Which OBD2 Code Scanner Brand Wins?

(fast)

(almost as slow as the base Autel)

(slow)

with a single hot-key press (tied fastest/simplest)

just over half a second, no hot key but only 3 button presses

with a single hot-key press (best yet at the time, tied simplest)

(slowest of all 9 to retrieve codes), 4 button presses

5 button presses (extra step attributed to its added capability to store existing codes for future reference)

5 total button presses

3 button presses

very close to 1.4 seconds (pretty quick), 3 button presses to display the first of three codes

FAILED entirely: after 42 seconds and 5 separate attempts it could not retrieve codes from the 2003 Chevrolet Suburban

successfully located both codes quickly via the hot key, requiring the least amount of menu navigation of any tool per the narrator

not individually narrated in this section; inferred as one of the 6 (of 9) scanners that successfully found both codes, since the narrator states exactly 6 succeeded and the other 8 tools are each individually accounted for as success or failure

found only the engine code, missed the transmission code

successfully located both the engine and transmission codes, though required a lot of menu navigation

identified both trouble codes, though required a lot of menu navigation

identified both codes (algorithm described as the same as the NT201), required quite a few keystrokes to navigate

the first scanner in the lineup to successfully locate the transmission fault code, though it took a lot of navigating

found only the engine code, missed the transmission code

also failed to find the transmission fault code on the second vehicle

hardest to read in direct sunlight of all 9 tools (backlight not bright enough)

a little easier to see than AUTOPHIX, but harder than Launch Creader and Foxwell 201 (2nd hardest overall)

large screen, very easy to read in direct sunlight (named among the two best, tied with LeeKooLuu)

pretty easy to see, smaller font than Moto Power

as difficult to see in direct sunlight as the Launch Creader (among the worst)

a little better than AUTOPHIX and the Ancel 410, but still not great

font a little smaller but still pretty easy to see in direct sunlight

very easy to see in direct sunlight (named among the two best, tied with Moto Power)

nearly impossible to read, screen contrast and backlight both inadequate

button engagements (most of any tool) but only 3.75 seconds; 3 data points per screen (fewest, requires scrolling), info spelled out in full rather than abbreviated

button engagements, took a full second longer than AUTOPHIX to retrieve, screens identical to AUTOPHIX

button engagements, 3.75 seconds, 4 data points per screen, large easy-to-read font

button engagements, 3.4 seconds raw retrieval (fastest raw time) but lags over 1 second per button press (about 9 seconds total to advance screens); 6 data points per screen (most among non-hot-key tools) but requires scrolling through each point

button strokes, 6.4 seconds (slowest at the time it was tested), 7 data points per screen (most of any tool up to that point), no noticeable lag

button strokes, 6.65 seconds (slowest of all 9), 7 data points per screen, all abbreviated, includes a help key for additional info

button engagements, 4 seconds, 4 data points per screen

hot key, just over 1 second (about 10x faster than Foxwell), everything on one screen, subjectively easier on the eyes

hot key, just over 1 second, one screen, display looks identical to AUTOPHIX

button strikes, 3 screens

button strikes, 4 screens (only 3 data points per screen)

hot key, 10 seconds (slow), everything on one screen

hot key, just over 10 seconds (slowest hot-key tool), one screen

button strikes, 3 screens, accurate info

launches in 5.8 seconds, info spelled out, 3 data points per screen, no noticeable lag; offers oxygen sensor graphing

(same as AUTOPHIX), screens look identical to AUTOPHIX, offers oxygen sensor graphing

fastest of all 9 to launch the live stream (about 5.5 seconds) but scrolling lags badly (about 1 second per scroll)

very slow to launch, just over 32 seconds, but 7 data points per screen with no lag once running

to launch (slowest, essentially tied with the NT201)

has an update mechanism, already had the latest software, download as quick as Foxwell's

no update software exists for it

has an update mechanism, already had the latest software installed

has an update mechanism, already had the latest software installed

has an update mechanism but the update attempt failed; the unit could not get past the language-selection prompt and the screen would not power up during the attempt