Competitive Hands-On Test Report: Five All-in-One Printers with Factory-Equipped CISS (Ink Tanks)

by Terry Wirth · Published August 16, 2016 · Updated February 8, 2018

On the other hand, we found that with the Epson factory-equipped CISS printers, there is the potential that users can realize some savings for ink. However, we found that adding ink was messy, printing was exceedingly slow, features sets were limited (no duplex printing, no mobile printing, etc.), and print quality was only suitable for internal distribution purposes (note Epson states prints are not fade-resistant, so they will not be suitable useful for archival purposes). Consequently, we determined that there were limited applications for the tested Epson L101 and L210 CISS printers.

State of CISS Technology

Since that initial and adventuresome test of CISS, several OEM vendors have introduced factory-equipped CISS printers and AiOs to their product lines. Thankfully, this eliminates the need for the generally inferior and ineffective CISS add-on kits. Moreover, Epson has introduced new and improved second-generation models to their product line.

Test Results, Observations and Summary

Installation and Setup

All of the devices were easy to install, and the main differences for installation were the amount of internal printer packaging, the ease of filling ink, print-head installation requirements, and ink-priming times. Even though the Canon and HP test units had comparatively quick ink priming, they both required additional time to install and calibrate the print heads. For maximum details, consult the links below and view the unboxing and setup videos.

Maintenance

Aside from the extra steps required to fill the Brother paper cassette, the remainder of the test units had rear-mounted paper trays that were very easy to fill. On the other hand, although no misfeeds occurred during testing, the Brother unit was the only unit in this group that had a back misfeed-access port.

The greatest differences of all were in the ink-filling processes: the Canon unit was the easiest overall, but there are prominent warnings that if the printer runs out of ink, the printer will become damaged; with the HP unit, in spite of aggressive ink-bottle seals, it had the second-easiest ink handling of all, as the vented ink tanks facilitated gravity feeding and feature built-in protection to prevent de-priming when a tank reaches empty, which ensures that full anti-spill bottles of ink can always be added, and printing can immediately commence as no re-priming is necessary; and the Brother unit was easy to fill, but the small cello seal was somewhat difficult to remove, the pack-in ink did not fill the ink tanks (the other units did), and each ink bottle carries a prominent warning stating that the ink life in open bottles is only 180 days. Finally, with the second-generation Epson units, the ink-filling process was the most likely to result in ink spatter and inky fingers.

Software

The Canon unit provides a wide variety of creative and setup utilities, and the Brother unit was close behind. The HP unit provides the most lightweight and easy-to-use software suite that includes the platform-wide Printer Assistant and Embedded Web Server. Inexplicably, the Epson test units featured the bare minimum of software (there was no master control utility), although it is equipped with powerful scan drivers.

Print Productivity

With the overall fastest print/copy output (ppm) for all tested document types, the Brother unit provided the best overall print productivity, followed closely by the HP AiO. On the other hand, the second-generation Epson units displayed much improved print productivity over their predecessors. Finally, in spite of Canon’s traditional focus on print productivity, the Canon unit’s print productivity lagged behind that of the others.

Print Quality

Overall, the print quality of CISS printers has improved markedly since our last test. Moreover, since Brother is not known for state-of-the-art print quality, it was surprising to see it tie with HP and Canon at the top of the rankings. Finally, the print quality of the second-generation Epson units has dramatically improved, but still lags behind the others. Nevertheless, all of the test units provided print quality that was sufficient for personal and light office use.

Feature Analysis

All of the test units provide basic color AiO capabilities. As far as software is concerned, aside from differences in the quantity of software installed, the fact that Brother and Canon offer file-management capabilities did not have a major effect on the rankings. The most significant differences are in the physical design of the test units—that is, the ink-filling systems, control panels, and paper input/output trays. Additionally, both the Canon and HP units have user-replaceable print heads, while the others have built-in print heads that require professional service or printer replacement in the event of a malfunction. In this case, HP edged out Canon and Brother, while the second-generation Epson units lagged behind.

Build Quality

Build quality is a subjective in-hand process, but all of the test units aside from the Brother unit (which has a flimsy paper tray and platen cover) felt comparatively sturdy during use.

Transportability

Care must be taken when transporting all CISS ink-tank units, as the ink can potentially spatter very badly. All units must remain level, but with some units it is recommended that the user re-pack them in the original shipping cartons for transportation. This means the original packaging and contents must be saved and stored. The HP unit earned the top ranking due to its permanently attached tank and ink shut-off mechanism. Meanwhile the second-generation Epson units earned the lowest rankings due to their detachable ink tanks, repacking recommendations, and the lack of ink-shut-off mechanisms found on the second-generation units. Finally, the transportability of the Brother and Canon units fell somewhere in between.