Which Infrared Thermometers Brand Wins?

range -58F to 932F, claimed accuracy +/-1.5%, 12.1:1 distance-to-spot ratio, made in China, weight 12.52 g as spoken (suspiciously about 10x lighter than every other unit in this video, which run 100-330 g; likely a dropped digit, kept verbatim)

range -58F to 1112F, auto-off feature, made in China, weight spoken as '123.6' with a garbled trailing fragment ('mi de')

claimed accuracy +/-1.5%, claimed 500ms response time, min/max/average modes, 0.95 emissivity, made in China, weight just under 142 g

range -58F to 1112F, claimed accuracy +/-2%, 12:1 distance-to-spot ratio, claimed 500ms response time, made in China, weight spoken as split digits '158.4 6 g' (one garbled decimal, resolved as 158.46 g)

1 distance-to-spot ratio, range -58F to 1112F, adjustable emissivity 0.1 to 1.0 (unlike most other units tested), made in China, weight spoken as '146.640' (garbled trailing digits, kept literal)

range -58F to 1112F, 12-point laser (multi-point, unlike the single-point design of most other units), adjustable emissivity 0.1 to 1.0, includes a carrying case, made in China, weight just under 202 g

broadest temperature range at that point in the video (-58F to 1472F), claimed response time under half a second, 12:1 ratio, includes a carrying case, made in China, weight 155.5 g

broadest temperature range in the video (-40F to 2732F), claimed dual laser configuration, adjustable emissivity 0.1 to 1.0, distance-to-spot ratio spoken as 550:1 ('by far the best yet', notably higher than every other tested unit's 10:1-30:1 range, possibly a caption inflation, flagged), auto power-down after 35 seconds, made in China, weight 312.50 g, by far the heaviest unit tested

range -58F to 2552F, 30:1 distance-to-spot ratio, claimed accuracy +/-2%, warns that low battery can cause inaccurate readings, made in China, weight spoken as split digits '194. 79 g' (one garbled decimal, resolved as 194.79 g)

sold at Harbor Freight, 20:1 distance-to-spot ratio, 2.1 inch color screen, adjustable emissivity, range -22F to 2120F, made in China, weight spoken as '31011 g', almost certainly a dropped decimal point (kept literal, flagged)

range -58F to 2876F, 30:1 distance-to-spot ratio, includes a flashlight, made in China, weight 38.3 g (notably lighter than most other units, but no independent signal this is a caption error, kept as-is)

1 distance-to-spot ratio, range -22F to 752F, claimed dual laser targeting, made in China, weight 282.30 g

1 distance-to-spot ratio (narrowest of all units tested), claimed clearer screen and faster scanning, emissivity fixed at 0.95 (not adjustable), range -22F to 752F, made in China, weight spoken as '29118 g', likely a dropped decimal (probably ~291.18 g, kept literal, flagged)

1 distance-to-spot ratio, range -40F to 1200F, adjustable emissivity 0.1 to 1.0, rated to survive a drop from almost 10 feet, made in China, weight spoken as '24.2 n g' with a stray letter; this is far lighter than every comparable unit (100-330 g range) and likely dropped a digit (probable true weight around 242 g), kept literal and flagged

(slow)

more than twice as fast as Soonkoda

(slow)

same as T600

(slow)

(fast)

fastest yet at that point in the video

(very fast)

the slowest of all 15 units tested

(slow)

fastest yet at that point in the video (later beaten only by the Klein Tools IR10)

'a little faster than average'

'by far the fastest yet', fastest unit in the entire video

pretty easy to see

pretty easy to read

pretty easy to read

'I just can't see the display', worst so far at that point

'definitely the best yet, very clear', tied with Fluke for the best possible rating of 1 per closing recap

unreadable in direct sunlight, most difficult to see so far at that point

also nearly impossible to read

just as difficult to read as the FKM

'for thermometers with dark displays, the Surpeer is definitely the best so far' - best among the dark-screen subgroup, not overall

very challenging to see

also very difficult to read

'a lot friendlier on the eyes than its dark screen [would suggest]'

isn't as easy to see as the Klein Tools

error 0.2F too high, tied for 2nd place with AMES per closing recap

4.5F too low, 'way off'

1F off target

not found in the transcript; the video jumps directly from KIZEN's spec listing to introducing the FKM, an apparent caption gap

missed target by 1.6F

1.8F error, 'an even bigger miss'

came out on top of the room-temperature test with an error of only 0.1F too low, best of all 15 units on this test

'pretty close to target'

tied for 2nd place with the T600 at 0.2F error

1.3F too low

3.3F too high, 'a pretty big miss'

0.7F off target

2.3F error

-4.7F, transcript states 'off by 11.3 degrees' which does not match the ~1.3F gap to the -6F target; see videoNotes

mid-narration figure -16.4F described as 'nearly perfect', which conflicts with a -6F target (that would be a 10.4F miss); however the closing recap states ThermoPro finished FIRST in the cold test missing target by only 0.4F, so the recap figure is treated as the more reliable one for this test (see videoNotes on the cold-test garbling)

-8.7F, transcript states a 7.3F error, which does not match the ~2.7F gap to a -6F target; see videoNotes on the cold test

-6.5F, transcript states a 92F error, almost certainly a garbled/dropped-digit figure since the reading itself is very close to the -6F target; kept verbatim, flagged

-12.4F, 3.6F off target, 'performed quite a bit better than average'

reading of 282F spoken, wildly implausible for a freezer test near -6F; narrator states he made several attempts to adjust settings without success and concludes Mestek 'is not ideally suited to measure cold temperatures' - reported as a genuine device limitation, not just a caption artifact

-9.3F, 6.7F error, 'a little bit better than average'

-6.3F, transcript states 'missed target by just 10 degrees', which does not match the ~0.3F gap to a -6F target; see videoNotes on the cold test

-10.3F, 5.7F off target, 'performed better than average'

-9.4F, 6.6F error

-6F reading itself, but the transcript states the unit 'continues to struggle' with a 10F miss, which does not match a reading at the -6F target itself; see videoNotes on the cold test

-4.1F mid-narration; closing recap gives 2nd place, missing target by 1.9F

'struggled', missed target by 11.5F (again inconsistent with a reading that should be near a -6F target if read literally; see videoNotes on the cold test)

0.7F off target

3.8F below target

moved into first place over the T600 at that point in the narration (0.5F off vs T600's 0.7F)

only 0.1F off, tied for 1st place with Fluke per closing recap

over target by 2.1F (identical reading to AMES's aluminum-test figure, possibly a transcript mix-up, flagged)

off by more than 3F

only 0.5F off (identical reading to Sovarcate's aluminum-test figure, possibly a transcript mix-up, flagged)

'only off by 0.2 degrees', 3rd best on this test per closing recap

2.1F too high (identical reading to FKM's aluminum-test figure, possibly a transcript mix-up, flagged)

0.8F too low

4.6F off, one of the larger misses

3.9F too high

only 1.3F off

off by 1.5F, 'very impressive', 2nd place per closing recap

14.3F off target, worse than Soonkoda

5F off target

largest error yet, missing target by 24F

20.5F error

off target, 'a pretty big miss'

22F error, 'struggled'

reading spoken as 38.1F 'or 5.9 too low', which is wildly implausible against a 386F target on its own; the stated 5.9F delta implies a true reading near 380.1F (386 - 5.9), suggesting the raw '38.1' figure dropped a leading digit - this derivation is noted but the literal transcript value is preserved rather than silently corrected

9.5F error

off by just over 1F, moved into the lead at that point in the narration; closing recap confirms 1st place, missing target by 1.2F

closing recap gives 1.6F off target, 3rd place

'almost 10 degrees' below target

at 18F

at 12.6F