Solo Stove vs. Bushbox vs. Emberlit Which Wood Burning Backpacking Stove Would You Choose?

When it comes to camping and the great outdoors you’re often only as good as the wood stove you bring along, so it’s no wonder several have appeared throughout the years, notably the Solo Stove, Bushbox and the Emberlit. If you can’t make up your mind which of these to try out, these wood burning backpacking stove reviews can help.emberlit stainless steel backpacking stove

Size Comparison

Let’s take a look at the size of each stove:

  • Solo: 3.8 x 3.8 x 4.2 inches, 9 ounces
  • Bushbox: 4.5 x 0.2 x 3.5 inches, 6 ounces
  • Emberlit: 4 x 5.5 x 6 inches ; 11.4 ounces

As these specs show, there’s not a lot difference. The Emberlit is the heaviest at 11 ounces and the Bushbox is the lightest at 6 ounces, but the few ounce disparity between these stoves isn’t going to make much of a difference when you store them in your backpack or pocket. However, the flat design of the Bushbox might prove attractive for campers who want to maximize space and weight.


If you’ve read a Solo Stove Campfire review lately, you’ll notice that most of the reviews have been positive, and it’s mostly due to the design. The Emberlit and Bushbox aren’t pushovers, but the Solo was recommended by both Backpacker Magazine and Matt Graham of Discovery Channel, and that should tell you something about the Solo’s construction.

In our Bushbuddy stove vs Solo Stove test, we noticed that the Solo doesn’t emit as much smoke. We also compared the stove with the Emberlit and the Bushbox and the results were the same: less smoke for the Solo. This isn’t a fluke though as it’s due to the stove’s double wall that produces a secondary combustion and clean gasification.


What this means is the fuel burns freely and with less smoke, and speaking of fuel, the Solo as well as the Bushbox and the Emberlit are all “fuel free”, that is you don’t need a liquid canister or white gas to make it work. If you’re out camping it’s not practical to use these fuel sources, and fortunately all three can light a fire with twigs, barks, wood, pinecones, leaves and so on.

In our tests, all three performed well, and we had no trouble using these materials as fuel. But as we noted above the Solo generates the least amount of smoke, but for some campers that is a major plus.


Bushbox outdoor pocket stove vs Emberlit stove comparisons will show that the two are not that different, but the Bushbox has the edge in terms of weight (6 ounces vs. 11 ounces for the Emberlit) and also dimensions (the Bushbox is flatter). The difference in terms of specs might seem negligible to some, but for other campers, the difference is significant.


All three stoves perform as well as can be expected, and between the Solo, the Emberlit and the Bushbox it’s a tough choice. Both, as is the Solo, well crafted, convenient to use and have many similar features. In truth you really can’t go wrong with any, though the Bushbox has the smallest firebox capacity.

Of course capacity isn’t the only thing that a camper has to consider, as other factors have to be considered as well such as the feel of the stove when a pot is put on top of it. We also factored in the other stuff you’re likely to mull over such as air hole spacing, overall dimensions, how easy it is to feed wood and other fuel resources, etc. All three do a good job, but we have to give it to the Solo for overall efficiency and dependability.

Solo StoveThe difference again lies in the design of the Solo. As we mentioned earlier, the stove has a secondary combustion that makes burning cleaner and more efficient. If you look at the way the Solo operates, the vents allow air to move freely and flow at the grate’s bottom, feeding the primary combustion. Next, you’ll notice that the air coming from the bottom vents heats inside the interior wall and goes out the firebox, producing the secondary combustion.

What does all this mean? Compared to the Emberlit and Bushbox, the Solo cooks wood smoke twice and burns them twice as well. This is what makes the stove more efficient compared to the two. However, all three are easy to light up, low maintenance and boil water fast. Once you’re done using any of these stoves, they’re easy to clean up afterward.

Another plus for each is their eco-friendliness: the fact that you can use twigs, branches, wood and other natural materials mean less pollution, and that can only be good. And all of them are easy to learn so you can use them not just in camping but during emergency situations too.


The Solo costs around $70 while the Bushbox is available online for about $35 and the Emberlit for $39. There’s a huge disparity in price clearly, and if you’re looking for the most affordable, the Bushbox is the winner here, though the Emberlit isn’t that far behind.

We also said that in terms of performance all three do well and more than capable. However, the main advantage of the Solo is that it is built to last and made for long term use. That’s not to say the Bushbox and the Emberlit cannot last that long, but there’s a reason why the Solo is more expensive and why it’s recommended by professional campers and outdoor enthusiasts.

The Verdict

So which of the three wood stoves is the best? The answer is it depends on what you need and on your personal preferences. In terms of size the Bushbox is the most compact but it’s not by much, and in terms of popularity, the Solo ultralight wood burning stove has nearly triple the reviews of the other two. Based on our own tests you really can’t go wrong with any of the three, but if popular opinion and lack of smoke are going to be your basis, the Solo has the edge.

4 thoughts on “Solo Stove vs. Bushbox vs. Emberlit Which Wood Burning Backpacking Stove Would You Choose?

  • March 24 at 6:21 am

    Do you know if these are available in the UK, or anywhere outside of the US?

  • June 26 at 7:54 am

    I have always been a big fan of the Trangia as my main go-to carry stove because I love the way everything nests together to form a pretty capable portable cook set. That said, you do have to carry alcohol to fuel it which can be impratical if you are spending more than a few days out.

    Having used Kelly kettles in the past I can see why wood burning stoves are a good alternative, they cook very quickly, and use so little wood that you can practically cook on a handfull of twigs. I am definately considering picking up a Bush Box as a backup. Do they fold flat? and if so, would it fit inside a Trangia nest?

  • January 29 at 3:11 am

    Really good information on camping stoves. Would love to recommend this to any backpacker who wants to be a part of nature. Having the right gear and tools for your trip is only part of preparing for your camping trip. There are other skills which need to be mastered also.

    Thank you for sharing this and please keep it up

Comments are closed.