Isn't the Fluke 87V one of the worst meters on Joe's list?
In terms of electrical ruggedness, basically any meter that is independently CAT IV UL rated is going to be fine, and that includes the 87V even though it does poorly in Joe's tests.
That's not what I have been seeing. There are a few meters, like the 121GW that actually have performed quite poorly against my tests. In the case of the 121GW, I've explained the weak point and demonstrated one possible way to improve it. I suspect when/if the meter becomes available, I plan to run the released version and see if it repeats.
The AMPROBE AM530 is another meter that did not hold up very well. IMO, the worse was the Summit/TPI 194II.
If a meter can't out perform the AMPROBE AM510, IMO, it's not very robust. So far it does appear that the name brands, Brymen, Fluke, HIOKI have all done very well. I've ran a fair number of Flukes and the old 87V was the only flyer. I'm glad a I took the time to repeat the test with a new one and then went back and looked at the old one. It cements the fact the Fluke as much as I hate to admit it, makes some solid products.
The two AMPROBEs were made by UNI-T and both are certified. It's a bit strange and UNI-T makes a UT181A which someone pointed out is also certified. If that is true, the 181A is by far the worse meter I have looked at for robustness. Someone even showed that it was certified for the EMC 61326 standard. Funny is one hit of that stupid little piezo grill ignitor took it out. I showed one test report where the lab basically did not test the actual inputs to the meter and claimed it passed ESD. They only looked at the body of the meter. IMO, seeing tests ran like this, waters down the usefulness of the certs.
https://youtu.be/PjNXbKlr3MI?t=2866