You hit it right on the head there Joe. This is an inappropriate comparison, plus, the writers interpretation of the results is extremely biased. I'd call this, at worst, a draw. Issues that I see with the coverage:
- The residue from cleaning washes off, with water, you fix this by rinsing your part under the tap for 10 seconds after removing from the bath
- The quality of these two cups is pretty close, no hands down winning
- The print quality/speed was not the same, the printrbot printed at twice the layer height
- The print file chosen, and the orientation printed is biased to allow the printrbot to compete - Flip the cup upside down then see which one wins.

Don't get me wrong, I love 3D printing, and what's happening in the consumer space (Have a UM1). But telling new people to the industry this kind of thing doesn't help them. Someone's going to out and buy 10 printrbots (also have a printrbot, love them!) and think they can start an outsource print business because they read articles like this. Even the original writer of the piece says he doesn't have any 3D printing experience. What the heck are you doing publishing something so biased then?

I appreciate 3Dprint.com and generally the articles are good. But try to keep it objective when you're reporting on things, as a number of people use this site for real advice and ideas.

Cheers,