Home » Vacuum Sealers »
Today’s culture, and rightfully so, is all about finding ways to reduce our carbon footprint. One of the simplest ways that we can all contribute to is not throwing out so much food. It’s so tempting to buy in bulk to save money but without a quality preservation system, it’s more waste.
We are going to look at two solutions to preserve food for up to 5 times longer than ordinary methods, based on food in the freezer. We will look at how the FoodSaver 4980 vs 4840 are similar and different and offer some other insights that will help with your purchasing decisions.
We will begin with what the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 have in common.
FoodSaver 4980 vs 4840
Quick Glance
Name | FoodSaver V4840 2-in-1 Vacuum Sealer Machine with Automatic Bag Detection and Starter Kit | FoodSaver 4980 2-in 1 Vacuum Sealing System (standard) |
---|---|---|
Image | ||
Size | 10.9 x 20 x 12 inches | 10.2 x 19.4 x 9.4 inches |
Weight | 10.1lbs | 10.8 inches |
Uses | Meat, fish, bread, pantry goods, cheese, fruit, vegetables, soups, stews, cakes, cookies | Meat, fish, bread, pantry goods, cheese, fruit, vegetables, soups, stews, cakes, cookies |
Operation | Automatic | Automatic |
Retractable Handheld Sealer | Yes | Yes |
Removable Drip Tray | Yes | Yes |
Dry/Moist Mode | Yes | Yes |
PulseVac | Yes | Yes |
Built-in Roll Storage and Cutter | Yes | Yes |
What’s Included | An 11 x 10-inch vacuum seal roll, 3 1qt vacuum seal bags, 2 1-gallon vacuum seal bags, 3 1qt zipper vacuum bags, 2 1-gallon zipper vacuum bags | An 11 x 10-inch vacuum seal roll, 5 1qt vacuum seal bags, 5 1-gallon vacuum seal bags, 4 1-gallon vacuum zipper bags, a leftovers container, a bottle stopper |
Price | Check Price on Amazon | Check Price on Amazon |
Uses
You can use the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 for preserving food in the freezer, the fridge, and your cupboards. They will seal meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, cheese, pantry foods, soups, and stews.
Automatic Operation
The FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 are both completely automatic. They will sense the bag in between the sealing strips and automatically start the vacuuming and airtight seal.
Retractable Handheld Sealer
Built-into the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 is a retractable handheld sealer. You can take this out to conveniently seal zipper bags, canisters and to marinate food in just a few minutes.
Read next – FoodSaver 4980 vs 2100: Which Vacuum Sealer Is better?
Roll Storage
You will be able to store your vacuum seal roll inside the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840. There is also a built-in cutter so you can cut the roll to the exact size you need.
Dry/Moist Mode
If you are sealing foods and you want to remove any additional moisture, you can switch the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 to the moist mode and the machines will intelligently remove the moisture before sealing the bag.
Drip tray
Removed moisture and any accidental spillage will be caught in the drip tray that comes with the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840. The tray is easy to remove and can be put in the dishwasher to clean.
PulseVac
If you want to vacuum and seal delicate goods like chips, muffins, or cakes, you don’t want the vacuuming to be so strong that it crushes the food. The FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 have a PulseVac setting, which allows you to control the amount of vacuuming and keeps food intact.
Now that all of the shared features have been covered, we can go on to look at how the FoodSaver 4980 and the FoodSaver 4840 are different.
Differences Between FoodSaver 4980 and FoodSaver 4840
Appearance
There isn’t a great deal of difference in how the two vacuum sealers look. They are both silver with black features. However, there is a slight difference in the size and the controls.
FoodSaver 4840
The machine measures 10.9 x 20 x 12 inches and it weighs 10.1 pounds. The retractable handheld sealer is built into the left of the unit and the controls are on the top, at the back.
FoodSaver 4980
This machine is just a bit smaller at 10.2 x 19.4 x 9.4 inches. It weighs 10.8 pounds, not enough of a difference to be noticeable. The retractable handheld sealer is also on the left, but the controls are on top and at the front.
The Winner Is- A Tie
Read next – FoodSaver 2800 vs 4800: Which Vacuum Sealer is Better?
What’s Included
So that you can start preserving your food straight away, FoodSaver includes a starter kit with their vacuum sealers.
FoodSaver 4840
This comes with an 11 x 10-inch vacuum seal roll, 3 1qt vacuum seal bags, 2 1-gallon vacuum seal bags, 3 1qt zipper vacuum bags, and 2 1-gallon zipper vacuum bags.
FoodSaver 4980
The starter kit is slightly more generous with an 11 x 10-inch vacuum seal roll, 5 1qt vacuum seal bags, 5 1-gallon vacuum seal bags, 4 1-gallon vacuum zipper bags, a leftovers container, and a bottle stopper.
The Winner Is- The FoodSaver 4980
Read next – FoodSaver 5460 vs 5480: Which Vacuum Sealer is Better?
Pros and Cons
Before our final verdict, we will cover a few pros and cons of the FoodSaver 2-in-1 vacuum sealers.
FoodSaver 4840
Pros:
- Very straight forward to use
- It doesn’t take up a great of space
- The bag sensor is very smart
Cons:
- We noticed a little air left in the bag when we cooked by sous vide
FoodSaver 4980
Pros:
- It provides a consistently good seal
- It’s ideal if you love baking in batches
- Nice to be able to seal drinks in bottles
Cons:
- It struggles to seal properly if the bag is wet
The Final Verdict
When you are using the FoodSaver 4840 and the FoodSaver 4890 side by side, you really won’t notice much of a difference. They both do exactly as advertised; they will save you money and preserve food for longer. The FoodSaver 4890 was that little bit smaller and it did take up less space, which was an advantage.
It was also impossible to base the decision on the features. They both came with built-in storage and a cutter, the PulseVac and Dry/moist mode, and the retractable handheld sealer. All of which meant we could seal a great range of foods.
Today’s winner is the FoodSaver 4980. We appreciated the smaller size and most of all, we felt that the starter kit was much more complete and better value for money.