Milwaukee Vs Makita Circular Saw Review: Who’s A Cut Above?

TL;DR

Prime Big Deal Days · Oct 6–7Offer from Amazon

Get tools and workshop supplies delivered free — and shop member deals

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

Pro Tool Reviews compared Milwaukee’s M18 Fuel 2834 and Makita’s 40V max XGT GSH01 in circular-saw tests. Milwaukee cut faster in two demanding OSB rip tests, while the saws performed similarly on crosscuts, miter cuts, bevel cuts and compound cuts.

Milwaukee’s M18 Fuel 2834 cut faster than Makita’s XGT GSH01 in two demanding rip-cut tests, according to a head-to-head review by Pro Tool Reviews. The saws were closely matched in several other cuts, making the results useful for buyers weighing cutting speed against features and battery-platform compatibility.

Both tools are 7 1/4-inch cordless saws with brushless motors rated at up to 6,000 RPM. Each has a maximum cutting depth of 2 5/8 inches at 90 degrees. Milwaukee’s maximum bevel is 57 degrees; Makita’s is 56 degrees. The review says Makita’s saw also has positive stops at 22.5, 45 and 56 degrees.

In a timed test ripping double-stacked 3/4-inch OSB, the Milwaukee finished in 9.76 seconds, compared with 13.53 seconds for Makita. In a second test cutting triple-stacked 3/4-inch OSB at full depth, Milwaukee took 17.41 seconds and Makita took 24.74 seconds. These are results from the review’s test setup, not a guarantee of performance across materials or job conditions.

The review found both saws capable in standard crosscuts, miter cuts and bevel cuts, and said both handled compound cuts without issue. It also praised the lower blade guards on both models for moving smoothly over the workpiece. The reviewer noted a slight preference for Milwaukee’s guard action, while describing the difference as small.

Where Milwaukee Gained Time

The clearest difference in the review emerged when the saws were pushed through deep or stacked OSB rip cuts, rather than ordinary cuts in dimensional lumber. Milwaukee recorded shorter times in both timed tests, a distinction that may matter to people who frequently make demanding rip cuts and value speed.

For buyers whose work consists mainly of crosscuts, bevels or miter cuts, the review found less to separate the tools in performance. Other practical factors may then carry more weight: existing batteries and chargers, handling preferences, and the features each saw offers. Milwaukee lists an electronic blade brake, LED work light and dust blower, and a folding rafter hook. Makita offers an integrated tether point and compatibility with its Auto-start Wireless System when paired with a Bluetooth transmitter.

The test does not establish that one saw is better for every user. It gives a specific comparison under the review’s methods, with the strongest performance difference in the timed rip cuts.

Two 7 1/4-Inch Platform Saws

Pro Tool Reviews describes the Milwaukee 2834 as the latest generation of its M18 Fuel 7 1/4-inch sidewinder saw and compares it with Makita’s 40V max XGT GSH01. The models use different cordless battery platforms, so a buyer’s existing tools may affect the overall value of either purchase.

The publication says it tested crosscuts and rip cuts, along with miter, bevel and compound cuts, using 2x materials and OSB subflooring. For the timed rip tests, the review describes pulling each saw for seven feet on a custom sled using a 10-pound weight. That method gives readers a basis for interpreting the reported times, but the supplied report does not include broader laboratory measurements or independent replication.

“Milwaukee pulled ahead in raw cutting speed.”

— Pro Tool Reviews

Limits of the Test Results

The reported times come from one review’s stated test setup. The source material does not provide a publication date, retail prices, battery configurations used during testing, run-to-run variation, or measurements of runtime and long-term durability. It also does not establish how the results would change with different blades, materials, battery charge levels or operator technique.

The review’s findings therefore support a comparison of these two saws in the described tests, but do not settle which is the better purchase for every user. The value of platform features such as Makita’s wireless vacuum activation or Milwaukee’s tool-tracking compatibility also depends on the buyer’s other equipment.

Choosing Between the Platforms

The review does not announce a follow-up test or additional results. Buyers can use its findings alongside current local pricing, their existing M18 or XGT batteries, and the kinds of cuts they make most often. Those prioritizing speed in demanding rip cuts may give weight to Milwaukee’s times; those mainly making routine crosscuts may find the reported performance more evenly matched.

Before deciding, readers should check the exact model and included kit, since battery and accessory bundles can vary. The source material does not state prices or bundle details, so those comparisons remain to be made at the point of purchase.

Key Questions

Which saw was faster in the review’s rip-cut tests?

Milwaukee’s 2834 recorded the shorter time in both tests: 9.76 seconds versus 13.53 seconds on double-stacked OSB, and 17.41 seconds versus 24.74 seconds on triple-stacked OSB.

Did one saw clearly outperform the other in every cut?

No. The review reported similar performance in crosscuts, miter cuts and bevel cuts, and said both saws handled compound cuts without issue. Its clearest measured gap was in the timed rip cuts.

What are the main capacity differences?

Both are 7 1/4-inch saws rated at up to 6,000 RPM, with a 2 5/8-inch cutting depth at 90 degrees. Milwaukee has a 57-degree maximum bevel; Makita has a 56-degree maximum and positive stops at 22.5, 45 and 56 degrees.

What remains unknown about the comparison?

The supplied report does not state the publication date, prices, battery configurations, runtime results or long-term durability findings. Its timed results reflect the described test setup and should not be treated as universal performance figures.

Source: rss