Best hobby test kits- experiment results... a new king?

[Reef Puncher]

Which test kit is the best?

Hi so i just thought i would share my experiments results with everyone and maybe it will help someone make a decision in the future. This all started because i was getting different test readings from different kits and wanted to know which i could trust to be the most accurate. I am in no way affiliated or sponsored by anyone, i just wanted to know which darn kits were giving me the actual right answers.

What i did.
I bought every popular test kit i could for 4 of the major parameters. I then purchased calibration aka standard liquids. Initially i planned on just using Fauna Marins standard only but then i thought to myself "how do i know that this standard is really what it says if its based of ICP, and every ICP machine can vary depending on calibration methods and how often they calibrate their machines". So to be safe i got 3 different calibration liquids. (One was free, it was included in the aquaforest test kits). I then purchased a Fauna Marin ICP advanced test kit. Just to test my own water against all different test kits and compare for extra redundancy.

The calibration liquids:
FM multi reference

Aquaforest

Results:

Alkalinity - I did not test for alkalinity as i only have hannah and red sea for now, maybe i will try all the kits in future.

Calcium-
Most accurate- Tie - Aquaforest & Salifert. Both of these read dead on to both standard reference solution of 420ppm
Red sea- Off by about 30ppm. Read 450.
API, Sera, both were off also around 30-40 could be due to reading color error, not a fan.
Hannah- Hannah was odd because the readings would actually change. Sometimes it was right on, other times it was off. Just inconsistent.


Magnesium-
Most accurate- Aquaforest. This was the only test DEAD on.
Runner up- Salifert. Salifert was very close but just slightly off. About 20-30 off.
API & Sera- both slightly off
NYOS- Nyos was also off by about 30-40.
Hannah- was wayyyyyyyyy off. not sure if my magnesium kit itself is damaged or if its just that bad, not sure. One reading gave me 1800.
Red sea- Off by about 50.


Nitrate and Phosphate-
Winner- Hannah. The reason i said winner and not most accurate was because both aquaforest and hannah are accurate but i much prefer the ease of just getting a number straight from the hannah. Hannah was spot on to the 2ppm of the calibration liquid. Unlike their calcium and mag kits, hannah's phos and nitrate test kits are very accurate for me. I used the hannah low range, not the ultra low range. And i used the hannah high range nitrate.
Runner up- Aqua. accurate but not as easy in my opinion as getting a straight number from hannah.
Salifert was good, phosphate was just ever so slightly off.
API & SERA- these were rough. really hard to tell accurately. would not recommend. especially the SERA. that one is brutal to read.



Conclusion:
After years of Salifert being the go to, i think i can confidently say Aquaforest is the new king of hobby test kits. I know some people have used them for a while, but i did not know how accurate they really were. They not only were accurate, but they are the only company to tailor the reagents to your personal tank by offering charts to control the amount of drops you need. And they include a reference solution. This makes them the king of hobby test kits for everything but maybe nitrates/phosphates where i still prefer my hannah.

There is also a video of BRS testing all the magnesium test kits, and they too found aquaforest their new best kit. Same with fragbox corals you tube video. Aquaforest is just too good.

 

[shakacuz]

thanks for taking the time and initiative to do this.

how many tests per parameter, per kit did you do?
was it just 1 test per kit? or did you do 3 tests per parameter and do an average?

 

[GARRIGA]

Question I only have. Were the errors large enough that would result in crashes. For some, all available might be that not precision accurate but good enough for government work.

 

[Reef Puncher]

thanks for taking the time and initiative to do this.

how many tests per parameter, per kit did you do?
was it just 1 test per kit? or did you do 3 tests per parameter and do an average?

I did 1 test per each standard liquid and then 1 test on my water compared to an ICP. i wrote out the results from the fauna marin. i suppose writing out the results from each liquid would offer more insight, but the results were always very similair. each time aquaforest came out the most accurate. except for some odd reason hannahs nitrate and phosphate was accurate for those and not for mag and calc. quite odd.

 

[Reef Puncher]

Question I only have. Were the errors large enough that would result in crashes. For some, all available might be that not precision accurate but good enough for government work.

i would say no on all except the hannah mag. that was giving me wild readings. sometimes it would read 1250 and other times 1800. it might be broken or maybe the reagent is bad? it was a new test kit tho......... but for all the rest you wont experience a crash being off by 50ppm on calc or mag. you just wont be ideal if chasing perfect numbers but chasing perfection can be tiring, stability is ideal. I merely just wanted to know which one tended to be the most accurate and i got my answer.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

Interesting, I'll be looking into Aquaforest test kits!

 

[GARRIGA]

i would say no on all except the hannah mag. that was giving me wild readings. sometimes it would read 1250 and other times 1800. it might be broken or maybe the reagent is bad? it was a new test kit tho......... but for all the rest you wont experience a crash being off by 50ppm on calc or mag. you just wont be ideal if chasing perfect numbers but chasing perfection can be tiring, stability is ideal. I merely just wanted to know which one tended to be the most accurate and i got my answer.

For mag I'd just go with Randy's none testing regiment if dosing two part but I'm planning on AFR therefore a none issue and hope ICP will let me know if major corrections needed but as like you stability more important than precision testing.

 

[Reef Puncher]

For mag I'd just go with Randy's none testing regiment if dosing two part but I'm planning on AFR therefore a none issue and hope ICP will let me know if major corrections needed but as like you stability more important than precision testing.

i too use AFR but i find my system occasionally needs to be topped off with mag. i have read randys method, but because i use AFR its not really applicable.

 

[GARRIGA]

i too use AFR but i find my system occasionally needs to be topped off with mag. i have read randys method, but because i use AFR its not really applicable.

Yeah his method best with true two parts where trace and mag later added independently. Guessing your top off not drastic therefore AFR likely within acceptable range?