Which Outdoor Security Camera Brand Wins?

solar powered, rotates 360 degrees, claims real-time 2K resolution, human auto tracking, 2K color night vision, made in China

Wi-Fi, indoor/outdoor, color night vision, two-way audio, requires 120V power (corded, not battery), claims Alexa/Google compatibility, SD storage, made in China

claims 2K resolution, built-in starlight sensor, night vision up to 30 ft claimed, AI detection of people/pets/vehicles, SD storage, no subscription required, made in Vietnam

battery operated (unlike Tapo/Wyze which need 120V power), claims AI motion detection, waterproof, cloud or SD storage, color night vision, two-way talk, claims 1 to 5 months per charge and 33 ft of visible range, made in China, uses the same app as Amcrest/AMTIFO

GB SD card storage, claims 2K HD resolution and long battery life, two-way audio, made in China, uses the same app as VisionWell

battery powered, wireless, spotlight, two-way audio, color night vision, claims 130 degree field of view, made in Vietnam

weather-resistant, live view, color night vision, two-way talk, motion alerts, claims Alexa compatibility, battery powered, requires a monthly subscription, made in Vietnam

requires a monthly subscription, wire-free, claims 2-year battery life, two-way audio, HD live view, enhanced motion, claims Alexa compatibility, claims 1080p HD live view and infrared night vision, made in Malaysia

claims 4K solar security camera, 360 degree coverage, remote access, claims 140 degree tilt, 8 megapixel color night vision, no monthly subscription fee, made in China

fuzzy but readable at 30 ft, tied with Tapo, Wyze, and VisionWell

performed the same as Tapo: good at 10, 15, 20 ft, fuzzy at 25 ft, very fuzzy at 30 ft, unreadable at 35 ft

good resolution at 10, 15, 20 ft; a little fuzzy at 25 ft; barely readable at 30 ft; unreadable at 35 ft

performed well out to about 30 ft, unreadable at 35 ft, same as Tapo and Wyze

image quality described as more grainy than Tapo, Wyze, and VisionWell; license plate barely readable at 25 ft

performs about the same as eufy at 10, 15, 20 ft; pretty fuzzy at 25 ft

blurry at only 10 ft and barely readable at 15 ft, described as half the distance of Tapo, Wyze, and VisionWell, the worst close-range clarity result among the early-tested brands

really struggling, license plate barely readable even at only 10 ft, the worst close-range result of all 10 cameras

described as offering the same image quality as eufy, but the license plate is only barely readable at 30 ft

likely corresponds to the section narrated under the name 'AEE' (the only unaccounted brand at that point in the video), described as not freaking out as badly this time and clothing/distance markers viewable even with the light pointed directly at the camera; resolved with low-to-medium confidence, see notes

flashlight caused major problems and massive washout, though the distance markers remained readable

struggled to read distance markers under direct flashlight exposure and was completely blinded by it, one of the weaker performers in this test

performed quite a bit better than Tapo and Wyze; finished 3rd place in the explicit final flashlight scorecard with a rating of 2 (Reolink 1st at rating 1, an unclear second-place brand named 'Owlet' at rating 1.5)

struggled with sensor overload more than VisionWell but performed better than Tapo (narrated in this section under the name 'the MT full')

one of the worst cases of flashlight blinding in the video, with a massive whiteout circle

almost completely blinded by the flashlight, distance markers barely readable

described as having struggled throughout the showdown overall, but performed better than average specifically on this test, with distance markers staying readable

in the explicit final flashlight scorecard with the best possible rating of 1; described as definitely the best camera in that test, with clothing, distance markers, and even the subject's face viewable at times despite direct light

narrator says it 'might be an option to consider' if you need 180 degrees of coverage for a front structure; did a great job tracking the test subject

described early on as having 'an even bigger issue with blind spots' where the 40 degree sign is not even visible and the test subject exploited the blind spot to reach the package; later in the video, however, it is grouped with eufy as offering '0 degrees of blind space' via pan/tilt/motion tracking; these two statements conflict, kept both, not resolved

of blind area on the left and right sides; could spot the test subject approaching from 40 degrees but not from 35 degrees or less until he bent down to pick up the box

could see the test subject from 40 degrees like Tapo, but also has a large blind space like Tapo

could see the test subject from about 32.5 degrees, the best result up to that point in the video, but still has a large blind space on the left and right

wider field of view than Tapo and Wyze with the 35 degree sign in view, but still has a large blind space on the left and right, exploited by the test subject

field of view close to Amcrest/AMTIFO and Arlo, 35 degree sign in view; test subject still exploited a blind space at 45 degrees

offers the widest field of view of any camera tested, with the 30 degree sign in view; recap line elsewhere states the Blink's blind space is only about 50 degrees

self-activated when the test subject was about 20 ft out; distance markers barely readable out to 60 ft, described as pretty good for a $30 camera

despite AI detection claims, did not automatically detect the test subject at all and had to be manually activated; once activated it gave a good view and readable license plate at 10 ft, unreadable at 15 ft, distance markers visible out to 50 ft

slow to trigger, the test subject got within 5 ft of the package before the sensor activated; distance markers readable to 60 ft, same as Wyze

with sensitivity at maximum, sensor spotted the test subject about 40 ft out, 2nd place in the trigger-distance ranking behind eufy; license plate too glossy to read; could read the distance marker at 55 ft

sensor activated about 17 ft from the package; license plate readable at 10 ft but not 20 ft; could not read beyond the 30 ft distance marker

sensor triggered about 30 ft out; license plate not readable; distance marker at 45 ft very fuzzy but readable

failed to detect the test subject at all; he walked right up to the package undetected and the camera had to be manually activated; struggled to provide a readable image even at the 20 ft marker; license plate too glossy to read

offers pan and tilt but explicitly does not offer motion tracking, requiring a person to manually track the subject via the app; sensor triggered at about 12 ft; license plate too glossy to read but the 90 ft distance marker was readable, the best distance-marker result of all 10 cameras, described as 'by far the best yet'

overall, average finish of 2.5, described as a great value at around $70

explicit budget pick. Narrator: 'if you're looking for a really affordable camera, it's hard to beat the Wyze at a price of around $30 ... it did perform well with an average finish at 4.8', noted to have a larger blind area than eufy and AOSU