Product comparison · 2 portable air conditioners

De’Longhi PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner vs De’Longhi Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme

Add a product
  • 35specifications compared
  • 15differ
  • 20identical
  • 18known for one product only

Key differences

The De’Longhi PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner has 2,600 BTU/h more cooling capacity (max) than the De’Longhi Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme (11500 BTU/h vs 8900 BTU/h). The De’Longhi PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner has 200 W more cooling capacity in watts (max) than the De’Longhi Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme (2700 W vs 2500 W). The De’Longhi Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme has 57.08 l/h more dehumidifying capacity than the De’Longhi PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner (60 l/h vs 2.92 l/h).

  • Cooling capacity (max)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:11500 BTU/h
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:8900 BTU/h
  • Cooling capacity in watts (max)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:2700 W
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:2500 W
  • Dehumidifying capacity
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:2.92 l/h
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:60 l/h
  • Sound power level
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:62 dB
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:60 dB
  • Sound pressure level (min)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:41 dB
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:42 dB
  • Sound pressure level (max)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:47 dB
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:46 dB
  • Airflow (low speed)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:250 m³/h
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:200 m³/h
  • Airflow (medium speed)
    • PACAP98GENTLEJET portable air conditioner:310 m³/h
    • Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme:300 m³/h

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of PACAP98GENTLEJET, Pinguino PAC EX93 Extreme
53 specifications
Features10 differ
Cooling capacity (max)Differs11500 BTU/h8900 BTU/h
Cooling capacity in watts (max)Differs2700 W2500 W
Heating capacity in watts (nominal)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0 W
Heating capacity in watts (max)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0 W
Heating energy efficiency (COP, W/W)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0
Dehumidifying capacityDiffers2.92 l/h60 l/h
Sound power levelDiffers62 dB60 dB
Sound pressure level (min)Differs41 dB42 dB
Sound pressure level (max)Differs47 dB46 dB
Airflow (low speed)Differs250 m³/h200 m³/h
Airflow (medium speed)Differs310 m³/h300 m³/h
Suitable for room volume up toDiffers100 m³83 m³
Hose lengthDiffers1.25 m1.2 m
Hose diameterKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source13 cm
Auto diagnosticKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Comfort sleeping modeKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Variable powerKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Dehumidifier functionKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Built-in fanKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
On/off switchKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
OscillationKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Adjustable thermostatKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Power1 differ
Energy efficiency class (heating)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceNo
Hourly energy consumption (heating)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0 kWh
Power consumption (standby)Differs0.8 W1 W
Connected loadKnown for one875 WUnknown — not stated by the source
Designidentical
Control typeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceButtons
Carrying handle(s)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers457 mm445 mm
DepthDiffers363 mm390 mm
HeightDiffers814 mm805 mm
WeightDiffers37.8 kg3.5 kg
Packaging contentidentical
Remote control includedKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes

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 portable air conditioner comparisons

All portable air conditioner comparisons