I have a VAH and a MA. The MA you're looking at is not "MA at its best" given the limitations of an undercabinet mount and internal blower, but I'd choose the MA every time based on superior baffles vs "squirrel cage" system and infinitely variable speed control, if nothing else. I really have been underwhelmed with our VAH.

Do NOT buy from Futuro Futuro!! The sales staff are very friendly, but if you have ANY PROBLEMS, they will stiff you! We just bought a ~$2000 Streamline W unit and we recieved the transformer unit broken off and a crack through a corner trim joint in the stainless steel. When we called the company, they first said we would need to mail back the unit ... we were fine with that (even though the installers had already come out). But we got a call a few minutes later saying the turnaround time would be >3weeks, and would be unneccessary ... we were advised to install the unit and the company would arrange for a repair facility to come out and fix the issues after the installation .... Now I'm running the circles with company seeking recourse on the assurity I was given - and there was one particular support staff who was EXTREMELY rude and abrasive, even attempting to ridicule me on the phone! (Anthony from the sales side was very nice, and he was the one who assured me, but so far he has been extremely ineffective in being able to do anything!) So, buyer beware.... I wish we had gone with the more well-known and reputable brands for ventilation hoods. We just completed an entire kitchen remodel and the wolf appliance distributor here in Chicago was recommending a different company's product. I really had hoped Futuro Futuro would have met my expectations (especially being a relative newcomer in the ventilation hoods market here in the US), but I guess that's what I get for taking a chance on trying a new unknown company. Please don't make the same mistake I did. Well, please contact me with any questions if you want to know details of my experience, I am happy to share it.

... coming out of hibernation to put his oar in, says: This forum has a large wealth of technical information on this topic that should be reviewed by anyone new to the subject who is planning to achieve actual kitchen ventilation. Here are some tidbits, boiled down from various attempts here to provide practical rules of thumb. We will start with opaone's suggestion. Hood function depends on successful capture and containment. Capture depends on hood aperture overlaping the rising and expanding cooking plumes. 54 inches by 27 inches would be considered the minimum for adequate capture of a 48-inch high power cooktop. Hood containment depends on flow velocity at the capture aperture. For this size hood (assuming inside aperture is nearly 54 x 27) I would argue for around 1000 CFM of actual flow rate. To get this flow rate with a real blower, you will need a blower that is characterized (at zero pressure loss) as capable of 1500 CFM. Similarly, if one is constrained at 48 inches hood width (please cook greasy things on the middle burners), the values are 800 and 1200 CFM, actual and rated. Either size blower can easily operate through a 10-inch duct. Hoods with single duct interfaces are widely available from Modernaire, Captiveaire, Wolf, and many others. The actual flow rates noted above are based on a 1.5:1 ratio of nominal to actual, and this assumes some generalities about the fan curves of reputable fans and pressure losses of baffles, ducts, and most importantly -- the make-up air system. (Please review relevant threads on MUA in this forum.) No air flows out the duct that didn't get into the house somehow. At the higher actual CFM levels, house leakage is not adequate for providing this air flow rate. To answer the OP's question just above, higher flow rate through an undersized hood has only a slight to modest effect on increasing the effective size of the hood. The reason is that hoods do not suck cooking effluent from the cooktop, but intercept it and keep it in the hood. The rising plume velocity can exceed a meter per second for gas cooking, and this is what gets the plume to the hood. Air flow velocity for the flow rates I suggest is only half of this at the hood aperture, and rapidly drops off more than a few inches away from it. For actual flow effect at the source of the plume, one would have to use fume hood rules of engagement, where high flow at the effluent generator (welding, grinding, whatever) is achieved. You would need ear protection with such a system, and a huge heating capability for the make up air, perhaps augmented by structures intended to restrict the effluent from escaping the flow. kas

Sue Hawkins related 10Jan2019 and again 19Jan2019: "It is the world's easiest hood to clean as ALL the grease accumulates on the baffles." This cannot be true. There are no commercial baffle filters that collect all of the grease, and I doubt that Tradewinds discovered a secret airfoil shape to achieve it for residential hoods. Grease particulates contained in a cooking plume encompass a range of sizes. The larger are centrifuged out onto the baffle surfaces when moved through them at sufficient velocity. The smaller particles do not and ideally are intended to be blown out of the duct system into the outside air. Generally, some intermediate particles will impinge and stick to duct surfaces, as well as interior hood surfaces. These often (in residential cooking) form a very thin film that doesn't drip or flow. In commercial cooking where the rate of deposition is much higher, the build-up can be significant. This is why commercial cooking exhaust ducts require cleaning and inspection once a year. In the plot below, the range of particle sizes vs. what the baffle collects is shown for a particular baffle at a particular airflow for a particular cooking condition. When stringent particulate emission requirements are imposed on commercial kitchens, a series of filers is used, each type optimized for a particle size range. If grease molecules are to be treated, UV is one solution.