Some of the links in this post are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you choose to make a purchase at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Read my full Ethics & Affiliate Relationship Disclaimer.
The Anker 165-watt and 250-watt power banks are two of the most popular ones Anker currently offers. They both come in around a soda can or energy drink size, and they give you plenty of power to keep everything charged, from phones and tablets to computers and even some gaming consoles. They also have a few real differences, and those differences are what decide which one is right for you. Anker sent me both of these for free to review. They had no input in this content. Everything here is based on using both of them extensively so I can help you figure out whether to buy the 165-watt or the 250-watt.
The 250-watt is the stronger performer with more capacity and faster recharging, but I reach for the 165-watt nine times out of ten for the built-in cables.
- Both are airline approved and hold a lot of capacity
- Both have front screens showing power in, power out, and recharge time
- 250-watt sustains high wattage and recharges up to 170 watts by combining ports
- 165-watt has built-in retractable and lanyard cables for grab-and-go convenience
- Both take up a considerable amount of backpack space
- 165-watt throttles more often and recharges from only one port at a time
- 250-watt has no built-in cable and a shorter list of pocket-friendly perks
- 165-watt ships with an 18-month warranty versus two years on the 250-watt
- Intro: Who This Is For
- Size and Capacity Comparison
- Port and Wattage Differences
- Cable Differences: Built-In vs. Separate
- Recharging Speed Comparison
- Display and Additional Features
- Performance and Throttling
- Real-World Usage and Convenience
- Warranty and Reliability
- Choosing Between the Two: Key Considerations
- Daily Use and Recharge Speed
Intro: Who This Is For
This comparison is for anyone trying to pick one Anker power bank and not overthink it. If you mostly keep a phone, tablet, and a lighter laptop like a MacBook Air topped up, one of these is the obvious pick. If you run a MacBook Pro and edit video on the road, the other one earns its size. Both are big, both are airline approved, and both do the job. The question is which set of trade-offs fits how you actually charge your gear.
Size and Capacity Comparison
Set side by side, the 250-watt is definitely the bigger of the two, but only by a little bit. The 165-watt weighs almost as much and is just slightly smaller. The 250-watt has a 27,650 milliamp hour capacity, or 99.5 watt hours, and it is airline approved. The 165-watt is also airline approved with a 90 watt hour capacity, or 25,000 milliamp hours. Both hold a lot of power. The 250-watt simply carries a bit more of it, and that extra capacity matters most when you are feeding a laptop, where every little bit counts.
Port and Wattage Differences
The 250-watt has 250 watts of total output available, and you can pull up to 140 watts out of either port. That 250 watts is split across the ports. The 165-watt tops out at 165 watts of total output, and the most any single port will give you is 100 watts. So each port on the 165-watt has less wattage available, and the total gets split a little more than it does on the bigger unit. The 250-watt gives you two USB-C ports and one USB-A port. The 165-watt has a USB-C port on the side plus a USB-A port. On the 165-watt the USB-C can go in or out, and the USB-A is out only. That means the 250-watt gives you the extra USB-C connection, which is the one that matters if you want to run something like Apple MagSafe chargers for computers, or charge two computers at once.
| 165W | 250W | |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity | 25,000 mAh / 90 Wh | 27,650 mAh / 99.5 Wh |
| Total output | 165 W | 250 W |
| Max per port | 100 W | 140 W |
| Ports | 1x USB-C, 1x USB-A | 2x USB-C, 1x USB-A |
| Recharge input | Up to 100 W, one port | Up to 140 W per port, 170 W combined |
| Built-in cables | Yes, retractable + lanyard | No |
| Warranty | 18 months | 2 years |
| Airline approved | Yes | Yes |
Cable Differences: Built-In vs. Separate
This is the main difference between the two. With the 250-watt you get a 140-watt capable cable in the box, but there is no built-in cable. It is a giant power bank with two USB-C ports and one USB-A port, and that is it. The 165-watt is the opposite. It has a lanyard with a cable built into it, tucked out of the way, so you can carry the power bank by it or pop the cable out easily when you want to use it. On top there is a retractable two-foot cable that you push back in and it magnets down. I love that design. The trade-off is that some people do not like built-in cables, but I have never had any issues with Anker’s built-in cable products. For me the built-in cables are the whole point, because you are not digging around for a cord every time a device needs power.
Recharging Speed Comparison
The 250-watt recharges ridiculously fast. You can put up to 140 watts into either of its ports, or combine both ports and push all the way up to 170 watts. It is genuinely fun to watch how quickly it refills. The 165-watt takes longer, because it only recharges from one port at a time and accepts up to 100 watts in. So it is considerably slower to top off, though you can still get it full in a couple of hours. If you need a charger to feed these, I have links to my favorites in the description of the video and below.
Display and Additional Features
Both of these have really nice screens on the front. They show the amount of power going in and out, how long it will take to recharge, and other details as you use them. On the 165-watt you get the side USB-C port plus the USB-A, so you have one extra USB-C device you can run compared to a plain cabled brick, with the built-in cables handling the rest. The 250-watt also works with an optional charging base you can buy separately. I do not use the base a ton, but it is a cool extra piece of versatility if you want it.
Performance and Throttling
Both units push plenty of power through their ports, but I did notice the 165-watt throttles more often. When it is recharging or when it is charging other devices, the power will sometimes drop, and you can watch that happen on the screen as you monitor it. The 250-watt does a better job of holding high-wattage 100-watt charging speeds for longer stretches. The 165-watt is more of a burst charger. It can give you a quick top-off, but it does not sustain that heavier workload as well. That makes the 250-watt the better option for demanding tasks, like feeding a MacBook Pro 14 or 16-inch while you edit video and really need the extra juice.
Real-World Usage and Convenience
Where the 165-watt wins for me is that it is a little sleeker, a little smoother, and it has those built-in cables, so it is just more convenient day to day. On paper you could argue the 165-watt fits better in a backpack, but honestly I did not notice one fitting better than the other. They both take up a considerable amount of space. I have had multiple people comment asking where I even put these, and the answer is you just need plenty of room in your bag. There are no real size savings picking one over the other.
Warranty and Reliability
The 165-watt comes with an 18-month warranty. The 250-watt comes with a two-year warranty. So the 250-watt is supported longer by Anker. Typically when a company gives you a longer warranty, it signals more faith in that product than in the shorter-warranty one. That does not make the 165-watt unreliable, but it is a data point worth keeping in mind when you compare the two.
Choosing Between the Two: Key Considerations
If you are deciding between these, there are really just a couple of things to sort out. The first is whether you want the built-in cables. I love them, and that is why nine times out of ten I reach for the 165-watt. It is so convenient to have the cords ready to go with you all the time, and it works great for keeping phones and tablets topped up because you always have a cable on hand. The second consideration is ports and power. The 250-watt shines when you want more USB-C connections, when you want to run MagSafe chargers for computers, or when you want to charge two computers at the same time. Its extra capacity also makes it the better laptop companion, since every bit of power counts with a laptop.
Daily Use and Recharge Speed
If you are not chasing the absolute most capacity or the highest wattages, and you mainly want to keep a MacBook Air, an iPad, and an iPhone charged, it is hard to beat the 165-watt for the sheer convenience of the built-in cords. But if you use a power bank every single day, draining it and recharging it over and over, that is when you will appreciate the 250-watt. It recharges at those higher wattage speeds, so it is ready to go again much faster in a heavy rotation.
Final Recommendation
If you can live without the built-in cables, the 250-watt is the better choice overall. It has more power, more wattage, and more capacity, it does not throttle as often, and it adds the versatility of the optional charging base. It is simply the stronger unit. But if you want the most convenient power bank that still gives you plenty of wattage and capacity, buy the 165-watt laptop power bank instead. It recharges fast, has tons of output to keep all your devices going, and holds enough capacity to keep everything running, all with the cables already attached. For me, the convenience wins most days, which is why the 165-watt is the one I keep grabbing. Links to buy both are below, and if you have questions about either one, leave a comment on the video.
