# WAC 2025 Podium Recipes Compared Canonical: https://brew.supply/learn/wac-2025-podium-recipes-compared Description: Compare Némo Pop, Jan Ahrend, and Dharun Vyas across dose, brew water, bypass, temperature, timing, filters, and evidence status. The 2025 podium did not use one shared recipe system. Némo Pop and Jan Ahrend each used 18 g coffee with 100 g of brew water, then built the served cup with large bypasses. Dharun Vyas used 16 g coffee, 208 g of brew water, and only 12 g of bypass. These are three successful systems under the same-coffee final—not evidence that one variable caused a placement. Scope: This comparison covers the only 3 known placements in an audited sample of 23 available recipes from 66 finalists. Exact source values, safe derivations, competition-rule defaults, estimates, and ranges remain labeled. The full sample and denominator audit stay in the master report. ## Key definitions ### Exact A number or category stated directly in the source recipe or verified official record. ### Derived A value calculated safely from stated inputs, such as brew-water ratio, total input water, or bypass share. ### Rule default The 150 g served-beverage value used by the audited report when the recipe did not state a different final mass. ### Estimated or ranged A sensitivity value or interval retained for context but not presented as an exact observation. ## What the three recipes genuinely shared They brewed the same competition coffee, stayed within the 18 g dose maximum, and produced cups that advanced to the official podium. That shared frame makes the podium useful as a case comparison. Coffee identity was not the reason the three methods differed, because the final supplied one coffee. All three recipes were also documented with deliberate water, grinding, filtration, agitation, pressing, and service choices rather than a vague steep-and-press instruction. The shared frame does not make this a controlled experiment. Competitors used different water recipes, grinders or burr systems, filters, orientations, preparation steps, practice histories, and execution. Judges evaluated complete cups, not isolated variables. Placement therefore identifies the official result, but it cannot tell us that 100 g brew water, a Flow Control cap, chaff removal, or any other single feature caused that result. The strongest responsible conclusion is architectural: several very different systems could produce a preferred cup from the same coffee. That is more useful than averaging the three into a synthetic podium recipe that nobody actually brewed. ## First and second shared a ratio, then diverged Némo Pop and Jan Ahrend both used 18 g coffee with 100 g brew water, a safely derived 5.56:1 contact-water ratio. The matching ratio hides important differences. Némo preloaded 70 g of 50°C bypass water in the carafe, brewed upright through a Flow Control cap and two paper filters, removed chaff and fines, and used an 84°C brew-water recipe. Jan brewed inverted at 88°C with two rinsed standard papers, removed chaff, pressed to a measured 66 g output, then added 86 g of bypass to reach an explicit 152 g beverage and cooled it to about 54°C. Their bypass shares were also different when calculated against stated input water: 41.18% for first and 46.24% for second. More importantly, the timing changed the workflow. Preloaded bypass receives the pressed concentrate immediately; post-brew bypass lets the brewer measure concentrate output before cup assembly. Equal brew-water ratios do not make those service systems equivalent. Némo’s recipe was the strongest structural outlier in the 23-recipe model because several unusual choices appeared together. That is a description of multivariable distance, not a novelty score or an explanation for winning. Jan’s recipe sat in a broader cooled post-brew concentrate neighborhood. Neither label ranks cup quality. ## Third place used a different water architecture Dharun Vyas used 208 g of brew water with 16 g coffee, giving a 13:1 brew-water ratio before a small 12 g bypass. This was not a slightly diluted version of the first two recipes. More than twice as much water contacted each gram of coffee. The 12 g bypass represented only 5.45% of the 220 g stated input water, compared with more than 40% for both concentrate-led recipes above it. Dharun also used an inverted brewer with a Flow Control cap and one classic paper filter, 88°C water, no recorded stirring, and four to five swirls. The official record gives a 60-second press. The audited dataset treats the 50-second press start and 110-second total time as estimated sensitivity values, so the comparison does not paint them as exact observations. For testing, third place is the cleanest architectural contrast on the podium: fuller contact-water extraction with a small post-brew addition versus strong concentrate systems with large bypass. That contrast is worth brewing. It still does not reveal which system would suit another coffee. ## How to learn from the comparison Choose one architectural question before copying the choreography. If the question is concentrate versus fuller-volume brewing, begin with water allocation. Keep coffee, dose, final beverage mass, tasting temperature, and as much execution as possible fixed. Compare a low contact-water ratio with a higher one, then decide whether bypass amount and timing deserve a second test. If the question is first versus second, preserve the shared 18 g dose and 100 g brew water while changing only one meaningful branch. Preloaded versus post-brew bypass is one clean question. Upright versus inverted is not a clean swap unless safety, drip-through control, filter cap, and workflow are also addressed. Brew Supply’s practical judgment is to reproduce the logic before the ornament. Exact grinder clicks belong to the named grinder and calibration. Filter stacks, mineral systems, and particle preparation can matter, but introducing them all at once prevents the comparison from teaching you which change moved the cup. - Testing a concentrate architecture? Start: Compare first and second: both used 18 g coffee and 100 g brew water. Hold: Keep coffee, grinder calibration, served mass, and tasting temperature controlled. Vary: Test bypass timing, orientation, particle preparation, or cooling one at a time. - Testing a fuller-volume extraction? Start: Use third place as the contrasting system: 16 g coffee, 208 g brew water, and 12 g bypass. Hold: Do not copy the grinder number unless you use the same C40 Red Clix reference. Vary: Compare contact-water allocation before adding filtration or agitation differences. - Trying to reproduce an official recipe? Start: Follow the official source wording and record every substitution you make. Hold: Keep exact, derived, defaulted, estimated, and ranged values visibly separate. Vary: Retest the coffee-dependent numbers; the 2025 finalists brewed one shared competition coffee. ## What this podium cannot prove Three placements are case studies, not enough ranked data for causal or prevalence claims. The master report contains 23 available recipes, but only first, second, and third have known ranks. The other 20 are not ordered below the podium. A feature seen in two placed recipes cannot be compared responsibly with “non-podium” recipes because rank is unknown for most of the sample. The podium also cannot establish an optimum temperature, grind, ratio, filter count, agitation pattern, or water composition. Each recipe is a bundle. Judges selected a complete cup under live conditions, and the dataset contains recipe instructions rather than measured extraction yield, beverage TDS, or standardized sensory scores. Use the comparison to generate controlled tests and to understand recipe architecture. Use the official recipe pages when reproducing instructions. Use the complete research report for field-wide distributions, denominators, missingness, and methods. ## Related research and guides - [AeroPress championship filter systems](/learn/aeropress-championship-filters): Interpret the podium's paper layers and Flow Control caps without treating them as causal. - [AeroPress championship grind settings](/learn/aeropress-championship-grind-settings): Interpret the podium's three grinder systems using compatible comparator groups. - [Inverted vs standard AeroPress](/learn/aeropress-inverted-vs-standard): Separate orientation from Flow Control, filters, bypass, safety, and placement claims. - [Complete WAC 2025 recipe analysis](/wac-2025-recipe-analysis-report): Inspect all 23 available recipes, variable-specific denominators, methods, limitations, and public data. - [Why championship recipes look different](/learn/why-aeropress-championship-recipes-are-different): Understand why competition constraints produce specialized recipes and what transfers to home brewing. - [AeroPress concentrate and bypass ratios](/learn/aeropress-espresso-and-bypass-ratios): Keep brew water, bypass, total input water, and final beverage mass separate. - [AeroPress water-temperature guide](/learn/aeropress-water-temperature): Test brew-water temperature without treating a competition value as a universal optimum. - [Historical WAC recipe evolution](/world-aeropress-championship-recipe-evolution): Compare 46 available podium recipes from 2009–2025 in a separate historical archive. - [Championship-prep framework](/learn/aeropress-championship-prep): Turn a recipe hypothesis into controlled practice blocks and repeatable service. - [Log the test in AeroDial](/apps/aerodial): Record each brew, hold variables steady, and compare the cup direction. ## FAQ ### What was the winning AeroPress recipe in 2025? Némo Pop of Australia won with an upright 18 g recipe using 100 g brew water at 84°C, 70 g of 50°C bypass preloaded in the carafe, a Flow Control cap, two paper filters, and a roughly 20-second press beginning at 50 seconds. Use the official WAC source for the complete instructions. ### Did the 2025 podium use the same AeroPress recipe? No. First and second shared an 18 g dose and 100 g brew water, but differed in bypass timing, orientation, filtration, particle preparation, pressing, and cooling. Third used 16 g coffee, 208 g brew water, and only 12 g bypass. ### Which 2025 podium recipe is best for home brewing? The placements do not answer that. Choose the architecture that matches your test: a concentrate with large bypass or a fuller-volume brew with small bypass. Translate grinder and equipment settings, then retest with your coffee and water. ### Why is Jan Ahrend’s press duration shown as a range? The official recipe specifies pressing at 1–2 g per second until 66 g of output. That implies roughly 33–66 seconds. The audited dataset keeps a 44-second midpoint only as a sensitivity value, not an exact observation. ### Does Némo Pop’s outlier status explain the win? No. It means the recipe was structurally distant from the other 22 records across several modeled features. Distance is not quality, causality, or probability of placement. ## Sources - [1. Némo Pop, Australia](https://worldaeropresschampionship.com/pages/1st-nemo-pop-australia-2025): Official World AeroPress Championship 2025 podium recipe. - [2. Jan Ahrend, Switzerland](https://worldaeropresschampionship.com/pages/2nd-jan-ahrend-switzerland-2025): Official World AeroPress Championship 2025 podium recipe. - [3. Dharun Vyas, India](https://worldaeropresschampionship.com/pages/3rd-dharun-vyas-india-2025): Official World AeroPress Championship 2025 podium recipe. - [Audited WAC 2025 research report](/wac-2025-recipe-analysis-report): 23 available recipes from 66 finalists; analysis version 1.1.0. - [Official 2025 championship recap](https://worldaeropresschampionship.com/pages/2025-world-aeropress-championship): Official final size, shared event context, and podium result. Data and copy reviewed: 30 July 2026.