- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- PD35 V2.0 Digital vs MH10 V2.0
Fenix PD35 V2.0 Digital vs Nitecore MH10 V2.0
What PD35 V2.0 Digital does better (1) and where MH10 V2.0 wins (2) — every spec side by side.
vs
5.1Brightness & throw5.2
9.6Battery & charging9.7
8.8Build & durability8.7
5.9Features5.9
Dimensions
Size comparison
PD35 V2.0 DigitalMH10 V2.0
| PD35 V2.0 Digital | MH10 V2.0 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 138 mm | 130 mm | +8 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 25.4 mm | 25 mm | +0.4 mm |
| Weight | 88 g | 75 g | +13 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is PD35 V2.0 Digital better than MH10 V2.0?
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)250 m vs 232 m+8%
Why is MH10 V2.0 better than PD35 V2.0 Digital?
- Maximum runtime430 h vs 520 h+21%
- Weight88 g vs 75 g+17%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 1,000 lm | 1,000 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 15,620 cd | — |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 250 m | 232 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | Cree XP-L HI | — |
| LED maker | Cree | — |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | — | 18650 Li-ion, CR123A |
| Maximum runtime | 430 h | 520 h |
| Rechargeable | — | Yes |
| Battery level indicator | Yes | — |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IP68 | — |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx8 |
| Submersible to | — | 2 m |
| Body material | — | Aluminium |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 138 mm | 130 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 25.4 mm | 25 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 23 mm | — |
| Weight | 88 g | 75 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Brightness levels | 5 | — |
| Switch | Dual switches | — |
| Strobe | Yes | Yes |
| SOS / beacon | — | Yes |
| Colours | — | Black |
