01
Water architecture showed the largest split
Brew-water ratios ranged from 5.56:1–13.33:1. Some recipes brewed a concentrate; others used much more water inside the AeroPress.
WAC 2025 recipe analysis
There was no average winning recipe: what 23 WAC 2025 recipes reveal
We analyzed 23 recipes from the 2025 World AeroPress Championship final. The rules kept dose and served beverage mass relatively tight, but competitors made very different choices around brew water, bypass, temperature, timing, agitation, pressing, and service.
The sample covers 23 of 66 finalists. Only first, second, and third place are known. All competitors used the same coffee and could use no more than 18 g.
Five findings
02
Bypass was common, but not one method
Exact recipes ranged from 0–88 g. Timing, proportion, cooling, and service role also differed.
03
The podium used three systems
First and second used 100 g and 100 g of brew water. Third used 208 g with only 12 g of bypass.
04
Temperature and timing did not converge
Temperatures spanned 82–95°C, press starts 50–160 seconds, and exact press durations 15–60 seconds.
05
Written recipes described pressing poorly
Most records included some timing, but few defined press endpoint, output, or flow rate.
The sample at a glance
Where the recipes landed
The rules narrowed some variables. The recipes still spread widely across the decisions competitors controlled.
Dose
primary n=19
16 g–18 g
Median 18 g
Final beverage
primary n=21
Mostly 150 g
Required minimum · observed range 150 g–205 g
Brew-water ratio
primary n=17
5.56:1–13.33:1
Median 9.71:1
Bypass
primary n=16
0 g–88 g
Median 32.5 g
Temperature
primary n=21
82°C–95°C
Median 88°C
Press start
primary n=19
50 s–160 s
Median 90 s
Press duration
primary n=15
15 s–60 s
Median 30 s
Stir count
primary n=19
0–25
Median 5
Swirl count
primary n=20
0–28
Median 0
Each card uses its own scale. Usable recipe counts vary because missing, estimated, and conflicting values remain separate.
Full distributions
Variable atlas
These graphs show where competition practice converged and where it did not. They are the central result of the report.
● Primary value◇ Sensitivity value□ 2025 rule-default targetRing = podiumBand = middle 50%
Primary and sensitivity values stay visually distinct. Every chart states its own eligible n. Select a point to inspect the recipe.
Water structure
Dose and served mass were rule-constrained. Brew water, bypass, and their ratios reveal more of the recipe design.
Coffee dose
16 g–18 g · median 18 g · primary n=19
Dry coffee placed in the AeroPress chamber. 1 sensitivity value is also shown.
Lower doseMiddle 50%Higher dose
Min 16 gMax 18 g
The 18 g competition maximum compressed dose. Most documented recipes sit at or close to the cap.
Brew water
100 g–240 g · median 169 g · primary n=20
Water documented as contacting the coffee during brewing. 2 sensitivity values are also shown.
Less contact waterMiddle 50%More contact water
Min 100 gMax 240 g
The sample used a wide range of brew-water amounts.
Brew water excludes bypass and final beverage mass.
Brew-water ratio
5.56:1–13.33:1 · median 9.71:1 · primary n=17
Grams of brew water per gram of coffee, with bypass excluded. 3 sensitivity values are also shown.
Lower brew-water ratioMiddle 50%Higher brew-water ratio
Min 5.56:1Max 13.33:1
This is the clearest numeric view of concentrate versus fuller-volume brewing.
Brew-water ratio describes recipe inputs, not measured extraction yield.
Bypass amount
0 g–88 g · median 32.5 g · primary n=16
Water added outside the main coffee-bed extraction phase. 3 sensitivity values are also shown.
Less bypassMiddle 50%More bypass
Min 0 gMax 88 g
Bypass ranged from exact zero to large additions and occurred at different times.
Final beverage mass
150 g–205 g · median 150 g · primary n=21
The target mass of coffee served for judging. 1 sensitivity value is also shown.
Smaller served cupMiddle 50%Larger served cup
Min 150 gMax 205 g
Most recipes sit at 150 g because that was the minimum beverage mass required for judging. This chart mainly provides service context.
Rule-default targets, explicitly stated targets, and sensitivity values use different marks.
Final-beverage ratio
8.33:1–11.39:1 · median 8.33:1 · primary n=17
Grams of final beverage per gram of coffee dose. 2 sensitivity values are also shown.
Lower served-cup ratioMiddle 50%Higher served-cup ratio
Min 8.33:1Max 11.39:1
Served-cup ratios are much tighter than brew-water ratios, largely because the rules pulled final beverage mass toward the same minimum.
Final-beverage ratio describes served cup size, not extraction or beverage strength.
Water TDS
48 ppm–125 ppm · median 87 ppm · primary n=13
Total dissolved solids reported for the brew water.
Lower water TDSMiddle 50%Higher water TDS
Min 48 ppmMax 125 ppm
Water TDS varied where stated, but coverage is limited.
Water TDS describes brew water. It is not beverage TDS.
Heat and time
Temperature, press start, and press duration stayed broad even though every competitor used the same coffee.
Brew temperature
82°C–95°C · median 88°C · primary n=21
The stated temperature of water used for brewing.
Cooler brew waterMiddle 50%Hotter brew water
Min 82°CMax 95°C
Primary recipes span cool, middle, and hot editorial bands.
Press start
50 s–160 s · median 90 s · primary n=19
Time from the recipe start to the beginning of the press. 3 sensitivity values are also shown.
Earlier pressMiddle 50%Later press
Min 50 sMax 160 s
Press start varied widely across the primary records.
Press duration
15 s–60 s · median 30 s · primary n=15
Time spent pressing the AeroPress. 2 sensitivity values are also shown.
Shorter pressMiddle 50%Longer press
Min 15 sMax 60 s
Documented press durations range from quick to deliberately slow presses.
Movement and service
Stirring, swirling, cooling, orientation, and particle preparation describe different actions and remain separate.
Stir count
0–25 · median 5 · primary n=19
Count of documented stirring actions. 1 sensitivity value is also shown.
Fewer stirsMiddle 50%More stirs
Min 0Max 25
Stir counts vary, but counts do not capture force or timing.
Swirl count
0–28 · median 0 · primary n=20
Count of documented swirling actions. 2 sensitivity values are also shown.
Fewer swirlsMiddle 50%More swirls
Min 0Max 28
Many recipes state no swirl, while a few use repeated swirling.
Cooling
explicit n=22
Whether the written recipe documents cooling after brewing.
10
12
Cooling documented10/22
No explicit cooling12/22
One additional recipe has cooling inferred from transfer or aeration wording and remains separate from the explicit comparison.
Inverted orientation
Explicitly documented inverted brews.
90.0%3 missing or ineligible
Particle preparation
Sifting, chaff removal, or fines removal documented.
39.1%0 missing or ineligible
Grind and hardware
Grinder settings stay inside compatible systems. Hardware prevalence is descriptive, not evidence of an advantage.
Grind within compatible systems
Click settings are device settings, not direct particle-size measurements. No combined grinder scale is created.
Strict C40 comparator
exact n=12 · 20–37.5 clicks20 clicks37.5 clicks
Hammerhead comparator
exact n=5 · 22–52 clicks21 clicks52 clicks
The estimated split-grind midpoint is shown separately and is not part of the exact denominator.
Unresolved Comandante · n=3C40 model-specific, not pooled · n=1Trailmaster/Tigershark · n=1
The strict C40 and exact Hammerhead views show meaningful spread inside each compatible system. Unresolved and model-specific settings remain outside those comparisons.
Flow Control cap
A cap that prevents drip-through before pressing and allows pressure to build during the press.
13.0%0 missing or ineligible
Two of three podium recipes used a Flow Control cap, compared with 1 of 20 rank-unknown recipes. This small descriptive contrast does not show a placement advantage.
Filter setup
Filter and hardware configurations remain recipe-level records in Explore the data.
What connects the variables
Water architecture and bypass
Water architecture is the split between water used during brewing and water added outside that phase as bypass.
Contact water versus bypass
Exact paired values · n=13
Bypass share
High bypass
Low contact water
High contact water
5.56:1 brew-water ratioBrew water per gram of coffee13.33:1
Ring = podium□ Preloaded bypass● Post-brew bypass▲ No bypassFilled = cooling documented
Thirteen recipes have primary paired values for brew-water ratio and bypass share. Before-brew and after-brew bypass remain distinct.
The broad structures are easy to see. Some competitors made a strong concentrate and added a large bypass. Others used a moderate concentrate. A third group brewed with much more water inside the AeroPress and used little or no bypass. Source-specific and unresolved recipes remain separate.
Bypass amount is only part of the decision. Water could be placed in the server before brewing or added after pressing. It could dilute a concentrate, lower serving temperature, or support another service step. That is why “uses bypass” is too broad to describe one method.
No single broad water structure dominated the available sample. Brew-water ratio and bypass are more informative than served mass because the 150 g judging minimum pulled many final beverages toward the same target.
Three case studies
Three podium systems
The podium shows why an average recipe would be misleading.
| Variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dose | 18 g | 18 g | 16 g |
| Brew water | 100 g | 100 g | 208 g |
| Brew-water ratio | 5.56:1 | 5.56:1 | 13:1 |
| Bypass | 70 g | 86 g | 12 g |
| Temperature | 84°C | 88°C | 88°C |
| Press duration | 20 s | ≈44 s | 60 s |
- Dose
- 18 g
- Brew water
- 100 g
- Brew-water ratio
- 5.56:1
- Bypass
- 70 g
- Temperature
- 84°C
- Press duration
- 20 s
- Dose
- 18 g
- Brew water
- 100 g
- Brew-water ratio
- 5.56:1
- Bypass
- 86 g
- Temperature
- 88°C
- Press duration
- ≈44 s
- Dose
- 16 g
- Brew water
- 208 g
- Brew-water ratio
- 13:1
- Bypass
- 12 g
- Temperature
- 88°C
- Press duration
- 60 s
Approximate values are visually distinct. Jan Ahrend’s ≈44-second press is derived from the stated range.
First and second shared a concentrated 100 g brew-water structure, but differed in bypass timing, orientation, filters, particle preparation, cooling, and pressing. Third used a fundamentally different structure: 208 g of brew water and only 12 g of bypass.
Némo Pop’s recipe also separated from the other 22 in the strongest statistical split. That makes it a useful structural outlier, not an explanation for winning. With only three known placements, the report cannot connect any recipe feature to final rank.
Supporting findings
Three additional patterns worth noticing
Temperature, cooling, and press documentation add important context to the water story.
Temperature and timing remained broad
Competitors used cool, middle, and hot water, then began and completed pressing on very different schedules. The full distributions show no narrow consensus around one temperature or press pattern.
Cooling appeared as a meaningful branch
Cooling is the clearest documented difference between the two largest post-brew neighborhoods.
Cooled neighborhood7/7
recipes with documented cooling
Mostly non-cooled neighborhood1/8
recipes with documented cooling
Neighborhoods identify nearby recipes. They are not fixed recipe types, and this pattern does not show a placement advantage.
Pressing was under-described
What the written recipes leave out
All 23 written recipe records
11
6
3
Timed press; endpoint unstated
11/23 · 47.8%
Press under-specified
6/23 · 26.1%
Timed press + hiss endpoint
3/23 · 13.0%
Estimated timing + hiss endpoint
1/23 · 4.3%
Output- and rate-controlled press
1/23 · 4.3%
Timed press + stop-before-hiss endpoint
1/23 · 4.3%
This measures what the written recipes document. It does not measure how precisely competitors executed their presses.
For competitors
What competitors can test
Use the distributions to choose a controlled experiment, not to copy one isolated setting.
Start with a water structure: concentrate plus bypass, a moderate concentrate, or a fuller-volume brew. Hold final beverage mass constant. Then change one main variable at a time, such as brew water, bypass timing, temperature, or press start.
Record stirring and swirling separately. Define press start, duration, rate, output, endpoint, and whether the press reaches the hiss. Include cooling and service in the recipe. Those details make the next cup easier to interpret.
Important limits
Limitations
This is a descriptive report about the available recipes, not a model of competition success.
The sample covers 23 of 66 finalists. Only first, second, and third place are known. The missing 43 recipes may contain patterns that do not appear here, and the 20 rank-unknown records cannot be ordered by performance.
Usable counts vary by variable. Missing, estimated, and conflicting values remain separate. Written gaps may reflect incomplete records, not what happened on stage. Water TDS is not beverage TDS, so the report does not calculate extraction yield. No chart identifies a cause of podium placement.
Conclusion
The rules narrowed the cup, not the method
Dose and served beverage mass were compressed by the rules. The choices competitors controlled still spread widely.
Brew water, bypass, temperature, timing, agitation, pressing, and service reveal the real recipe differences. Compare those complete systems, then test one decision at a time.
Related reading