Anker vs anker

Purchase Advice

Okay all the links I use get my post removed so I’m just going to reference the products.

I'm trying to decide between two Anker chargers and, being not so tech literate, I'm having a hard time.

The Anker nano is 10,000, and seems newer, but you need a 30W charger to charge it? It weighs just over 7oz.

The Anker power core 10000 is the same capacity, almost half the price, and lighter by 2oz, but older, so I'm confused: Doesn't technology in general progress? Why is this older one obviously superior?

I'm leaning toward the second one, but I'm just checking that l'm not missing something obvious before biting.

Edit: thanks all! I went with the nano because I found it on sale for only $6 more than the power core and the 2oz penalty seems worth the speed.

in Ultralightby Actual-Lime2730

68%

13d

qro

13d

The 30w charging on the Anker Nano 10k isn't the minimum requirement, it's the maximum charge speed. The PowerCore 10k charges at a maximum of 2A @ 5v, which comes out to 10W max charge speed.

What this translates to in real life is that, given an appropriate usb-c wall adapter that supports 30W PD charging, the Nano power bank will charge ~3x faster than the Powercore while you're in town. It should also charge at 10W just fine if you feed it a normal 5v USB-A charge source. This support for 30W fast charging is probably also a big part of the reason for the weight difference; to support 30W charging they need to include electronics for doing USB-C PD voltage negotiation, and the appropriate switching/boost/buck converter stuff for charging off of variable voltages, and possibly even a PCB with a double-thickness copper layer. This adds weight and complexity.

There are likely also differences in the usable capacity between the two power bricks, since even if the LiPo cells are equivalently sized, different power regulators will offer different charging efficiencies. You'd need somebody to run proper analysis with a power meter though in order to get an idea of how these two banks stack up in that regard (you can see what this stat looks like for other popular power banks here )

tyrellj

13d

My guess is that they probably aren't concerned about 2oz in weight when designing a product. The newer one probably charges much faster, and can probably charge devices faster as well. The batteries they use are probably similar, although might be different to support higher currents.

citruspers

13d

Why is this older one obviously superior?

Ah, but it's not. The newer one can (re)charge at a maximum of 30W, whereas the older one tops out at 10-15W.

That means (with a supported charger) you can be on your way again in 1.5 hours, instead of waiting around for hours for the old one to recharge. And if you don't have a supported charger it will in all likelihood still charge, about as fast as the older one (10W in most cases).

As far as the weight difference goes, I'm guessing quick charging circuitry needs a bit more components, and the nano has an included cable.

digdog7

13d

FWIW I just picked up a new 10k nano and it's been great so far. I got the version without the attached USB-C cable, which frees up that port to be used with whatever cable you like.

citruspers

12d

How's the recharging speed (input) on that one? I bought the Nano with the cable because that's the only one that advertises 30W recharging, for some reason the Nano without the cable doesn't.

digdog7

12d

I would imagine it depends on the capability of the USB-C cord you are using, with the proper cord you'll also get 30W

Rocko9999

13d

The 2oz weight penalty of the Nano-with included USB-C cable-allows the bank to fully recharge in 1.5 hours when paired with appropriate 30w charger-this is as fast as I have seen. It also has a lcd display showing remaining percentage left, time to recharge and time to charge attached device-that's pretty nifty. The other Anker banks, depending on charger used, can take from 3-6 hours for the same capacity. What matters to you? Nothing wrong with the $20 Anker 10K bank. They are stout and generally reliable.

Due_Influence_9404

13d

the newer one is charging and discharging much much faster and has usb-c with a cable included and you need a charger for either of them

thodgson

Test

13d

The technology does progress and the older one is only superior by weight/mass.

The added weight is due to new, heavier internal components in the latest charger, that allow for faster charging. Said a different way: the components and wiring needed to carry higher wattage have more mass.

If you don't care about or need fast charging, then go with the lighter charger.