- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- H17 2.0 vs HM61R V3.0
Acebeam H17 2.0 vs Fenix HM61R V3.0
What H17 2.0 does better (2) and where HM61R V3.0 wins (3) — every spec side by side.
vs
6.4Brightness & throw8.3
9.5Battery & charging9.2
9.7Build & durability7.2
8.2Light quality8.2
5.9Features5.9
Why is H17 2.0 better than HM61R V3.0?
- Weight73 g vs 168 g2.3×
- Maximum output2,000 lm vs 1,800 lm+11%
Why is HM61R V3.0 better than H17 2.0?
- Peak beam intensity4,100 cd vs 9,510 cd2.3×
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)128 m vs 195 m+52%
- Maximum runtime170 h vs 300 h+76%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 2,000 lm | 1,800 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 4,100 cd | 9,510 cd |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 128 m | 195 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | — | Luminus SST-40 |
| LED maker | — | Luminus |
| Number of LEDs | 3 | — |
| Colour rendering (CRI) | 90 | 90 |
| Colour temperature | 4,000K | 6,500K |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 18350 Li-ion | 18650 Li-ion, CR123A |
| Battery capacity | — | 4,000 mAh |
| Maximum runtime | 170 h | 300 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | — | Yes |
| Battery level indicator | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IP68 | IP68 |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx8 |
| Submersible to | — | 2 m |
| Impact resistance (drop) | — | 2 m |
| Body material | Aluminium | Aluminium |
| Magnetic tail / base | Yes | Yes |
| Pocket clip | Yes | — |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 79 mm | 105.4 mm |
| Head diameter / width | — | 38 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | — | 51 mm |
| Weight | 73 g | 168 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Switch | — | Dual switches |
| Strobe | Yes | — |
| SOS / beacon | Yes | — |
| Red light | — | Yes |
| Green / blue / RGB light | Yes | — |
| Motion / reactive sensor | — | Yes |
| Lockout | Yes | Yes |
| Mode memory | — | Yes |
| Colours | — | Black |
