Are Hanna Checkers The Gold Standard In Hobby Grade Test Kits?

[Reefer Matt]

I’ve noticed how Reefers often compare various test kits to Hanna checkers, and wonder if they are considered the gold standard in hobby grade testers? And if they are, why buy anything else? I get having backups, but it seems some people really have a hard time figuring out what to believe, and tend to go with what the Hanna checker says anyway. What’s your take on it?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My simple answer:no, except for very low phosphate levels.

The salinity checker is far from the best salinity device, for example.

 

[Dburr1014]

Phosphate are so hard to read. Hanna makes it a number. Easy.

Nitrate is okay.

I like the alk, easy to use and I think it's pretty accurate.

Calcium I wish I didn't buy, it's harder than the others to use but it seems accurate. I don't use it a whole lot.

 

[Tamberav]

I’ve noticed how Reefers often compare various test kits to Hanna checkers, and wonder if they are considered the gold standard in hobby grade testers? And if they are, why buy anything else? I get having backups, but it seems some people really have a hard time figuring out what to believe, and tend to go with what the Hanna checker says anyway. What’s your take on it?

Some of the Hanna ones are really good and others are not. So I have a mix of things.

For Hanna I like alk, low range phosphate, and high range nitrate. Then copper one for quarantine only.

Veegee for salinity and Salifert for Mg and Ca and low range nitrate if I need it. API for ammonia for quarantine or cycle set up’s.

Red Sea is fine too, I just get whichever is on sale as Salifert and Red Sea seem to both work fine.

 

[zheka757]

I only use alk and high range phosphates for Hanna checkers. Everything else is red sea

 

[exnisstech]

For Hanna I like alk, low range phosphate, and high range nitrate. Then copper one for quarantine only.

^same ^
IMO the salinity tester is junk. I'm on my second one and it's no better than the first. It calibrates fine but is always 2 points low when compared to my refractometer and TM hydrometer. Sure I can compensate but I shouldn't have to.

Ease of use is why I the Hanna testers. It's so much easier for me to see the number vs a color change. I keep some color changing kits as back up in case I get a result that is way different than I was expecting.

 

[Seansea]

Price. Get 4-5 saliferts for 1 hanna checker. If you really trying to go cheap ati which I have tested and sent in icp and come back spot on. The phos kits do suck outside of hanna tho.

 

[danimal1211]

I’ve gotten consistent results with Hanna alk , phosphorus, and HR nitrate. I use salifert for CA and MG and Milwaukee for salinity.

 

[Uncle99]

Only the Hanna phosphate checkers are good as the colour change is just to fine at least for my eyes.
Same with Ammonia.

The Hanna salinity tester was completely useless, my trusty refractometer is my gold standard.

The Hanna MG and CA checkers were all over the place in readings possibly effected by the small sample size.

The Salifert and Aquaforest test for nitrate, calcium and magnesium all have a colour change which is easy to read, and cost less.

I use API for PH.

 

[Dragen Fiend]

Yes and no. Some of their checkers are good. Like ALK, salinity, ULR phos and nitrate. But the rest I would use salifert kits.

 

[drolmaeye]

Clearly Hanna checkers are a gold standard in terms of precision, as you get a specific number. Most other test kits yield a color (open to interpretation) that often corresponds to a range of values rather than a specific value. I don't have enough information to independently say anything about their accuracy, but I trust the specified accuracy provided I carefully follow the instructions. From my own experience I find them to be repeatable.

Why buy anything else? Hanna is relatively expensive. If you get checkers for the big 5 (Ca, Mg, Alk, Nitrate, Phosphate) you are in for well over $300 just for the checkers. And subsequent reagent purchases are not cheap, either.

If you are comfortable with having a parameter in a range (e.g., "it looks like my calcium is somewhere between 400 and 430," or "my nitrates are not zero, but definitely less than 40") then a less expensive option can do the trick nicely.

DISCLAIMER: I use Hanna for the big 5, as well as for Cu during quarantine.

 

[PotatoPig]

IMO: Phosphates and Copper they’re definitely worth it. The color tests for these are, to me, difficult to read to the required levels of accuracy.

Nitrates, Ammonia - IMO the color tests are fine. YMMV but I don’t need to know these past the accuracy of color interpretations.

Calcium and Alk - The titration tests from other brands seem reliable, easy to use, are relatively quick, repeatable and accurate enough.

 

[EricR]

I'm color blind so, for me, Hanna seems like my best option and I'm perfectly satisfied with the ones I use -- Alkalinity (dKH), Phosphate ULR, Nitrate HR.

I use Salifert (and a helper) for Calcium and Magnesium, just because the Hanna versions seem more complicated and often don't get good reviews.

 

[Mschmidt]

I use hanna for all, n, and p.

Mag I don't test enough to justify the cost, and I don't need to be that particular.

Ca, same reason. Api does me just fine, cuz I don't care if it's 422 or 435, just that it's between 420 and 440. Close enough.

Cu, I don't qt enough for it, and api, likewise gets me close enough.

 

[MnFish1]

I’ve noticed how Reefers often compare various test kits to Hanna checkers, and wonder if they are considered the gold standard in hobby grade testers? And if they are, why buy anything else? I get having backups, but it seems some people really have a hard time figuring out what to believe, and tend to go with what the Hanna checker says anyway. What’s your take on it?

I do not think they are 'the gold standard'. I do think people tend to think they are/believe their results more often - because you see an actual number. There are many things that can cause testing errors with Hanna.

EDIT - I did not mean to imply that hanna had more errors than other tests commonly used

 

[fish farmer]

I bought a Hanna Low Range Phosphate Checker several years ago. It's the one that times out quick. They sent about 5 reagent packets. So after several initial learning tests, I was buying new reagent. I've bought new cuvettes since I scratched the first ones and I think one has a scratch now.

I also have to use my phone timer to make sure I have mixed before it times out. Even with having the reagent packets prepped to dump I feel my samples are never perfect, bubbles in tube, bits of reagent floating, how did that cat hair get in there...and then if you press it too long it shuts off mid test.

I rarely use my Hanna and likely won't buy another for hobby use.

 

[rtparty]

Gold standard? Hardly. They’re convenient enough and a couple are way better than the old standard kits we had.

Phosphate ULR, Nitrate HR, and Alkalinity are the only three worth buying. Everything else Hanna is iffy or unnecessary

 

[BeanAnimal]

My simple answer:no, except for very low phosphate levels.

The salinity checker is far from the best salinity device, for example.

I have not used them much over the last decade and could be jaded, but my issue in the past with the ULR phos testers was inconsistent reagent batches. I have no idea if things are better now or not.

 

[alysak6075]

The only one that is easier with Hanna is Phosphate, all the other tests I use Red Sea. The packets of powder imho suck.

 

[Atalien2005]

For manual test I only use Hanna Checkers and have tested them against Fauna Marin MRS and they come back dead on every time. I also use the salinity checker and back it up with refrac and have never had a problem.

I have two KH Guardian and a Trident that does automatic testing and the results come back with in range. I think Hanna is the “Gold Standard”!