Which Air Compressor Brand Wins?

heaviest at that point in testing

matching its own lightweight claim

heaviest of all brands at that point in testing

captioned as 'just over 19 12 lbs', almost certainly a caption artifact of 19.12 lb; matches the packaging's own claim of about 19 lb

the lightest of all brands

(captioned as 'about 45 12 pounds', likely a caption artifact)

claims 80 percent quieter, 2.44 CFM at 90 PSI (transcript captions this as '2.4 4', likely a caption-splitting artifact of 2.44), 1 HP motor up to 135 PSI, metal silencer unlike other brands' plastic silencers

oil-free 'silent' compressor, 2.1 CFM at 90 PSI, up to 125 PSI, 1.2 HP motor, max claimed noise 65 dB

at 90 PSI, ultra quiet 60 dB claim, 135 max PSI, brushless 1.2 HP motor claim, two air hose connectors

ultra quiet 60 dB claim, 2.5 CFM at 90 PSI, a 'very fast' 14 second recovery time claim, 1 HP high performance motor, plastic muffler that protrudes and seems prone to damage

HP motor, ultra quiet 60 dB claim, 125 max PSI, 1.8 CFM at 90 PSI

HP, 2.1 CFM at 90 PSI, up to 120 max PSI, ultra quiet 81 dB claim, thick muffler cover, rubber muffler pipe, filter cotton

ultra quiet 60 dB claim, 1 HP four-pole motor, a 13 second recovery claim, claims it can fill the tank in only 45 seconds, up to 120 PSI with 2.5 CFM at 90 PSI

quieter claim, 'two times the motor life' claim, 3/4 HP induction motor, two oilless pumps, integrated control panel with two gauges and a regulator, 1.7 CFM at 90 PSI claim

at 90 PSI, 125 max PSI, quiet operation claim of 65 dB, oil-free pump; the marketing material claims 2 HP but the box it ships in claims 1 HP, an internal claim conflict the presenter calls out directly

HP 'hot dog' style motor, 125 max PSI, claims about 19 lb weight, a 45 second recovery time claim, 0.5 CFM at 90 PSI claim, heat dissipation and overload protection claims

pancake-style compressor with a 3 gallon tank (larger than most competitors' 2 gallon tanks), 1/3 HP motor, 100 max PSI, claims 0.6 CFM at 90 PSI, 2.5 amps, 87 dB

HP electric motor, ultra quiet 60 dB claim, lightweight design claim (44 lb), 2 CFM at 90 PSI claim, complete roll cage design, single hose coupler (unlike most brands' automatic dual setups)

started around 74 dB, peaked 79.5 dB, remained quiet

started 74.1 dB, peaked 76 dB, 2nd best (quietest) of all brands

started 81 dB, peaked 82.2 dB

started around 69 dB (best yet at that point), peaked at 74.8 dB, the quietest of all 12 brands tested

started 74.2 dB (about the same as Husky), peaked 78.4 dB

started 81.1 dB, peaked 82.5 dB

peaked 76.4 dB, 3rd best (quietest) of all brands

peaked 76.7 dB, described as better than most other brands despite being the heaviest

started noisier than average, grew louder with tank pressure, peaked 81.6 dB, louder than most other brands

started around 92 dB, peaked 95.5 dB, one of the loudest brands despite being lightweight

started 85.4 dB, peaked 91 dB, notably louder than its own claim

quickly reached 82 dB and continued climbing, peaked 87.9 dB, one of the louder brands

fastest of all brands, using 7.4 amps (about 890 watts)

(fastest at that point in testing), using 820 watts; tank finished at 117.8 PSI in 40.5 seconds

using about 850 watts; tank finished at 136.6 PSI in 52.2 seconds, 2nd best peak tank pressure

using about 790 watts; tank finished at 120 PSI in about 46 seconds

using 6.15 amps (about 740 watts); tank finished at 125.2 PSI in just over 44 seconds

peak energy demand 935 watts; tank finished at 120 PSI in 47.8 seconds

peak energy demand 860 watts; tank finished at 119.9 PSI in 47.4 seconds

using just over 6 amps (about 720 watts), notably slower than Husky/Stealth/Limodot; tank finished at 122.8 PSI in 59 seconds, about 15 seconds slower than Stealth

(tied with Limodot), using about 900 watts, described as 'pretty thirsty'; tank finished at 129.3 PSI in 53.5 seconds

using only about 395 watts (less than half most other brands' energy use); tank finished at 123.7 PSI in 2 minutes 50 seconds

using only about 235 watts (weak motor); tank finished at only 99.7 PSI despite the larger tank

using around 868 peak watts; tank finished at 134 PSI in 57 seconds

2nd best of all brands, fast refill around 14 seconds

cycle/refill time 11.77 seconds, 2nd fastest of all brands

3rd best of all brands, refill time 15.22 seconds

refill time 13.21 seconds

cycle/refill time 11.41 seconds, fastest of all 12 brands tested

refill time 14.45 seconds

about the same as Vevor, cycle time 12.65 seconds, 3rd fastest of all brands

refill time 18 seconds, notably slower than most other brands

(transcript captions this as '94.4 4', likely a caption-splitting artifact), refill time 17.34 seconds

refill time 37.9 seconds, slow

refill time a little over 35 seconds

(transcript captions this as '99.6. 6 psi', likely a caption artifact), refill time 15.53 seconds

2nd best of all brands

3rd best of all brands

described as pretty slow

a little faster than average

tied with Eastwood for the worst result

about 5 times longer than Vevor and Greteefor despite the larger tank

7 impacts of reserve, 42 total impacts, tied for 2nd place with Fortress and Makita

8 impacts of reserve, 41 total impacts

7 impacts of reserve, 42 total impacts, tied for 2nd place with Husky and Makita

7 impacts of reserve, 37 total impacts

only 5 impacts of reserve, weakest reserve of any brand, 35 total impacts

7 impacts of reserve, 39 total impacts, described as performing well 'for a budget compressor'

7 impacts of reserve, 36 total impacts

8 impacts of reserve, only 35 total impacts despite the 3/4 HP motor

8 impacts of reserve, 40 total impacts, described as better than average

only 6 impacts of reserve, 19 total impacts in one minute, less than half the speed of the cheaper Fornax

powered on after only 5 impacts, then struggled badly on recovery, delivering only 13 total impacts in one minute, one of the weakest results

7 impacts of reserve, 42 total impacts, tied for 2nd place with Husky and Fortress

2nd best of all brands

3rd best of all brands