Product comparison · 2 wine coolers

Candy CCVB 60 vs CDA FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s)

3specifications compared
2differ
1identical
10known for one product only

Key differences

The CDA FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s) has 120.45 kWh more annual energy consumption than the Candy CCVB 60 (434.35 kWh vs 313.9 kWh). Appliance placement: Built-in on the Candy CCVB 60, Freestanding on the CDA FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s).

Appliance placement
- CCVB 60:Built-in
- FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s):Freestanding
Annual energy consumption
- CCVB 60:313.9 kWh
- FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s):434.35 kWh

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only

Comparison of CCVB 60, FWC620
13 specifications	A Candy CCVB 60 View product	B CDA FWC620 wine cooler Freestanding 15 bottle(s) Model FWC620 View product
Design1 differ
Appliance placementDiffers	Built-in	Freestanding
Performanceidentical
Total gross capacityKnown for one	57 L	Unknown — not stated by the source
Noise levelKnown for one	35 dB	Unknown — not stated by the source
Bottles capacityKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	15 bottle(s)
Power1 differ
Annual energy consumptionDiffers	313.9 kWh	434.35 kWh
Energy usageKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	1.19 kWh/24h
Weight & dimensionsidentical
WidthKnown for one	595 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
DepthKnown for one	590 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
HeightKnown for one	830 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
WeightKnown for one	35 kg	Unknown — not stated by the source
Packaging dataidentical
Package weightKnown for one	38 kg	Unknown — not stated by the source
Ergonomicsidentical
Interior lightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes

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 wine cooler comparisons

All wine cooler comparisons