The Qi 10,000mAh battery pack claims to charge devices wirelessly; we had trouble getting the wireless charge to work effectively and found the battery overall to be bulky and cumbersome. It was also the slowest of the three battery pack panels we tested, barely charging when left to trickle charge in the sun. With less-than-impressive charge times, we would not recommend the Qi. For a more capable battery pack/panel, check out the Renogy 15,000mAh, which is lighter and more effective than the Qi.
Qi 10,000mAh Review
Cons: Bulky, slow to charge, only has one USB port
Our Analysis and Test Results
The Qi 10,000 is a battery pack that has one USB port, charges slowly in the sun, and has a clunky shape that deterred us from reaching for it frequently.
Charge Interruption Recovery
As was the case with the Renogy 15,000mAh and the RavPower 25,000, measuring the charge interruption recovery of the Qi was a challenge. This panel does not charge quickly in the sun, making small interruptions in solar delivery less of an issue. It's best to charge it up indoors, reserving the solar panels for trickle charging purposes if you have time to leave the panel out in the sun for hours. If a device is left plugged into the battery, small interruptions in solar power will not affect the overall charge rate of the device.
This battery pack was significantly slower to charge our phone than the Renogy. Over a half-hour period, the Qi charged our phone from 24% to 42% (18%). This charge time is significantly slower than the Renogy, which charged the same phone 23% in the same amount of time. We also ran into issues with the wireless charging system, which was not intuitive to use. We were not able to get it to function with our test phones, though it appears that the manufacturer now lists tips on the Amazon listing.
Multiple Device Charging Speed
The manufacturer claimed that the Qi has two charging ports; to be clear, the panel only has one. There is a USB-C port, but this is used only to charge the panel itself, not as an output port. This misinformation made us distrusting of the company, and product overall. It also means that the Qi earns a low score in this metric, as it is unable to charge multiple devices simultaneously. The Renogy 15,000 was our favorite battery pack for multiple device charging, as it is the most straightforward and most efficient of the three we tested.
The dustproof, waterproof, and abrasion resistant silicone materials used in the construction of the Qi make it a very durable product. We had no issues with the performance of the panel over our three-month testing period; the battery still appeared brand new, even after a few months of use. The overall construction of this panel is of a slightly higher quality than the Renogy 15,000.
Weight and Portability
Slightly more substantial than the Renogy 15,000, but not nearly as bulky as the 19-ounce RavPower, the Qi lies in the middle of the three in terms of weight. This panel weighs 10.6 ounces, which is a little over an ounce more than the Renogy. All of these panels weigh more than most small-capacity units in this review because they have relatively large batteries included. The Renogy E.Flex 5W, for example, weighs just over six ounces; this model would be a much better option for backcountry use, considering its weight and ability to charge via solar.
Much like the Renogy 15,000, the Qi is best used as a back-up battery pack when traveling or on weekend trips. The Qi is most effective when charged to full from a wall charger, rather than relying on solar to fill up its battery reserves. Slower to charge than the Renogy, the Qi is a less-ideal option for travel.
With a list price of $30, the Qi comes at a decent price. However, due to its finicky wireless charging feature, single USB port, and mediocre performance overall, it isn't our first recommendation. The Renogy 15,000 functions better overall, making it an obvious choice over the Qi.
The Qi power bank was not our favorite panel of this style. Its performance in our metric comparisons was lackluster, and the manufacturer's online claims make the panel seem more effective than it is. Overall, this panel is functional, but better models can be found in our fleet.
— Jane Jackson