Acer AS20WF NEO (2026 registration) vs Kruger Matz EAGLE 1077
The two devices are level: each is ahead in 1 of the measured categories where they differ. Durability score: Acer AS20WF NEO (2026 registration) 55/100, Kruger Matz EAGLE 1077 54/100.
| Acer AS20WF NEO (2026 registration) | Kruger Matz EAGLE 1077 | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy class | E | E |
| Durability score | 55/100 | 54/100 |
| Device | tablet | tablet |
| Operating system | Android | Android |
| Battery endurance per charge | 110 h | 82.3 h |
| Battery lasts at least | 800 charge cycles | 800 charge cycles |
| Battery capacity | 8,000 mAh | 6,000 mAh |
| Drops survived without defect | 52 | 52 |
| Drop reliability class | D | E |
| Repairability index | 3.28/5 | 3.4/5 |
| Repairability class | C | B |
| OS updates for at least | 6 years | 6 years |
| Dust & water protection | IP20 | IP42 |
| Scratch resistance | Mohs 5 | Mohs 5 |
| User-replaceable battery | No | No |
| Foldable | No | No |
| Charging power | 18 W | 10 W |
| Charging port | USB-C | USB-C |
| Model numbers | AS20WF NEO | KM1077 |
Highlighted cells are better on that measure. Source: EU energy label register (EPREL); values as declared by the suppliers.