2024 test9 productsJump Starters & Car Power
Which OBD2 Code Scanner Brand Wins?
A head-to-head test of 9 obd2 code scanner options with the measured results for each. See how they ranked and watch the full test video.
Budget pick
Moto Power and Ancel 310 (tied, ~$23 tier)
Price shown in test: $40
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 | Boot Up | Code Retrieval | Boot Plus Retrieve Combined | Freeze Frame Data | Im Readiness | Transmission Code Test 2008 Honda Civic | Live Data Test 2022 Toyota 4 Runner | Screen Readability In Sunlight | Screen Size | Software Update | Fault Code Lookup |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1AUTOPHIX OM126P$40 | 2 seconds (fast) | 1 second with a single hot-key press (tied fastest/simplest) | 3 seconds (2nd fastest of all 9, per the closing speed recap) | 8 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 | hot key, just over 1 second (about 10x faster than Foxwell), everything on one screen, subjectively easier on the eyes | successfully located both codes quickly via the hot key, requiring the least amount of menu navigation of any tool per the narrator | launches in 5.8 seconds, info spelled out, 3 data points per screen, no noticeable lag; offers oxygen sensor graphing | hardest to read in direct sunlight of all 9 tools (backlight not bright enough) | 2.98 square inches | has an update mechanism, already had the latest software, download as quick as Foxwell's | not tested |
| 2Ancel 410 (AD410)$40 | 2 seconds | just over half a second, no hot key but only 3 button presses | 2.7 seconds (fastest of all 9 tools per the closing speed recap) | 5 button engagements, took a full second longer than AUTOPHIX to retrieve, screens identical to AUTOPHIX | hot key, just over 1 second, one screen, display looks identical to AUTOPHIX | 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 | 5.8 seconds (same as AUTOPHIX), screens look identical to AUTOPHIX, offers oxygen sensor graphing | a little easier to see than AUTOPHIX, but harder than Launch Creader and Foxwell 201 (2nd hardest overall) | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3MotoPower$23 | about 2.5 seconds | 1.3 seconds with a single hot-key press (best yet at the time, tied simplest) | 3.8 seconds (3rd fastest of all 9 per the closing speed recap) | 7 button engagements, 3.75 seconds, 4 data points per screen, large easy-to-read font | 5 button strikes, 3 screens | found only the engine code, missed the transmission code | not tested | large screen, very easy to read in direct sunlight (named among the two best, tied with LeeKooLuu) | 3.29 square inches | not tested | not tested |
| 4Ancel 310$23 | about 5.3 seconds (almost as slow as the base Autel) | about 20 seconds (slowest of all 9 to retrieve codes), 4 button presses | not tested | 5 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 | 5 button strikes, 4 screens (only 3 data points per screen) | successfully located both the engine and transmission codes, though required a lot of menu navigation | fastest of all 9 to launch the live stream (about 5.5 seconds) but scrolling lags badly (about 1 second per scroll) | pretty easy to see, smaller font than Moto Power | not tested | no update software exists for it | has trouble-code lookup capability, though less user-friendly to input (must hold enter while using the up/down arrow) |
| 5Foxwell NT201$36 | 4.4 seconds | 7.5 seconds, 5 button presses (extra step attributed to its added capability to store existing codes for future reference) | not tested | 6 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 | hot key, 10 seconds (slow), everything on one screen | identified both trouble codes, though required a lot of menu navigation | very slow to launch, just over 32 seconds, but 7 data points per screen with no lag once running | as difficult to see in direct sunlight as the Launch Creader (among the worst) | not tested | has an update mechanism, already had the latest software installed | one-handed / one button at a time to input trouble code info, as informative as the Ancel 310 |
| 6Foxwell NT301$63 | 4.3 seconds | 7.3 seconds, 5 total button presses | not tested | 6 button strokes, 6.65 seconds (slowest of all 9), 7 data points per screen, all abbreviated, includes a help key for additional info | hot key, just over 10 seconds (slowest hot-key tool), one screen | identified both codes (algorithm described as the same as the NT201), required quite a few keystrokes to navigate | 32.7 seconds to launch (slowest, essentially tied with the NT201) | a little better than AUTOPHIX and the Ancel 410, but still not great | almost 4 square inches (largest of all 9) | has an update mechanism, already had the latest software installed | one-handed input; uniquely provides possible causes/reasons for the trouble code, not just identification |
| 7Autel$20 | 6.3 seconds (slow) | 1.8 seconds, 3 button presses | not tested | not tested | not tested | the first scanner in the lineup to successfully locate the transmission fault code, though it took a lot of navigating | not tested | font a little smaller but still pretty easy to see in direct sunlight | not tested | not tested | not able to look up trouble code information |
| 8LeeKooLuu$15 | about 4 seconds | very close to 1.4 seconds (pretty quick), 3 button presses to display the first of three codes | not tested | 4 button engagements, 4 seconds, 4 data points per screen | 5 button strikes, 3 screens, accurate info | found only the engine code, missed the transmission code | not tested | very easy to see in direct sunlight (named among the two best, tied with Moto Power) | not tested | not tested | not able to look up trouble code information |
| 9Launch Creader$20 | just over 4 seconds | FAILED entirely: after 42 seconds and 5 separate attempts it could not retrieve codes from the 2003 Chevrolet Suburban | not tested | not tested | not tested | also failed to find the transmission fault code on the second vehicle | not tested | nearly impossible to read, screen contrast and backlight both inadequate | not tested | 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 | not tested |
How it was tested
- boot-up time to main screen after plugging into OBD port
- time and button-press count to retrieve trouble codes on a 2003 Chevrolet Suburban
- ability to locate both an engine and a transmission trouble code on a 2008 Honda Civic
- time, button-press count, and data-points-per-screen for freeze frame data retrieval
- time, button-press count, and screen count for I/M readiness retrieval
- trouble-code lookup / definition capability
- screen readability in direct sunlight
- screen size measurement
- software update capability and process
- live data stream launch time and responsiveness on a 2022 Toyota 4Runner
- oxygen sensor graphical performance testing capability
Data notes and caveats
No single scanner is declared an outright winner; the closing guidance is use-case based: Moto Power and Ancel 310 for basic code reading/clearing around $23, and the four priciest brands (Foxwell 201, AUTOPHIX, Ancel 410, Foxwell 301) for buyers wanting to begin real troubleshooting. The clearest explicit negative verdict is against Launch Creader, which failed to retrieve codes on 2 of 3 test vehicles despite marketing claims. AUTOPHIX (transcribed as 'Autel Fix'/'AutoFix') is the most consistent top performer across the individual speed and navigation metrics and is the most likely referent of the title's 'One Stood Out,' but no transcript sentence explicitly crowns it, so winner is left null per the per-use-case convention. Nine total products tested, matching the description's list exactly.