Product comparison · 2 tablet cases

Kurio 22818 tablet case vs Targus THZ67603GL tablet case

21specifications compared
21differ
0identical
17known for one product only

Key differences

The Targus THZ67603GL tablet case has 10 mm more width than the Kurio 22818 tablet case (25 mm vs 15 mm). The Kurio 22818 tablet case has 25 mm more depth than the Targus THZ67603GL tablet case (220 mm vs 195 mm). The Targus THZ67603GL tablet case has 40 mm more height than the Kurio 22818 tablet case (260 mm vs 220 mm). Only the Targus THZ67603GL tablet case has stand mode. Maximum screen size: 17.8 cm (7") on the Kurio 22818 tablet case, 26.7 cm (10.5") on the Targus THZ67603GL tablet case.

Maximum screen size
- 22818 tablet case:17.8 cm (7")
- THZ67603GL tablet case:26.7 cm (10.5")
Case type
- 22818 tablet case:Sleeve case
- THZ67603GL tablet case:Folio
Product main colour
- 22818 tablet case:Blue
- THZ67603GL tablet case:Red
Brand compatibility
- 22818 tablet case:Kurio
- THZ67603GL tablet case:Apple
Compatibility
- 22818 tablet case:Kurio 7"
- THZ67603GL tablet case:iPad Air iPad Pro
Stand mode
- 22818 tablet case:No
- THZ67603GL tablet case:Yes
Closure type
- 22818 tablet case:Zipper
- THZ67603GL tablet case:Magnetic closure
Width
- 22818 tablet case:15 mm
- THZ67603GL tablet case:25 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only

Comparison of 22818, THZ67603GL
38 specifications	A Kurio 22818 tablet case Model 22818 View product	B Targus THZ67603GL tablet case Model THZ67603GL View product
Features7 differ
Maximum screen sizeDiffers	17.8 cm (7")	26.7 cm (10.5")
Case typeDiffers	Sleeve case	Folio
MaterialKnown for one	Neoprene	Unknown — not stated by the source
Product main colourDiffers	Blue	Red
Brand compatibilityDiffers	Kurio	Apple
CompatibilityDiffers	Kurio 7"	iPad Air iPad Pro
Stand modeDiffers	No	Yes
Closure typeDiffers	Zipper	Magnetic closure
Protection featuresKnown for one	Bump resistant, Scratch resistant	Unknown — not stated by the source
Built-in speaker(s)Known for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	No
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers	15 mm	25 mm
DepthDiffers	220 mm	195 mm
HeightDiffers	220 mm	260 mm
WeightDiffers	470 g	350 g
Packaging data4 differ
Quantity per packKnown for one	1 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Package widthDiffers	15 mm	25 mm
Package depthDiffers	145 mm	200 mm
Package heightDiffers	240 mm	295 mm
Package weightDiffers	470 g	410 g
Logistics data6 differ
Products per intermodal container (20ft)Known for one	73300 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per intermodal container (40ft)Known for one	152100 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per intermodal container (40ft, HC)Known for one	176600 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Master (outer) case widthDiffers	300 mm	340 mm
Master (outer) case lengthDiffers	490 mm	437 mm
Master (outer) case heightDiffers	250 mm	335 mm
Master (outer) case gross weightDiffers	6 kg	9.56 kg
Master (outer) case volumeKnown for one	36800 cm³	Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per master (outer) caseDiffers	100 pc(s)	20 pc(s)
Pallet gross heightKnown for one	190 cm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Products per palletDiffers	2800 pc(s)	400 pc(s)
Minimum order quantityKnown for one	2000 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Shipping (inner) case widthKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	15.9 cm
Shipping (inner) case lengthKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	20.3 cm
Shipping (inner) case heightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	31.4 cm
Products per shipping (inner) caseKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	5 pc(s)
Shipping (inner) case net weightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	2.2 kg
Other featuresidentical
BluetoothKnown for one	No	Unknown — not stated by the source
Batteryidentical
Built-in batteryKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	No

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