Battery comparison: measured capacity and resistance

A decent mid-range cell that performed well and may, in the author's view, deliver more than its rated 20 A.

High capacity and low impedance, but it heats more at high currents; the author preferred EVE for heavy loads.

A high-current cell with very low impedance; the author preferred it over Reliance for heavy loads.

Good cells that performed almost on par with EVE IFR33140 15Ah in the comparison.

Good cells that led at 0.2C and 40A in the comparison but lagged at 1C.

Delivered its rated 4000 mAh, but the case exceeded 100 °C at 35 A.

Performed on par with branded cells of similar capacity and is well suited to power banks.

Good cells for power tools, but they cannot sustain 30 A and overheat already at 25 A.

Ordinary budget cells: they deliver 2550 mAh at 0.5C but stand out neither in capacity nor current.

Testing showed capacity close to 3100 mAh; they should work in a power bank if the price is right.

They compared well with other high-capacity cells and are a good fit for high-capacity power banks.

Interesting sodium-ion cells, but capacity is below the rating and the operating voltage range is very wide.

The cells delivered their rated capacity at 0.2C, and the author considers them quite decent.

Capacity is close to the claimed value, but unusual behavior at 40 A leads the author to recommend staying at 0.5–1C.

The cells delivered about 240 Ah against a rated 230 Ah, and the author is pleased with their quality.

The BAK cells performed well at 40 A without overheating and are nearly on par with Gotion.

The cells are decent, but had lower capacity and more heating than EVE cells.

Cell capacity matches the rating, but one cell delivers noticeably less at 2C, and some have internal movement.

Genuine cells with capacity matching the claim and specs matching the datasheet; the author was pleased with the test results.

The battery showed low capacity; the author suspects a defect but says there is too little data to draw conclusions.

The N40 delivered about 4000 mAh with little variation, though the author advises against using them at high currents.

Low-cost branded cells with capacity above the stated rating, but modest current capability.

Solid mid-range cells with good capacity for light loads; 15 A is too much for them.

The author finds these branded cells a good price-performance balance; measured capacity is about 4900 mAh and heating is lower than the M50T’s.

They measured 6185 mAh but underperformed the previous cells and most other tested 32700 batteries.

Capacity exceeds the rating, with good current delivery and excellent consistency; the author recommends these cells.

The cells measured 5100 mAh and performed very well; the author recommends them but advises against sustained discharge above 10 A.

The cells are decent but have higher impedance; sustained use is best limited to 5–7.5 A.

The cells delivered over 15 Ah in every test and showed excellent consistency.

They nearly meet the rated capacity, but results vary noticeably between the four cells.

The cells meet their stated specifications; the author says they are a good buy at a reasonable price.

Excellent high-capacity cells with good current delivery and consistent results; the author recommends them if the price is right.

The author liked the cells and considers them suitable for undemanding loads up to 2C.

Measured capacity was 2584 mAh; comparable to the Samsung 25R, but the author recommends limiting current to 20 A.

Used cells with about 170 Ah remaining capacity were assembled into a battery of roughly 4 kWh.

The cells delivered their rated capacity in nearly all test modes; the author considers them good and notes their low price.

The cells delivered their stated capacity and showed consistent performance; the author recommends them for use.

The battery meets its stated specifications, and the author recommends it.

The author says the cell cannot handle the claimed 20 A and does not recommend buying it.

The cell showed good current delivery and its stated capacity, though the author would prefer the Lii-51S.

Delivered 5400 mAh at 0.2C, but the author advises against sustained discharge above 10 A.

The cells performed well in discharge and temperature tests, though capacity fell slightly short of the rating.

The F32 handles the rated 10 A well, but its capacity is close to the stated minimum.

The F34 delivered capacity within the stated range, consistent results, and handled 10 A normally.

An unusual cell with a useful power-bank function, but measured capacity is below spec and reverse charging can occur.

Capacity is close to the claim, but results vary noticeably; the author considers these cells a poor choice.

Measured capacity at 0.2C was 4972 mAh; the author considers the cells decent and similar to the Samsung 50G.

The cells showed good current delivery and consistent results; the author identifies them as Samsung INR21700-40T in different wrapping.

Good capacity and consistency, but overheating noticeably increased impedance; the author suggests low-drain battery packs.

They handle high currents well and meet the stated capacity, but 2000 mAh is low for the 21700 format.

Good cells with near-ideal results, but the price is greatly inflated.

The cells delivered nearly 7200 mAh and performed well in the cold, but the shrink wrap slips above 70 °C.

The cells met their stated capacity and showed good consistency; the author liked them, though the price is high.

The P30 performed similarly to the VTC6 and HG2, but large variation between cells led the author to prefer the VTC6.

They handle currents up to 20 A, but measured capacity is below the claim and they underperform the G53.

The author is pleased with the cells: they deliver about 3400 mAh and can sustain currents up to 10 A.

The cells delivered their rated capacity, but the author considers them mid-tier in quality.

Capacity is well above the rating, but the cells do not handle 6 A; avoid loads above 5 A.

The cells exceeded their rated capacity and matched well; the author considers them an excellent choice for a UPS.

The protection works and the cells suit simple devices, but measured capacity is well below the claim.

After being stored discharged, the cell still works, but its capacity depends heavily on load current.

The T50 delivered high capacity, performed well at high currents, and showed little variation between cells.

Good current delivery, but the old cells fell short of rated capacity; the author advises against buying them at the review price.

Both cells delivered the stated capacity, but variation between them and thin heat-shrink are drawbacks.

The cells showed consistent results and suit high-capacity battery packs; a long cycle life is claimed.

They work, but the two samples vary considerably and are expensive; the author prefers conventional cells.

The cells delivered nearly 5000 mAh and handled a 3C discharge well.

The original VC7 cells showed closely matched characteristics but underperformed the comparison cells.

Capacity matches the rating, but resistance is higher and 15 A causes overload and a severe voltage drop.

It performs reasonably at 10 A, but is overloaded at 15 A and does not meet the claimed current rating.

All four cells fall short on capacity; the third also has greater voltage sag and self-discharge.

The 25S performs well at 15–20 A and suits higher currents, but the 25R may be a better buy for loads up to 20 A.

Around 3400 mAh and good performance up to 10 A, but its overcurrent protection trips too late.

Delivers over 3000 mAh, handles continuous discharge up to 15 A well, and has correctly functioning protection.

Capacity generally meets the minimum, but the two cells have noticeably different characteristics.

They meet the stated specifications, but the two samples differed noticeably at 8 A.

The cells handle loads up to 40 A well, but their actual capacity is about 24 Ah rather than the claimed 32 Ah.

The three cells performed normally but heated noticeably at 15–20 A.

Capacity matches the rating and it performs well up to 25 A, but capacity is only 2500 mAh.

Specifications generally match, but the two samples differed noticeably in capacity and impedance.

This high-capacity cell meets its stated minimum but delivers less capacity than the LG INR18650-MJ1.

Capacity and load performance meet the claims; the cell can continuously deliver up to 3.8 A.

Capacity slightly exceeds the claim and voltage stays at 1.5 V; continuous current is 1.5 A.

The cell handled a 10 A discharge, but reached 86 °C under maximum load.

The cell delivered up to 10 A; the author measured about 680 mAh capacity and a temperature of 62 °C.

The supercapacitors delivered about 1355 and 1365 mAh down to 0.8 V; the author recommends charging them only to 2.7 V.

The cells delivered about 2500 mAh, but their authenticity and the reason for their weaker performance remain uncertain.

In cycle tests with a 1C charge current, the cells quickly lost capacity and gained internal resistance.

A budget cell, but it did not deliver its claimed 1600 mAh capacity in the test.

It met its claimed capacity and handled high currents better, but loses substantial capacity in the cold.

Capacity exceeded the rating, and the cells handled 30 A charging and discharging without problems.

The cells delivered over 2500 mAh at 20–40 A, but the author disliked the price.

The cells exceeded their rated capacity and handled 20 A discharge, though their internal resistance was slightly high.

The cells exceeded their rated capacity in testing, and the author regarded their results and temperature as good.

Capacity meets the rating and the cell handles load well, but the price per cell is high.

The cells delivered the stated capacity and handled up to 12 A; the author recommends them.

The cell delivered 944 mAh at 0.2C and 838 mAh at 10 A; the author recommends it if the price is acceptable.

The cells delivered 6600 mAh at 0.2C with consistent internal resistance, though performance may vary between batches.

The cells hold about 2,000 mAh; the author is surprised by their condition after five years in storage.

The cells delivered 5.7–5.8 Ah with modest heating, but many had higher-than-claimed internal resistance.

The cells are close to the claimed 900 mAh and handle 3C well; the author recommends them.

High-capacity, mid-current cells that noticeably lag high-current competitors at 20 A.

Decent medium-current cells, but not high-current ones: voltage sags and temperature rises noticeably under heavy load.

The Y25 cells performed well and consistently; the author considers them a good low-cost alternative to VTC5 and 25R.

Performs on par with LG and Samsung, but its stated capacity is overstated: about 3400 mAh in the test.

The protected version measures about 3400 mAh, but protection limits output to around 6 A briefly and 5.1 A continuously.

This budget cell delivered 2446 mAh at 0.2C and sagged noticeably at high current.

This budget cell delivered 2582 mAh at 0.2C, charged better and ran cooler than the 26F.

The cells performed well and are recommended, but the author warns that counterfeits are common.

It performed well at 30 A; the author notes low internal resistance and fast charging.

Actual capacity at 0.2C was 3400 mAh, and the author notes that it performs well.

At 0.2C discharge the author measured 3528 mAh and found temperatures good at 2C and 10 A.

A more accurate test showed 3450 mAh at 0.2C; the author also reported good results at 8 and 10 A.

Measured capacity was 3568 mAh; the author considers it a leader for maximum capacity at low current.

The first cell delivered 3180 mAh at 0.2C and the second nearly 3250 mAh; they were also tested at 10 A.

Measured capacity at 0.2C was 4060 mAh; at higher currents the Samsung 40T falls noticeably behind.

At 0.2C it delivered about 4200 mAh, but the author advises against sustained loads above 10 A due to heating.

Good-capacity cells, but their unusual size and heating limit their usefulness.

It performs well at low currents, but trails Samsung at high currents and gets very hot.

Capacity is about 2–3% lower than standard HG2 cells, but the cells’ characteristics are more consistent.

The cells performed well and slightly outperformed Samsung, but the author considers them too expensive.

The cells are similar to Murata VTC5D but trail competitors at high currents and show variation between samples.

At 0.2C, it had the highest capacity among those compared, but the advantage was small and the price high.

The cells performed well, and the author considers them an excellent option for large e-bike battery packs.

Ordinary cells without standout specs, suitable for low-drain devices; their appeal depends on price.

The red VTC6 performed much like the green ones; differences under higher loads were within measurement error.

The cell delivered about 2500 mAh in the main tests and nearly matched the LG HE4.

The VTC4s proved to be quality cells; they are arguably better than Samsung 20S, but the difference nearly disappears at high currents.

The cells deliver the claimed 1500 mAh at 3 A, but their energy capacity is notably lower than the Samsung 20S.

The new cells match their stated specifications and are suitable for applications such as laptop batteries.

Actual capacity is about 3400 mAh; they work adequately up to 7 A but cannot handle the claimed 10–20 A.

The cells handle 30–35 A reliably and are suitable for power-tool battery packs.

Good capacity and operation at up to 10 A, but the cell does not reach its claimed 3600 mAh.

The cells showed excellent capacity and load performance, but have higher resistance and heating.

The VTC5D showed higher capacity than the VTC5A and matched well for packs, but costs twice as much.

The genuine VTC6 cells exceeded their rated capacity at low current and affirmed their standing among the best 18650 cells.

At low currents, the cells measured 3386 and 3399 mAh, but quality may vary between batches.

Judged a counterfeit: lower capacity, higher resistance, and more heating than the original.

Judged a counterfeit: 2660–2700 mAh capacity, 20 mΩ resistance, and 76°C at 10 A.

Judged a counterfeit: capacity was 2319 mAh at 2C, with nearly 60°C heating at 5.2 A.

It appears genuine, but capacity is lower than expected; the author advises against buying cells with unknown storage history.

A fairly decent clone with 2650–2700 mAh capacity, but it reaches 74°C at 10 A.

The author strongly recommends it for high current, fast charging and moderate heating, despite its 2000 mAh capacity.

Capacity is slightly below the stated value and protection works; internal resistance with the protection board is nearly 55 mΩ.

The author says the cells are genuine, meet their stated specifications, and recommends them.

After 450 cycles, capacity was 2762 mAh, about 15% below the initial 3244 mAh.

It handled discharge up to 30 A well, but measured capacity was below the stated value.

The cell met its rated capacity and passed the tests, but became very hot when discharged at 3C.

Capacity matches the stated 3400 mAh; it performs well up to 10 A, though the author advises staying below 8 A.

The quality cells meet and slightly exceed their stated specifications; the author recommends buying them.

Capacity is close to the stated value, but high resistance causes severe overheating at high currents.

Capacity is broadly as stated, but resistance is high and the cells do not meet VTC6 specifications.

Likely non-genuine but functional cells with real capacity; the author recommends them for flashlights and toys.

The counterfeit cells have low capacity and high resistance; the author advises looking for better ones.

The cells nearly reach their stated capacity and suit devices with low current demands.

The Samsung battery measured 1912 mAh and appears to be slightly undercharged by the supplied charger.

The clones deliver about 500 mAh instead of the stated 700; one of the 24 batteries tested was defective.

Nearly identical to Panasonic NCR18650B; suitable at 0.2–0.5C, but energy output drops noticeably at higher discharge rates.

Capacity matches the rating, but the stated continuous discharge current is ambiguous and overstated.

Capacity is close to the stated minimum and the protection works, but the cell is longer than standard.

Real capacity is about 400 mAh, and the cell handled a 7 A discharge.

Real capacity is well below the stated figure, but the cell handled a 12C load.

Usable, but the measured capacity of about 534 mAh is well below the claimed 700 mAh.

The cells delivered about 2635 mAh at the standard discharge rate; the author recommends them for laptop packs, power banks, and flashlights.

The cells showed good capacity, and the author considers them suitable for power tools and electronic cigarettes.

Capacity was about 500 mAh; the author criticizes the overstated labeling.

Measured capacity was 500 mAh; the author considers the labeling overstated.

Capacity was lower than for the other types, at about 470–480 mAh.

The cells meet their stated capacity and show good consistency, but the protection makes them longer than standard cells.

Measured battery capacity was 10.32 Ah, exceeding the manufacturer's stated capacity.

Capacity is notably below the claimed 880 mAh; the author praises only the excellent packaging.

The measured battery capacity matches the stated rating; the author considers 3260 mAh the correct result.

The 14500 cells had low, widely varying capacity; the new cells underperformed an older one.

The 18350 cells measured about 20–25% below their rated capacity, with varying test results.

The measured battery capacity matches the rated capacity, which the author considers a very good result.

The measured cell capacity was 1407 mAh, below the expected 1450–1500 mAh.

Measured usable capacity is 2252 mAh, compared with the rated 2300 mAh.

Measured battery capacity was 2161 mAh, about 5% below the stated capacity.

Capacity is nearly 3300 mAh and matches the claim; the author liked the cells’ quality.

Both cells delivered nearly 2000 mAh, exceeding the claim; the author called it an excellent result.

At a 1C discharge, capacity exceeded 2500 mAh; the author called the result excellent.

At a 3 A discharge, the cell delivered about 2940 mAh, matching its stated characteristics.

Capacity was about 1000 mAh with large variation between cells, indicating poor quality.

Instead of the claimed 2600 mAh, the cell delivered only 1600 mAh; the author suspects they are counterfeit.

It delivered 2250 of 2350 mAh in its rated mode, but less than 2000 mAh when charged to 4.2 V.

At a 4 A discharge, the cell delivered nearly 3400 mAh, slightly above the datasheet figure.

At a 1C discharge, the cell delivered 2500 mAh, exceeding the 2340 mAh stated for that mode.

The 1C discharge matched the stated capacity; the cell is rated for discharge currents up to 30 A.

Instead of the claimed 5000 mAh, the cells delivered only 1060–1200 mAh and varied considerably.

At a 5 A discharge, the cells delivered the claimed 5000 mAh and performed fairly well.

At 300 mA, the cells delivered 2200 mAh—an excellent result—and 1800 mAh at 1C.

At 5 A, capacity was 2951 mAh versus 2838 mAh stated; the author called the result excellent.

Measured capacity nearly matches the rating, and the battery lasts about two days in normal use.

Measured capacity was 535 mAh; the author considers such values typical for these batteries.

The NP-BN1 performed worst and loses noticeable capacity as discharge current increases.

The Li-40B delivered 561 mAh, the highest measured capacity among the batteries reviewed.

The two EN-EL19 batteries had noticeably different capacities: 438 and 496 mAh.

Measured capacity meets the datasheet, and the cells handled a 5 A discharge; the author had no complaints.

Capacity is close to the claimed figure, but the cell overheats at roughly 1.5–2C discharge; its protection interrupts charging at 4.35 V.

The author liked the cells: about 2700 mAh at 0.5 A discharge and about 2500 mAh at 14 A.

Measured capacity was 497 mAh versus 740 mAh for the original—about two-thirds.

Capacity was 502 mAh versus 600 mAh for the original; the author considers this a normal result.

Capacity was 560 mAh versus 700 mAh for the original; the author calls it an average result.

Capacity was 936 mAh versus 940 mAh for the original; the author calls it an excellent result.

At a 500 mA discharge current, it measured 2073 mAh versus 2100 mAh for the original; the author calls this excellent.

Capacity was about 700 mAh, roughly 90% of the stated figure; the author considers the battery quite decent.

Measured capacity was 789 mAh, about 75% of the stated figure; it may be usable, but the result disappointed.

The author is satisfied with the test results; most cells had roughly similar capacity after storage.

None of the four cells reached the claimed capacity, and results varied widely; the author advises against using them in e-cigarettes.

Measured capacity was 4.601 Ah (92% of the rating), and the author liked the cell.

The two cells measured only 1,500 and 1,516 Ah; the author advises looking for better ones.

Two of the four cells were defective; the other two delivered about 70% of their rated capacity.

The two cells delivered 92–93.5% of rated capacity in a 1C discharge test.

The included battery has low capacity: charging yielded 382 mAh, while the author estimated its real capacity at about 320–330 mAh.

The four cells varied notably in capacity: two tested below 75% of rated capacity, while two reached about 86%.

Measured capacity is about 1.32 Ah instead of the claimed 1.8 Ah, and there is no protection board.