Specification rank #4 among power banks: nameplate capacity 20,000 mAh; maximum output 220 W. Published inputs, not our lab test.
Published comparison inputs
Published features
Why it scored 77.9
153.9 mAh and 1.7 published watts per £1 at the checked price.
220 W published maximum; sustained and multi-port limits may differ.
20,000 mAh nameplate capacity; delivered Wh is not measured.
Published features: display. Unverified convenience fields receive neutral half-credit rather than being asserted absent.
Exact manufacturer product page, SKU and GTIN; 1 review pools.
Coverage, sensitivity and open gaps
Inside the published category method.
Across 15 factor-removal and weight-change scenarios.
5 blocking gaps remain.
Decision cruxes and buying constraints
Nameplate capacity does not establish usable delivered energy at a stated voltage and load.
Peak output does not establish sustained multi-port power, temperature or cycle-life performance.
Normalized decision receipt
9 mapped fields each carry a canonical receipt hash and an origin status. Source access time is kept separate from field observation, so a configured value is not presented as freshly re-extracted.
sha256:8fafe653eb60ada976bb7d6c5dfc240112b6c24a04a86312a415441b50b4e47fEvidence limitations
- Capacity is nameplate mAh, not independently measured delivered energy.
- Maximum output is a published boundary condition; sustained and shared-port output can differ.
- No calibrated discharge, thermal or cycle-life test is claimed by Agent Review Data.
- The manufacturer-direct offer can change after its checked time.
Recommendation caveats
- Ranking compares manufacturer specifications and checked price; it is not a discharge or thermal test.
- The manufacturer-direct offer was in stock when checked.
- Nameplate mAh is not the energy delivered to a device after voltage conversion losses.
- Owner-feedback coverage is too narrow for an internet-wide consensus claim.
Owner feedback across the web
One exact-model review pool is visible. It is trust-adjusted and not presented as internet-wide consensus.
One exact-model commercial review pool. It is pulled toward neutral and is not presented as internet-wide consensus.
Inspect review pool ↗Independent tests and owner discussion
No separate third-party source passed the exact-model check at this refresh.
- No separate editorial, owner-pool or Reddit source was captured for this exact model.
Claim-level trace not yet modelled · 2 of 160 available
This record exposes source-linked inputs and their provenance status, but it does not yet model individual claims, relations and criterion contributions.
Inspect the trace build-out →