How We Test Build Quality

Build quality is not just about how a vape looks in photos. It affects how long a device works as intended, how it handles drops and daily wear, and how well it protects the battery and liquid inside. On VapePicks, we treat build quality as one of the core pillars in every review, alongside flavor, throat hit, vapor production, and other performance metrics.

This page explains how we test build quality across different types of e-cigarettes and vape devices and how those observations turn into a single 1–5 score that appears in our reviews.

What “Build Quality” Means on VapePicks

When we talk about build quality, we are looking at the physical construction of a device in real use. That includes:

  • How the body, panels, and seams are put together

  • The quality and thickness of metals and plastics

  • Button feel, tolerances, and long-term click stability

  • Fit of pods, tanks, and drip tips

  • Accuracy and robustness of USB-C ports and battery doors

  • How well the device handles heat from the battery and coil

  • How it stands up to being carried in pockets, bags, and cars

We do not treat build quality as a guarantee of safety or health. Hardware design can reduce some obvious risks (for example, better battery housing and venting can lower the chance of catastrophic failure), but the overall risk profile of vaping also depends on chemistry, exposure, and user behavior.

Build quality is one separate score in our rating system. It feeds into, but does not replace, the broader safety and risk discussions that appear in device-specific reviews.

Our 5-Point Build Quality Score

Every device we test receives a 1–5 build quality score, in 0.5-point steps. The scale is:

  • 5.0 – Excellent
    Very solid materials and assembly, consistent tolerances, no worrying noises or movement, and stable performance over extended use.

  • 4.0 – 4.5 – Strong
    Mostly sturdy, with only minor cosmetic or tactile issues that do not affect function for most adult users.

  • 3.0 – 3.5 – Acceptable
    Adequate for regular use, but we see clear trade-offs in materials, finish, or long-term feel that readers should know about.

  • 2.0 – 2.5 – Weak
    Noticeable flaws in fit, finish, or durability during testing. We highlight specific concerns.

  • Below 2.0
    Devices with major build concerns or serious problems in testing generally do not get recommended and may not appear in our main roundups.

The rest of this page explains how we gather the evidence that leads to those scores.

Step 1: Unboxing and First Inspection

Every build quality evaluation starts with a simple question: what does this device feel like in the hand before we even take a puff?

Chris Miller, our lead tester, goes through a standard check:

  • Inspecting the chassis for flex, creaks, or bending under light pressure

  • Running a fingertip along seams to check for sharp edges or gaps

  • Pressing buttons, firing switches, and adjustment keys to check wobble, rattle, and click feel

  • Checking the fit of pods or tanks in their slots, including magnets and latches

  • Looking at printing quality, warning labels, and serial numbers

Marcus and Jamal repeat this inspection with their own habits. Marcus pays close attention to heavier box mods and high-output devices. Jamal focuses more on compact pod systems and disposables that live in pockets and bags.

We log these first impressions in a shared template. If a device already feels loose, flimsy, or poorly aligned at this stage, it will have a hard time earning a high score later, even if it performs well in the short term.

Step 2: Materials, Fit, and Finish

Next, we break build quality into a set of material and assembly checks:

  • Type of shell (zinc alloy, aluminum, stainless steel, plastic, mixed)

  • Coating or finish (paint, rubberized layer, anodizing, PVD, etc.)

  • Weight balance between body and battery

  • Tolerance between moving parts (battery doors, sliding panels, pods, airflow rings)

  • Smoothness of threads on tanks or rebuildable sections, where applicable

Chris focuses on how these details feel in normal use. The device is held, turned, and pocketed repeatedly. Marcus tests whether finishes chip or show early wear when used more heavily around a desk, in a car, and during longer vape sessions.

Jamal pays attention to surfaces that rub against keys, coins, and zippers. He notes whether coatings scratch easily or if logos and regulatory markings rub off quickly.

We do not perform destructive testing. We focus on realistic, repeated use over a defined period and clearly label anything that goes beyond typical handling.

Step 3: Structural Integrity and Flex Testing

For structural integrity, we use a mix of static and dynamic checks:

  • Gentle torsion tests on the body to detect flex or creaks

  • Press tests on panels and doors to see if they bow inward or pop

  • Repeated pocket insertion and removal over several days

  • Short, controlled “knock tests” on a desk or table to observe movement of internal components

Marcus often leads this phase for larger devices. His heavier usage and larger hands highlight weak points quickly. If he feels a battery door moving or hears cells shifting under normal handling, we log this in detail and lower the build score.

Jamal checks slim pod devices and disposables in slim jeans pockets, hoodie pockets, and backpack compartments. He notes whether they feel rigid enough or bend when he sits, walks, or gets in and out of cars.

We do not throw devices, smash them, or run extreme drop tests. Build quality scoring reflects typical adult use and occasional minor accidents, not lab-style destruction.

Step 4: Buttons, Ports, and Moving Parts

Controls and ports fail often on poorly built devices, so we treat them as a separate layer in build testing:

  • Buttons and switches

    • Number of clicks a button goes through during our testing period

    • Consistency of click feel from day one to the end of the test

    • Incidents of misfires, stuck buttons, or double-fires

  • Ports and charging

    • How secure the USB-C cable feels in the port

    • Whether the port shows looseness when moved gently

    • Signs of wobble, cracking, or stress around the port housing

  • Doors and latches

    • How firmly panels latch

    • Whether magnets weaken or misalign

    • Whether battery doors pop open accidentally during pocket use

Chris monitors misfires and inconsistent button response during regular testing sessions. Marcus watches for issues when devices are used at higher wattages, where heat and expansion can expose weaknesses. Jamal checks how often a cable gets tugged while charging on the go and whether this stresses the port.

If controls or ports degrade noticeably within our test period, a device will not receive a top build score.

Step 5: Battery Housing and Safety-Related Construction

Lithium-ion batteries can fail when damaged, improperly handled, or poorly protected by a device. Documented cases of e-cigarette battery failures and explosions show that poor battery design and misuse can lead to burns and fires.

Our build quality testing does not claim to predict rare events, but we do focus on visible and functional details that relate to battery housing and protection:

  • Does the mod or device have clear venting pathways?

  • Is the battery door solid, with firm latching and no sharp internal edges?

  • Are polarity markings clear and easy to see?

  • Do 510 pins and internal contacts feel robust and stable?

  • Does the body show signs of excessive heat around the battery area under normal use?

Marcus watches for hot spots during extended high-wattage sessions and repeated chain vaping. If the device becomes unusually hot near the battery during our defined test patterns, that is noted as a negative build indicator.

Jamal checks pocket behavior: how warm devices get when sitting in a pocket after use, and whether any parts feel softer or more flexible over time.

Dr. Adrian Walker does not handle devices directly in these tests, but he reviews our notes. When we see repeated warmth around the battery housing or signs of damaged cells, he provides a short medical and safety context. He reminds readers that any swelling, hissing, or visible damage should trigger device retirement and proper battery disposal, not continued use at home.

Step 6: Real-World Durability and Wear

Build quality is not just a one-day check. We keep devices in rotation for a sustained period and track wear:

  • Small scuffs and scratches on coatings

  • Loosening of pod connections or tank threads

  • Changes in button feel and sound

  • Changes in panel fit and any new rattles

  • Stability of logos, printed warnings, and regulatory markings

Chris logs changes at specific time intervals, such as at the end of week one and week two. Marcus tends to expose devices to desk wear, car cup holders, and home use. Jamal exposes them more to pockets, bags, and outdoor conditions.

If a device still feels tight, clean, and structurally sound after our test window, it moves toward the upper end of the 5-point scale. If the shell chips quickly, doors misalign, or logos vanish, we treat that as evidence of weaker build quality, even when the device still functions.

Step 7: How We Turn Observations into a 5-Point Score

At the end of the test period, we combine our notes into a single build quality rating. The steps are:

  1. Individual logs

    • Chris, Marcus, and Jamal each submit their notes on materials, controls, long-term feel, and any issues.

  2. Dimension review
    We rate the device internally on several sub-dimensions:

    • Materials and finish

    • Structural integrity and flex

    • Buttons, ports, and moving parts

    • Battery housing and venting details

    • Real-world durability over the test period

  3. Consensus discussion
    We sit down and decide which aspects matter most for the device’s intended use. A pocketable pod system, for example, gets extra weight on port strength and coating durability. A large mod gets extra weight on battery door reliability and structural rigidity.

  4. Score assignment
    Chris assigns a 1–5 build quality score based on the consensus, in 0.5-point increments. The written review always explains why a device received that number, using concrete examples rather than vague praise.

  5. Safety and health wording check
    Before publication, Dr. Walker reviews any passages that touch battery failure, overheating, off-gassing, or visible damage. He checks that our wording stays cautious and does not downplay risk.

Build quality scores are never used to claim that a device is “safe” or “healthy.” They only describe how well the physical product is built and how it behaved in our tests.

How Each Team Member Contributes to Build Quality Testing

Chris Miller: Design and Reliability Perspective

Chris approaches build quality as the main narrator. He looks at:

  • Overall design coherence

  • How the device feels during regular days at work and at home

  • Whether buttons and doors still feel the same after weeks

  • How well visual details and labels hold up

His notes form the backbone of the build quality section in each review. When he writes “we,” he is summarizing the team’s shared experience.

Marcus Reed: Heavy-Use Stress Testing

Marcus pushes devices harder:

  • Higher wattage settings, within manufacturer limits

  • Longer sessions that keep the device warm

  • Frequent adjustments, battery swaps, and tank refills on compatible devices

He often surfaces stability issues that lighter use would miss. When he notes early loosening of doors or visible strain around ports during higher-output use, that weighs heavily against the build quality score.

Jamal Davis: Mobility and Everyday Carry

Jamal treats each device as a daily carry item:

  • In and out of pockets and bags

  • Charging on the move

  • Short, frequent sessions between tasks

He highlights:

  • Whether coatings hold up to keys and coins

  • Whether the device shifts or fires when it moves around

  • Whether ports and seams handle flexing in real clothes and bags

His perspective is most important for compact pod systems and disposables that live in pockets all day.

Dr. Adrian Walker: Clinical and Safety Context

Dr. Walker reviews sections of our build quality assessments that touch on:

  • Battery overheating or visible damage

  • Vent holes, sealed compartments, and potential gas pathways

  • Leakage around battery housings and electronics

  • Any language that might suggest reduced risk without support

He does not change the score. Instead, he checks that our written commentary around structural and battery issues lines up with current medical and safety guidance from public bodies and peer-reviewed literature.

If we describe repeated warmth near the battery or visible swelling, he may add a brief note telling readers that such signs warrant stopping use and seeking professional advice.

How Build Quality Fits into Our Overall Reviews

Build quality is one dimension among several in every VapePicks review. A device can have strong flavor and smooth airflow yet still lose points if the battery door is loose or the coating flakes quickly. It can also feel very solid in the hand but still raise concerns if we see repeated heat around the battery compartment.

In our final verdicts, we make those trade-offs clear. A high build quality score means the physical product felt solid and consistent across our tests. It does not replace individual medical advice or broader decisions about whether vaping is right for any specific person.

Sources

  • Reasoner JJ. Update on the risks of electronic cigarettes—vaping. Cureus. 2020. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7122267/

  • Harshman J, et al. Burns associated with e-cigarette batteries: A case series and literature review. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2016. https://caep.ca/periodicals/Volume_20_Issue_Supplement_2/Vol_20_Issue_Supplement_2_Page_S20_-_S28_Harshman.pdf

  • U.S. Fire Administration. E-cigarette Fire Safety. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/e-cigarette_fire_safety_flyer.pdf

  • Smokefree.gov. What We Know About Electronic Cigarettes. National Cancer Institute. https://smokefree.gov/quit-vaping-dip/quit-vaping-resources/ecigs

  • Consumer Notice. E-Cigarettes: How They Work, Risks & Side Effects. https://www.consumernotice.org/products/e-cigarettes/

Back to blog