It was probably FWW but could've been American Woodworking Journal
(or some combination of those three words). The evaluations included
the easily measured values - diameter, thickness of carbide, runout
etc. AND quality of cut - for one type of bit. Using a CNC machine -
on melamine, they routed a groove of a specific depth using a specific
feed rate, for a specific number of cuts for a specific length. The
tester then examined the cuts, counting the number of visible chip
outs, how far along they began and some subjective evaluated point
at which the chip out was bad enough to be unacceptable. The
bit's cutting diameter was measured again after it had cut a hundred
or so lineal (or it could be linear) feet to get some quantitative
info on wear and tear.
If I recall, Whiteside performed the best. Not surprising - at least
to me - Whiteside doesn't use a "special colored anti-stick coating"
(read "product differentiation technique") like the Yellow Guys, the
Orange Guys or the Red Guys.
Whichever magazine did the article/evaluation does some pretty
well thought out tests which eliminate much of the "skill and
technique" stuff that also influences the results. A bandsaw
blade test for resawing used a weight wired to the stock and
a pulley to get a consistent feed pressure. They used Time
To Complete The Cut as one of their evaluation criteria, along
with measured surface roughness of the cut surface. Seemed
overkill but thorough as hell. Not up to manufacturing quality
control testing but adequate for indicating which blades sucked,
which were adequate and which worked very well - the stuff
most of us want to know.