- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- H17 2.0 vs HC65 MCT
Acebeam H17 2.0 vs Nitecore HC65 MCT
What H17 2.0 does better (2) and where HC65 MCT wins (3) — every spec side by side.
Why is H17 2.0 better than HC65 MCT?
- Weight73 g vs 146 g2×
- Maximum runtime170 h vs 154 h+10%
Why is HC65 MCT better than H17 2.0?
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)128 m vs 258 m2×
- Peak beam intensity4,100 cd vs 16,709 cd4.1×
- Colour rendering (CRI)90 vs 98+9%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 2,000 lm | 2,000 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 4,100 cd | 16,709 cd |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 128 m | 258 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| Number of LEDs | 3 | 8 |
| Colour rendering (CRI) | 90 | 98 |
| Colour temperature | 4,000K | 3,000K |
| Adjustable colour temperature | — | Yes |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 18350 Li-ion | — |
| Battery capacity | — | 4,000 mAh |
| Maximum runtime | 170 h | 154 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | — | Yes |
| Charging time | — | 1 h |
| Battery level indicator | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IP68 | IP68 |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx8 |
| Impact resistance (drop) | — | 2 m |
| Body material | Aluminium | Magnesium |
| Magnetic tail / base | Yes | — |
| Pocket clip | Yes | — |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 79 mm | — |
| Weight | 73 g | 146 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Strobe | Yes | — |
| SOS / beacon | Yes | — |
| Red light | — | Yes |
| Green / blue / RGB light | Yes | — |
| Lockout | Yes | Yes |
