Product comparison · 2 tablet cases

Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026) vs Targus THZ792GL tablet case

Add a product
  • 19specifications compared
  • 14differ
  • 5identical
  • 19known for one product only

Key differences

The Targus THZ792GL tablet case has 7 mm more width than the Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026) (20 mm vs 13 mm). The Targus THZ792GL tablet case has 22 mm more depth than the Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026) (169 mm vs 147 mm). The Targus THZ792GL tablet case has 88 mm more height than the Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026) (288 mm vs 200 mm). Maximum screen size: 21.6 cm (8.5") on the Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026), 25.6 cm (10.1") on the Targus THZ792GL tablet case. Material: Faux leather on the Cellularline Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026), PU plastic on the Targus THZ792GL tablet case.

  • Maximum screen size
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):21.6 cm (8.5")
    • THZ792GL tablet case:25.6 cm (10.1")
  • Material
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):Faux leather
    • THZ792GL tablet case:PU plastic
  • Brand compatibility
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):Apple
    • THZ792GL tablet case:Samsung
  • Compatibility
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):iPad Mini 8 (2026)
    • THZ792GL tablet case:Galaxy Tab A
  • Closure type
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):Magnetic closure
    • THZ792GL tablet case:Not supported
  • Width
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):13 mm
    • THZ792GL tablet case:20 mm
  • Depth
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):147 mm
    • THZ792GL tablet case:169 mm
  • Height
    • Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026):200 mm
    • THZ792GL tablet case:288 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of FOLIOIPADMINI2026K, THZ792GL
38 specifications
A

Cellularline

Folio - iPad Mini 8 (2026)

Model FOLIOIPADMINI2026K

View product
Features6 differ
Maximum screen sizeDiffers21.6 cm (8.5")25.6 cm (10.1")
MaterialDiffersFaux leatherPU plastic
Product main colourKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceBlack
Brand compatibilityDiffersAppleSamsung
CompatibilityDiffersiPad Mini 8 (2026)Galaxy Tab A
Number of stand modesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2
Closure typeDiffersMagnetic closureNot supported
Protection featuresDiffersScratch resistantScratch resistant, Shock resistant
Pen loopKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Built-in keyboardKnown for oneNoUnknown — not stated by the source
Auto wake/sleep functionKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Consumer life stageKnown for oneAdultUnknown — not stated by the source
Easy to cleanKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
GenderKnown for oneUnisexUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers13 mm20 mm
DepthDiffers147 mm169 mm
HeightDiffers200 mm288 mm
WeightDiffers194 g340 g
Packaging data4 differ
Package widthDiffers15 mm20 mm
Package depthDiffers150 mm170 mm
Package heightDiffers227 mm290 mm
Package weightDiffers207 g400 g
AC adapter includedKnown for oneNoUnknown — not stated by the source
Logistics dataidentical
Harmonized System (HS) codeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source84733080
Products per shipping (inner) caseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source5 pc(s)
Master (outer) case widthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source255 mm
Master (outer) case lengthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source365 mm
Master (outer) case heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source330 mm
Master (outer) case gross weightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source8.93 kg
Products per master (outer) caseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source20 pc(s)
Products per palletKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source900 pc(s)
Technical detailsidentical
Radio Equipment Directive (RED)Known for oneNoUnknown — not stated by the source
SeasonKnown for oneAll seasonsUnknown — 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 tablet case comparisons

All tablet case comparisons