The Best Stud Finder

VIDEO REVIEW

Our video review of the best stud finders, showing our testing process.

CANDIDATES

Because there are so many stud finders out there, we started by scouring reviews, looking at materials, and looking for suggestions in the BuyItForLife Subreddit (BIFL). We decided to keep the price under $60, as we believe anything over that is throwing money away.

We then narrowed it down to 5 different models to buy and test. Our engineers looked at durability, single, double and pressure treated stud detection, header, copper pipe and live wire detection. We also looked into durability and cost as well as user reviews to help you make an informed decision when buying your next stud finder.

We compared holders from several prominent brands: CH Hanson, Zircon, Klein, Franklin, and Stud Buddy.

ANALYSIS

At Stubborn Gear, our mission is simple: to help you invest in gear that stands the test of time.  We are a small team of mechanical engineers with a passion for quality design, carefully evaluating each item to ensure it meets the highest standards.  None of the items we test are sponsored, so you can trust our reviews are honest, unbiased, and reliable.

To ensure accurate testing, we constructed a wall mock-up replicating the most common components found in a wall cavity. In addition to a standard single 2×4 stud, we included a header and a double stud assembly.  These are commonly found around windows and doors and are known as a king and jack stud. The mock-up also included a copper pipe, a pressure treated 2×4, and a live electrical wire to reflect real world conditions. Recognizing that many older or high end homes feature thicker drywall, we conducted tests using both single and double layers of half inch drywall.

Our findings in the table below include the Stubborn Gear Anvil Score, and the weighted score for each of our tests. The CH Hanson won with a score of 780. Among all the models we tested, it proved to be the most durable, accurate, and one of the cheapest. It narrowly edged out the Stud Buddy for two key reasons: first, its housing was more robust and well constructed; second, its larger magnets made stud detection easier as you move it across the wall searching for screws or nails. As with all magnetic stud finders, its limitation is that it can only detect screws or nails securing the drywall to the underlying structure. However, in our experience, this simplicity delivers excellent results for most projects, all without the frustration that often comes with electronic models.

This matrix shows the weighted scoring for each of the 5 stud finders in our test, with higher scores indicating better performance. 

For those who prefer an electronic stud finder, we recommend the Franklin. It performed significantly better than the Klein and was leagues ahead of the Zircon, which we found to be nearly useless.

That said, the Franklin comes at a much higher price point than the Hanson and is not a “buy it for life” product due to its more delicate construction and internal circuitry.

We tested each stud finder for the following characteristics:

SINGLE STUD DETECTION

The single stud test is the simplest and most common scenario, ideal for tasks like locating a stud to hang a heavy picture or cabinet. Four out of five stud finders passed this test without any issues. The magnetic Stud Buddy and Hanson models, which detect screws or nails securing the drywall to the underlying structure, performed flawlessly in identifying studs. Similarly, the Klein and Franklin models excelled, accurately locating the 2×4 stud through both single and double layers of drywall.

The Zircon, however, delivered inconsistent results. It frequently missed the stud or provided false readings, making it unreliable. Interestingly, it performed slightly better on thicker drywall, which was an unexpected outcome.

DOUBLE STUD

We initially assumed the double stud test would be redundant, but it revealed surprising results. While the magnetic stud finders performed exceptionally well, all electronic models faced challenges when dealing with two adjacent studs, especially with thicker drywall.

The Zircon once again produced inconsistent readings, and the Klein struggled to accurately identify the stud edges. The Franklin performed well with a single layer of drywall but failed when tested on double thick drywall.

PRESSURE TREATED

As expected, the pressure treated stud test yielded results nearly identical to the single stud test. The only difference was that the Franklin exhibited a slight decline in accuracy when identifying edges on double thick drywall.

Below is a matrix summarizing how each stud finder fared across three different stud tests and two drywall thicknesses. The magnetic stud finders delivered flawless performance across all tests, while the Franklin emerged as the most accurate among the electronic models.

HEADER

Locating a header isn’t a common task since headers are typically found above doors and windows. However, this test was also designed to evaluate whether a stud finder could identify wooden structures within a wall that aren’t standard 2×4 studs.

As expected, the magnetic stud finders performed well, easily detecting screws in the header. However, their limitation is clear: if screws or nails weren’t used to secure the header, these tools become ineffective.

Surprisingly, the Zircon excelled in this test, accurately identifying the header. In contrast, both the Klein and Franklin struggled and failed to detect it.

COPPER PIPE

Detecting water pipes can save you from disaster.  Ask us how we know!  We have put a screw through a waterpipe several times.  This test is meant to simulate a pipe running through a wall and evaluate how well stud finders can locate it.

The Zircon was the only stud finder that detected the pipe, but it couldn’t differentiate between a stud and a water pipe, leaving the detection ambiguous and, ultimately, unhelpful.

There is a model on the market called the Wallabot, which claims to distinguish between wood, pipes, and electrical components. However, with a starting price of $200 and mixed reviews, it’s not without its drawbacks.

LIVE WIRE

The final test focused on detecting a live electrical wire running through the wall cavity. This is a critical safety feature that could potentially be life saving. Of the models we tested, only two claimed the ability to identify live electrical wires: the Franklin and the Zircon.

The Zircon failed entirely, and did not detect the wire.  This is potentially worse than if the feature were not present at all because it creates a false sense of security. While the Franklin did detect the presence of electricity, it misidentified its location, rendering the feature unreliable. Ultimately, we found this functionality to be a failure for both models.

REVIEWS

After narrowing down our choices, we scoured the internet for good quality reviews. These can be very hard to find now that fake and paid-for reviews are everywhere.

Sites like ReviewMeta and FakeSpot analyze reviews with their algorithm to eliminate suspicious ones and give an updated score.

The CH Hanson that is our winner had 31,118 ratings on Amazon as of the time of this review. Fakespot review analysis gave it a score of A, showing that the reviews are accurate and high quality.

AMAZON RATING

4.6

31,118 Ratings

ADJUSTED RATING

4.6

31,118 Ratings

*Disclaimer: We don’t accept payment from any company, so you know our reviews are hones so you know our reviews are honest and unbiased. We are completely supported our fans. This page contains affiliate links. That means that we are awarded a small commission for purchases made through them, at no added cost for you. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.