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 are not interchangeable hard-gate labels in this finder.
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 frozen chemistry 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.