Battery comparison: measured capacity and resistance

Mid-range cells without standout current or capacity, but they work well and may, in the author's view, deliver over 20 A.

High capacity and strong results, but they heat up and sag under heavy load; the author preferred EVE for high loads.

broadly similar to Reliance but with lower impedance; the author preferred them for heavy loads.

Good cells, performing close to EVE IFR33140 and pleasing the author.

Good cells, leading at 0.2C and 40 A but trailing at 1C; capacity is boosted by discharging to 2 V.

The cells delivered their rated capacity but exceeded 100°C at 35 A; the author considers 25–30 A a safer continuous current.

The cells performed on par with known models of similar capacity; the author recommends them, especially for power banks.

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

Ordinary budget cells with no standout capacity or current output; the author considers them suitable for packs.

They deliver about 3.1 Ah in testing and are not especially powerful, but can suit a power bank if the price is right.

The author liked them: they performed well among high-capacity peers and suit high-capacity power banks.

Capacity fell short of the rating, but the author notes good cold-weather performance and tolerance of over-discharge.

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

Capacity is close to the rating, but its behavior at 40 A puzzled the author, who recommends staying at 0.5–1C.

The four cells exceeded their rated capacity, delivering about 240 Ah at a 40 A discharge.

The cells delivered nearly their rated capacity and stayed below 60 °C at 40 A; the difference from Gotion is small.

The cells performed acceptably but were inferior to EVE in capacity and heating.

The battery tested below its rated 4 Ah capacity; the author suspects this unit may be defective.

Genuine 4000 mAh cells with excellent consistency, though the author advises against using them at high currents.

Inexpensive branded cells with capacity above the rating, but modest current delivery and an aluminum positive terminal.

Solid mid-range cells suited to flashlights and power banks with modest loads.

The cell delivered about 4,900 mAh and ran cooler than the M50T; the author praises its price-to-performance balance.

The new G62 cells slightly trail the previous samples and perform below average among the compared cells.

Excellent cells: capacity exceeds the rating, with good current delivery and nearly identical performance.

The high-current cells showed good capacity and low impedance, but the two samples were not quite consistent.

About 5100 mAh capacity and excellent cell consistency; recommended, but avoid sustained discharge above 10 A.

Decent cells, but they trail the M11; sustained use is best kept to no more than 5–7.5 A.

The first unit delivered the most capacity, but failed during testing.

The cells nearly meet their stated specifications, but measured results vary noticeably.

The cells showed average capacity results, good consistency, and the claimed 12.6 Wh.

The cells meet their stated specifications; the author recommends buying them at a reasonable price.

High-capacity cells with strong output; the author recommends them if the price is right.

Good for discharge up to 2C; the author recommends them for undemanding loads, though one sample had higher impedance.

Measured capacity was 2584 mAh, roughly matching the Samsung 25R; the author recommends limiting discharge to 20 A.

Good cells with closely matching results; the author recommends them for their quality-to-price ratio.

The cells delivered their stated capacity and performed well in testing; the author considers them excellent for the price.

The cell cannot handle the claimed 20 A; the author advises against buying it and suggests using it at 4–8 A.

At 0.2C the cell delivered 5400 mAh, but the author advises against sustained discharge above 10 A.

The cell exceeded its rated capacity and worked well up to 15 A, but 20 A was too much for it.

They delivered good current and stayed cool; the author compares them favorably with Molicel P42A.

The F32 cells handle the rated 10 A well and are consistent, but capacity is only around the stated minimum.

The F34 cells delivered capacity within the stated range, handled 10 A well, and showed good consistency.

An unusual cell with built-in charging and a USB power-bank function; capacity fell short, but the author found it interesting and sometimes useful.

Capacity is close to the rating, but parameter variation and increased resistance make these cells a poor choice.

The P50 measured 4,972 mAh at 0.2C; the author considers them decent and similar in performance to the Samsung 50G.

The author identifies it as a rewrapped Samsung INR21700-40T and praises its output and consistency, though the price is a drawback.

Cells with consistent results and good capacity, but overheating noticeably increases impedance.

The cells delivered over 52 Ah even at a 90 A discharge, but became slightly thicker after testing.

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

The cells showed good capacity and cold-weather performance, but the sleeve shrinks above 70°C; the author recommends limiting current to 14 A.

The cells meet their rated specifications and are consistent, but cost $6.50 each.

P30 are close to the VTC6 and HG2, but variation between cells led the author to prefer the VTC6.

The author found no quality issues: the cells delivered about 3400 mAh and can sustain discharge up to 10 A.

They deliver the claimed capacity and current, but quality is average and heating is high at 15 A.

Capacity notably exceeds the rating, but the cells should not be loaded above 5 A.

The cells exceeded rated capacity, had low impedance, and performed well at up to 90 A; voltage sag was pronounced in the freezer.

The protection works and the cells deliver up to 5 A, but measured capacity is well below the claim.

After being stored discharged, the cell still works, but its capacity drops sharply as load current rises.

The T50 had the highest capacity of the author's tested 21700 cells and performed well at high current.

They deliver high current well, but old cells fall short of rated capacity; the author advises against them at this price.

The cells delivered their rated capacity, but vary noticeably in performance and have thin heat-shrink sleeves.

The cells showed consistent results; the author highlights their cycle life and 10 A continuous current.

The unusual cells work but showed large variation; the author considers them overpriced and recommends buying only at a substantial discount.

Cells delivered over 4900 mAh at 0.2C and over 4800 mAh at 3C, matching their stated specifications.

The cells had nearly identical characteristics, but their test results disappointed the author.

The first cell meets its rated capacity but has higher resistance and performs poorly at high currents.

The second cell is much better than the first, but is clearly overloaded at 15 A and does not meet the 15 A claim.

All four cells fall short on capacity; the third sags more under load and self-discharges faster.

The 25S performed better than the 25R at 15–20 A and can handle higher currents, though voltage sags at 30 A and above.

About 3400 mAh and good performance up to 10 A, but the overcurrent protection trips too high and may damage the cell.

It delivers over 3000 mAh, runs continuously at 15 A, and its protection works correctly.

They broadly meet the specifications, but the two cells show noticeable variation.

The stated specifications were confirmed, but the two cells differed noticeably when discharged at 8 A.

Handles loads up to 40 A well, but capacity is about 24 Ah rather than the claimed 32 Ah; the welded tabs are questionable.

The three cells performed normally, though heating was substantial at a 20 A discharge.

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

Results generally match the claims, but the two cells differed noticeably in capacity and impedance.

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

Capacity and load performance meet specifications; this compact cell can sustain up to 3.8 A.

Capacity exceeds the rating and output stays at 1.5 V; continuous current is 1.5 A.

Nearly all specifications were met; it completed a 10 A discharge but heated considerably.

The cell delivered up to 10 A, and its capacity exceeded the rated figure.

The cells delivered about 2500 mAh and sagged noticeably under heavy load; the author is unsure whether they are genuine 25Rs.

At 1C charge and discharge, the cells degraded sharply; the first lost nearly two-thirds of its capacity in 150 cycles.

An inexpensive LiFePO4 cell, but it fell short of 1600 mAh; it handles cold better and has a longer claimed cycle life.

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

The cells delivered 40 A and over 2500 mAh at 20–40 A, with low resistance; the author's only complaint is the price.

The cells performed better than specified, though their internal resistance was slightly higher than claimed.

The cells exceeded their stated capacity figures, and the author considers the test results excellent.

Capacity and load current meet expectations, but the author considers the price too high.

The cells delivered their stated capacity and handled the rated discharge current well; the author recommends them.

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

Measured capacity was 6600 mAh at 0.2C; the cells had closely matched results, but batch quality is inconsistent.

The cells deliver a real 5.7–5.8 Ah and work in buffer mode, but their internal resistance varies considerably.

The cells nearly reach their rated capacity and handle 3C discharge well; the author recommends them.

The cells suit medium loads but noticeably lag high-current competitors at 20 A.

Decent general-purpose cells, but not high-current ones; high loads cause strain and substantial voltage sag.

The Y25 cells performed well and consistently; the author sees them as an affordable alternative to VTC5 and 25R, though the maker is unknown.

The O35 performed well, on par with LG and Samsung, but their actual capacity is about 3400 mAh.

The protected version is usable, but its protection limits current: it trips at about 6–6.2 A, with 5.1 A available continuously.

This budget cell is noticeably worn; it suits low-current use, but the author suggests looking for a better model.

It measured 2,582 mAh and ran cooler, but the author considers it a budget option for moderate loads.

The cells showed similar performance; the author recommends them but warns that counterfeits are common.

At 30 A it reached only 84°C; the author notes it often costs less than the VTC4.

At 30 A the cells exceeded 100°C before fully discharging, so the test was stopped.

A popular but not top-performing cell; it delivered 3000 mAh only at the lowest current.

Actual capacity is about 2900 mAh; at 20 A its results were nearly equal to the HG2.

Real capacity at 0.2C is 3400 mAh; the author notes that the 35E also performs well.

Test capacity was about 3150 mAh; the author considers its slow charging normal for a high-capacity cell.

It measured 3528 mAh at 0.2C; the author recommends it when both capacity and current up to 10 A are needed.

It measured 3450 mAh at 0.2C and performed well at 8 A; a second cell also gave an excellent result at 10 A.

It delivered 3568 mAh; the author picks the NCR18650G for maximum capacity at low current.

The first cell delivered 3180 mAh at 0.2C; the second reached almost 3250 mAh when charged to 4.2 V.

Real capacity is just over 4900 mAh; above 10 A it outperforms the LG M50T.

It handled high currents well: about 95°C at 30 A and around 100°C in the test reaching 37 A.

It delivered 4060 mAh at 0.2C; above 10 A the Samsung falls noticeably behind.

It delivered 4200 mAh at 0.2C; the author advises against sustained loads above 10 A.

High capacity for its size, but heat and the unusual format limit its use; the author would choose 21700 if possible.

The cells show good consistency and perform better at low currents, but lag behind Samsung at high currents.

Capacity is lower than that of standard HG2 cells, but the tested cells have more consistent performance.

It performed well and slightly beat the Samsung INR21700-40T, but the author considers it too expensive.

Capacity meets the specification, but the cells trail competitors and vary noticeably in capacity and resistance.

Capacity is slightly higher than competitors at low current, but it trails the LG MJ1 at high current and seems overpriced.

The cell performed well, and the author considers it an excellent choice for large e-bike battery packs.

Ordinary branded cells with modest performance, but suitable for low-drain devices; their key advantage is the price.

The red VTC6 performed almost like the green ones; the measured differences were within measurement error.

The cell delivered about 2500 mAh in most test modes and was surpassed only by the new VTC5D.

They handle discharge up to 20 A and deliver about 1500 mAh, but have less energy capacity than the Samsung 20S.

These new genuine cells meet their stated specifications and are suitable for laptop battery packs.

Actual capacity is about 3400 mAh; it handles up to 7 A, but not 10 A, let alone 20 A.

The cell sustains 30–35 A, handles 40 A briefly, and is well suited to power-tool packs.

The cell performs well at discharge currents up to 10 A, but does not reach its claimed 3600 mAh.

The cells delivered excellent capacity and handled a 10 A discharge well, but had higher resistance and heating.

Capacity is 10–14% higher than the VTC5A; the author praises the cells but notes their price is twice as high.

The genuine VTC6 cells delivered about 3200 mAh at 0.5 A and reached about 90 °C at 20 A.

They measured 3386 and 3399 mAh at low current and delivered 3250 mAh at 8 A, though quality may vary.

The sample was judged counterfeit: lower capacity and higher resistance than the original, with a different contact.

The sample was judged counterfeit: higher resistance, lower capacity, and it reached 76°C at 10 A.

The sample was judged counterfeit: capacity at 2C was below the original, and its contact and discharge curve differed.

The cell seems close to genuine, but its condition and storage are concerning, so the author advises against buying such cells.

The high-current cell delivered well with modest heating, and the author unequivocally recommends it.

Capacity is slightly below the rating and protection works; resistance with the protection board is almost 55 mΩ.

The author considers the cells genuine, matching their stated specifications, and unequivocally recommends them.

After 450 cycles, measured capacity was 2762 mAh, 15% below the initial estimate of 3244 mAh.

The cells handle discharge up to 30 A well, but measured capacity was below the rated value.

The cell passed the tests and met its stated capacity, but reached 83°C when discharged at 14.7 A.

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

Quality cells meet their stated specifications, and the author unequivocally recommends buying them.

Capacity is close to the stated value, but high resistance causes severe overheating above 10 A discharge.

Capacity matches the claim, but resistance is high and performance does not match VTC6; the author limited discharge to 10 A.

Inexpensive, functional protected cells with good real capacity; the author recommends them for flashlights and toys.

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

They suit low-current, high-capacity applications; sort them by capacity before using them in laptop battery packs.

Working batteries measured about 500 mAh instead of the rated 700; one of the 24 was defective.

Nearly identical to Panasonic NCR18650B; suitable for 0.2–0.5C discharge, but lose Wh capacity at higher currents.

Capacity meets the rating, but the claimed continuous discharge current is questionable.

Fresh cells with consistent results; the author recommends them for laptop batteries, power banks and flashlights, but not for drills or e-cigarettes.

The cells showed good capacity and handled high-current discharge; the author considers them fit for use.

Measured capacity was about 500 mAh at a 500 mA discharge; the stated capacity is greatly overstated.

Measured capacity was 500 mAh; the author criticizes the greatly overstated labeling.

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

Capacity is well below the claimed 880 mAh; the author’s only noted plus is the excellent packaging.

The new cells’ measured capacity is well below the rating and varies widely.

The 18350 capacity is about 20–25% below the rating, with substantial variation between tested cells.

The battery measured 1407 mAh, slightly below the expected 1450–1500 mAh.

Capacity at a 1 A discharge was nearly 3300 mAh; the cell was also tested at 6.4 A.

Both cells delivered nearly 2000 mAh in the standard test, exceeding the stated capacity.

Capacity exceeded 2500 mAh at 1C; the high-load test was performed at 15 A.

At a 3 A discharge, capacity was about 2940 mAh, matching the stated figures.

Despite a 3200 mAh claim, actual capacity was just over 1200 mAh, with large variation between cells.

The 2600 mAh claim yielded only about 1600 mAh in testing; the author suspects these are non-genuine cells.

The standard-mode test delivered 2250 mAh of a stated 2350; capacity fell below 2000 mAh when charged to 4.2 V.

The cell delivered nearly 3400 mAh at 4 A and was also tested at its 10 A maximum.

Capacity at 1C almost exactly matched the datasheet; the test load reached 15 A.

At 1C discharge the cell delivered 2500 mAh; its maximum test current was 5.2 A.

They delivered 2200 mAh at 300 mA and the claimed 1800 mAh at an 1800 mA discharge.

Capacity at a 0.5 A discharge was 535 mAh; the author generally found the battery results disappointing.

The NP-BN1 performed worst: its capacity drops sharply as discharge current increases.

The Li-40B had the highest capacity in the review at 561 mAh and pleasantly surprised the author.

The two EN-EL19 batteries showed a noticeable capacity spread: 438 and 496 mAh.

The cells meet the stated capacity, and the author found no faults.

Capacity and internal resistance are close to spec, but the cell overheats at about 1.5–2C discharge and protection cannot handle charging to 4.35 V.

At a 500 mA discharge, the battery measured 497 mAh, about two-thirds of the original capacity.

Capacity measured 502 mAh versus the original's 600 mAh; the author considers this a perfectly normal result.

Measured capacity was 560 mAh versus the original's 700 mAh; the author calls the result average rather than good.

The battery measured 936 mAh versus the original's 940 mAh, which the author calls an excellent result.

It delivered 2,073 mAh at a 500 mA discharge; in the second cycle, the author discharged it at 1.5 A.

Capacity measured 723 mAh; the author considers the battery quite decent.

Capacity measured 789 mAh, about 75% of the claimed figure; the author is wary of the battery.

Capacity varies widely; the author advises against using them in e-cigarettes and could not use them in his device.

The battery’s capacity nearly matches its rating, and the author liked it.

Measured capacity was about 1.5 Ah instead of the stated 2.2; the author advises looking for better cells.

Two cells delivered about 70% of rated capacity and two were defective; the author advises against using them at high current.

The two cells delivered 92–93.5% of rated capacity at a 1C discharge; the author called the result very good.

Despite a claimed 1200 mAh, the author estimated the battery’s actual capacity at about 300–330 mAh.

The four cells measured 640.6–787.7 mAh; quality varied, so test a batch before use.

Capacity was below the rating and the promised protection circuit was absent; the author would not recommend buying them.