2025 test17 productsGadgets & Tech
Which USB-C Charger Brand Wins?
A head-to-head test of 17 usb-c charger options with the measured results for each. See how they ranked and watch the full test video.
Ranked first
Anker 20W two-port
Price shown in test: $14
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 | Tier | Weight | Standby power | Single-device charging ramp (outlet W / power bank W at start, 5 min, 30 min) | Temperature after 30 min charging | Efficiency (single-device test) | Wall pullout force | Multi-device max output | Rated-capability achievement | Single-device charging ramp on a 20W port (outlet W / power bank W at start, 5 min, 30 min) | Single-device charging notes | Size | Multi-device temperature ranking | Efficiency (multi-device test) | Single-device charging ramp on the 100W-rated port (outlet W / power bank W at start, 5 min, 30 min) | Single-device charging ramp on the 140W-rated port (outlet W / power bank W at start, 5 min, 30 min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Anker 20W two-port$14 | under 65W | 54 g | 0 W | 19 W / 16 W, then 19.6 W / 17 W, then 20.4 W / 17 W | just under 122 F, coolest of the under-65W tier | 91.7%, best of the under-65W tier | 36 oz, best of the under-65W tier | 10.56 W + 6.2 W = 16.82 W across 2 ports, peak temperature 158 F, no wattage drop | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Anker 47W Nano, two-port foldable GAN$25 | under 65W | 86 g, heaviest of the under-65W tier at introduction | 0 W | 41.7 W / 37 W, then 43.55 W / 38 W, then 45.73 W / 40 W | around 149 F | 90.7%, 2nd in the under-65W tier | foldable blades facing down measured 13 (unit ambiguous in transcript, likely oz); reoriented the opposite direction it improved to 27 oz | 18.5 W on one port and just over 32 W on the other, dropping about 4 W total once fully warmed, temperature around 189 F; a separate mention states close to 23 W per receptacle fully warmed up at around 170 F, which is not fully reconciled with the first figures and is preserved as a second reading rather than merged | rated for 47 W, achieved 99.2% of rated capability in the multi-device efficiency comparison, best of the under-65W tier on this specific measure | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3Aioneus 40W four-port$9, least expensive of all 18 chargers | under 65W | 56 g | 0 W | not tested | 151 F | not tested | fixed blades, 31 oz | 20.4 W + 7.2 W + 3.4 W = 31 W across 3 ports, dropping to 28.17 W once the charger became very hot at 219 F | not tested | 19.7 W / 16 W, then just over 20 W / 17 W, then just over 21 W / 17 W; produced 8.91 Wh over the 30 minutes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 4FEEL2NICE 20W single-port$10 | under 65W | 38 g | 0 W | not tested | 171 F | not tested | non-folding blades, 28 oz | not tested | not tested | not tested | could not get the charger to charge the test power bank at all; switched devices and measured just under 9 W on a different power bank, about 12.5 W on a cell phone, and a ramp on a jump starter of 12 W at start, 12.4 W / 10 W at 5 min, 12.4 W / 10 W at 30 min | 3 cubic inches, smallest of the lowest-power charger group | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 5Samsung 50W$38 | under 65W | 124 g, heaviest of the under-65W tier | about 0.63 W | 47.6 W / 41 W, then 49.6 W / 43 W, then 51.28 W / 45 W, the highest raw output of the under-65W tier | close to 150 F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 6UGREEN 65W four-portaround $35 | 65 to 99W | 162 g | 0 W | 60.4 W / 53 W, then 64.3 W / 57 W, then 66.3 W / 59 W | 144.1 F, coolest in the 65-99W tier at that point | 92%, 2nd in the 65-99W tier behind the Anker Prime | 32 oz, best of the 65-99W tier | 27.6 W + 19.3 W + 9.6 W = 56.5 W, temperature 156 F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 7Anker Prime, 67W three-port$60 | 65 to 99W | 144 g | 0.17 W | just under 62 W / 55 W, then 65 W / 58 W, then 68.5 W / 61 W | close to 140 F (also reported as 139.9 F elsewhere), coolest in the 65-99W tier for this test | 92.6%, best of the 65-99W tier | not tested | 15.25 W + 43.12 W = 58.42 W across 2 ports, temperature around 141 F, coolest of the 65-99W tier under multi-device load | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 140.6 F, best of the 65-99W tier in the multi-device max-output section (a distinct test from the 139.9 F single-device ramp temperature above) | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 8Amlink 65W three-port GAN$12 | 65 to 99W | 140 g | 0.12 W | 61.45 W / 54 W, then 64.7 W / 56 W, then 67.3 W / 59 W, the best raw output in the 65-99W tier at that point in the video | 149.5 F | not tested | folding blades facing up, gave up early at 19 oz | 68 W with one device, dropping to around 18 W with a second device, then 9.8 W and 4.1 W described as poor for a 65 W charger with additional devices; the transcript's exact device count/order at this point is ambiguous and preserved verbatim rather than reconciled; maximum single-device temperature reached 159 F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 9Anker Nano 2, 65W three-port$26 | 65 to 99W | 110 g | 0 W | 60.7 W / 54 W, then 63.9 W / 56 W, then 66.9 W / 59 W, described as about the same as Amlink | 151 F | not tested | 20 oz, a small amount better than Amlink | 38.7 W + 13 W + 5 W = 56.7 W across 3 ports, temperature around 195 F, only a very small wattage decrease | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 10TECKNET 65W three-port$26 | 65 to 99W | 118 g | about 0.2 W, bouncing between 0.18 and 0.23 W | almost 63 W / 54 W, then 66 W / 57 W, then 67.61 W / 59 W, described as about the same as the Anker Nano 2 | 167.8 F, hot | not tested | really struggled at only 10 oz | 44.4 W + 11.3 W + 5 W = 61 W, fully warmed up at 189 F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 11Belkin 67W three-port$30 | 65 to 99W | 118 g | about 0.15 W | just under 65 W / 55 W, then 68 W / 59 W, then just over 71 W / 61 W, the highest raw output in the 65-99W tier at that point in the video | 174 F, hottest in the 65-99W tier at that point | not tested | not tested | 19 W + 3 W + 16.7 W = 38.7 W with 3 ports, improving to around 64 W total with only 2 devices; became very hot at around 195 F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 96.3%, best of the 65-99W tier on this specific measure, though it ran hot at 195 F during that test (a separate, hotter reading than the 174 F single-device ramp figure above) | not tested | not tested |
| 12Elecshion 65W two-port$30 | 65 to 99W | 162 g | 0.24 W | 57 W / 50 W, then just over 60 W / 52 W, then just over 62 W / 55 W, described as underperforming throughout | 167 F | not tested | essentially fell out of the outlet, too little force to register on the meter, worst of the 65-99W tier | 47 W + 9.3 W + 5.7 W = 62 W across 3 ports, temperature 192 F, dropped only about half a watt total | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 13TOPADRE 140W, five-port with digital display$28 | 100W and up | 388 g | about 0.4 W average, ranging 0.3 to 0.51 W | not tested | 157.8 F | 93.1%, 2nd in the 100W+ tier behind the Minix | not tested | 34.5 W + 61.1 W + 33 W = 128.7 W, temperature 138 F, no drop in performance | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 92%, best of the 100W+ tier on this specific measure | 92.27 W / 82 W, then 98.8 W / 88 W, then 104.3 W / 93 W, the best raw output in the 100W+ tier at that point | not tested |
| 14MINIX 165W four-port, one port rated 140W$60 | 100W and up | 280 g | 0.7 W, highest standby draw of all 18 chargers | not tested | 175.3 F | 93.3%, best of the 100W+ tier | fell out of the wall with the pull meter still reading zero, worst of the 100W+ tier | 129.2 W total, temperature 224 F, the hottest of all 18 chargers; only a small drop to 128.92 W under load | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 132 W / 121 W, then 143.3 W / 129 W, then 148.5 W / 133 W, the best raw output in the 100W+ tier |
| 15Anker 747, 150W four-port$60 | 100W and up | 270 g | 0.13 W | 101.38 W / 90 W, then 101.93 W / 90 W, then 102.38 W / 91 W, very stable across the test | 149.8 F | not tested | 36 oz, tied for best of the 100W+ tier | 38.6 W + 43 W + 46.9 W = 128.5 W, most balanced across ports of the 100W+ tier, peak temperature 190 F, no wattage drop | not tested | not tested | not tested | 7.8 cubic inches, most compact of the 100W+ tier | not tested | 85.7%, 2nd in the 100W+ tier behind TOPADRE | not tested | not tested |
| 16Anker 200W six-port desktop station$70 | 100W and up | 662 g, by far the heaviest of all 18 chargers | 0.07 W, 2nd best in the 100W+ tier behind Bovicas's 0 W | not tested | 108.5 F, by far the coolest of all 18 chargers on this test | not tested | not tested | peak production of 161.6 W across 4 devices, stayed relatively cool, no wattage drop | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 136 F, best of the 100W+ tier in the multi-device max-output section (a distinct, hotter test from the 108.5 F single-device figure above) | not tested | 94.9 W / 83 W, then 102.44 W / 89 W, then 105.5 W / 92 W | not tested |
| 17UGREEN 160W total output$120, most expensive of all 18 chargers | 100W and up | 308 g | 0.11 W | not tested | over 194 F, hottest of all 18 chargers on this single-device test | not tested | very heavy, prone to falling out of the outlet, gauge still reading 0 oz, tied-worst of the 100W+ tier | 50.4 W + 44.8 W + 28.36 W = 123.56 W, temperature 220 F, described as not as good as some other chargers in this category | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 134.27 W / 118 W, then 149.6 W / 132 W, then 151.6 W / 134 W, the highest raw single-port output of all 18 chargers |
How it was tested
- standby (idle) power draw
- single-device charging power ramp at the start, 5 minutes, and 30 minutes, measured at both the wall outlet and the receiving power bank, with charger efficiency computed from the difference
- charger surface/case temperature after 30 minutes of single-device charging
- physical size in cubic inches, compared within wattage tier
- wall-outlet pullout/retention force measured with a force gauge, compared within wattage tier (corded chargers skipped)
- maximum simultaneous multi-device output using all ports at once, with resulting temperature and any wattage drop under sustained load
- efficiency and temperature under the multi-device max-output test, compared within wattage tier