Product comparison · 2 wine coolers

Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s) vs Hoover HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s)

Add a product
  • 50specifications compared
  • 6differ
  • 44identical
  • 5known for one product only

Key differences

The Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s) has 0.5 kg more weight than the Hoover HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s) (29 kg vs 28.5 kg). The Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s) has 0.5 kg more package weight than the Hoover HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s) (31.5 kg vs 31 kg). Only the Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s) has thermostat. Shelves material: Chrome on the Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s), Wood on the Hoover HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s). Bottles capacity: 33 bottle(s) on the Candy DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s), 34 bottle(s) on the Hoover HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s).

  • Shelves material
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):Chrome
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):Wood
  • Bottles capacity
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):33 bottle(s)
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):34 bottle(s)
  • Thermostat
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):Yes
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):No
  • AC input voltage
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):220 - 240 V
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):220-240 V
  • Weight
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):29 kg
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):28.5 kg
  • Package weight
    • DiVino CWC033M Freestanding Black 33 bottle(s):31.5 kg
    • HOWC034 Freestanding Black 34 bottle(s):31 kg

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (off)
Comparison of CWC033M, HOWC034
55 specifications
Design1 differ
Appliance placementFreestandingFreestanding
Housing colourBlackBlack
Door colourBlack, TransparentBlack, Transparent
Inner colourBlackBlack
Handle materialPlasticPlastic
Door materialGlassGlass
Shelves materialDiffersChromeWood
Number of shelves5 shelves5 shelves
Number of doors1 door(s)1 door(s)
Door hingeRightRight
Reversible doorsYesYes
Glass typeAnti UVAnti UV
Ultraviolet (UV) protectionYesYes
Performance2 differ
Bottles capacityDiffers33 bottle(s)34 bottle(s)
Number of temperature zones11
Temperature range (zone 1)5 - 20 °C5 - 20 °C
Climate classN-STN-ST
Wine cooler net capacity90 L90 L
Total net capacity90 L90 L
ThermostatDiffersYesNo
Noise emission classCC
Noise level37 dB37 dB
Humidifier functionYesYes
Anti-vibration systemKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Refrigerating mediumR600aR600a
Relative humidityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source50 - 80%
Freezeridentical
Built-in freezerNoNo
Ergonomicsidentical
Interior lightYesYes
Control typeTouchTouch
Built-in displayYesYes
Adjustable feetYesYes
LockingNoNo
Lamp typeLEDLED
Wi-Fi controlledYesYes
Apps supportedhOnhOn
Display typeKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceLED
Power1 differ
Energy efficiency classGG
Energy efficiency scaleA to GA to G
Annual energy consumption140 kWh140 kWh
AC input voltageDiffers220 - 240 V220-240 V
AC input frequency50 Hz50 Hz
Current0.6 A0.6 A
Energy efficiency index (EEI)Known for one172Unknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions1 differ
Width475 mm475 mm
Depth456 mm456 mm
Height850 mm850 mm
WeightDiffers29 kg28.5 kg
Packaging data1 differ
Package width515 mm515 mm
Package depth491 mm491 mm
Package height890 mm890 mm
Package weightDiffers31.5 kg31 kg
Sustainabilityidentical
Sustainability certificatesForest Stewardship Council (FSC)Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Sustainability complianceKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Other featuresidentical
Warranty period2 year(s)2 year(s)
Technical detailsidentical
Compliance certificatesCECE

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