Traeger Woodridge Pro vs Weber Searwood 600: the numbers, side by side
Every figure on this page passed our multi-source verification; anything that has not stays a dash. Both grills have been cooked on for this site.
Verdict from the verified data
The Traeger Woodridge Pro gives you more cooking area per dollar (1.21 vs 1.54 $/sq in). The Weber Searwood 600 answers back with WiFi, direct-flame searing, a 5-year warranty.
How do the Traeger Woodridge Pro and Weber Searwood 600 compare on paper?
| Traeger Woodridge Pro | Weber Searwood 600 | |
|---|---|---|
| Verified price | $1178 | $999 |
| Total cooking area | 970 sq in | 648 sq in |
| Price per sq in | $1.21 | $1.54 |
| Hopper capacity | 24 lb | 20 lb |
| Max temperature | 500°F | 600°F |
| WiFi control | Yes | Yes |
| Direct-flame searing | No | Yes |
| Warranty | 10 years | 5 years |
| Our weighted score | not yet scored | 7.9/10 |
Highlighted cells mark the better verified number. Rank on this site is the tested editorial pick; the score is the weighted measure (how we test).
What do owners actually complain about?
Traeger Woodridge Pro
- Reddit: occasional reports of less smoke flavor than expected
Weber Searwood 600
- Ash blowback
- Error codes (e.g. E10)
- Tables/accessories extra
- Smaller hopper requires more frequent refills for long cooks; similar minor pellet flow notes as XL in forums.
- Ash circulation at high heat (Reddit/BBQGuys)
Complaint patterns come from verified owner reports gathered during our research passes, kept on file.
Common questions about this matchup
Which is bigger, the Traeger Woodridge Pro or the Weber Searwood 600?
The Traeger Woodridge Pro has the larger verified cooking area at 970 sq in, against 648 sq in. Whether that matters depends on how many racks of ribs you run at once.
Which costs less?
At verified regular prices the Weber Searwood 600 is the cheaper grill at $999, versus $1178. Sale prices move; the check-price buttons always show today's number.
Which has the better warranty?
The Traeger Woodridge Pro wins on paper coverage: 10 years against 5.