Review Price £104.00
Brother MFC-J625DW - Print SpeedsBrother has taken to quoting ISO print speeds, which are more realistic than its own proprietary ones. It claims 12ppm for black print and 10ppm for colour on the MFC-J625DW. Our 5-page test produced 7.8ppm, but the 20-page document increased this to 10.3ppm, so not far off spec and a good speed for this class of machine.
The colour result, at 5.2ppm, is only just over half the quoted speed, though. Duplex print, standard on this machine, was measured at 4.1 side per minute, a bit quicker than some of its rivals.
Copy speeds weren’t particularly quick, at 24s for a single page of colour and 1:18 for five mono pages from the ADF. 15 x 10cm photo prints were all around the 1:06 mark, in normal print mode.
Brother MFC-J625DW - Print Quality and CostsPrint quality is a little better than from some Brother all-in-ones we’ve reviewed, but it’s still not on a par with the best in the field: Canon and HP. Text print looks a little rough round the edges and colour graphics aren’t quite as vibrant. Photos come out well, though dark colours veer to black in places.
Unusually, we found a source for the standard yield colour cartridges, ASDA, which gives better economy than using the high yield ones, though the high-capacity black still betters the standard one.
We calculate a black page cost of 3.3p and a colour one of 8.3p, which is swings and roundabouts with its main competitors. The colour cost is marginally lower, while the black cost is a bit higher.
Should I buy a Brother MFC-J625W?There are plenty of reasons why you should consider this Brother machine. It’s feature rich, with a lot packed into a very small frame. Compared with, for example, the Canon PIXMA MG5450, it has very similar print speeds and both have duplex print and wireless connection.
Where the two differ is in print quality. While the Canon produces dense, sharp black text and precise graphics, the Brother shows comparative fuzziness, from ink feathering, and occasional swathe misalignment. It’s not bad, but it’s not up to Canon’s standard.