This review compares the design specifications for Chargeasap Omega GaN 200W and ThunderGo GaN 200W charger.
Campaign Results
A quick look at Thundergo and Omega will give the impression that Thundergo is better since it has 3 USB-C ports, compared to Omega, which has only 2 USB-C ports. However, their campaign results ended up the other way around:
Chargeasap Omega 200W GaN Charger
- Indiegogo: $2,107,021 by 20,394 backers
- Kickstarter: $1,290,181 by 13,516 backers
Thundergo 200W GaN Charger
- Indiegogo: $18,235 by 213 backers
Technical Comparison
Based on our comparison below, it appears that the Omega is about 10% larger in size, but it is 31% lighter than the Thundergo. So in terms of form factor, we conclude that the Omega is significantly better than Thundergo.
Mobile product design should always aim for lightweight and compact sizes without sacrificing the intended function.
Although Thundergo has a 3 x USB-C ports, the power output configuration is quite similar to Omega.
- The first two USB-C ports will consistently deliver 100W each, if the other two ports are not in use.
- When three ports are in use, the first USB-C port will always maintain 100W, while the second USB-C port drops to 65W.
- When all 4 ports are in use, both charges deliver almost the same power configuration.
- Omega: 100+65+12+12W
- Thundergo: 100+65+(25W) where the 25W is shared between the third USB-C and USB-A ports.
In the table below, not that the variables used to represent the ports are: the First USB-C port is C1, the second USB-C port is C2, and so on.
The patented built-in pins for the Omega can be adjusted at two angles, making it more flexible than the Thundergo.
We are not too concerned about the protocols, even though Omega did not list as many as Thundergo.
Based on the above, it should be clear that Omega is better.
Delivery Issues
At this time of writing, both companies appear to have issues delivering the products. This could be due to shortages of electronic products due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the campaigners should explain clearly to the backers. We are not affiliated with them but we do not believe they are scammers.
Chargeasap has a much larger order than Thundergo, so it is easier to explain in their case.
Comparison Table
| Tech Specs | Chargeasap Omega 200W GaN Charger | ThunderGo 200W GaN Charger |
| Size | 88x55x42mm | 83x63x35mm |
| Volume | 203.3cm2 | 183cm2 |
| Weight | 220g | 320g |
| Total Power | 200W | 200W |
| Input | AC 100-240V 50/60Hz 1.5A | AC 100-240V 50/60Hz 1.5A |
| Output | 2xUSB-C: 100W max (3.3-21V/5A, 5V/3A, 9V/3A, 12V/3A, 15V/3A, 20V/5A) 2xUSB A: 18W max (5V/3A, 9V/2A, 12V/1.5A) 22.5W (5V/4.5A) | 2xUSB-C: 100W max (3.3-21V/5A, 5V-15V/3A, 20V/5A) 1xUSB-C: 65W max (3.3-11V/5A, 5V-15V/3A, 20V/3.25A) 1xUSB A: 60W max (4.5V/5A, 5V/4.5A or 5V/3A, 9V-20V/3A) |
| Possible Configuration | C1 or C2 = 100W C1+C2 = 100+100W C1+ A1+A2 = 100+12+12W C1+C2+A1 = 100+65+22.5W C1+C2+A2 = 100+65+22.5W C1+A1= 100+22.5W C2+A2 = 65+22.5W A1+A2 = 12+12W A1 or A2 = 22.5W C1+C2+A1+A2: 100+65+12+12W | C1 or C2= 100W C3 = 65W A1 = 60W C1+C2 = 100+100W C1+C2+C3 = 100+65+30W C1+C3=100+65W C1+A1=100+60W C2+C3=100+65W C2+A1=100+60W C3+A1=25W (shared)C1+C2+(C3+A1)=100+65+(25W) |
| Protocol | USB-C: 100W PD 3.0 USB-A: QC 3.0/AFC/FCP/SCP+VOCC | PPS/PD3.0/PD2.0/QC4+/QC4.0/QC3.0/QC2.0/PE2.0/PE1.1/AFC/FCP |
| GaN IC | 2x Navitas 6127 | 2x Navitas 6127 |
| Heat Dissipation | Graphene Membrane and Nano Heat Sink | Unknown |
