Epson Stylus Photo 925

35 reviews

May, 2024

Positive
usability (6)
design (2)
print quality (2)
noise (1)

Negative
performance (5)
reliability (4)
price (4)
paper handling (1)

General overview
Price comparison

alaTest has collected and analyzed 35 reviews of Epson Stylus Photo 925. The average rating for this product is 3.2/5, compared to an average rating of 4.0/5 for other products in the same category for all reviews. Reviewers really like the noise and design. The print quality and usability are also appreciated, whereas there are some critical comments about the paper handling and reliability.

usability, print quality, design, noise

performance, price, reliability, paper handling

We analyzed user and expert ratings, product age and more factors. Compared to other products in the same category the Epson Stylus Photo 925 is awarded an overall alaScore™ of 78/100 = Good quality.

Review analysis

(Based on 35 reviews)

Expert Reviews

User Reviews

Review Ratings

(7% of reviews)
Show all 5 star reviews (43% of reviews)
Show all 4 star reviews (11% of reviews)
Show all 3 star reviews (25% of reviews)
Show all 2 star reviews (14% of reviews)
Show all 1 star reviews

Features

performance
Show positive (44%)Show negative (56%)(Show all)

price
Show positive (43%)Show negative (57%)(Show all)

usability
Show positive (86%)Show negative (14%)(Show all)

reliability
Show positive (20%)Show negative (80%)(Show all)

print quality
Show positive (67%)Show negative (33%)(Show all)

More features

Showing 17 review(s)

Expert Reviews User Reviews

Disclaimer:

Below is a list of reviews for this or similar products. If you think this grouping is wrong please click here to flag.
Read more on our FAQ’s page.

Showing 1 - 12 of 17 Show Reviews: in English | in other languages (18)

Consumer review (amazon.co.uk)

Amazon.co.uk review summary for Epson Stylus Photo 925

alaTest has collected and analyzed 2 user reviews of Epson Stylus Photo 925 from Amazon.co.uk. The average user rating for this product is 4.0/5, compared to an average user rating of 3.9/5 for other products in the same category on Amazon.co.uk.

100% of the reviews on Amazon.co.uk give this product a positive rating.

May, 2024

Expert review by : Dan Littman (pcworld.com)

Epson Stylus Photo 925

The 925 provides all the tools for printing glossies without a PC.

Dec, 2002

Read the full review

Expert review by : Dan Littman (pcworld.com)

Epson Stylus Photo 925 Inkjet Printer (Epson-C11C475011)

If you already have a printer for text documents, you''ll like what the 925 does for your photos.

Dec, 2002

Read the full review

Expert review by (pcmag.com)

Epson Stylus Photo 925

The three models we tested in the Epson Stylus Photo printer line give consumers a good choice at compelling prices, ranging from the bargain-priced Epson Stylus Photo 820 ($100) to the $300 Epson Stylus Photo 925, complete with memory card slots and...

Partner Source

Read the full review

Expert review by (steves-digicams.com)

Epson Stylus Photo 925

The printer offers the ability to print with or without a computer with built-in card slots, which support CompactFlash Type I and II, IBM Microdrive, SmartMedia and Sony Memory Stick. The printer supports Secure Digital and MultiMedia Cards with an...

The Stylus Photo 925 produces long-lasting photos which can resist fading up to 25 years with Epson's optimized combination of photo inks and fade-resistant papers, like EPSON ColorLife Photo Paper. The printers also use Epson's fast and convenient...

Jan, 2003

Read the full review

Expert review by : SHAUN CONLIN (evergeek.com)

Stylus Photo 925

If you're a hands-on hobbyist looking for an inkjet printer--and don't mind the average dimes per page ink cost--consider the Epson Stylus Photo 925 printer.

When it comes to printing your digital pix, colour inkjet printers sure have come down in price in the last couple of years and isn't that great?

Jun, 2003

Read the full review

Expert review by (ephotozine.com)

Epson Stylus Photo 925

Epson are a popular printer manufacturer with many photographers and look set to be even more so with their latest range. With increasing competition from manufacturers such as Canon, HP and on the budget-side Lexmark, their products now need to be...

Oct, 2002

Read the full review

Consumer review (epinions.com)

925 EPSON IS A POOR PRODUCT - UNRELIABLE

After having owned several of this family of EPSON printers (780,825,890 and 925), I finally decided to change brands. (I know, why didn't I learn?). Well, for awhile, the prints from these models seemed really nice and sharp, but constant cleaning of ...

Beautiful prints when new. Pre-mature printer failures.

Inreliable. Epson printers fail with error codes after limited use.

Dec, 2007

Read the full review

Consumer review (epinions.com)

Epson 925 = Garbage

OVERVIEW: Overall I hate this printer. The photo printing is hit or miss: Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks. (I realize that my word selection--"sucks"--is not very professional, but it is still the correct term to use!) The print heads dry ...

Easy setup, many printing options, roll paper, memory stick slot

Frequent head cleaning, requires powering off when not using, horrible paper feed,poor photo prints.

Mar, 2005

Read the full review

Consumer review (epinions.com)

Epson 925 Sucks

Couple years ago I bought my first digital camera, 5MP Sony DSC-F717. I quickly realized the cheesy Cannon printer I had could not handle the challenge. I went to the Sony sight and they suggested Epson printers, such as the 925. I purchased one. Easy ...

Easy to set up. Mem Module Sockets

Printer in unreliable

Mar, 2005

Read the full review

Consumer review (epinions.com)

wonderful when it worked

When I decided to buy a photo printer, I spent hours online researching. I had narrowed the field when the professional photographer that I frequent advised me that all of the 'pros' use Epson printers, that they are considered the best producer of...

Great photo lab quality pictures. 4x6 photo paper roll for larger jobs. No computer needed.

Frequent paper jams. Poor print quality for text. Unable to correct offset printing.

Sep, 2003

Read the full review