Another vote for Fluke here on grounds of reliability and durability. As an electronics person the DMM is like my 6th sense that through long years of heavy use really becomes part of me. I choose a DMM like a top chef chooses knives, and recommend anybody buying a meter to think along those lines. To give you an idea of what I mean by heavy use, I wore out over 20 sets of good quality leads in the time I have owned my original Fluke 77.
That meter saw some life. It travelled to 18 countries over a quarter of a century, fell in the sea, out of a 1st floor window and never needed recal. I got separated from it in the late 1990s, it was going round a baggage conveyor in Tokyo while I was in Morocco, due to a luggage mixup, but it came home safely to London, annoyingly when I was wanting to use it in Japan. A new, identical backup unit lived in the cupboard all that time, as I could not risk losing time to familiarise myself with a different replacement when working under pressure. The original 77 was damaged by contact with 40kV, bringing the substitute into play in a hurry, but the damage was actually confined to one chip that can be replaced when I get around to it.
For serious work and not to be dragged through the mud like the 77, I use a 289 in addition to the 'proper' TTI mains-powered bench meter. The 289 is a bit off-topic for the OP's application but it's an example of how you pay for the technical integrity of the Fluke without necessarily getting the best of everything feature-wise. Despite its ÂŁ600+ price tag there are ÂŁ50 meters that have a better display than the 289, even some 1990s phones are crisper. But I trust it electrically and that is extremely important for what I do.
I also have a dozen AVOs and keep at least two on the bench. Horses for courses.