- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- P16 2.0 vs C61
Acebeam P16 2.0 vs Nextorch C61
What P16 2.0 does better (3) and where C61 wins (3) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
P16 2.0C61
| P16 2.0 | C61 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 136.3 mm | 165 mm | −28.7 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 32 mm | 35 mm | −3 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 25 mm | 28.5 mm | −3.5 mm |
| Weight | 169 g | 175 g | −6 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is P16 2.0 better than C61?
- Water protection (IPx)IPx8 vs IPx7+14%
- Weight169 g vs 175 g+4%
- Impact resistance (drop)1.5 m vs 1 m+50%
Why is C61 better than P16 2.0?
- Maximum runtime30 h vs 500 h16.7×
- Battery capacity3,000 mAh vs 4,800 mAh+60%
- Maximum output3,000 lm vs 3,500 lm+17%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 3,000 lm | 3,500 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 73,712 cd | — |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 543 m | — |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | Luminus SFT-42R | — |
| LED maker | Luminus | — |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | 18650 Li-ion | 21700 Li-ion |
| Battery capacity | 3,000 mAh | 4,800 mAh |
| Maximum runtime | 30 h | 500 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | Yes | Yes |
| Battery level indicator | — | Yes |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IP68 | IP67 |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx7 |
| Impact resistance (drop) | 1.5 m | 1 m |
| Body material | Aluminium | — |
| Magnetic tail / base | — | Yes |
| Pocket clip | Yes | — |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 136.3 mm | 165 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 32 mm | 35 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 25 mm | 28.5 mm |
| Weight | 169 g | 175 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Stepless (ramping) brightness | — | Yes |
| Switch | Dual switches | Tail switch |
| Strobe | Yes | — |
| SOS / beacon | Yes | — |
| Mode memory | — | Yes |
