Compare: EagleTac P10A2 Neutral vs Quark AA² Neutral

A short comparison of 2 neutral white flashlight with similar form factor, both using 2 x AA size batteries.
Why these 2 and not others? Well, they are the closest matching lights that I have in my neutral white collections...


first, some data extracted from respective official website:

note that I do not have the official lumens rating for Quark AA² Neutral, the official website says "...which naturally has less output" than the Cool White version (170 lumens). would appreciate your correction if you have the lumens rating for Quark AA² Neutral. :bow: thanks in advance :thumbsup:

EDIT (2009-08-26): updated with temperature reading for both flashlight.

the flashlights


front view


lets take a look at outdoor beam shots, EagleTac P10A2 Neutral follow by Quark AA² Neutral




notice any different? yep, EagleTac P10A2 Neutral is brighter than Quark AA² Neutral but not by much. In use, P10A2 throws slightly further than Quark AA², you will see why in just a moment.

this is the only white wall that I can find in my house, at the kitchen... , distance of flashlight to the wall is approx. 0.5 meter.
at 1/100 sec exposure


at 1/500 sec exposure


at 1/1600 sec exposure


from the 1/100 sec exposure, you can see that P10A2 has a brighter spill than Quark AA², while Quark AA² has a bigger spill than P10A2. at 1/1600 sec exposure, it's clear that P10A2 hot spot is brighter than Quark AA², thus the slightly better throw.

now on to the physical...
Anodization: both lights is almost equally well anodized but my unit of P10A2 has some chip-off at the tail-cap upon arrival... :shrug:

Knurling: P10A2 doesn't have any knurling... ... ... errrr... ok... fine... it does, but that checker pattern on the body tube is hardly of any practical use, it's more for aesthetic than anything else. While Quark AA² has got some generous and practical knurling that provides a good grip when switching mode and replacing batteries.

Tail-cap: Both lights can tail-stand but Quark AA² is more stable at tail-standing. Nope, not because of the length, but because of the shape of P10A2 tail-end is curvy. Both lights offer lock-out capability as well.

Clip: Quark AA² clip is very strong and feels tough whereas P10A2 clip is more "accommodating" (i'm being nice here ) and can be easily removed.

Extras: The SS ring included in P10A2 is very nice, in fact, it improves the overall perception of the whole light, it makes it look more "classy". :twothumbs I wish all flashlight manufacturer would consider this design in their flashlight... Fenix, 4Sevens, Surefire, and yes... you... the future flashlight designer... are you listening?

Beam Pattern: The beam pattern of Quark AA² is almost flawless, there are practically no ring what-so-ever on the beam pattern when shining against a while wall, whereas on the P10A2, there is a dark ring immediately after the hot-spot if you look close enough, there is also a brighter ring at the end of the spill.

If you ask me which one to get... well, I'm a good citizen of cpf, so I would suggest you to get both, like me... :devil:

rookiedaddy said:

note that I do not have the official lumens rating for Quark AA² Neutral, the official website says "...which naturally has less output" than the Cool White version (170 lumens). would appreciate your correction if you have the lumens rating for Quark AA² Neutral. :bow: thanks in advance :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I don't know if it helps but as far as I know neutral Quark has a Q3 LED which is ~18% less bright than the R2 in regular quark. If the regular one has the 170 OTF lumen output, the neutral one would have ~140 OTF lumens. With optical losses, it should be similar to the P10A2 200 LED lumens.

EDIT: Obviously this is only an approximation. The real output depends on many factors and we would need to see independent IS measurements to be sure what it really is.

Fix your photos so that the page does not go offscreen to the right.

Its interesting that so many people choose to use outdoor brush to compare flashlight beams, especially to compare the color. Green is not the best color to compare "warm" beams with. You want something that has red/browns in it. A color poster of a real person with skin tones would be a lot better than a green bush. G.

MrGman said:

Fix your photos so that the page does not go offscreen to the right.

Click to expand...

My bad... now should display better in standard browser (IE, etc.), also added a cropped side-by-side comparison picture.

MrGman said:

Green is not the best color to compare "warm" beams with. You want something that has red/browns in it. A color poster of a real person with skin tones would be a lot better than a green bush.

Click to expand...

Noted and thanks for the pointers. Will research a better outdoor location. :thanks:

wapkil said:

I don't know if it helps but as far as I know neutral Quark has a Q3 LED which is ~18% less bright than the R2 in regular quark. If the regular one has the 170 OTF lumen output, the neutral one would have ~140 OTF lumens. With optical losses, it should be similar to the P10A2 200 LED lumens.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I guess ~18% is not so significant considering if used outdoor, the warm tint could potentially compensate the loss in brightness. :thumbsup:

I would be surprised to see a dark ring around the hotspot of an XP-E since it lacks the XR-E's dome collar. The unobstructed emitter lends it to nice beam patterns. :thumbsup:

rookiedaddy said:

Thanks for the info. I guess ~18% is not so significant considering if used outdoor, the warm tint could potentially compensate the loss in brightness. :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I think it is not really significant anywhere. The tint difference though is significant for me and I prefer neutral and warm LEDs

Thanks for the review. It's timely for me, as I've been considering both of these lights. The Quark is noticeably more compact than the EagleTac---I haven't made up my mind yet, but the smaller size of the Quark might tip the balance in its favor. Looks like you can't go too wrong with either one.

Nice writeup! Would you mind including what you paid for each light? For many, money is a significant deciding factor in which light to purchase.

Looking at the white wall shots the Eagletac looks much brighter. And if the claims are right has a longer run time as well. I wonder if the Eagletac will run off a 17670 batt?

Badbeams3 said:

Looking at the white wall shots the Eagletac looks much brighter. And if the claims are right has a longer run time as well. I wonder if the Eagletac will run off a 17670 batt?

Click to expand...

Don't think a 17670 battery will fit inside a tube designed for AAs.

Mikellen said:

Don't think a 17670 battery will fit inside a tube designed for AAs.

Click to expand...

LOL...great point!!

just updated with temperature reading for both flashlights.

Nice review! I'm leaning toward the Quark. It looks like I might prefer the brighter spill beam pattern of the EagleTac, but the spill looks decent on the Quark and I really like its compact size, knurling, and steadiness in a tailstand.