Impact Drivers 2025 Test: Which Brand Wins?

clamp load, converted to 2,217 in-lb of torque, over 200 in-lb more than its 2000 in-lb claim, the highest of all brands tested

clamp load, converted to 1,882 in-lb of torque (also referenced later in the closing torque recap as '1,82 in lb', almost certainly a dropped digit for 1,882)

clamp load, converted to 654 in-lb of torque, exceeding its own low 500 in-lb claim

clamp load, converted to about 1,723 in-lb of torque, exceeding its 1590 in-lb claim

clamp load, converted to 1,563 in-lb of torque

clamp load given in transcript as '18,42 lb' (likely a dropped digit, plausibly 18,420 lb), converted to 1,422 in-lb of torque

clamp load, converted to 1,260 in-lb of torque

clamp load, converted to 1,430 in-lb of torque, described as middle of the pack

claimed torque is stated twice inconsistently in the transcript, first as '1,800 INB' at the product introduction and later as claiming '18800 in lb', a roughly 10x discrepancy that is almost certainly a caption digit error rather than two different real claims; measured result given as 13,240 lb clamp load, converted in the transcript to '1,22 in lb' which is very likely a dropped-zero rendering of 1,220 in-lb, kept verbatim and flagged

claimed 2650 in-lb; transcript states it came up 'over 1,000 lb short' and gives an actual figure of 1,524, which (unlike every other brand in this section) is stated directly in in-lb rather than as a separate clamp-load figure, consistent with the claim-vs-actual gap description (2650 minus 1524 is just over 1000)

the passage describing this brand's result is adjacent to a general conversion example ('with 771 in lbs of torque we're making 9,889 lb of clamp load, that works out to around 13 lb of clamping force for every inch pound of torque') that reads as a reference/calibration statement rather than this brand's own result; the figure that appears to be Excited Work's actual measured result is 5,914 lb of clamp load, converted to 456 in-lb of torque, against a claimed spec of over 1200 in-lb

no-load, 98.9 dB while driving a deck screw

stated as 93.1 dB no-load described in the transcript as 'the least amount of noise', and 99.4 dB while driving a deck screw described as 'louder than average'; flagging that 93.1 dB does not read as the lowest no-load figure among all brands tested (several brands measured lower, e.g. Makita 84.7, Ridgid 85.1, Excited Work 85), so this 'least noise' claim as transcribed appears internally inconsistent with the other measured values in the video

no-load, 91.1 dB while driving a deck screw, described as by far the quietest under load of any brand tested, consistent with its marketed 'up to 50 percent quieter' hydraulic drive feature

no-load, the quietest no-load reading of any brand tested, 96.4 dB while driving a deck screw

no-load, 97.8 dB while driving a deck screw

no-load, 101.8 dB while driving a deck screw, the loudest of all brands up to that point in the video

no-load, about the same as Greenworks, 97.8 dB while driving a deck screw, the same reading as Kobalt

no-load, 98.4 dB while driving with the hammer mechanism active

no-load, 99.7 dB while driving a deck screw

no-load, 96.2 dB while driving a deck screw, the quietest loaded reading of any brand up to that point in the video

no-load, 101.3 dB while driving a deck screw, described as loud

described as the best low RPM control of all brands at that point in the video

described as pretty good

described as good

described as about the same as Excited Work's 138 RPM

described only qualitatively as 'the best low RPM capability yet'; no specific RPM number given by the narrator for this brand

described as the slowest setting available

described as almost as good as Milwaukee's

described as better than average

struggled, just over 400 RPM

the slowest of all brands tested

1.43, then average 1.63 seconds for the third screw; separately restated with an average of 1.63 seconds in a later low torque/high speed recap comparison

1.79, 1.79 seconds, average 1.79 seconds, took the lead at that point in the video

1.43, 1.53 seconds; separately in a labeled 'low torque, high speed' recap comparison against DeWalt 860 and Milwaukee, narrator states DeWalt Hydraulic averaged 1.53 seconds, finishing second behind DeWalt 860's 1.41 and ahead of Milwaukee's 1.63

2.31, 2.3 seconds, described as very consistent and a lot faster than Ridgid, with less vibration than most other brands

2.46, 2.52 seconds, average 2.48 seconds

2.0, 2.36 seconds, average 2.19 seconds, moved into the lead at that point in the video

2.57, 2.1 seconds (fastest of the three attempts); no overall average was explicitly stated by the narrator for this brand's screw test

7.89, 8.57 seconds, average 8.05 seconds, described as really struggling and not packing a very powerful punch

just under 3, 2.82 seconds, average 2.87 seconds, moved into third place behind Kobalt and Ryobi at that point in the video, described as making noticeably more jiggle than Kobalt and Ryobi

5.93, 5.88 seconds, average 5.86 seconds, second fastest of all brands, briefly took the lead from Hercules mid-test before DeWalt 860 was tested

5.88, just over 7 seconds, average 6.27 seconds, about 4 seconds faster than Kobalt

7.58, 7.48 seconds, average 7.24 seconds

11.3, 10.37 seconds, average 10.7 seconds, fastest of all brands up to that point in the video

10.99, 10.68 seconds, average 10.99 seconds, second place behind Kobalt

transcript gives '13.4.1' seconds for the first bolt (likely a caption typo for 13.41), 13.67, 12.39 seconds, average 13.16 seconds, moved into third place behind Ryobi, displacing Greenworks

9.34, 11.41 seconds; narrator also states '10.37 seconds on average', identical to the first individual attempt figure, which may be coincidental or a repeated/garbled number, flagged here rather than treated as certain

20.46 seconds, and a third attempt transcribed as finishing at '25.45%' which is clearly a caption error (almost certainly meant to be a time in seconds, not a percentage); no average was explicitly stated by the narrator for this brand, so none is reported here

14.7, 14.14 seconds, average 13.88 seconds, about 2 seconds slower than Kobalt and Ryobi

claimed up to 3900 RPM; measured 3889 RPM, the highest no-load RPM of all brands tested

claimed up to 3000 RPM; transcript states 'around 358' for low RPM control and separately '321 Peak RPM', the latter is lower than the tool's own stated low-RPM figure and is almost certainly a caption error (likely a dropped trailing digit, plausibly closer to 3210), kept verbatim and flagged rather than corrected

claimed up to 3600 RPM on the highest of 4 speed settings; measured peak around 3400 RPM

claimed up to 2800 RPM; transcript states it 'briefly produced 2900 RPM'

claimed up to 3700 RPM; transcript states 'a max no load RPM at around $330', the dollar sign is clearly a caption artifact and the number itself is far below the claimed spec and below every other brand's max RPM, almost certainly a caption error with a dropped digit, kept verbatim and flagged rather than corrected

claimed up to 2900 RPM; transcript states a top-end/peak reading of only 2535 RPM, described as liking speed less at the top end than other brands

described as by far the most RPM of any brand up to that point in the video

(stated as 'about 140 RPM faster' than Excited Work's 2816, and separately mis-transcribed with a stray dollar sign as '$2,958')

described as the fastest of all brands up to that point in the video

peak stated as 2731, described as slower than the competition

with a fully charged battery

front to back

most compact of all brands compared for length, just under 4 inches front to back

front to back, the longest of the three brands the narrator directly compared for length