← Back

Comparison Console

Fenix UC30 vs Olight S1R Baton II

EDC Flashlights comparison. Compare price, weight, specifications, materials, and real-world use case.

Add gear
Command Brief

Recommended read

Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the lightest option for weight, with about a 34% gap from the closest alternative. Fenix UC30 stands out as the cheapest option for retail price, with about a 8% gap from the closest alternative. Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the longest runtime option for max runtime, with about a 28% gap from the closest alternative.

Decision Signals

What stands out

Cheapest

Fenix UC30 stands out as the cheapest option for retail price, with about a 8% gap from the closest alternative.

Most expensive

Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the most expensive option for retail price, with about a 8% gap from the closest alternative.

Lightest

Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the lightest option for weight, with about a 34% gap from the closest alternative.

Heaviest

Fenix UC30 stands out as the heaviest option for weight, with about a 51% gap from the closest alternative.

Shortest runtime

Fenix UC30 stands out as the shortest runtime option for max runtime, with about a 22% gap from the closest alternative.

Longest runtime

Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the longest runtime option for max runtime, with about a 28% gap from the closest alternative.

Shortest

Olight S1R Baton II stands out as the shortest option for length, with about a 52% gap from the closest alternative.

Longest

Fenix UC30 stands out as the longest option for length, with about a 106% gap from the closest alternative.

Specification Profile

Relative dimensions at a glance

Each axis is normalized against the largest raw value among the products in this comparison. Farther outward means a larger value, not necessarily a better result. Axes with an unverified value are omitted.

Fenix UC30 — Beam distance: 253 m (830 ft)Fenix UC30 — Weight: 77 g (2.72 oz)Fenix UC30 — Length: 130 mm (5.12 in)Fenix UC30 — Retail price: US$59.95Fenix UC30 — Max runtime: 9000 minFenix UC30 — Max lumens: 1000 lmOlight S1R Baton II — Beam distance: 145 m (476 ft)Olight S1R Baton II — Weight: 51 g (1.80 oz)Olight S1R Baton II — Length: 63 mm (2.48 in)Olight S1R Baton II — Retail price: US$64.95Olight S1R Baton II — Max runtime: 11520 minOlight S1R Baton II — Max lumens: 1000 lmBeam distanceWeightLengthRetail priceMax runtimeMax lumens
Price & carry
Retail price
US$59.95Cheapest
US$64.95Most expensive
Weight
77 g (2.72 oz)Heaviest
51 g (1.80 oz)Lightest
Length
130 mm (5.12 in)Longest
63 mm (2.48 in)Shortest
Output
Max lumens
1000 lm
1000 lm
Max candela
Unknown
5250 cd
Beam distance
253 m (830 ft)Highest
145 m (476 ft)Lowest
Max runtime
9000 minShortest runtime
11520 minLongest runtime
Power & durability
Battery type
1x 18650 rechargeable Li-ion or 2x CR123A Lithium batteries
IMR16340 (RCR123A) lithium-manganese rechargeable battery
Charging type
Micro USB
Magnetic USB charge base (MCC II charger)
Rechargeable
Yes
Yes
IP rating
IPX8 (submersible up to 2 meters for 30 minutes)
IPX8 (up to 2 meters)
Impact resistance
1 m (3 ft)
Unknown
Material
Aircraft-grade aluminum with type III hard-anodized anti-abrasive finish
Unknown
Use case profile
Best for
Everyday carryOutdoor activitiesProfessional use
Everyday carry (EDC)Key-chain carryCampingFishingHousehold useGeneral use
Common praise
Compact and solid build qualityHigh maximum brightness of 1000 lumensMultiple output levels with strobeUSB rechargeable with included batteryWaterproof and dust proof with IPX8 ratingStainless steel side switch with battery indicatorGood battery life and regulated output
Compact and lightweight design, easy to carryHigh brightness with good output levels and good beam profileMagnetic USB charging base is convenient and efficientGood quality materials and craftsmanshipMultiple user-friendly interface modes and battery indicator
Common complaints
Turbo mode automatically downshifts after 3 minutesNo integrated pocket clipWeight excludes battery
No direct mention of complaints in source texts