2021 test6 productsPower Tools
Which Cordless Ratchets Brand Wins?
We compared 6 cordless ratchets options head to head. Ryobi came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Winner
Ryobi
Price shown in test: $90
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Budget pick
Husky
Price shown in test: $60
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.
| Product | Specs | Weight_g | Size Side To Side_mm | Size Front To Back_mm | Noise_d B | Low Rpm Control | Trigger Delay Bracket 1_result | Lug Nut Spin Time_sec | Side By Side Bracket 2_result | Stall Resistance Rotations_7_2ftlb_30s | Max Working Torque_ftlb | Breakaway Torque Test_73_8to 74ftlb | No Load Temp_10min_F | No Load Runtime_min | Recharge Time_min | Brand Resolution | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Husky$60 | 3/8in drive, battery powered or manual operation, variable speed up to 230 RPM, built-in battery, includes carrying case, made in China, has LED light (not very bright), battery level indicator, trigger lock | 977 total (2 lb 2.5 oz); 578 front, 484 back (front+back does not sum to the stated total, kept verbatim, same non-summing pattern recurs for every brand in this video) | 3.91 (verbatim as captioned; implausibly small next to every other brand's 28 to 45mm range, almost certainly 39.1mm with a misplaced decimal, not corrected) | 33.8 | 83 | 147 RPM minimum, described as not very good low RPM control; 419 RPM max | lost to Ryobi in the head to head (Ryobi faster off the line and faster to stop); finished sixth (last) in this bracket's final tally | 79 (1 minute 19 seconds); finished fourth of six in the final timed ranking | finished fourth of six in this second live elimination bracket's final tally | 41; struggled and stalled out several times, motor got pretty hot by the end | 16.3; finished fifth of six | short handle but held up just fine removing the nut | 130 | 42.3 (42 minutes 19 seconds); finished fifth of six | 64.5 (64 minutes 30 seconds); third fastest of six | not tested | not tested |
| 2Ryobi$90 | 18V, 3/8in ratchet kit, up to 35 ft-lb of torque, four position rotating head, dual LEDs, 230 RPM, 1.5 Ah battery, made in China, no battery level indicator, has trigger lock | 1441 total (3 lb 2.8 oz); 705 front, 822 back | 29.75, most compact tool at that point in the video | not recoverable; the transcript merges this figure with AC Delco's torque/RPM spec into an unreadable run of digits ('31.399839 Max torque 65 ft-lb 0 to 220 RPM'), a clear caption garble rather than an omission | not stated anywhere in the transcript, unlike Husky, AC Delco, Milwaukee, and Snap-on, an apparent gap | 42 RPM minimum, described as very good low RPM control; 457 RPM max | beat Husky (faster off the line, faster to stop); finished third of six in this bracket's final tally | 73 (1 minute 13 seconds), the fastest time of all six brands in this test | beat AC Delco 3 wins to 0, beat Ingersoll Rand narrowly, beat Milwaukee 3 wins to 0, but lost to Snap-on 0 wins to 3; finished second of six in this bracket's final tally | 53; slowed down noticeably under load but never stalled out | 23.1; finished third of six | longer handle offered more leverage, no problem removing the lug nut | 150 | 43.8 (43 minutes 43 seconds), the longest battery run time of all six brands | 54, second fastest of six | not tested | not tested |
| 3ACDelconot stated; no price introduction sentence is narrated for this brand anywhere in the transcript, unlike Husky, Ryobi, Ingersoll Rand, and Snap-on, an apparent gap | made in Taiwan, 2 Ah battery, has trigger lock, no battery level indicator, LED not quite as bright as Ryobi or Husky; the transcript's trigger-style sentence is internally contradictory, stating both that Husky and Ryobi use paddle triggers while AC Delco uses a button 'just like the Robi and the Husky', which cannot both be true as captioned, kept verbatim and flagged rather than resolved | captioned as '2 lb 13.9 oz' and '131 G' in the same sentence, which are inconsistent (2 lb 13.9 oz is roughly 1310g, not 131g, almost certainly a dropped digit); the closing weight recap independently states 'AC Dela 1,31', consistent with approximately 1310 to 1315g, used here as the better-supported figure while the literal 131g caption is flagged, not silently discarded; 843 front, 542 back | 4.38 (verbatim as captioned; implausibly small next to every other brand's 28 to 45mm range, almost certainly 43.8mm with a misplaced decimal, not corrected) | 42.74 | 88, called the loudest yet at that point in the video (later brands top this figure) | 48 RPM minimum, described as pretty good low RPM control; 294 RPM max | narrowly beat Ryobi off the line and at stopping, beat Ingersoll Rand, tied Milwaukee (narrator says the less expensive AC Delco 'will advance' from that tie), beat Snap-on; the bracket's final tally lists AC Delco and Milwaukee 'tied for first', which sits oddly against the earlier 'AC Delco will advance' phrasing from their tied matchup, both statements kept verbatim and flagged as an internal contradiction rather than resolved one way | 113 (1 minute 53 seconds), the slowest time of all six brands in this test | finished sixth (last) of six in this bracket's final tally | 71; performed very well, credited to a much lower no-load speed; an accurate internal component temperature reading could not be captured because the plastic housing blocked the sensor | 23.6, narrowly beat Ryobi's 23.1, finished second of six | handle is quite a bit longer, offering more leverage, held up just fine | 160 | 22.2 (22 minutes 19 seconds), the shortest battery run time of all six brands, first to run out of juice | 94, the slowest of all six brands by about 25 minutes | captioned as AC Delo, AC Dela, and AC duckco throughout; resolved to ACDelco via the description | described as definitely not as balanced as some of the other brands |
| 4Ingersoll Rand$183 | 12V tool and battery, battery made in Taiwan, charger made in China, 2 Ah battery, brushed motor, has a battery level indicator (unlike every other brand tested), no trigger lock (the only brand tested without one), LED brighter than AC Delco but not as bright as Ryobi | 998 total (2 lb 3.2 oz); 484 front, 601 back | approximately 28.43, called the most compact tool yet at that point in the video; the front-to-back figure and a stated 200 RPM max spec are merged into an unreadable run of digits in the transcript ('28.432177 Tor 200 RPM'), a clear caption garble; front-to-back size not recoverable | not tested | not stated anywhere in the transcript, unlike Husky, AC Delco, Milwaukee, and Snap-on, an apparent gap | 14 RPM minimum, described as the best low RPM control of all six brands; 381 RPM max | lost to AC Delco; finished fifth of six in this bracket's final tally | 76 (1 minute 16 seconds), second fastest of six | finished third of six in this bracket's final tally | 12, the worst of all six brands; really struggled to get up to speed but survived the test without stalling out completely | 11.7, the worst of all six brands, gave up before making much progress | much shorter handle and a lot less leverage than AC Delco, took more effort, but held up just fine | approximately 130 (captioned as very close to 130) | 35.8 (35 minutes 50 seconds), third longest of six | 69.5 (69 and a half minutes), second slowest of six | captioned as ingresa Rand, ingr saww Rand, Ina Rand, angera Rand, anrol Rand, and Ina ran across the video; resolved to Ingersoll Rand via the description | not tested |
| 5Milwaukeenot stated; no price introduction sentence is narrated for this brand anywhere in the transcript, unlike Husky, Ryobi, Ingersoll Rand, and Snap-on, an apparent gap | comes with two 2 Ah batteries, LED described as seeming like the best of the lineup, has trigger lock, has battery level indicator, brushless motor (confirmed later alongside AC Delco), made in China | 1285 total (2 lb 13.4 oz); 859 front, 512 back | 40.3 | 40.86 | 89, called the loudest tool of all six brands; described as just not very compact | 41 RPM minimum, described as good low RPM control; 321 RPM max | tied with AC Delco; see the AC Delco entry for the transcript's internally contradictory phrasing about whether AC Delco 'advances' from the tie or the two are tied for first | 110 (1 minute 50 seconds), fifth of six | finished fifth of six in this bracket's final tally | 76, the best of all six brands; took a couple of tries to get going but performed best once up to speed | 29.4, the best of all six brands, took the lead from AC Delco | long handle offered plenty of leverage, narrator says it 'definitely seems built for this', held up just fine | 145 | 23.3 (23 minutes 15 seconds), second shortest of six; one of the two brushless-motor brands to run out first | 39, the fastest of all six brands | not tested | not tested |
| 6Snap-on$482 | 14.4V microlithium cordless kit, manufacturer-claimed maximum torque of 40 ft-lb and 275 RPM, designed and engineered by Snap-on and assembled in the US with US and imported components (the only US-assembled brand tested), brushed motor (explicitly contrasted with the cheaper, brushless Milwaukee), comes with two 2.5 Ah batteries (largest battery capacity in the lineup), no trigger lock, no battery level indicator, LED described as pretty bright | 1163 total (2 lb 9 oz); 77 front (verbatim as captioned; implausibly light next to every other brand's front-weight reading of roughly 480 to 860g, almost certainly a dropped digit such as 770, not corrected), 542 back | 32.59, more compact than Milwaukee and Ryobi from side to side | 45.4, the least compact of all six brands front to back | 87, described as pretty loud | 25 RPM minimum, described as the second best low RPM control of all six brands; 407 RPM max | beat AC Delco (edged it out both starting and stopping); finished fourth of six in this bracket's final tally | 78 (1 minute 18 seconds), third fastest of six | beat Ryobi 3 wins to 0, the only brand to beat Ryobi in this bracket; finished first (fastest) of six in this bracket's final tally | 14, second worst of all six brands, really struggled and never got up to speed | 22.1, fourth of six, notably below its own manufacturer-claimed 40 ft-lb spec and behind three cheaper brands (Milwaukee, AC Delco, Ryobi) | held up just fine | 205, by far the hottest of all six brands at the 10 minute mark; continued to heat up until it was visibly smoking, requiring fans to keep it running for the rest of the test | 26 (just under 26 minutes), third shortest of six | 67, fourth fastest of six | not tested | not tested |
How it was tested
- manufacturer specs and features (drive size, RPM, claimed max torque, battery capacity, trigger lock, battery indicator, LED brightness)
- weight in grams, including front (anvil side) vs back (handle side) balance
- physical size at the ratchet head (mm side to side and front to back)
- noise level in dB measured 24in from the tool
- low RPM control: minimum controllable RPM and maximum RPM
- trigger delay and stopping speed: live paired side by side elimination bracket, round 1
- timed test spinning 28 lug nuts, seconds to complete
- trigger delay and stopping speed: live paired side by side elimination bracket, round 2 (after the lug nut test)
- stall resistance: rotations completed in 30 seconds against 7.2 ft-lb of engine brake resistance
- maximum working torque via breaker bar and torque adapter, tightening until the tool stalls (ft-lb)
- breakaway torque test: manually loosening a fastener pre-tightened to 73.8 to 74 ft-lb
- no-load battery run time: internal temperature at 10 minutes, and total minutes until the battery died
- battery recharge time from fully drained (minutes)
“I really like the Robi quite AIT in my opinion it did the best overall”
Data notes and caveats
Closing recommendations split by use case even though an overall winner is named: Husky for affordable light duty use ('it's really hard to argue against the Husky for $60, it did a great job'), Ryobi as the explicit overall winner, and Milwaukee for daily use with heavier torque loads. Two brands (ACDelco and Milwaukee) have no price stated anywhere in the transcript, a genuine narration/caption gap rather than an omission, unlike every other brand which gets an explicit price introduction. Two brands (Ryobi and Ingersoll Rand) have no individually stated noise dB reading. This video runs three separate speed-related sub-tests with three different rankings, not one metric repeated: an initial live side by side trigger delay and stopping bracket (AC Delco and Milwaukee tied for first, Ryobi third, Snap-on fourth, Ingersoll Rand fifth, Husky sixth), the actual timed 28 lug nut spin test (Ryobi fastest at 73 seconds through AC Delco slowest at 113 seconds), and a second live side by side elimination bracket run after the lug nut test (Snap-on fastest, Ryobi second, Ingersoll Rand third, Husky fourth, Milwaukee fifth, AC Delco sixth); all three are preserved separately per brand rather than merged. Several weight and size figures are implausible against their neighbors within this same video (Husky and AC Delco side to side dimensions read roughly 10x too small, AC Delco's initial total weight and Snap-on's front weight both read roughly 10x too light) and are flagged per product rather than corrected. Ryobi's and Ingersoll Rand's front to back size figures are unrecoverable, merged into runs of digits with adjacent spec numbers in the transcript.