Product comparison · 2 laptop cases

dbramante1928 Sonderborg vs Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan

Add a product
  • 27specifications compared
  • 15differ
  • 12identical
  • 20known for one product only

Key differences

The Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan has 110 mm more depth than the dbramante1928 Sonderborg (220 mm vs 110 mm). The Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan has 50 mm more height than the dbramante1928 Sonderborg (450 mm vs 400 mm). The Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan has 20 mm more package width than the dbramante1928 Sonderborg (320 mm vs 300 mm). Material: Full-grain leather on the dbramante1928 Sonderborg, Nylon, Polyester on the Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan. Product main colour: Black on the dbramante1928 Sonderborg, Tan on the Thule TCAM6115 - Doe Tan.

  • Material
    • Sonderborg:Full-grain leather
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:Nylon, Polyester
  • Product main colour
    • Sonderborg:Black
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:Tan
  • Brand compatibility
    • Sonderborg:Universal
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:Apple
  • Country of origin
    • Sonderborg:India
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:Vietnam
  • Depth
    • Sonderborg:110 mm
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:220 mm
  • Height
    • Sonderborg:400 mm
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:450 mm
  • Weight
    • Sonderborg:1.01 kg
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:570 g
  • Notebook compartment dimensions (W x D x H)
    • Sonderborg:260 x 380 x 30 mm
    • TCAM6115 - Doe Tan:348 x 25 x 243 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of BG16PBBL1117, TCAM6115 - Doe Tan
47 specifications
A

dbramante1928

Sonderborg

Model BG16PBBL1117

View product
Features4 differ
MaterialDiffersFull-grain leatherNylon, Polyester
Product main colourDiffersBlackTan
Brand compatibilityDiffersUniversalApple
Number of compartmentsKnown for one1Unknown — not stated by the source
Country of originDiffersIndiaVietnam
Linear mass densityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source600 D
CompatibilityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceMacBook
ExpandableKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceNo
Integrated compartment(s)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Removable shoulder strapKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceNo
Product made with recycled materialsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Product recycled materialsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceRecycled polyester
Sustainabilityidentical
Sustainability complianceKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions7 differ
DepthDiffers110 mm220 mm
HeightDiffers400 mm450 mm
WeightDiffers1.01 kg570 g
Notebook compartment dimensions (W x D x H)Differs260 x 380 x 30 mm348 x 25 x 243 mm
Package widthDiffers300 mm320 mm
Package depthDiffers110 mm50 mm
Package heightDiffers460 mm500 mm
Package weightKnown for one1.12 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
VolumeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source20 L
Technical detailsidentical
Master (outer) cases per pallet layer (EU)Known for one12 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per pallet (EU)Known for one48 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source
Logistics data4 differ
Master (outer) case net weightKnown for one1.96 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Shipping (inner) case net weightKnown for one110 gUnknown — not stated by the source
Pallet gross weightKnown for one16.3 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Master (outer) case widthDiffers630 mm478 mm
Master (outer) case lengthDiffers330 mm328 mm
Master (outer) case heightDiffers470 mm175 mm
Master (outer) case gross weightDiffers1.96 kg2.57 kg
Master (outer) case volumeKnown for one97713 cm³Unknown — not stated by the source
Shipping (inner) case gross weightKnown for one1.12 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
Products per master (outer) caseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source3 pc(s)
Other featuresidentical
Quantity outer cartonKnown for one4 pc(s)Unknown — not stated by the source

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