In recent years, 1.5V rechargeable lithium-ion batteries have gradually become well-known as an emerging type of battery. However, with more and more manufacturers, different brands on the market has various methods to claim their batteries’nominal energy. It can easily confuse consumers and cause some problems.

To help everyone better understand and choose the right battery, today we will talk about the common methods to label the nominal energy of 1.5V rechargeable Li-ion batteries.

Problems Caused by Different Battery Energy Labeling Methods

》Difficult to compare batteries from different brands

Due to the different methods to label the nominal energy, it is challenging to make direct comparisons between batteries from different brands. Even if the batteries have the same claimed value, their actual performance may be very different during use. This makes it difficult to know which battery can provide longer lifespan when purchasing. Understanding the energy labeling methods of different brands will help you choose the best 1.5V lithium-ion battery for your needs.

》User experience does not meet expectations

Some unknow manufacturers may use high claimed values to attract consumers, but the actual performance often falls short. This misleading claming method will make users disappointed and even lose trust in the brand. Especially for tech enthusiasts who rely on accurate specifications, false values can even affect experimental results. For these reasons, we not only have to verify the authenticity of the information but also require buying new batteries. This adds to the financial burden and wastes time.

》Concerns raised by capacity test results

When the battery capacity differs greatly from the claimed value, the capacity measured by the tester may not match the claimed value. This can cause users to doubt the accuracy and reliability of the device, and may spend extra time and money to verify or replace the device. For example, the XTAR VX4 charger, which has high-precision capacity testing functions, has encountered similar issues. After testing by XTAR lab, it was found that the problem was the inaccurate nominal capacity claims, not the charger.

Energy Labeling Methods for 1.5V Rechargeable Li-ion Batteries

XTAR Lab purchased 1.5V rechargeable lithium-ion batteries from different reputable brands and tested them using the professional capacity grading machine in a standard lab environment.

Based on these data, we summarized the four most common energy labeling methods. The specific analysis is as follows:

Serial Number	Brand	Size	Nominal Energy (mWh)	Test Energy – Capacity Grading Machine (mWh)
1	Doublepow	AAA	1000	753
2	Doublepow	AAA (USB Port)	1000	430
3	Doublepow	AA	3400	2923
4	Doublepow	AA	2750	2081
5	FB	AAA	950	768
6	FB	AA	2775	2479
7	Delipow	AAA	962	674
8	Delipow	AAA	1200	511
9	Delipow	AA	3400	1678
10	Tenavolts	AAA	1110	1053
11	Tenavolts	AA	2775	2636
12	XTAR	AA	4150	3504
13	XTAR	AA	3300	3012
14	XTAR	AA(Green)	2700	2578
15	XTAR	AAA(White)	1200	1129
16	Hixon	AA	3000	3477
17	EBL	AA	3000	2770
18	Pisen	AA	3000	2863
19	PUJIMAX	AA	3400	1534
20	Beston	AA	2800	2603
21	Enevolt	AA	2475	2622
22	Toshiba	AA	3900	2272

Method 1: Severe overrated: actual energy is lower than 80% of the nominal energy.

The actual usable energy of these batteries is significantly lower than their nominal value. For example, the actual test result of Delipow AAA 1200mWh battery is only 511mWh, less than half of its nominal value. Similarly, the actual enery of Doublepow AA 1000mWh is less than 500mWh. Batteries like these often have a much shorter usage time than expected, resulting in a poor user experience.

Method 2: Taking the cell energy as the battery’s nominal energy, the actual energy is about 85% to 95% of the nominal energy.

The test result for the XTAR 4150mWh AA Li-ion battery shows an actual energy is 3504mWh, about 85% of the nominal value. This is because the energy of XTAR 1.5V lithium battery comes from the cell energy before loss. In actual use, the cell will have an 10% output loss.

Using the 3.6V cell’s energy as the battery nominal energy helps prevent significant fluctuations in energy output due to conversion efficiency. On one hand, the conversion efficiency of constant voltage step-down circuits will improve with industry development. On the other hand, there are notable differences in conversion efficiency among various step-down circuits. For instance, the conversion efficiency of a constant voltage step-down circuit is 90%, whereas a linear step-down circuit achieves only 80% efficiency.

Method 3: Genuine rated: actual energy is about 100% of the nominal energy.

Some brands of 1.5V rechargeable lithium-ion batteries have an genuine energy is almost the same as their claimed rating. We can see that the actual test energy of Tenavolts AAA 1110mWh battery and Pisen AA 3000mWh AA battery is within 150mWh of its nominal energy. This labeling method provides more accurate information, helping users better estimate the battery life.

Method 4: Over the rated: actual energy is more than 100% of the nominal energy.

Some batteries have a higher actual energy than their claimed values. We found that the Haikesen AA 3000mWh battery had an actual energy of 3477mWh, which is 477mWh higher than 3000mWh. Additionally, the Evevolt AA 2475mWh battery had an actual energy 147mWh higher than its claimed value. This kind of battery can provide longer usage time than expected but may also mislead users.

Conclusion

After understanding these battery energy labeling methods, you’ll be able to better evaluate the actual performance of 1.5V rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Also, we always recommend using high-precision equipments for battery capacity testing.

In response to this, XTAR has introduced the latest VX4 charger. It’s the first charger that can test 1.5V rechargeable lithium batteries with more than 95% accuracy and is also compatible with 3.6/3.7V lithium, 1.2V NiMH, and 3.2V LiFePo4 batteries. With it, you won’t need to worry about the capacity test results and can more accurately determine battery capacity.