I thought I'd share some observations on comparisons of the KafaTek Monolith MC5 and Eureka Atom 75. My MC5 arrived from KafaTek a day before a planned trip to my summer cottage. So, I brought it with me. I keep an Atom 75 at the cottage, that I'm very familiar with, and have been comparing the grinders for a little over a week. I finally feel like I've reached a conclusion from some consistent patterns.

First, I'll mention that I drink mostly med-dark espresso and americanos. My bias with these drinks is for a blended and textured syrupy shot. All my comparisons were 1:1-1:1.5 ristrettos made into 5-ounce Americanos to reduce the intensity and help tease out flavor differences. I made the shots on a compact E61 with flow control, but most shots were pulled with a flat 9-bar profile.

Workflow: These are, obviously, very different grinders.

Atom 75: For an on-demand grinder the Atom 75 has the best workflow I've experienced. I also have a Ceado E37S with worm gear adjustment. I find the Atom 75 easier to dial in and it is faster and quieter than the Ceado. Once the Atom is dialed in it excels at dispensing super fast doses (18 grams in 3-4 seconds). It's a joy to use unless you want to change coffees.

MC5: The Kafatek is quieter and slower than the Atom, making a pleasant rumbling grinding noise, easy to talk over in a normal speaking voice. It grinds at approximately 1g/sec. My only other experience with a single-dose grinder is with a Niche Zero (which I hope to compare the MC5 with soon). The MC5 is designed to dispense directing into a portafilter, rather than a catch cup, a workflow I prefer. The build quality is excellent, far surpassing the Niche. Everything feels exceptionally solid. It's also a joy to use.

[edit]: The MC5 also seems to need a bit of RDT. That might go away after seasoning, depending on humidity.

Taste: I didn't notice any big flavor differences that immediately smacked me in the face. Initially I would have had no chance at correctly identifying the grinders. The differences were subtle until I learned what to focus on. After a few days and several coffees I noticed a consistent difference that helped me pick out each grinder relatively easily. The MC5 tends to greater emphasize chocolate characteristics in the coffees tested and produce a significantly reduced bitter finish, almost to the point of non-existence. As the coffees cooled, cups from the Atom 75 showed a tendency to lose sweetness and begin to sour a little, whereas the MC5 retained the rich chocolate forward flavors. That difference in the cooled cup, and the relative lack of bitterness and astringency, made it pretty easy to pick out the MC5. The texture and body was very similar between grinders, with maybe a slight edge to the Kafatek, but very close. I don't think I could pick one coffee from the other focusing only on body.

Conclusion: They definitely taste different. Based on my preferences the MC5 has an edge over the Atom 75, I do like the reduced bitter finish and chocolate emphasis. But it's obviously subjective. I never had any complaint with the cups I'd been getting from the Atom these last few years, it was only in side-by-side comparisons that I noticed some characteristics that were less desirable.

Addendum: Please note that the MC5 has not been fully seasoned, just a couple pounds through, shots are continuing to improve.

Thanks for nice comparison! Now would be interesting to see anyone doing the same comparison with light-medium roasts!

retireddude wrote:For an on-demand grinder the Atom 75 has the best workflow I've experienced. I also have a Ceado E37S with worm gear adjustment. I find the Atom 75 easier to dial in and it is faster and quieter than the Ceado. Once the Atom is dialed in it excels at dispensing super fast doses (18 grams in 3-4 seconds). It's a joy to use unless you want to change coffees.

Thanks for the write up. I very much enjoyed reading it.

I was surprised to read that you thought the atom was easier to dial in than the Ceado. I had the opposite opinion. I find the eureka isn't too bad when always going in the same direction - Ex finer, then finer, then finer again - but I find it becomes inaccurate when wiggling back and forth between finer, then coarser, then finer again.

In contrast I think the Ceado worm gear is excellent.

I tend to use the atom pro burrs over the stock 75 atom burrs. While I do drink medium, and I realize the pros arent doing my roasts any favours, I still like how smooth they are. If I were running the stock 75mm atom burrs, I would prefer 83mm to 75mm.

I will say I love how the atom shoots out the grounds. Nice, no chunks, not a ton of retention. The pro burrs are very very fluffy. The stock 75mm burrs are still mostly fluffy. In contrast I get no fluffiness out of my ceado - doesn't matter which burrs I use.

Enjoy the MC5! Hope the coffees keep tasting better and better

retireddude wrote: Conclusion: They definitely taste different. Based on my preferences the MC5 has an edge over the Atom 75, I do like the reduced bitter finish and chocolate emphasis. But it's obviously subjective. I never had any complaint with the cups I have been getting from the Atom these last few years, it was only in side-by-side comparisons that I noticed some characteristics that were less desirable.

While I'm sure the difference in taste between these two grinders may very well grow as you get acclimated to/season the MC5, it's truly rare to hear someone say the taste difference isn't night and day. I don't mean that to start anything, but as with all hobbies it is very easy to get caught up chasing diminishing returns; so the level headed review is a welcome one. I don't know that my palate or taste preferences would really be able to tell the difference (I typically stick to medium roasts like caffe lusso gmc), however I have been cross shopping both of these grinders.

The Atom for the workflow and MC5 for the reputation. Would be interested to hear about any increases in the MC5 cup quality as it breaks in, thanks again for the review!

buckersss wrote:Thanks for the write up. I very much enjoyed reading it.

I was surprised to read that you thought the atom was easier to dial in than the Ceado. I had the opposite opinion. I find the eureka isn't too bad when always going in the same direction - Ex finer, then finer, then finer again - but I find it becomes inaccurate when wiggling back and forth between finer, then coarser, then finer again.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the comparison. Regarding dialing in on the Atom and Ceado, I should have been more clear about what I was talking about. I think both grinders have excellent adjustment mechanisms. The issue for me is that I hate to waste beans (which is why I'm in the process of transitioning to single-doing) so I never do what I'm supposed to do and purge a little after each grind adjustment (I do purge a few grams prior to the first shot of the morning though, to get rid of stale beans).

So, when dialing in, if I adjust a little finer my next shot will have some coarser grounds from the previous settling mixed with the new setting, and this happens on every shot I've made an adjustment before. In my experience, YMMV, it's a little easier/faster to hit the grind size I'm shooting for (meaning the exact shot time I want) on the Atom than the Ceado. On the Ceado I'm a little more likely to over shoot with my grind adjustment and have to dial back to hit my mark. I've never tested it, but my assumption is that there is somewhat more retention/exchange going on in the Ceado.

Also, I should note, I'm splitting hairs here. They are both great grinders, and I'm not saying that the Ceado is difficult. Just that I have the perception that it's a little easier to find my preferred grind size on the Eureka.

Regarding taste, I agree, and slightly prefer the stock 83mm Ceado burrs to the stock 75mm Eureka. Which is why I keep the Ceado at home and have the Atom at my cottage. Again, though, splitting hairs. They're really close.

I too upgraded from an Atom 75 to an MC4 w/Shurikone burrset (i.e., MC5) and my experience exactly paralleled that of @retireddude. I don't need to RDT the MC4. The MC4 shots were a bit more clear and chocolately, but not by large amount. I think the Atom 75 is an excellent grinder, especially if you don't change your roast frequently.

corffee_beanz wrote:While I'm sure the difference in taste between these two grinders may very well grow as you get acclimated to/season the MC5, it's truly rare to hear someone say the taste difference isn't night and day. I don't mean that to start anything, but as with all hobbies it is very easy to get caught up chasing diminishing returns; so the level headed review is a welcome one. I don't know that my palate or taste preferences would really be able to tell the difference (I typically stick to medium roasts like caffe lusso gmc), however I have been cross shopping both of these grinders.

The Atom for the workflow and MC5 for the reputation. Would be interested to hear about any increases in the MC5 cup quality as it breaks in, thanks again for the review!

Thanks, I definitely agree with you on diminishing returns. In my experience, once you get into the realm of quality grinders you're more likely to experience big differences in workflow, or use pleasure, than in the cup. My biggest upgrade was from a Sette 270wi to Ceado E37S and the most dramatic difference between those grinders was build quality, workflow, and sound levels (the Sette was "wake the dead" loud). In the cup, however, the differences were similar to the differences between the Atom and MC5, subtle, but with a clear edge to the Ceado.

A couple years ago I read a comment here on HB about taste differences between grinders, and how overhyped it can be. The post was from "another_jim" back in 2021. I thought his comment was spot on, as it completely matched my experience and opinion. Here's the link: Help me choose a grinder for my taste profile!

He wrote, "It takes weeks of blind side by side testing to distinguish reliably between two grinders by tasting the shots they produce. If you can't tell which grinder is which when given blind shots, how can you tell which "has the better burr for coffee X?" Almost all the stuff you've read is fantasy, which dominates food, drink, and audio writing since nobody is doing blind tests. I regret having had any part of this culture. When it comes to picking between good grinders, ergonomics is the overwhelming choice factor."

I need a lot more time with the MC5, to test with different coffees, and against my other grinders, but at this point I feel like it's worth the money to me. With the Kafatek I'm chasing the workflow I want, solid build quality and durability, along with small but noticeable improvements in flavor. So far I'm not disappointed.

CaptPat wrote:I too upgraded from an Atom 75 to an MC4 w/Shurikone burrset (i.e., MC5) and my experience exactly paralleled that of @retireddude. I don't need to RDT the MC4. The MC4 shots were a bit more clear and chocolately, but not by large amount. I think the Atom 75 is an excellent grinder, especially if you don't change your roast frequently.

Thanks for adding your experience. It's interesting to know that those taste perceptions weren't just mine alone.

Thanks for talking me into an atom, my exact two grinders I was deciding between. Very much appreciate the candidness.

Glad it was helpful. To be clear, I do think the MC5 tastes noticeably better, but you're definitely into diminishing returns.

Also, something I should have been more clear about in the original post, I added an addendum, the MC5 hasn't been fully seasoned, and many users have reported that seasoning does make a difference. I have stared noticing improvement.

But, having said that, the Atom is a superb grinder, I'm sure you'll be happy with it.