Best Scope Under US$1000

[EEVblog]

As the title says, I was thinking about a "best scope under US$1000" (on paper) shootout, just like I did the 1GHz scope shootout video.

What scopes would make that list?

Yes it has to be based on US dollar pricing in the US (or equivalent), as you have to have some reference for such price based shootouts.
I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.

I will do the work to come up with a suitable list of course, but it will make it easier if people can nominate various models right off the bat.

[tautech]

Will the # of channels matter ?
Including the cost of options if any or just the basic un-optioned cost ?

[tautech]

Will the # of channels matter ?
Including the cost of options if any or just the basic un-optioned cost ?

Which really leads to is it possible to get a sub$1k scope with any additional features a user may need ?
Just look at the 350 MHz SDS2352X-E and drop a couple options in ........ 
https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds2000x-e/

[nctnico]

IMHO US$1000 is a bit of a blank area where it comes to oscilloscopes. A limit of US$2000 would be more sane because that will include way more interesting models which really sit above the low end segment. In that price range you can also get several A-brand scopes.

[EEVblog]

Will the # of channels matter ?
Including the cost of options if any or just the basic un-optioned cost ?

Well that's always to dilema.
If you pick a dollar limit as the shootout spec then you really have the stick to it. So I'm inclined to say "whatever you can get for US$1000", so I guess that would include an optioned up cheapie.

[EEVblog]

IMHO US$1000 is a bit of a blank area where it comes to oscilloscopes. A limit of US$2000 would be more sane because that will include way more interesting models which really sit above the low end segment. In that price range you can also get several A-brand scopes.

Could always be a 2nd video?
Or one giant video with different price brackets? 

[tautech]

Will the # of channels matter ?
Including the cost of options if any or just the basic un-optioned cost ?

Well that's always to dilema.
If you pick a dollar limit as the shootout spec then you really have the stick to it. So I'm inclined to say "whatever you can get for US$1000", so I guess that would include an optioned up cheapie.

Sure, then that makes this project somewhat complex if you are to exploring all the different feature sets in scopes in this price bracket.

[pcprogrammer]

There are some that for sure should not be on the list

The cheap FNIRSI and Hantek models. Even though some Hanteks are listed here https://howtomechatronics.com/tools/best-entry-level-oscilloscopes-for-beginners-and-hobbyists-2019/

No idea if the cheaper Owon models are any good.

That kind of leaves Rigol, Siglent, Micsig, GW instek?

And do you want to include USB based ones?

The Rohde & Schwarz RTC1002EDU might also be a candidate. https://www.eleshop.nl/rohde-schwarz-rtc1002edu-oscilloscoop.html USD and Euro are about the same at the moment.
Or the Keysight DSOX1102A.

I used this shop to check what is available for under 1000 bucks. https://www.eleshop.nl/testen-meten/oscilloscopen/oscilloscopes-c-47/filter/price/531-1042.html?amp%3Bno_cache=1&amp%3Border=price&dir=asc&no_cache=1&p=1

[Grandchuck]

IMHO US$1000 is a bit of a blank area where it comes to oscilloscopes. A limit of US$2000 would be more sane because that will include way more interesting models which really sit above the low end segment. In that price range you can also get several A-brand scopes.

Could always be a 2nd video?
Or one giant video with different price brackets? 

Either or both would be welcome.  However, seperate videos seem to make more sense to me

[BillyO]

I find that 4 channels is a must so something like the Siglent SDS1204X-E would be my vote.   You could throw in the licenses for WIFI and AWG in case you want to add them in the near term and still be under the price limit.

You could also look at a "higher end" Hantek like the DSO6204C or MPO6204DD.  They have 12bit resolution and 64M memory, not bad.  I personally don't know much about them but would like to know more.

[Martin72]

So we got Rigol, Siglent, Micsig, GW Instek, Owon, Hantek, Fnirsi and the cheapos from R&S and Keysight.
IMHO:
They should come as they are, so no additional options - what do you get for the money basically.
Then 4-Channels models.
No usb scopes, stand alone models only.
And then the "best" model of every brand up to max 1000 bucks.
Apart from that, in my opinion there are three "magic barriers" under the users(their requests in the forum) here.
Mostly best up to 500, more up to 1000, less up to 1500 and rarely above.

[tautech]

I find that 4 channels is a must so something like the Siglent SDS1204X-E would be my vote.

Must certainly if you need 4 analogue channels to trace logic paths or such but for decoding no, if you have a Clk Timeout feature you can certainly decode 3 wire busses with a 2ch DSO.

[thm_w]

These days 4 channels is the minimum I would recommend for someone getting started, the cost difference is just so small.
Decoding i2c buses can be done easily on a $8 logic analyzer, so that is not a redeeming ability IMO.

Anyway, as for the question, I can't see how a hacked MSO5074 would lose based purely on numbers. Real world use, depends on use case.

[nctnico]

Anyway, as for the question, I can't see how a hacked MSO5074 would lose based purely on numbers. Real world use, depends on use case.

That is the problem. Lots of features in the lower cost scopes only exist on paper or are implemented in a clumsy way. IOW: In the real world the difference in useability is huge. Sometimes less is more but that is nearly impossible to catch in a datasheet. One of my customers has a Tektronix TBS2000A and even though this is a bare bones DSO (no decoding or anything fancy) it is a joy to use compared to the cheap Rigol they also have.

[Martin72]

Or a good old Waverunner from the early 2000s.
As the MSO5000 from rigol came up (and I´ve bought it), they talk about the benefit of having a 5 in 1 instrument - And I was thinking, would it be not better to have one in one...
And doesn´t make it anyone suspicious that the actual expensive scopes do not have all the fancy stuff ?

[tautech]

These days 4 channels is the minimum I would recommend for someone getting started, the cost difference is just so small.

Yet a good portion of our sales are to those stepping up from a CRO and even after years of hobbyist use they can't/don't see a need for 4 channels for what they do. Most often they select the SDS1202X-E for raw and cheap BW as it's more valuable to them than an additional 2 channels.

However I quite agree for those entering the industry/hobby a 4ch DSO offers better choices to grow into as skills develop but no way would we push a mandatory requirement for 4 channels onto anyone although the range of choices available in just the last 10 years is phenomenal.

[adam4521]

I think there would be viewing interest/hunger for that 'economy' category, the Fnirsi, Owon, Hantek. There remains sustained activity on the forums on these, the vendors must sell a lot of them, they all have engineering and design 'issues', but which is the best compromise? Besides, the Owon HDS portable and the isolated USB one (VDS1022I) are quite interesting/distinctive devices. An informed side-by-side review of them all with commentary on what you can get done with them and where they fall short (as a category) would generate a lot of interest. I don't think a blow by blow exhausive feature review is actually needed in this category, just pointed insights to sort them out. The emergence of this category seems to have caused an interesting 'inversion' of prices on Ebay where some older generation DSOs are selling cheaper than much older analogue -- should economy buyers consider any used DSOs instead?

Then the $500 benchtop category with the usual suspects: Siglent, Rigol, Micsig, GW Instek. People will be looking more closely at performance/quality/feature differentiators (but you have existing material on many of them).

Maybe push the $1000 category up to $1500 if the product 'capture' isn't right. People will want to see the new Rigol and the Siglent SDS2000X Plus in the pool, won't they?

[blubillcanada]

I think the Rigol MSO5000 series is a great deal. US$909 gets you started.

[thm_w]

I think the Rigol MSO5000 series is a great deal. US$909 gets you started.

$800 USD, $1000 CAD

[petrinch]

I think “Best Scopes” —plural— would be a more manageable (and more interesting) guide. Pick a few of EEVblog’s primary interest groups (curious beginner, dedicated hobbyist, professional —whatever) and define a couple of likely price points around each. That would give you some flexibility to consider the relative value  of various features/options. Then maybe pick a “best” in each category that fits your definition of a quality product. With this approach, I think you could cast the net for eligible interesting products to compare both under and over $1000.

[EEVblog]

However I quite agree for those entering the industry/hobby a 4ch DSO offers better choices to grow into as skills develop but no way would we push a mandatory requirement for 4 channels onto anyone although the range of choices available in just the last 10 years is phenomenal.

Just as an aside, I think it would be interesting to do a video on the development of DSO's and the major ones that "changed the game" over the last say 30 years.

[nctnico]

However I quite agree for those entering the industry/hobby a 4ch DSO offers better choices to grow into as skills develop but no way would we push a mandatory requirement for 4 channels onto anyone although the range of choices available in just the last 10 years is phenomenal.

Just as an aside, I think it would be interesting to do a video on the development of DSO's and the major ones that "changed the game" over the last say 30 years.

That sounds like an interesting video  No, I am serious here. It would be a good path down memory lane and shine a light on how certain features became standard, who pioneered them and what features went away.

Edit: 4 versus 2 channels depends on what you need. There is no golden rule except for: if you have the money, get as many channels as possible.

[EEVblog]

I think there would be viewing interest/hunger for that 'economy' category, the Fnirsi, Owon, Hantek.

That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.

[Fungus]

Decoding i2c buses can be done easily on a $8 logic analyzer.

But not in real time. With one of those you have to be constantly hitting "record" then "stop", then go looking for the data. It's a complete pain in the ass.

On a 'scope I can set up a trigger and watch the data protocol in real time without touching a single thing.

so that is not a redeeming ability IMO.

Yes it is.

[Fungus]

That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.

Why does it matter if it's handheld or not? A lot of handhelds can be plugged in and left running all day.

A recurring theme on EEVBLOG is why aren't those Owons/Hantek bench 'scopes worth buying? They look just like Rigols/Siglents in adverts.

Why is Rigol the starting point for "an oscilloscope actually worth owning"?

[Fungus]

These days 4 channels is the minimum I would recommend for someone getting started

Yet a good portion of our sales are to those stepping up from a CRO and even after years of hobbyist use they can't/don't see a need for 4 channels for what they do. Most often they select the SDS1202X-E for raw and cheap BW as it's more valuable to them than an additional 2 channels.

"...after years of" isn't the same  as "getting started".

People getting started these days are much more likely to be into microcontrollers than radio/audio.

[tautech]

Just as an aside, I think it would be interesting to do a video on the development of DSO's and the major ones that "changed the game" over the last say 30 years.

Yes that would be fun but you need specify compact lunchbox LCD display DSO's rather than have some think their CRT DSO should qualify in this group.
IMO you'd want to start with a TDS200 then look for suggestions as to who's next.

I think there would be viewing interest/hunger for that 'economy' category, the Fnirsi, Owon, Hantek.

That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.

Certainly and tablet too as they are 3 entirely different classes of instrument......hmmm, where would you then fit that new Tek ? 

There's a real wealth of exploration in analyzing all these, cost, form factor, specs, stability like you would for the bail on a DMM, connectivity, warranty, feature set ....and just where would the list stop ? 

[Fungus]

IMHO US$1000 is a bit of a blank area where it comes to oscilloscopes. A limit of US$2000 would be more sane because that will include way more interesting models which really sit above the low end segment. In that price range you can also get several A-brand scopes.

Sure, but why not $3000?

Or $4000...?

I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.

That's easy: The Rigol MSO5000.  (which now has hi-res mode!)

In a couple of weeks time though? It might be the new 12-bit Rigol HDO1000. 

[BillyO]

Why does it matter if it's handheld or not? A lot of handhelds can be plugged in and left running all day.

Well, there has to be some limit.  Dave can't be expected to run a reasonable comparison between 50 or 60 scopes.  Handhelds could be another video if he wants to go that route, but certainly handheld scopes are a smaller segment of the market.

On that thought, I know Dave and most of the members around here don't like them, but USB scopes would be another interesting video.  I've used one for some years as a portable.  It fits easily into my laptop bag and is smaller, has a much larger screen (my laptop) and more features than a equivalently priced (~$400) handheld.  They do have a place in the grander scheme of things.

[EEVblog]

That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.

Why does it matter if it's handheld or not? A lot of handhelds can be plugged in and left running all day.

For factor and usability. Apples to Apples.

A recurring theme on EEVBLOG is why aren't those Owons/Hantek bench 'scopes worth buying? They look just like Rigols/Siglents in adverts.
Why is Rigol the starting point for "an oscilloscope actually worth owning"?

That would be the entire point of such a video.

[EEVblog]

I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.

That's easy: The Rigol MSO5000.  (which now has hi-res mode!)

In a couple of weeks time though? It might be the new 12-bit Rigol HDO1000. 

In that case, such a video might be easy!

[Fungus]

In that case, such a video might be easy!

Does this shootout allow hacking?

If not, the MSO5000 in this price range only has 70MHz bandwidth. How will that be scored?

It wins on everything else though - sample rate, memory size, built-in AWG, screen size, separate channel controls, touch screen, etc.

[pcprogrammer]

I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.

A problem I see here is what defines "the most powerful".  Does that mean inclusion of protocol decoding, frequency counter, fft, etc. Or is it the bandwidth and sample rate that defines it. Then there is screen size, user interface and whatever you can think of.

It might also differ from person to person what they actually need for their jobs at hand.

For me a proper comparison between the different models over different use cases in a similar price bracket would be more interesting then an overall shoutout on a wide price range under 1000 USD.

Lets say scopes in the lowest price bracket <300USD like the FNIRSI 1014D, Hantek DSO2D15, OWON SDS1102.
Then the price bracket of >300USD to <700USD like GW Instek GDS-1202B, Rigol DS2202A, Siglent SDS2202X-E, Hantek MPO6004D, Micsig STO1152C.
And at last the price bracket of >700USD up to 1000USD like Keysight DSOX1102A, GW Instek GDS-1104B, Micsig STO2202C, Owon XDS3104AE, Siglent SDS1204X-E, Rohde & Schwarz RTC1002EDU, Rigol MSO5074.

Just a bit random lists in three brackets, because there are many more to choose from, and might need a bit of matching between parameters like bandwidth and sample rate. The number of channels is, in my opinion, less important, because most vendors have models with either 2 or 4 channels based on the same scope engine. So for a basic comparison of features not of interest.

For the all the scopes it is important to know the actual limitations that the specifications don't show, because they do lie about them, at least FNIRSI does

[tautech]

I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.

A problem I see here is what defines "the most powerful".  Does that mean inclusion of protocol decoding, frequency counter, fft, etc. Or is it the bandwidth and sample rate that defines it. Then there is screen size, user interface and whatever you can think of.

It might also differ from person to person what they actually need for their jobs at hand.

Maybe Dave means most capable of which to be so as you point out must have many features compared with the competition.
Does Dave weight each feature to have an overall winner by score or do we leave it to his judgement which he considers best but if we're following his scope usage over the last year or 2 we already know his favorite so should he to be properly fair exclude it from the preliminary rounds and only put it against the leader of the rest of the pack ?

For me a proper comparison between the different models over different use cases in a similar price bracket would be more interesting then an overall shoutout on a wide price range under 1000 USD.

Lets say scopes in the lowest price bracket <300USD like the FNIRSI 1014D, Hantek DSO2D15, OWON SDS1102.
Then the price bracket of >300USD to <700USD like GW Instek GDS-1202B, Rigol DS2202A, Siglent SDS2202X-E, Hantek MPO6004D, Micsig STO1152C.

^ Ya missed SDS1202X-E, SDS1104X-E and SDS1104X-U
Dunno about Dave and others but IMO tablets need be in their own class just as HH portables.

And at last the price bracket of >700USD up to 1000USD like Keysight DSOX1102A, GW Instek GDS-1104B, Micsig STO2202C, Owon XDS3104AE, Siglent SDS1204X-E, Rohde & Schwarz RTC1002EDU, Rigol MSO5074.

Ya missed SDS2352X-E.

[pcprogrammer]

As stated here

Just a bit random lists in three brackets, because there are many more to choose from, and might need a bit of matching between parameters like bandwidth and sample rate. The number of channels is, in my opinion, less important, because most vendors have models with either 2 or 4 channels based on the same scope engine. So for a basic comparison of features not of interest.

Random picked them and these lists will also miss several items of the competitors to your brand

[nctnico]

Dunno about Dave and others but IMO tablets need be in their own class just as HH portables.

No. There is absolutely no reason to do that. So far only MicSig and Tektronix have produced tablet form factor oscilloscopes but besides the form factor, these offer exactly the same features as oscilloscopes in a bigger casing. Putting tablet form factor scopes into a seperate class is nonsense. The only real difference is the amount of air inside the casing.

[2N3055]

Just my comment:
this discussion is getting too elaborate.

There is inherent problem with saying scopes under 5000USD, for instance.
What does that mean? By opinion of some here that should include actually making list for 100-300, a list for 300-500, a list for 500-750, a list 750-1000 .... etc. You get my drift.
Dave cannot do that. That is too much work for lots of repetitive data.

Scopes under 1000USD means maybe one scope that seems to have best BW/capability/quality mix and a second place one that is almost as good, and maybe few notable mentions like a form factor that is interesting to some, a best analog performance, a best decode scope etc. 

Making comprehensive market analysis is not a topic here, I think. Just my 5 cents.

[balnazzar]

I'm in the same boat. My current situation is the following.

I bought a 320 eur Hantek DSO15 (with AWG). It was a toy. Sluggish, buggy software, extremely slow. The AWG can't even do a sweep.
Returned, and uderstood that you have to open your wallet a bit more if you want something workable.

Bought in a hurry an Owon HDS242s handheld as a temporary solution (and a spare handheld will be useful in a lot of occasions). It turned out to be fast, well-built, and way better than the Hantek, despite being 2X cheaper (169 eur). Of course it cannot replace a good becnhtop, but it's not meant to.

Now, the options in my opinion are the following:

1. The MSO5000.
9" display. Great bargain with all the options bundled for under 1000 bucks. Just the 2-ch awg is worth ~350 bucks. It has HDMI.
Cons: noisy fan, dim display. Sluggish touchscreen. But more than anything else, it's noisy.

2. The SDS1104X-E. Good front-end. Can do Bodes. Half the price of the MSO5000 and just 100 bucks more than the much worse X-U.
Cons: small 7" display, neither awg nor all the other good stuff that come with the MSO5000. No hdmi. The fan is also a bit noisy.

3. The Micsig STO1004. Very good, responsive UI. The owners talk enthusiastically about it. HDMI. Battery powered. Well built. Can be had for 650 eur in EU.
Cons: small-ish, reflective 8" display with large bezels. I have no idea about its fan noise. Absence of proper knobs. Can't do Bodes.

4. The Analog Discovery 2. Many instruments in one (including a nwtwork analyzer! It can also do Bode plots..) for just 400 eur. Very good software. Differential probing (yes!) up to 25V.
Cons: No screen. No knobs. Limited bandwidth.

5. The SDS2000X plus. Large 10" screen, good frontend, responsive UI.
Cons: out of your budget by a large measure (it goes for ~1500). More importantly, it's out of my budget too. Nothing included (in particular, no awg).

Try not to buy 2chs scopes, you'll miss the other 2 channels.

Note: among the things that I find most annoying..:
A. They put shitty fans on 1000$ scopes just to save some 10 bucks.
B. The same stands for the displays, more or less. A 100$ android tablet has a better display.
C. Absence of a VESA mount, even for the Micsig. That literally leaves me flabbergasted.

[pcprogrammer]

Dunno about Dave and others but IMO tablets need be in their own class just as HH portables.

No. There is absolutely no reason to do that. So far only MicSig and Tektronix have produced tablet form factor oscilloscopes but besides the form factor, these offer exactly the same features as oscilloscopes in a bigger casing. Putting tablet form factor scopes into a seperate class is nonsense. The only real difference is the amount of air inside the casing.

You forgot about the FNIRSI 1013D, which is also a tablet

[petrinch]

Just my comment:
this discussion is getting too elaborate.

There is inherent problem with saying scopes under 5000USD, for instance.
What does that mean? By opinion of some here that should include actually making list for 100-300, a list for 300-500, a list for 500-750, a list 750-1000 .... etc. You get my drift.
Dave cannot do that. That is too much work for lots of repetitive data.

Scopes under 1000USD means maybe one scope that seems to have best BW/capability/quality mix and a second place one that is almost as good, and maybe few notable mentions like a form factor that is interesting to some, a best analog performance, a best decode scope etc. 

Making comprehensive market analysis is not a topic here, I think. Just my 5 cents.

Agreed, comprehensive market analysis would be pointless — but then no one has argued for that.

The issue is whether or not it makes sense to pick a single, arbitrary price range — $1 to $1000 — as the basis for comparison. Based on the discussion so far, that just seems silly. The use-cases for scopes — and the corresponding value of this or that feature — simply vary too much.

I prefer comparing scopes in different use categories along the lines of your “honorable mention” ideas — form factor, bandwidth, analog performance, decode performance, etc — the kinds of “what-do-you-need-this-for” issues that experienced hands in this forum always encourage people to think carefully about before making any purchase.

[nctnico]

I prefer comparing scopes in different use categories along the lines of your “honorable mention” ideas — form factor, bandwidth, analog performance, decode performance, etc — the kinds of “what-do-you-need-this-for” issues that experienced hands in this forum always encourage people to think carefully about before making any purchase.

True, but you'd need to set some kind of budget boundary or group by price range.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Should definitely include whichever (knobbed) version Micsig tablet comes within the budget, to highlight the different form factors available.

[BillyO]

I think this is a valid scenario.  Especially leaving out the "bang for the buck".  That way you pick a number of scopes under $1000 that have a fair chance of competing with each other.  That will generally mean the prices of all of them will come in pretty close to the $1000 mark.  Then using Dave's usual scale of "rubbish", "good enough for Australia", "does the business" and "Bobby dazzler" judge them on the most frequently used/requested features and hopefully in the end we have a "Winner, winner, chicken dinner!"

 

[petrinch]

I think this is a valid scenario.  Especially leaving out the "bang for the buck".  That way you pick a number of scopes under $1000 that have a fair chance of competing with each other.  That will generally mean the prices of all of them will come in pretty close to the $1000 mark.  Then using Dave's usual scale of "rubbish", "good enough for Australia", "does the business" and "Bobby dazzler" judge them on the most frequently used/requested features and hopefully in the end we have a "Winner, winner, chicken dinner!"

 

That scenario makes no sense at all to me. A quick look at the online offerings of TEquipment, Saelig (or pick your own favorite vendor) will show that there are at least 50 scopes to consider  in just the $499 to $999 range -- none of which qualify as being either "rubbish" or "Bobby dazzlers", and nearly all of which could easily be considered "good enough" for any country and capable of doing the job -- depending of course on what that job is exactly. Naming a single "winner" from that group (2-4 channels, 5-200Mhz bandwidth, with and without MSO capability, benchtop and usb) would be pointless.

I'd much prefer to see Dave do something like "Best General-Purpose Scope under $1000 for Hobbyists". Or "Best Scope under $1000 for Audio Electronics Troubleshooting". Or "Best Scope Under $1000 to Learn Embedded Engineering Skills". Much more manageable as a one-off -- like the 1Ghz scope shoot-out. Much more interesting possibilities as a series.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think it makes little sense to declare what is "best", as there is no such thing, only more or less appropriate for a given situation.
It would probably be more interesting to show the widest variety of what's available within that budget.
e.g. highest bandwidth 2-channel, most channels (analogue+digital), most protocol decoding, portable , PC-based, biggest screen etc.

[EEVblog]

I think it makes little sense to declare what is "best", as there is no such thing, only more or less appropriate for a given situation.
It would probably be more interesting to show the widest variety of what's available within that budget.
e.g. highest bandwidth 2-channel, most channels (analogue+digital), most protocol decoding, portable , PC-based, biggest screen etc.

That all comes out in the wash in the spreadsheet.
The BEST title gets the clicks 

[EEVblog]

The issue is whether or not it makes sense to pick a single, arbitrary price range — $1 to $1000 — as the basis for comparison. Based on the discussion so far, that just seems silly. The use-cases for scopes — and the corresponding value of this or that feature — simply vary too much.

Historically though those "budget" title based videos have been very popular.
No videos regardless of how it's done can be of value to everyone.

[nctnico]

The issue is whether or not it makes sense to pick a single, arbitrary price range — $1 to $1000 — as the basis for comparison. Based on the discussion so far, that just seems silly. The use-cases for scopes — and the corresponding value of this or that feature — simply vary too much.

Historically though those "budget" title based videos have been very popular.
No videos regardless of how it's done can be of value to everyone.

You can make such a video for sure! The title of that video is '42' 

[J-R]

Click bait is here to stay, but I've watched plenty of 10+ year old videos to learn about a product that I can now afford used, so quality content is important.

Price point is a tricky metric, because of the used market or subjective reasons.  I've also just hit the button and blown the budget just because I saw something I really wanted.

Go ahead and make a $1k scope shootout video, but also fill it with demos of scopes above and below the price point so we can be educated on additional concepts/features we may not be focused on.

Some scopes have a feature on paper, but when you enable it the scope slows down drastically, for example.

Other times I don't know if there is a single right answer, for example the debate on glitch detection...

[EEVblog]

Go ahead and make a $1k scope shootout video, but also fill it with demos of scopes above and below the price point so we can be educated on additional concepts/features we may not be focused on.
Some scopes have a feature on paper, but when you enable it the scope slows down drastically, for example.

To be clear, this wouldn't be a physical shootout, it would be on a spreadsheet like I did with the 1GHz scope shootout.

[mbalmer]

I think it makes little sense to declare what is "best", as there is no such thing, only more or less appropriate for a given situation.
It would probably be more interesting to show the widest variety of what's available within that budget.
e.g. highest bandwidth 2-channel, most channels (analogue+digital), most protocol decoding, portable , PC-based, biggest screen etc.

That all comes out in the wash in the spreadsheet.
The BEST title gets the clicks 

Well, then if the best title gets the clicks, just title it "OSCILLOSCOPE DEATHMATCH 2022" and put lots of 🔥 emojis in the title. That'll get the kids a-clickin'.

Seriously, though, I would be looking for things based on feature list. 2-channel, 4-channel, DSO, MSO, memory depth, in-built decoding, etc.

[nctnico]

Go ahead and make a $1k scope shootout video, but also fill it with demos of scopes above and below the price point so we can be educated on additional concepts/features we may not be focused on.
Some scopes have a feature on paper, but when you enable it the scope slows down drastically, for example.

To be clear, this wouldn't be a physical shootout, it would be on a spreadsheet like I did with the 1GHz scope shootout.

Duh. It should have some hands on so people can see the difference in how various oscilloscopes operate.