Comparison HOBOT 288 vs HOBOT 198
Add to comparison |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| HOBOT 288 | HOBOT 198 | |
from £412.14 | Outdated Product | |
| TOP sellers | ||
Drop protection for 20 minutes when unplugged. | Automated window cleaning. Mobile control. Drop protection for 20 minutes when unplugged. | |
| Type | window robot | window robot |
Specs | ||
| Performance | 2 min/m² | |
| Power | 72 W | 90 W |
| Power source | mains | mains |
| Backup power | 20 min | 20 min |
General | ||
| Noise level | 65 dB | 65 dB |
| Control via smartphone | + | + |
| In box | remote control | remote control |
| Cable length | 5 m | 5 m |
| Dimensions (H×W×D) | 10x24x24 cm | 12x30x15 cm |
| Weight | 1.2 kg | 0.93 kg |
| Added to E-Catalog | february 2018 | august 2017 |
Compare HOBOT 288 and 198
You may be interested in
My comparisons
HOBOT 288 often compared
HOBOT 198 often compared
Glossary
Performance
The nominal processing time for 1 m² of glass helps assess the operating speed of a window-cleaning robot: the lower the value in min/m², the faster the pass. For example, at 2.5 min/m², a surface measuring 4 m² will require about 10 minutes, excluding a repeat cycle, repositioning the device, and preparing the cleaning cloths. Models are best compared in identical modes, since the result is affected by the route, degree of contamination, and number of passes.
Power
Power consumption characterizes the load on the motor, suction fan, drives, and electronics, but it does not directly measure cleaning quality. It is more appropriate to compare this value within the same type of equipment: a more powerful device may provide greater operating headroom, but streaks and residual water are influenced more by the nozzle design, the condition of the cloths, and the movement algorithm. For corded models, this value also helps assess the requirements for the adapter or external power source.