- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- E10 2.0 vs Oclip 2 Ultra
Acebeam E10 2.0 vs Olight Oclip 2 Ultra
What E10 2.0 does better (3) and where Oclip 2 Ultra wins (2) — every spec side by side.
vs
4.3Brightness & throw3.0
8.5Battery & charging6.2
7.3Build & durability4.5
5.9Features5.9
Why is E10 2.0 better than Oclip 2 Ultra?
- Maximum output1,200 lm vs 580 lm2.1×
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)241 m vs 130 m+85%
- Water protection (IPx)IPx8 vs IPx6+33%
Why is Oclip 2 Ultra better than E10 2.0?
- Weight106 g vs 80 g+32%
- Maximum runtime120 h vs 144 h+20%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 1,200 lm | 580 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 14,520 cd | — |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 241 m | 130 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| Adjustable focus (zoom) | — | Yes |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED maker | Cree | — |
| Number of LEDs | — | 4 |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 16340 / RCR123A Li-ion, CR123A | Built-in Li-ion / Li-Po |
| Number of batteries | — | 1 |
| Battery capacity | — | 600 mAh |
| Maximum runtime | 120 h | 144 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | Yes | Yes |
| Charging time | — | 1.5 h |
| Battery level indicator | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IP68 | — |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx6 |
| Impact resistance (drop) | 1.5 m | — |
| Body material | Aluminium | Aluminium |
| Magnetic tail / base | Yes | Yes |
| Pocket clip | — | Yes |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 88 mm | 92.3 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 40 mm | — |
| Body diameter / depth | 24.5 mm | — |
| Weight | 106 g | 80 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Switch | Side switch | — |
| Strobe | Yes | — |
| Red light | — | Yes |
| UV light | — | Yes |
