All categories
Phones & WearablesView all 31

Departments

Phones & WearablesComputers & TabletsComponents & StorageNetworkingPrinting & OfficePower & ChargingTV, Audio & VideoGaming, Toys & RobotsKitchen AppliancesHome AppliancesPersonal Care & HealthSmart Home & SecurityCar & MobilityTools & GardenCameras & Photo

Shopping country

Browse

All categoriesCompare products

Product comparison · 2 pos monitors

HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor vs HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor

Add a product
  • 26specifications compared
  • 15differ
  • 11identical
  • 15known for one product only

Key differences

The HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor has 20 ms more response time than the HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor (25 ms vs 5 ms). The HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor has 1 H more surface hardness than the HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor (7H vs 6H). The HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor has 208.4 mm more depth than the HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor (240.8 mm vs 32.4 mm). Display diagonal: 38.1 cm (15") on the HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor, 39.6 cm (15.6") on the HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor. Display resolution: 1024 x 768 pixels on the HP Engage 15t XGA No Stand Monitor, 1920 x 1080 pixels on the HP Engage 16t FHD Monitor.

  • Display diagonal
    • 38.1 cm (15")
    • 39.6 cm (15.6")
  • Display resolution
    • 1024 x 768 pixels
    • 1920 x 1080 pixels
  • Pixel pitch
    • 0.3 x 0.3 mm
    • 0.1792 x 0.1792 mm
  • Response time
    • 5 ms
    • 25 ms
  • Surface hardness
    • 6H
    • 7H
  • Depth
    • 32.4 mm
    • 240.8 mm
  • Height
    • 272.3 mm
    • 27.2 mm
  • Weight
    • 3.9 kg
    • 4.28 kg

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only
41 specifications
A

HP

Engage 15t XGA No Stand MonitorView product
B

HP

Engage 16t FHD MonitorView product
Display5 differ
Display diagonalDiffers38.1 cm (15")39.6 cm (15.6")
Display resolutionDiffers1024 x 768 pixels1920 x 1080 pixels
HD typeKnown for oneFull HD
Display brightnessKnown for one400 cd/m²
TouchscreenYesYes
Touchscreen typeCapacitiveCapacitive
Contrast ratio (typical)Known for one800:1
Native aspect ratioKnown for one16:9
Panel typeKnown for oneAHVA
Pixel pitchDiffers0.3 x 0.3 mm0.1792 x 0.1792 mm
Response timeDiffers5 ms25 ms
Surface hardnessDiffers6H7H
Viewing angle, horizontalKnown for one178°
Viewing angle, verticalKnown for one178°
LED backlightKnown for oneYes
LED backlighting typeKnown for oneEdge-LED
Featuresidentical
Product colourBlackBlack
Tilt adjustmentKnown for oneYes
VESA mountingYesYes
Country of originChinaChina
Poweridentical
Power consumption (standby)Known for one0.5 W
AC adapter frequency50/60 Hz50/60 Hz
AC adapter input voltage100 - 240 V100 - 240 V
AC adapter output voltageKnown for one100 - 240 V
Weight & dimensions4 differ
DepthDiffers32.4 mm240.8 mm
HeightDiffers272.3 mm27.2 mm
WeightDiffers3.9 kg4.28 kg
WidthDiffers348.3 mm391.4 mm
Packaging data4 differ
Package depthDiffers140 mm326 mm
Package heightDiffers330 mm396 mm
Package weightDiffers4.71 kg6.78 kg
Package widthDiffers416 mm476 mm
Operational conditionsidentical
Operating temperature (T-T)5 - 35 °C5 - 35 °C
Operating relative humidity (H-H)Known for one20 - 80%
Audio1 differ
Built-in speaker(s)YesYes
Number of speakers22
RMS rated powerDiffers4 W3 W
Certificatesidentical
Sustainability certificatesENERGY STARENERGY STAR
CertificationKnown for oneCB; CE; CEL; China CCC; China CECP; C-Tick; cTUVus; CU; EAC; ENERGY STAR®; E-standby (Korea); EUP Lot-5; EUP Lot-6; FCC; ISO 9241-307; KC (Korean) requirements; KCC (Korean) requirements; Microsoft WHQL Certification (Windows 10); NOM (Mexico); PSB for Singapore; RCM; Taiwan BSMI; TUV Bauart; VCCI;
Technical details1 differ
Compliance certificatesDiffersCECP, CCC, CB, EAC, BIS, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CE, BSMICECP, CCC, CB, EAC, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CE, BSMI
Ports & interfacesidentical
USB 2.0 ports quantityKnown for one2

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 pos monitor comparisons

All pos monitor comparisons