- compoundsemi.com
- Compare
- TA30C vs MH25 V2.0
Nextorch TA30C vs Nitecore MH25 V2.0
What TA30C does better (3) and where MH25 V2.0 wins (2) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
TA30CMH25 V2.0
| TA30C | MH25 V2.0 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length / height | 136 mm | 157 mm | −21 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 30 mm | 40 mm | −10 mm |
| Weight | 97 g | 137 g | −40 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is TA30C better than MH25 V2.0?
- Water protection (IPx)IPx8 vs IPx42×
- Maximum output1,600 lm vs 1,300 lm+23%
- Weight97 g vs 137 g+41%
Why is MH25 V2.0 better than TA30C?
- Maximum runtime50 h vs 1,500 h30×
- Beam distance (ANSI FL1)303 m vs 475 m+57%
Specifications
Side by side
| Light output | ||
| Maximum output | 1,600 lm | 1,300 lm |
| Peak beam intensity | 22,950 cd | — |
| Beam distance (ANSI FL1) | 303 m | 475 m |
| Light source | LED | LED |
| LED & beam | ||
| LED emitter | — | Cree XM-L |
| LED maker | — | Cree |
| Battery & charging | ||
| Battery | Built-in Li-ion / Li-Po | 18650 Li-ion, CR123A |
| Battery capacity | 2,600 mAh | — |
| Maximum runtime | 50 h | 1,500 h |
| Rechargeable | Yes | Yes |
| USB-C charging | Yes | — |
| Also runs on AA/AAA/CR123A | Yes | — |
| Build & durability | ||
| Protection rating | IPX8 | — |
| Water protection (IPx) | IPx8 | IPx4 |
| Submersible to | 2 m | — |
| Impact resistance (drop) | 2 m | — |
| Body material | Aluminium | Aluminium |
| Magnetic tail / base | Yes | — |
| Size & weight | ||
| Length / height | 136 mm | 157 mm |
| Head diameter / width | 30 mm | 40 mm |
| Body diameter / depth | 23 mm | — |
| Weight | 97 g | 137 g |
| Modes & features | ||
| Switch | Tail switch | — |
| Strobe | Yes | Yes |
| SOS / beacon | — | Yes |
| Green / blue / RGB light | Yes | — |
| Colours | Black | Black |
