Product comparison · 2 laptop cases

Case Logic Eco INVIT116 Black vs Hama 00222053 laptop case

Add a product
  • 26specifications compared
  • 14differ
  • 12identical
  • 16known for one product only

Key differences

The Hama 00222053 laptop case has 75 mm more width than the Case Logic Eco INVIT116 Black (440 mm vs 365 mm). The Case Logic Eco INVIT116 Black has 90 mm more depth than the Hama 00222053 laptop case (180 mm vs 90 mm). The Case Logic Eco INVIT116 Black has 110 mm more height than the Hama 00222053 laptop case (430 mm vs 320 mm). Only the Hama 00222053 laptop case has removable shoulder strap. Maximum screen size: 40.6 cm (16") on the Case Logic Eco INVIT116 Black, 41.1 cm (16.2") on the Hama 00222053 laptop case.

  • Maximum screen size
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:40.6 cm (16")
    • 00222053 laptop case:41.1 cm (16.2")
  • Case type
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:Backpack
    • 00222053 laptop case:Trolley case
  • Product main colour
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:Black
    • 00222053 laptop case:Beige, Black
  • Consumer life stage
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:Adult
    • 00222053 laptop case:All
  • Removable shoulder strap
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:No
    • 00222053 laptop case:Yes
  • Protection features
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:Water resistant
    • 00222053 laptop case:Water repellent
  • Width
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:365 mm
    • 00222053 laptop case:440 mm
  • Depth
    • Eco INVIT116 Black:180 mm
    • 00222053 laptop case:90 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (off)
Comparison of Eco INVIT116 Black, 00222053
42 specifications
Features7 differ
Surface colorationMonochromaticMonochromatic
Maximum screen sizeDiffers40.6 cm (16")41.1 cm (16.2")
Case typeDiffersBackpackTrolley case
MaterialDiffersPolyesterPolyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Product main colourDiffersBlackBeige, Black
Brand compatibilityUniversalUniversal
GenderUnisexUnisex
Consumer life stageDiffersAdultAll
Tablet compartmentYesYes
Interior pocketsKnown for oneBusiness Card, Cell phone pocket, Document pocket, Key pocket, Tablet pocket, USB-stick pocketUnknown — not stated by the source
Exterior pocketsFront pocketFront pocket
Number of front pockets11
Carrying handle(s)YesYes
Removable shoulder strapDiffersNoYes
Shoulder strapYesYes
Protection featuresDiffersWater resistantWater repellent
Product made with recycled materialsYesYes
Product recycled materialsRecycled polyesterRecycled polyester
Overall recycled contentKnown for one100%Unknown — not stated by the source
Closure typeZipperZipper
Country of originKnown for oneColombiaUnknown — not stated by the source
Quantity11
ExpandableKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Headphones compartmentKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Keyboard compartmentKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Front pocketKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Weight & dimensions7 differ
WidthDiffers365 mm440 mm
DepthDiffers180 mm90 mm
HeightDiffers430 mm320 mm
WeightDiffers600 g440 g
Notebook compartment dimensions (W x D x H)Known for one385 x 265 x 24 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Package widthDiffers405 mm440 mm
Package depthDiffers45 mm325 mm
Package heightDiffers645 mm45 mm
VolumeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source10 L
Package weightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source463 g
Logistics dataidentical
Master (outer) case widthKnown for one460 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Master (outer) case lengthKnown for one460 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Master (outer) case heightKnown for one190 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Master (outer) case gross weightKnown for one2.08 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Products per master (outer) caseKnown for one3 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Sustainabilityidentical
Sustainability certificatesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceForest Stewardship Council (FSC)

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 laptop case comparisons

All laptop case comparisons