As someone who has run a ton of gear tests, including cooler tests, over the past two decades, I believe the review cited above is fatality flawed. There are huge problems with the review's testing procedures and protocols. Specifically, the field test process in this review rewards coolers for having subpar insulation. Since insulation works both ways, a well-insulated cooler will hold its warmth better than a poorly insulated cooler. So, because the test team only loaded a small amount of ice into each cooler, and the testers measured cooler's functionality by measuring the melt-water from that minimum amount of ice, the least-insulated should automatically perform better than the rest. If you don't full load the coolers, the better insulated will retain internal heat so if only a small (i.e. far less than full) amount of ice is loaded into the box, the better insulated coolers will melt out faster than the poorly insulated one since the better insulation retains the initial heat inside while the poorly insulated allow that heat to bleed off before it melts the ice inside. Since the better insulation will hold the initial heat longer, letting it more quickly melt the small amount of ice added, the actual results of this test should probably be inverted to identify the best insulated box.