Direct answer
Require explicit EFB support rather than assuming every AGM-capable tester covers EFB.
Require explicit EFB support rather than assuming every AGM-capable tester covers EFB.
Require explicit EFB support rather than assuming every AGM-capable tester covers EFB.
EFB and AGM need separate support. Do not assume a tester covers both.
These illustrate different buying forks, not a ranked list or a substitute for the finder.
Explicit EFB with 12V system diagnostics and no report hardware. BA101’s subset does not credit EFB.
See verified details →12V EFB work with QR proof; the numerical CCA range remains unverified.
See verified details →EFB with paper output and 40–2000 CCA; 6V/12V battery and 12V/24V system scope are separate.
See verified details →Enhanced flooded is not an AGM synonym. Clore describes EFB-specific evaluation; selecting an AGM-capable tool without explicit EFB evidence leaves a chemistry gap.
Manufacturer evidence ↗: Clore explains EFB-specific testing rather than treating AGM and EFB as interchangeable labels.
A start-stop badge on the vehicle is not enough to choose the tester setting. Identify the battery actually installed and use its rating, not a presumed original specification.
An EFB health test does not establish battery registration, coding or permission to replace EFB with another chemistry. Those decisions need the vehicle procedure.
Its verified battery-type list does not include EFB. BST100 explicitly includes it, so that difference can change eligibility even within one brand.
No. The finder requires explicit EFB support for a known EFB input; an unspecified lead-acid field does not pass by assumption.
Choose the output after chemistry: BST560S offers QR, while BA327 prints. Use the printer guide if a paper work order is mandatory.