Comparison of battery life (mAh) in eight different brands of hearing aid batteries

All batteries tested were size 312. End of life for tests was 1.0 volts. Battery load was 820 ohms giving a current drain of a nominal 1.5 mA. Batteries tested had “Use By” dates ranging from 3/2010 to 10/2012. Current decrease during test life was compensated for in calculations. Tests were conducted at 70°F ±2°. Test batteries were purchased at Wal-Mart, Localbattery, and Microbattery. Test discharge times ranged from 85 to 111 hours.

Batteries Tested

  • Power One 8/11-5328 and 10/11-3428
  • iCell Tech 8/11 10A8 2011 and 06 A4 2011
  • Rayovac Extra Advanced Jun 2012 IPTPA 22:13
  • Rayovac OCT 2012 HP2PA 13:29
  • Renata maratone 03-2011 2000391/AO1
  • Renata 04-2011 5310253/A05
  • Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP/6C
  • Toshiba 06/2012 0 43297 02666 7
  • Energizer 10/2011
  • Duracell MAR 2012 8G15J2
  • Duracell 09-2012 8228

Test Data Summary

Brand mAh
Power One 8/11-5328 158 mAh
PowerOne 10/11-3428 144 mAh
iCellTech 10A8 2011 141 mAh
iCellTech 06 A4 2011 146 mAh
Rayovac Extra Adv.PPTPA22:13 134 mAh
Rayovac Oct 2012 HP2PA 13:29 170 mAh
Renata maratone 03-2011 5310253A05 20mAh
Renata 4/11 lot 85618-41299 131 mAh
Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP/6C 151 mAh
Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP6C 149 mAh
Toshiba 06/2012 0 43297 02666 7 137 mAh
Toshiba, 2nd sample same lot 129 mAh
Energizer 10/2011 149 mAh
Energizer 2nd sample same lot 132 mAh
Duracell MAR 2012 8G1512 149 mAh
Duracell 09-2012 8228 138 mAh
1 Like

Rayovac Oct 2012 HP2PA 13:29 170 mAh

So…are you saying Rayovac came out on top?

that is not a surprise

However a complete analysis would be to include the cost at street price and getting a cost per milliamp hour.

If changing the batteries is a hassle for you though, you’d want ones that last longest.

1 Like

I’d say Rayovac came out high and low with 170 and 134 mAH, so you’d probably get variable results depending on the batch. What impresses me more is the general similarity across brands making price a more important factor. Good news to me since I had just ordered a year’s supply (150) of iCellTech size 10 from at a cost of 27 cents each, tax-included, using the save10percent discount code posted on this site. With free shipping and the test results in this string, I’d recommend a quick click on the “Hearing Aid Batteries” ad at the top right of the screen, order a zillion of whatever is cheapest, forget the hassle of trying to prolong battery life by replacing tabs or whatever else doesn’t do much, and support our forum sponsor, localbattery.

Thanks for the hint! Being new, I’m just getting oriented.

Just made first battery purchase outside those given by HA provider. SAMS club seemed to have good price on the Energizer 312. However, putting my Zon 5’s in storage case requires one aid be turned with the battery upside down. The Energizer immediately falls out while the Ray-O-Vac’s fit snugly enought to stay in HA. More convenient but don’t know of any other issue.


I’m an Electronics Engineer and I have designed and built many battery chargers in my time. The battery testing method outlined here is quite flawed. The battery voltage will fluctuate non-linearly as it discharges.

The best way to calculate mAh is to put a constant-current load on the battery and log the voltage vs. time. This means a circuit slightly more complex than a purely resistive load.

FYI, mAH is not the only factor since batteries have an internal resistance. If they are used in a higher drain hearing aid the battery life will be affected by more than just the increase in current draw (i.e. more than a straight mAh calculation), there will be power loss with in the battery itself.

So, it’s also important to characterize the battery “impedance” or the battery’s own internal resistance.

I don’t have something designed right now, but I’m interested in whipping something up to properly test the cells. A family member has recently started wearing hearing aids and I want to make sure they get the best possible lifetime out of the cells.

  • curiousengineer
1 Like

Hi folks,

i am 100% agree with the engineer but generally this Test is really a joke.

Does Rayovac tested by 2 different Types and Powerone with 2 same batches ?

Also others ?

I can say from my experience that the Powerone shows always a narrow and high and long lasted quality. For my Hearing aid nothing else can come in !


I use Rayovac. When I shell out $5500 for aids, trying to save pennies on batteries just doesn’t seem to make much sense. And if I buy them on e bay, or get a coupon from Hearing Planet, then the difference in cost is even lower.

Don’t know about testing … just about REAL life.

I have Phonak Audeo YES IX’s. Rayovac Mercury Free lasted 3 to 4 days and never gave the full boot-up sequence tones. And I’d have some static from day 1 through to the end.

I bought the Power One 312 batteries from our host. I will never go back to Rayovac! These Power One 312 batteries last from 5 to 6 full days and are FULL power from start to dead. That’s pretty good for full feature hearing aids using the iCom all day at work while taking tech support phone calls. I can honestly say that our host provides an excellent web site/forum for hearing impaired people … and an excellent product and a great price.

I’ve been having trouble with perspiration and my ReSound Live 9’s; sweat gets in and covers the battery air holes and kills the battery until it dries out.

I’ve tried a number of batteries, and the Power One so far is working out the best. It has only 2 air holes so it’s less likely to get wet there and die, and it seems to recover faster than other batteries when it does get wet.

1 Like

This is my first post on this forum; I hope you find it useful.

I recently ran a real life study of hearing aid battery life. I’ve put the results on my company’s website blog, Blamey & Saunders Hearing. It can be found on Google.

For the record, Rayovac came out the winner, particularly for the bigger size 312 and size 13 batteries.

I would have to say that your tests are flawed. You rate the Mercury Free batteries as the best … yet they do not supply full power for hearing aids that are full featured and require such. In my Phonak YES IX’s, the Rayovac Mercury Free batteries (312’s) resulted in noise similar to interference … or a low battery state, right from the get-go. And that was before powering on the iCom. The noise was like static. Fresh, new Rayovac Mercury Free is what I used … and when I switched to Power One batteries the aids worked beautifully. In fact, I had even sent the aids in for repair and couldn’t understand why Phonak did nothing to them as they were the same on return. I was getting a bit pissed off at Phonak when the blame lay in the Rayovac batteries. Rayovac’s regualr Zinc air batteries do work just fine in the aids, though I do find the Power Ones lasting longer overall.

I suggest that you take your tests back to the drawing board and try again.

Wow, flamed on my first forum post! Back to the drawing board is a bit harsh. :eek:

To be fair, the study didn’t actually say Mercury-Free was the better than standard. It was a brand comparison, and the test says that Rayovac was the best. The fact that the Rayovacs were Mercury Free (and the other brands were not) is simply a bonus. The regular Rayovac zinc-airs might be even better!

Does anyone know when/if Mercury containing batteries will be phased out?

Wait a minute now … that wasn’t a “flame” :smiley: But the test does have to go back to the drawing board. There was an article about the Mercury free batteries not putting out the same power as regular Zinc air and having an adverse affect on todays more powerful aids. I can verify that the article is correct. That’s why I say back to the drawing board. You need to include some power-aids in the testing.

On your web site though, it does state that Mercury free came out on top. That cannot be true as they cannot do the more powerful aids.

It’s ok, I can handle it :wink:

I have clarified the conclusion though in response to your feedback. Thanks.

We still recommend Rayovac, especially since they won - even with the mercury-free “handicap”.

Our tests were carried out with our own brand of hearing aids, and we didn’t experience the difficulties you have described. Results will vary from one brand to another, but we are unlikely to test other brands at this stage. Maybe later.

I have tried several different brands and I have found that many times I’ll get a bad pack of batteries, no matter what the brand. I currently buy Renate Maratone batteries.

Something else to consider when choosing hearing aids batteries is their slightly differing sizes. The battery contacts in the hearing aids themselves are easily bent. If you switch from larger batteries to slightly smaller batteries the hearing aid battery contacts will be slightly bent out and won’t make a good contact with the battery.

I know that the specs are supposed to be the same or similar, but there are slight differences between manufacturers.

For this reason, I just stay with the same brand.

1 Like

hmm, I never did think there was some different thicknesses in battery brands…how did you figure that one out? That could be sometimes the issue i experience when I accidently hit one of my aids and cause a “reboot”

Went to SAM’s club in Las Vegas, NV a couple of days to go to buy 312’s. I have always bought them there because of the great price. They were not in the usual location by the pharmacy so I asked the pharmacist where they had moved them. He said that they no were no longer carrying HA batteries. Suggested I go to Wal-Mart :frowning: