Wade through the archived old messages right here; you'll probably get much more useful information that way.(posted 8612 days ago)For the most part, film tests published in the mags aren't very good. Exceptions are those done by Phil Davis or Ctein, but they aren't often published in the general-circulation photo mags because their test reports tend to be somewhat long and technical, undigestible by casual readers. Usually the testers invest minimal time and effort, developing film in inappropriate developers one time only etc; one recent example appeared in either Practical Photography or Amateur Photographer, I don't recall which. APX 400 was developed in Rodinal 1:25; the report complained that it was grainy (what did they expect?) and contrasty (ignoring Agfa's designation of the CI value their development specs result in).
Generally speaking, faster films are more sensitive to different types of developers than slower films, films developed to normal pictorial levels of contrast are up to a stop slower than the ISO rating, and for a given film, the developer that gives a short development time will result in more graininess than a developer that needs a longer time.
Try to find a volume of a recent year's worth of _Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques_ or _Photo Techniques_. There's a roundup in one issue with brief descriptions of various films, usually written not in a "test" format by by folks who have been using the films for years.