> In the meantime, it looks like I may have to experiment 
> with the programs myself and write my own review....

Well, in fact there are few reviews because it is really 
hard to "benchmark" offline browsers. The best way is to 
use them several months, knowing what options and tweaks 
they have, and you then you'll start to see the 
differences. 

Many problems can rise with offline browsers: malformed 
links, different codings (mix between %xx and &xx;), bogus 
and/or damaged tag sections ( such as <a href="foo.html" <a 
href="bar.html"> ), different protocols (http, https, ftp), 
HTTP redirections, infinite loops (many bogus servers..), 
javascripting problems, naming problems (files 
with "invalid" names ; example: you can't name a file 
named "nul" on Windows!), but also problem that you'll 
start to have after some time : update prolems with sites 
that will never send "304" status (file up-to-date), 
ability to copy the mirrored site on another disk, another 
computer, or another operating system without problems 
(that is, you still can browse the site AND update it if 
you want), and thousands of small problems that are quite 
hard to enumerate.. 

Therefore, I would say that a "good benchmark" would take 
several months, with skilled persons. I don't know if many 
journalists would have the time to wait so long :)