I recently purchased EBL's 2500 AA NiMH batteries (ASIN B08XP7ZC8K) because they were less expensive, advertised 2500mAh capacity, and were 30% less expensive (as of May 2024), and I liked the colors. Since it seemed a little too good to be true, I decided to thoroughly test and compare the brands. The data is worth sharing.Testing Methodology: All tests were performed with an ISDT N16 charger. It is an intelligent charger. Two rounds of testing were performed at three charge rates: 0.5A, 1.0A, 1.5A. The NiMH charging strategy starts with a lower voltage and increases the voltage over time and considers temperature as it charges, up to the set charge rate. "Activation Charge" for NiMH cells was enabled, which drains the battery first, then performs a full charge. This should result in a consistent charge pattern (no partial charges) and level the playing field as discharging was uniform. The charted results omit the single worst charge, while the table includes all results. The batteries have not been used in anything other than the ISDT N16 charger.Results:* All cells charged to roughly 2574mAh on average, at all charge rates* The product exceeds advertised 2400mAh capacity by 174mAh, on average, at all charge rates.* At a 1.5A charge rate, the charge variation between the least & most charged cells was the greatest* At a 0.5A charge rate, the variation was the lowestComparing this to EBL's offering, Amazon's 2400mAh battery had a tendency to exceed the stated design capacity, which I've observed as between 2562-2580mAh on average and as high as 2848mAh. This, from the same charger, at the same charge rates, and with the "activation" option enabled.Cost comparison (as of May 2024) highlights some interesting data:* AZ 2400 12-pk @ $21.79 - $1.82/cell - @2574mAh realized capacity = 0.07 cents per 100mAh* EBL 2500 12-pk - $15.28 - $1.27/cell - @2100mAh realized capacity = 0.06 cents per 100mAh* Capacity as deciding factor: Amazon "wins" as they hold 18% more charge, but initial purchase cost is 30% more than EBL. When considering cost per cell's capacity, the difference is negligible and both brands stand on equal footing. Amazon's brand charges more consistently, holds more charge/out-performs their stated specification, and has more consistent voltage at rest.* Cost as deciding factor: EBL "wins" on price as the initial purchase cost is less expensive than Amazon by 30%. However, EBL's cells hold 18% less charge than Amazon and fall short of charging to EBL's stated capacity by 16%. If EBL's cells charged more consistently and could be fully charged to capacity, they would easily represent the better overall value.* Charging: EBLs perform better at a higher 1.5A charge rate and also charge more quickly. Amazon's batteries perform better at a 0.5A charge rate which takes longer. However, Amazon's variability at 1.5A charging (360mAh variance) is only *slightly* worse than the best EBL 1.5A result (324mAh variance). EBL's variance at 0.5A charge rate is 644mAh, which is 2.25x worse than Amazon at 287mAh variance. Amazon's product performance is consistently consistent.