I'm still looking at the energy labels on cookers so, currently, I don't know how these ratings are calculated. If it's based on teh consultation document I read about how long it takes to heat a brick up and with what power consumption then, in my opinion, it's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard to gauge the performance
of the machine as opposed to how much energy it consumes.
Most seem in the C or D class with a few in the B class and I can see no reference that actually tells the difference between them. It could be .01kW for all we know.
What I'm saying is that without a frame of reference the labelling system is, or can be I should say, extremely misleading and, where the cookers are concerned, there's no rating on performance at all so you could be buying a dog that uses no electricity. You simply don't know as it doesn't tell you anything.
Baumatic I have little experience of as they have their own engineers but I can tell you that for spares, they are an absolute nightmare to deal with.
As for pricing, you're trying to buy a huge hunk of shiny stainless steel with a decent bit of engineering involved. So the decent range cookers (IMO) start at about £2000 and go upwards to over £8000. So, again IMO, anythign under £1000 is pretty much certain to be "cheap and cheerful" and certainly not close to the build quality or performance generally found in the likes of Smeg, Mercury, Viking etc. etc. as the appliance is being produced to meet a style and price, not a quality.
Just an opinion.