Product comparison · 2 dot matrix printers

Epson TM U220 vs Fujitsu DL7400 dot matrix printer

Add a product
  • 6specifications compared
  • 4differ
  • 2identical
  • 30known for one product only

Key differences

The Fujitsu DL7400 dot matrix printer has 360 cps more maximum print speed than the Epson TM U220 (360 cps vs 0 cps). The Fujitsu DL7400 dot matrix printer has 89 W more power consumption (typical) than the Epson TM U220 (120 W vs 31 W). Dimensions (WxDxH): 160 x 286 x 158 mm on the Epson TM U220, 600 x 350 x 290 mm on the Fujitsu DL7400 dot matrix printer. Print technology: Inkjet on the Epson TM U220, Dot matrix on the Fujitsu DL7400 dot matrix printer.

  • Maximum print speed
    • TM U220:0 cps
    • DL7400 dot matrix printer:360 cps
  • Power consumption (typical)
    • TM U220:31 W
    • DL7400 dot matrix printer:120 W
  • Dimensions (WxDxH)
    • TM U220:160 x 286 x 158 mm
    • DL7400 dot matrix printer:600 x 350 x 290 mm
  • Print technology
    • TM U220:Inkjet
    • DL7400 dot matrix printer:Dot matrix

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (off)
Comparison of TM U220, DL7400
36 specifications
Printing1 differ
ColourNoNo
Maximum print speedDiffers0 cps360 cps
Maximum resolutionKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source360 x 360 DPI
Maximum printing width (columns)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source136
Maximum number of copiesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source5 copies
Featuresidentical
SafetyKnown for oneCE EN55024, EN60950Unknown — not stated by the source
Country of originKnown for oneChinaUnknown — not stated by the source
Buffer sizeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source128 KB
Sound pressure level (printing)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source59 dB
Page description languagesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceEpson ESC/P2, IBM ProPrinter
Power1 differ
Power consumption (typical)Differs31 W120 W
Power consumption (standby)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source10 W
Packaging dataidentical
Quantity per packKnown for one1 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Package widthKnown for one250 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package depthKnown for one400 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package heightKnown for one242 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package weightKnown for one3.73 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Other features2 differ
Dimensions (WxDxH)Differs160 x 286 x 158 mm600 x 350 x 290 mm
Connectivity technologyWiredWired
Power requirementsKnown for one24 VDCUnknown — not stated by the source
Print technologyDiffersInkjetDot matrix
Media thicknessKnown for one0.05 - 0.08 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Logistics dataidentical
Pallet gross heightKnown for one100 cmUnknown — not stated by the source
Pallet gross widthKnown for one120 cmUnknown — not stated by the source
Pallet length (UK)Known for one2.25 mUnknown — not stated by the source
Products per palletKnown for one56 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per pallet (UK)Known for one84 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per pallet layerKnown for one8 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per pallet layer (UK)Known for one12 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Ports & interfacesidentical
Standard interfacesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceParallel, Serial
Enduranceidentical
Print headKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source24-pin
Print head lifeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source400 million characters
Ribbon lifeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source5 million characters
Mean time between failures (MTBF)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source20000 h
Weight & dimensionsidentical
WeightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source17 kg
Technical detailsidentical
Sustainability certificatesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceENERGY STAR

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More dot matrix printer comparisons

All dot matrix printer comparisons