What's inside
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This post may contain affiliate links at no extra cost to you.
Our Top Picks
Quick verdict
The Makita 2012NB and DeWalt DW735 can both leave a clean surface, but they get there differently. The Makita is the quieter, lighter, easier-to-move planer, with a straightforward two-knife cutterhead. The DeWalt is heavier and louder, but its three-knife cutterhead and selectable feed rates give it more control over finish quality and production speed.
For a small shop where the planer gets carried to the work, the Makita is a sensible choice. For a fixed bench and frequent use on wide boards, the DW735 is the more versatile machine. Neither makes tear-out disappear: sharp knives, sensible feed direction and careful setup still matter more than the badge.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you.
What the specifications tell you
| Feature | Makita 2012NB | DeWalt DW735 |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum width | 12 inches | 13 inches |
| Maximum depth of cut | 1/8 inch | 1/8 inch |
| Cutterhead knives | Two | Three |
| Feed rates | One speed, about 28 feet per minute | About 14 or 26 feet per minute |
| Weight | About 61 pounds | About 92 pounds |
| Dust handling | Chip deflector; dust collection is useful | Fan-assisted chip ejection; collector or directed discharge recommended |
Both machines are portable only in the benchtop-planer sense. At roughly 92 pounds, the DeWalt is awkward to lift alone; the Makita is easier to move, though 61 pounds is still enough to call for a stable stand and careful handling. Both accept stock up to 12 inches thick, and both need adequate infeed and outfeed support for long boards.
Which leaves the smoother finish?
The DW735 has a real finish advantage when you select its slower feed rate. Its three knives make more cuts per inch than the Makita’s two knives at comparable cutterhead speeds, and the 14-feet-per-minute setting increases that further. In practical terms, this can reduce visible scallops on a board that will be sanded or finished. The slower setting also takes longer, so it is most useful for final passes rather than rough dimensioning.
The Makita runs at one feed rate, around 28 feet per minute. That is quick and productive, but it does not offer the DeWalt’s slower finishing option. Still, a sharp, properly set-up Makita can leave a very good surface. If boards are going through a sander or will be painted, the DeWalt’s extra finish refinement may not justify its added weight, noise and cost.
Neither planer is a guarantee against tear-out on figured wood. Grain that changes direction can lift and break out under either cutterhead, especially with an aggressive cut. Take lighter passes, feed the board with the grain where possible, and test a short scrap first. A planer also won’t correct a twisted board simply by taking off more material; use a jointer or a suitable flattening method to establish a flat face before thicknessing.
Capacity, cutting and common trouble
The DeWalt’s extra inch of width matters if you routinely plane panels or stock just over 12 inches wide. For ordinary cabinet parts and furniture boards narrower than 12 inches, the Makita has the capacity most users need. Both have a listed maximum cut of 1/8 inch, but that is not a sensible target for every pass. Wide, hard or figured stock can bog the motor or worsen the surface if you try to remove too much at once. Start with a lighter cut, then adjust based on how the planer sounds and how the board looks.
Snipe—deeper cuts near the beginning or end of a board—is a risk with both machines. Support the board level through the cut, avoid pressing down hard right at the cutterhead, and leave extra length if the ends will be trimmed later. The DW735’s automatic carriage lock is intended to reduce movement that contributes to snipe, but it cannot replace good board support or careful feeding.
Both planers can leave knife marks if the knives are nicked, dull or incorrectly installed. A small nick can show up as a repeated line down the length of each board. Inspect the knives and workpiece before blaming the feed rollers, and keep metal, grit and loose debris away from the cutterhead. The Makita’s two-knife setup means each knife does more work; the DeWalt has three knives, but replacement costs and availability should still be part of ownership planning.
Dust, noise and day-to-day ownership
The DW735’s fan-assisted chip ejection is strong, but that does not mean chips vanish neatly into a small bag. Without a suitable collection setup or a clear discharge path, shavings can pile up quickly and obstruct the outlet. The Makita’s chip deflector is less forceful; connect dust collection if you want to keep the bench and floor under control. Check the manufacturer’s guidance for your collector and hose arrangement rather than assuming either machine is dust-free.
Both are loud enough to warrant hearing protection. The lighter Makita is easier to store or take to a job, while the heavier DeWalt benefits from a dedicated, sturdy stand. If you are comparing options for a compact shop, browse benchtop planers with weight and dust-port arrangements in mind, not just cutting width.
Which one should you buy?
Choose the Makita 2012NB if you value lower weight, easier storage and a simple, fast workflow. It is a good fit for a hobby shop that planes moderate quantities and sands or scrapes afterward. It is also the more practical option when the machine has to be moved regularly.
Choose the DeWalt DW735 if you want a wider capacity, a slower finishing feed and higher throughput at its faster setting. It makes more sense for frequent use in a shop where its weight is not a problem and chip handling is planned. The cheaper or lighter machine is fine when your boards are under 12 inches wide and a final sanding pass is already part of the job.
Before buying either, price replacement knives, check that you have room for long stock, and budget for a stable stand and dust management. Those practical details will affect the results more often than the small differences in headline capacity.