← Back

Comparison Console

Kershaw Filter vs Kershaw Oso Sweet

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

Add gear
Command Brief

Recommended read

Kershaw Oso Sweet stands out as the lightest option for weight, with about a 37% gap from the closest alternative. Kershaw Filter stands out as the cheapest option for retail price, with about a 5% gap from the closest alternative.

Decision Signals

What stands out

Cheapest

Kershaw Filter stands out as the cheapest option for retail price, with about a 5% gap from the closest alternative.

Most expensive

Kershaw Oso Sweet stands out as the most expensive option for retail price, with about a 5% gap from the closest alternative.

Lightest

Kershaw Oso Sweet stands out as the lightest option for weight, with about a 37% gap from the closest alternative.

Heaviest

Kershaw Filter stands out as the heaviest option for weight, with about a 58% gap from the closest alternative.

Shortest

Kershaw Oso Sweet stands out as the shortest option for closed length, with about a 8% gap from the closest alternative.

Longest

Kershaw Filter stands out as the longest option for closed length, with about a 9% gap from the closest alternative.

Shortest

Kershaw Oso Sweet stands out as the shortest option for blade length, with about a 4% gap from the closest alternative.

Longest

Kershaw Filter stands out as the longest option for blade length, with about a 4% 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.

Kershaw Filter — Blade length: 83 mm (3.27 in)Kershaw Filter — Overall length: 197 mm (7.76 in)Kershaw Filter — Closed length: 114 mm (4.49 in)Kershaw Filter — Blade thickness: 2.7 mm (0.11 in)Kershaw Filter — Weight: 143 g (5.04 oz)Kershaw Filter — Retail price: US$41.99Kershaw Oso Sweet — Blade length: 79.5 mm (3.13 in)Kershaw Oso Sweet — Overall length: 184.4 mm (7.26 in)Kershaw Oso Sweet — Closed length: 105 mm (4.13 in)Kershaw Oso Sweet — Blade thickness: 2.8 mm (0.11 in)Kershaw Oso Sweet — Weight: 90.7 g (3.20 oz)Kershaw Oso Sweet — Retail price: US$43.99Blade lengthOverall lengthClosed lengthBlade thicknessWeightRetail price
Price & carry
Retail price
US$41.99Cheapest
US$43.99Most expensive
Weight
143 g (5.04 oz)Heaviest
90.7 g (3.20 oz)Lightest
Dimensions
Blade length
83 mm (3.27 in)Longest
79.5 mm (3.13 in)Shortest
Overall length
197 mm (7.76 in)Longest
184.4 mm (7.26 in)Shortest
Closed length
114 mm (4.49 in)Longest
105 mm (4.13 in)Shortest
Blade thickness
2.7 mm (0.11 in)Thinnest
2.8 mm (0.11 in)Thickest
Materials & mechanism
Blade steel
4Cr14 stainless steel
8Cr13MoV Stainless Steel
Handle material
Stainless steel
Glass-Filled Nylon (GRN)
Finish
Black-Oxide BlackWash coating on blade and handle
Satin finish blade
Lock type
Frame lock
Liner Lock
Opening method
Assisted opening with flipper and thumb stud
SpeedSafe assisted opening (flipper/extended tang)
Clip type
Single-position deep-carry pocketclip, right side, tip-down
Reversible pocket clip (tip-up or tip-down)
Use case profile
Best for
Everyday carryWork
Everyday carry useBox openingLight outdoor tasks
Not best for
Unknown
Unknown
Common praise
Well-balanced and solid frame lock actionComfortable stainless steel handle with smooth contouringProtective BlackWash coating hides wear and resists scratchesFast and easy one-handed assisted opening via flipper and thumb stud
Fast and smooth assisted opening actionSecure, comfortable grip with textured handleLightweight and well balancedAffordable price point
Common complaints
None clearly documented in provided sources
None clearly supported by sources

Dataset Expansion

Missing a brand?

Suggest an EDC brand for CarryCrew to research and add to the comparison database.

Community indexing queue online