65/1.25/1.0 mm. YYP - 652C, $2.42, link
2. 80/45/1.25/1.0 mm. YYP - 452K, $2.58, link


The teeth on the previous blades were about 1 mm high; here they’re about 0.7 mm. Fine teeth like these are most often used on blades for cutting metal.


These also have a “wave” set, which further suggests that the blade is intended for cutting metal. The sharpening is mediocre, and for some reason the teeth themselves have been painted too.


Ideally, I should have tested this blade by cutting some kind of metal, but I got a little confused during the test and tried it on wood instead.
What can I say—it cuts. Not as well as the previous ones, but it cuts.


This blade suffered more than the previous ones; the paint came off quite noticeably. It’s clear that wood isn’t the best material for it.


And here’s a very interesting type of blade. I’m not exaggerating when I say I liked it best of all.


1. 80/65/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 653K, $2.29, link
2. 80/45/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 453H, $2.46, link
3. 80/32/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 323K, $2.19, link
4. 80/32/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 3C3K, $1.84, link


These blades have what’s known as “Japanese teeth.” Not because the teeth on these blades are made in Japan, but because this tooth shape was first used by the Japanese.


There are two key differences: tooth size and sharpening style. This tooth design is primarily intended for high cutting speed while still producing a fairly clean cut. One drawback is that this tooth shape is suitable only for cutting relatively soft materials, especially wood such as pine.
The teeth here are about 2.6 mm high, compared with 0.7–1.0 mm on the previous blades. They’re also angled, so the blade cuts on the stroke in one direction, rather than in both directions like the previous ones.


Here’s a quote from an interesting article about saws like these.



In addition to the standard tooth set, there is also a slight side-to-side set that makes cutting easier.


The cut on the surface came out well, but I couldn't cut straight on the inside; the blade sometimes wandered to the side. Still, that's more a matter of getting used to it than a problem with the tool.


Don't be alarmed: the blade in the photo isn't after cutting 4-5 pieces of siding. I used it to cut through my test board twice; its cross-section was 145x45 mm, clearly larger than a typical piece of siding :)
The process is shown in the video. I actually cut the board once for the video, but then discovered that the camera's memory card was full, so I had to do a second take and cut the board again :) It was only after the second cut that the blade lost one of its teeth :(


Another type: a blade with fine, angled teeth.


1. 80/20/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 201C, $1.90, link
2. 80/32/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 322C, $1.65, link
3. 80/32/1.25/1.1 mm. YYP - 3C2C, $2.58, link



This one has angled teeth. I always thought this type of tooth geometry, especially combined with a wavy set, was used for metal. But the store page says the first one is for drywall/plastic, and the second for wood. There's no information at all about the third, although the blades differ only in shape.


The teeth have a wavy set, and the sharpening is rather mediocre. I was personally disappointed.


I used this blade to test cutting aluminum. The test piece was a 100 mm-wide threshold with internal ribs. One downside was that although the cut itself went fine, the blade started jumping around during the cut, scraping off some of the coating.


The blade itself got clogged with chips, but otherwise came through unscathed, which surprised me a little :)


This blade even looks different. The previous ones were painted black, but this one has no paint at all.
80/32/1.15/0.7 mm. YYP - 320C, $1.92, link

A quick note about the dimensions. The blade is 0.6 mm thick, compared with 0.8 mm for the previous ones. At the cutting edge it's 0.7-0.75 mm thick, versus about 1 mm for the previous blades.


The teeth are quite sharp, although the sharpening may not look particularly neat.


The teeth have a group set, alternating every other tooth. I'll point out again that the blade is thin despite having a set. In other words, this set blade makes a narrower cut than a regular blade without a set.


The store page says the blade is suitable for fiberglass, CFRP, wood, and metal. I tested it on a piece of laminate and laminated particleboard.
I couldn't find a large piece of laminate, so I tried it on what I had. I had no complaints about the cut, either in the laminate or the particleboard.



I cut the laminate and particleboard three times each and didn't notice any changes to the blade itself. Of course, I could have done more testing, but I only have one of these blades and didn't want to ruin it.


A few more photos.
A comparison of the tooth sizes on the blades from the first and second sections. I wrote then that the teeth were the same size; the only difference was that the second blade had set teeth.
The second type is on top, the first on the bottom.


And a general comparison of the tooth sizes on all the blades.


And now we've come to another type of blade: abrasive ones. These blades have either carbide or diamond grit coating and are intended for working with tiles and hard materials.

First up is a blade with a diamond coating, supposedly intended for cutting ceramic tiles.


I ordered two blades that differ only in size.


Both blades are designed for flush cutting. They’re also the most expensive blades in my "collection."

1. 44/88/1.25/2.2 mm. YYP - 8C8C, $4.43, link
2. 32/64/1.25/2.2 mm. YYP - 638C, $3.68, link


At a glance, the coating looks very thin. In fact, the blade is 1.1 mm thick at the base and 2.2 mm with the coating, which works out to about 0.55 mm per side—not bad at all.


The small blade looks like a toy on the tool. I think the main advantage of this design is reduced oscillation amplitude, since the oscillation frequency is adjustable but the angle isn’t.


I don’t know whether it’s the tile or the fact that my blades are "the wrong kind," but they don’t want to cut tile—well, hardly at all. I didn’t experiment for very long, but long enough to see that they’re not very suitable for tile.


The coating wasn’t damaged at all, though it did get a little clogged with ceramic dust. But I eventually found a use for these blades: cleaning out tile grout lines.


The second type has a carbide coating. This coating is less wear-resistant than diamond, but it’s perfectly suitable for lighter-duty work.


One possible use is cleaning grout out of tile joints.


This time I "went all out" and ordered a bunch of different versions. Though most differ only in the shape and width of the cutting edge.


There are a lot of them in the photo above, but I actually bought only five versions; I just bought some of them in pairs.



1. 72/70/1.25/2.3 mm. YYP - CC7C, $3.30 link
2. 60/60/1.25/2.45 mm. YYP - C07C, $3.03, link
3. 45/88/1.25/2.2-2.6 mm. YYP - 887C, $4.43, link
4. 32/62/1.25/2.35 mm. YYP - 637C, $3.21, link
5. 70/33/1.25/2.85 mm. YYP - 327C, $2.51, link


On close inspection, it looks as if they used chips left over from machining something more valuable to make the coating :)


By chance, the one in the photo above has the thickest coating, though "coating" is hardly the right word for these chips.
The coating on the others is a little thinner. By the way, its thickness was exactly what made me question how useful these would be. That’s why I decided to use the diamond blade to clean out the grout lines. The diamond blade has a uniform coating thickness, while these can easily vary by +/-0.25 mm. And even the 2.2 mm diamond blade won’t fit into every grout line, since some are only about 1.0-1.5 mm wide.


A comparison of the thick "coating" and the "thin" one found on the other attachments.


Mounted on the tool.


I started the cut with the diamond blade and finished it with the carbide one, but I was left with the impression that the carbide blade cut the tile better. Still, neither type was suitable for cutting tile.


The coating was unchanged, just clogged with dust.


But after removing a layer of cement, the changes are much more noticeable. Though, while working with the cement, I did end up removing part of the screed too :)


At first I couldn't find a brick for the review to demonstrate cutting, but thanks to a kind person, I got one for the experiments :)
You'll see the process in the video; for now, I'll just show you a photo of the result.


If there is any wear, it's not very noticeable. The lower blade was unchanged after the screed test, although the upper one had already taken some damage before cutting the brick.


The next type of attachment is a grinding pad with a carbide coating.


This type of attachment is most often used for working over a surface, for example, preparing an area when replacing ceramic tiles or grinding hard surfaces.


I bought a couple of these attachments in different shapes.


The second attachment is also double-sided, meaning it has a coating on both sides of the base. The first is handy for large areas, while the second is better for corners and hard-to-reach places.
1. 47/80/1.25/2.3 mm. YYP - 807C, $3.82 link
2. 92/35/1.25/3.25 mm. YYP - 3C7C, $3.58, link


The coating is the same kind of “grit” as on the previous versions.



Here it is mounted on the tool.


For the first test, I tried grinding a ceramic tile—more specifically, the corner of its short side. It does grind, but slowly.


The coating has only become lighter from the dust; there are no other changes.


For the second test, I tried preparing a spot on the floor for a new tile, 30 x 30 cm (if I remember correctly), by grinding the floor screed.
Sorry about the photo. I did my best, but it's still hard to see.


The result is much more noticeable here. The coating itself has barely changed, but it's clogged up badly with cement dust.


Since I've mentioned sanding pads, I should say that I also bought some regular “sandpaper” sheets that attach to special holders.


While preparing the review, I found out that there are some rather unusual versions of these holders, too. The previous ones attach with hook-and-loop fasteners, while these have a special clamp.


They're designed for sanding grooves. I think I'll get some for myself too—might come in handy :)


Anyway, I bought four types of holders, and four types of “sandpaper” to go with them.


The first type is quite well known: ordinary “triangles.” They're made of a metal base with a hook-and-loop surface that the abrasive sheet attaches to.
1. 82 mm. YYP - 805C, $2.13, link
2. 93 mm. YYP - 935K, $1.45, link


The first version is solid; the second has holes, which are supposed to help remove dust from the work area—or at least that's the idea.
The abrasive sheets in both sets are identical; the only difference is their size.
Each set contains 25 sheets, divided into five-sheet packs, in grits of 60/80/120/180/240.

1. 82 mm. YYP - 80S, $2.81, link
2. 93 mm. YYP - 90S, $3.71, link



The second pair is a little different. I bought a round base and a very narrow one, just in case. The first is for large surfaces with no corners or tight spots; the second is for hard-to-reach places only.

1. 115 mm. YYP - B55C, $3.38, link
2. 32 mm. YYP - 325K, $2.11, link


For the round backing plate, I bought a set of 20 sanding discs, 60/80/120/180 grit. The description actually listed as many as seven options, but that was clearly a mistake.
For the narrow backing plate, I got the same set as last time: 25 pieces, 60/80/120/180/240 grit, five of each type.
1. 115 mm. YYP - B5S, $4.36, link
2. 32 mm. YYP - 32S, $1.66, link


Although all the abrasive sheets are listed as being the same size as the backing plates, they are actually about 2–4 mm larger. They hold reasonably well, but when I tried sanding and then removing one from the backing plate, I found it wasn't so easy to pull off—it really does hold firmly.


They attach to the tool in the standard way, but the round one had glue residue inside that looked a bit like expanding foam.


I liked the triangular version with holes the most. The smaller one isn't particularly useful; you're better off buying more "sanding sheets" for it.


By the way, besides regular abrasive sheets, there are other options, such as abrasive sponges and felt pads. The former are for cleaning off dirt, the latter for polishing.


I tested the sanding sheets on the same pine board as before, which, fortunately, hadn't been sanded yet.
The left side is before sanding, the right side after.


Overall, I can say I was quite happy with the result. The surface became fairly smooth, and I wouldn't say I had to put much effort into it, even though the board was pretty rough to begin with.


And finally, one more very interesting and useful type of attachment: scrapers. They look like simple sharpened strips of metal—which is exactly what they are, except they have a hole for attaching them to a multitool.
They come in different shapes, but convex and concave ones are the most common. The former are for flat surfaces, the latter for pipes and similar things.


Above are the most common types. There are also some with slightly different shapes, but the basic idea is the same.


They are used for various jobs, such as removing old glue and paint.


Or removing sealant.


I happened to find out that there's even a special attachment for removing car windows.


Since I work with flat surfaces much more often, I bought a pair of convex scrapers. The only difference is that one is flat, while the other has a slight offset so it can work flush with the surface.

1. 55/52/0.65 mm. YYP - 520C, $1.54, link
2. 53/52/0.65 mm. YYP - 5C0C, $1.54, link


The build quality leaves a lot to be desired, but I have no complaints about the sharpening—they're sharp. By the way, when I wanted to buy scrapers like these locally last year, I couldn't find any. I came across a concave one in one shop, but it was quite expensive, and I didn't need a concave one anyway.



This scraper was used in the tests.


I didn't have much to scrape off, so I tested it on the same long-suffering board, using the scraper like an electric knife. I figured that if it could handle that, it would work fine for other jobs too.


I should mention that, just like when I sawed off a piece of the board, I had to do this experiment twice. I wrote above that while filming, I ran out of space on the flash drive and didn't notice until too late.
After two tests, the cutting edge was practically unchanged.


Video of all the "tests". I didn't add the explanation to the video itself, so I'll provide the timestamps separately.
00.00-00.42 - YYP-8C4C, medium straight teeth, no set
00.42-01.08 - YYP-AC1K, medium straight teeth, with set
01.08-01.46 - YYP-452K, fine straight teeth with wavy set
01.46-02.19 - YYP-453H, Japanese teeth
02.19-03.56 - YYP-322C, fine angled teeth with wavy set.
03.56-04.34 - YYP-8C8C, diamond-coated blade
04.34-05.25 - YYP-887C, carbide-coated blade
05.25-06.02 - YYP-807C, triangular carbide-coated sanding attachment
06.02-07.58 - YYP-935K, triangular sanding attachment with sandpaper
07.58-08.47 - YYP-5C0C, offset blade.
08.47-10.30 - YYP-453H, Japanese teeth, thick board
10.30-11.24 - YYP-8C8C, diamond-coated blade, tile grout
11.24-15.18 - YYP-327C, carbide scraper, removing mortar
15.18-17.01 - YYP-807C, triangular carbide-coated sanding attachment
17.01-18.07 - YYP-CC7C, carbide attachment, cutting brick
18.07-19.52 - YYP-327C, carbide scraper, cutting into brick

About cutting the board: in this case, “cut” is putting it a bit strongly; it was more like gnawing through it. The plunge depth is clearly insufficient, so I had to cut from both sides—and the first time I did it, the result was noticeably neater.
While cutting the brick, I decided to try cutting tile once more. Nope, it won't do it.



Now, my impressions after trying the different blades.
1. I liked the Japanese-tooth blades best.
2. Plunging perpendicular to the surface. It can be done, but definitely not freehand. I tried plunging a 10 mm-wide blade into a piece of tongue-and-groove paneling—no chance. Into a board, no problem.
3. Diamond-coated blades. I only found them useful for cleaning out tile grout, mainly because they're so thin.
4. Carbide blades: convenient, practical, and fairly durable. But you don't need such a wide selection; 2-3 pieces are enough, though it's better to get a couple of each.
5. Abrasive sanding attachments. I liked them; I think I'll get some polishing attachments too.
6. Carbide sanding attachment. Let's put it this way: it sands pretty well, but it's awkward to sand the area for a tile—the multitool's battery hits the floor.
7. Blades. Very useful things; you need at least one.
8. For cutting tile, you need branded blades; the ones reviewed here won't cut it.
9. Blades without set don't seem particularly useful to me, so I don't think they're worth spending money on. Much better to buy the YYP-320C—the last blade. It's not black, and it's great.

I also realized that a 1.5 Ah battery for a multitool isn't just too small—it's catastrophically small. One charge is enough to replace two tiles, three at most. For comfortable work, you really need 2 x 4-5 Ah batteries plus a charger.

Of course, you'll ask: what about buying locally? I wrote last time that the selection is pretty limited. For example, one of our largest stores carries either branded blades at $10-20 apiece, or a modest set roughly on par with the one in this review, for about the same price, maybe a little less. By the way, if you're going to buy some, it might be better to start with a set.
Naturally, I'm talking about where I live; things may be different elsewhere.

Last time I also mentioned that I bought one blade out of curiosity, and now I'll try to compare it briefly with a similar blade from the review.
I couldn't find an identical one, so I had to get the closest match I could.
So, the store-bought blade is on the left. It cost 80 or 85 UAH (about $3.25) when I bought it; the blade from the review costs $3.07.
The store-bought one has finer teeth, somewhere between the fine and medium teeth in the review, but it has a group set rather than a wavy set. That's why I chose the blade shown in the photo for comparison.
Both have straight teeth.
The store-bought blade is slightly smaller in diameter, though that's easy to see in the photo.
Both are listed as HCS, while some of the blades in the review are listed as HSS, although I have my doubts about whether the stated material is correct.
A reminder:
HCS (high carbon steel) — high-carbon steel, hardness 45-48 HRC, for working with soft materials such as wood, particleboard, fiberboard, and plastics.
HSS (high speed steel) — high-speed steel, hardness 61-65 HRC, for working with harder materials such as mild steel, aluminum, and other non-ferrous metals. Compared with HCS blades, HSS blades are thinner and much harder.


Now for the more interesting part. The store-bought blade is on the left, the one from the review on the right. I used the store-bought one to cut tongue-and-groove paneling in the review (and several times before that) and an aluminum heatsink; I used the one from the review only on the paneling, about four times.
You can clearly see that the paint on the store-bought blade has barely worn off, unlike the one from the review. Their cutting speeds are about the same. And, judging by the description above, neither is suitable for working with metal, but the store-bought one handled it without any problems. The reviewed blade's teeth look a little sharper, at least to me.

So why did I end up buying the one in the review instead of going to the store? Well, I'll probably go to the store again, but price was part of the reason. When I bought it, the reviewed blade cost $2.71, not $3.07. Also, since I was among the first five buyers (or, more precisely, the only one), I got another $0.80 back in points. On top of that, I used a coupon for 8% off the entire range, so the blade ended up costing me $1.71, which I think is quite reasonable. If it had cost the full $3.07, I definitely would have bought it somewhere else.


I can already see another question coming: what’s the bare minimum you need? Here’s my answer in picture form.
In my opinion, this is pretty much everything you need “for home and family.”


Brief summary:
For the most part, I liked the attachments, though there were a few exceptions. If I were ordering now, I wouldn’t get such a wide variety. I’d order fewer types, but several of each. For example, a couple of sanding bases (a 92 mm triangular one and a narrow one) and more blades—about three each with Japanese teeth, fine teeth, and for metal. I wouldn’t order any without a split or with angled teeth at all.
I liked the carbide-grit blades, but the diamond ones were disappointing. They’re certainly durable, but they wouldn’t cut what I’d planned to use them for. As I mentioned in the review, though, I’d order one for grout lines. For the carbide-grit ones, I’d get three types instead of five (a disc, a straight blade, and a quarter-round blade), but several of each.
I’d also order several knives. You can sharpen them at home, but it’s useful to have a few spares.
As I’ve already mentioned, it’s worth getting one or two circular blades with medium teeth. They come in handy when working on long cuts. They’re better value, since they cost almost the same but have a longer cutting edge.
Once you’ve figured out exactly what you need and what’s most comfortable to work with, you can buy the same blade from a brand-name manufacturer, such as Dremel, Bosch, DeWalt, and so on.


I managed to save quite a bit on this purchase. The store gives you points for reviews with photos, and since I had a lot of items and my reviews were among the first five, I got about $30 back in points (36 items at $0.80 each). Of course, not everyone will get that much, but getting $0.40 per item is quite realistic. That’s partly why I ordered many items one at a time—it works out better that way :) And don’t forget the various coupons. If you look around, you can find one for 8% off. The instagramm coupon used to work, I think, but I don’t know if it still does.

That’s all for now. As always, I’m looking forward to your questions and comments.