Result first: In this sample comparison, EB provides a complete 0.779 L and 51 g package record, a thinner 1.154 mm distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces, higher readings at the principal right-side points, and lower measured surface temperature and fan noise. These results give buyers usable references for packaging planning, light-source geometry, illuminance distribution and operating specifications.
Compared samples: one EB H11 LEDr lamp and one Philips H11 LEDr lamp. Every photograph and measurement below belongs to these two samples. The individual records are available in the EB H11 LEDr review and Philips H11 LEDr review.
Test conditions
Both lamps operated at 13.2 V in a 26°C test environment. Illuminance was recorded after a 30-minute warm-up at the same E-Mark panel points from 3.5 m. Emitting-area surface temperature was recorded after 30 minutes, and operating noise was measured 3.5 cm from the fan.
Measurement scope: UNECE category requirements provide the reference framework for the geometry and Box-system discussion. Product observations and comparison conclusions come from the photographs and measured values of the two tested samples.
Key Comparison Points
- Packaging: EB records 118 × 55 × 120 mm, 0.779 L and 51 g. The Philips packaging fields remain blank because its packaging was damaged in transit.
- Lamp construction: both samples use an H11 connector, PGJ19-2 locating structure and metal retaining spring. Their heat sinks, cables and external-driver housings differ.
- Emitting geometry: EB measures 1.154 mm between opposing LED emitting surfaces; Philips measures 2.245 mm.
- Box system: both illuminated records cover B1–B3. The EB D-glare zone remains dark, while several small bright marks are visible in the Philips D zone.
- Beam and illuminance: EB is higher at 25R, 50R, 75R and EMAX. Philips records the lower B50L value, with a difference of 1.5 lux.
- Temperature and noise: EB is 16.5°C lower after 30 minutes and 2.1 dBA lower at the 3.5 cm noise measurement distance.
1. Packaging Section
Due to damage to the Philips packaging during shipping, we were unable to provide a complete view of the packaging. The product itself and the test results were not affected. Once we receive the replacement packaging materials for the Philips H11 LEDr, we will update and re-upload the comparison.
| Differentiating item | EB | Philips | Recorded result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Package dimensions | 118 × 55 × 120 mm | / | Waiting for an update… |
| Nominal external volume | 0.779 L | / | Waiting for an update… |
| Empty-package mass | 51 g | / | Waiting for an update… |
| Package presentation | Main hardware with two plain inner boxes | / | Waiting for an update… |
Philips packaging was damaged in transit. The blank cells are intentional; no dimensions, volume, weight or kit contents were estimated.
EB supplies a complete set of packaging measurements for storage, carton and packaging-weight calculations. The unavailable Philips record prevents a direct package-size or weight comparison.
2. Lamp Construction Comparison
Both samples use the H11 connector format, PGJ19-2 locating structure and a metal retaining spring. The visible differences are concentrated in the rear heat sink, cable and driver arrangement.
| Verification item | EB | Philips | Recorded difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Installation-section measurement | 18.88 mm | 18.74 mm | 0.14 mm |
| Rear heat sink | Cylindrical rear structure | Finned rear structure | Different Design Approaches |
| Cable | Braided | Smooth | Different Design Approaches |
| Driver arrangement | Separate narrow housing visible | No separate housing visible in the supplied front view | Philips does not have an external driver |
| Metal retaining spring | Present | Present | All of them have this structure |
Lamp and driver overview
The front views compare the heat-sink, cable and external-driver designs.
both samples use fan-assisted cooling. EB combines a cylindrical rear heat sink, braided cable and a separate narrow driver housing.Philips h11 LEDr uses a radial-finned rear heat sink and smooth cable; Philips h11 LEDr no separate driver housing is visible in the supplied front-view record.
H11 Connector Interface
The images show the connector face used by each sample.
Both samples use a keyed, oval two-pin H11 connector with a central divider.
PGJ19-2 base and locating features
The top views show the PGJ19-2 mounting structure of each sample.
Both samples use the same keyed PGJ19-2 mounting structure, with asymmetric metal locating tabs and a red sealing ring.
Base installation-section measurement
| Why Measure Pillar Thickness | Main Impact | Relevance to Actual Headlight Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Light obstruction | The pillar can block part of the light emitted sideways or at oblique angles from the LED | An excessively thick pillar may block certain emission angles, resulting in incomplete angular light distribution or local dark areas |
| Heat transfer | The pillar is also part of the main thermal path from the LED chip to the heat sink | Its cross-section, material and internal structure affect how efficiently heat is transferred, influencing junction temperature and sustained light output |
| Structural strength and stability | The pillar provides mechanical support for the LED chip, PCB or substrate | An excessively thin pillar may reduce rigidity and increase the risk of displacement or deformation during assembly, vibration or thermal cycling |
EB measures 18.88 mm, while Philips measures 18.74 mm at the installation section, a difference of only 0.14 mm, or about 0.75%.
The two products are very close in this installation-section dimension. EB is slightly larger, but the difference is small. This measurement alone is not enough to show a clear advantage in fitment, structural strength, or optical performance. Overall, the two products have a similar design in this dimension.
Metal retaining spring
This metal retaining spring stabilises the lamp’s axial and rotational position, helping maintain the LED emitting surfaces in the intended optical reference position.
both samples include a metal retaining spring beneath the flange.
3. LED Emitting Structure and Box System
This section compares the visible emitting-area geometry, the distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces and the position of the illuminated areas within the Box-system reference frame. The category definitions and limits follow the official UNECE UN Regulation No. 37 materials.
LED emitting-surface close-up
The close-ups compare the shape and arrangement of the visible LED emitting areas.
EB presents one continuous rectangular phosphor window. Philips presents three separate rectangular phosphor segments. This is a visible geometry difference; the optical result is assessed from the beam and illuminance records.
Distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces
For LED emitting surfaces, the UNECE Official specification defines this distance as parameter z and requires it to be no more than 2.9 mm.The distance between the two opposing LED emitting surfaces affects how compact the light source is. A thinner emitting structure can help the LED better match the focal geometry of a headlamp originally designed for a filament bulb, which may improve beam control.
EB measures 1.154 mm and Philips 2.245 mm between the opposing LED emitting surfaces. EB is 1.091 mm thinner, or 48.60% lower than Philips. Both measured values are below the 2.9 mm Configuration-2 category limit.
Box system reference-frame check
The Box system separates the effective emitting region into Areas A, B and C, with B1–B3 showing how the core region is distributed. Area D records unwanted emission outside the intended emitting region.
| Area | UNECE requirement | What the area represents | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+B+C | ≥ 90% of total luminous flux E | Main effective emitting region | Shows whether most emitted light remains inside the defined region. |
| Area A | ≤ 10% of A+B+C | One side of the core emitting region | Limits excessive flux on one side of Area B. |
| Area B | ≥ 72% of A+B+C | Core emitting region | Requires most effective flux to remain in the central region. |
| B1, B2, B3 | Each ≥ 15% of Area B | Three subdivisions of Area B | Checks that the core output is distributed across all three sections. |
| Area C | ≤ 22% of A+B+C | Opposite side of the core emitting region | Limits excessive flux beyond the other side of Area B. |
| Area D | Required contrast between A+B+C and D | Region outside the main emitting area | Controls unwanted emission outside the intended region. |
Reference-frame observation: both unlit records place the visible emitting structures within the upper A–C framework. EB shows one continuous rectangular window; Philips shows three separate emitting segments in the same comparison area.
Illuminated observation: EB forms a continuous illuminated band across B1, B2 and B3, with broad vertical overlap through the B region. Philips also illuminates all three subdivisions, but its band sits higher within the reference frame. Area D remains dark in the EB image, while several isolated bright marks are visible in the Philips D region.
| Area | Reference Focus | EB Observation | Philips Observation | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A+B+C | Main effective emitting region | Main emission remains concentrated within the upper reference region | Main emission also remains within the upper reference region, but is positioned higher | EB shows a more centered emitting position |
| Area A | Limits emission on the left side of Area B | Only limited emission extends into Area A | Little visible emission appears in Area A | Similar overall |
| Area B | Core emitting region | Main emitting band occupies a broader and more central portion of Area B | Main emitting band is concentrated toward the upper part of Area B | EB shows better B-area positioning |
| B1/B2/B3 | Distribution across the three core sections | One continuous band covers B1, B2 and B3 with more complete vertical coverage | All three sections are illuminated, but the emitting band is higher and segmented | EB shows more continuous and complete coverage |
| Area C | Limits emission beyond the right side of Area B | Some emission extends toward the C side | Emission also approaches the C side | No major visual difference |
| Area D | Controls unwanted emission outside the main emitting region | Area D remains essentially dark | Several visible light spots appear in Area D | EB shows cleaner stray-light control |
Overall Comparison
EB shows a more continuous and better-positioned emitting area across B1, B2 and B3, while Philips has a higher and segmented emitting pattern. The largest difference appears in Area D: EB remains essentially dark, whereas Philips shows several visible stray-light spots that may contribute to glare.Overall, the images show that EB keeps the main emission more consistently within the core B region and better suppresses unwanted emission outside the main light-emitting area.
4. Beam Pattern and Illuminance Comparison
The white-wall images show the overall low-beam shape, the rainbow maps show hotspot concentration, and the nine-point table identifies the measured distribution differences.
White-wall beam pattern
Both products form a recognizable low-beam pattern, but EB keeps more light below the cutoff, while Philips shows more upward spread and haze around the rising section.
This matches the earlier structural findings. EB has a smaller opposing emitting-surface distance (1.154 mm vs 2.245 mm) and better alignment across B1–B3, giving the headlamp optics a more compact and accurately positioned light source. Philips’ higher emitting position changes the light entering the optical system, while the stray-light spots in Area D add unwanted emission outside the main emitting region. Together, these differences help explain the greater upward spread visible in the Philips beam pattern.
Overall Comparison
EB shows cleaner control above the cutoff, while Philips produces more upward light spread. The difference is consistent with their emitting thickness, B-area position and stray-emission characteristics.
Rainbow map and hotspot distribution
The rainbow maps show a different energy-distribution pattern between the two products. EB forms a broader, more continuous high-illuminance core, with the surrounding green and cyan zones spreading smoothly around the hotspot. Philips produces a narrower, more elongated hotspot, with the high-energy region extending further toward the right.
This difference is consistent with the earlier structural results. EB’s more compact emitting geometry and more complete alignment across B1–B3 give the headlamp optics a more stable source position, helping concentrate the projected energy around the intended hotspot. Philips’ higher emitting position changes how the light is distributed through the optical system, resulting in a more directional and elongated hotspot.
Overall Comparison
EB shows a fuller and more evenly distributed hotspot, while Philips concentrates the high-energy region into a narrower, more right-shifted shape. This indicates that the differences in emitting geometry are reflected not only in beam control, but also in how the useful light energy is distributed within the main illumination zone.
Nine-point illuminance with B50L focus
| Point or group | Measurement purpose | How to read it | Recorded result |
|---|---|---|---|
| B50L | Dedicated glare-control point above and left of the cutoff | Lower means less light at this point | Philips: 32.9 lux; EB: 34.4 lux. Philips is lower by 1.5 lux. |
| 50L | Controlled left-side distribution below the cutoff | Applicable upper and lower limits govern interpretation | EB: 402.3 lux; Philips: 395.7 lux. |
| 25L | Left-side illumination reference | Not the B50L glare-control point | Philips: 332.1 lux; EB: 278 lux. |
| 50V / 25V | Central forward distribution | Shows how output is divided through the centre | EB is higher at 50V; Philips is higher at 25V. |
| 75R / 50R / 25R / EMAX | Right-side and peak references | Compares right-side and maximum recorded output | EB is higher at all four references. |
| Point | EB (lux) | Philips (lux) | EB − Philips | EB relative to Philips | Recorded conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25L | 278 | 332.1 | −54.1 | −16.29% | Philips is higher at this left-side point. |
| 50L | 402.3 | 395.7 | +6.6 | +1.67% | Values are close; applicable limits govern interpretation. |
| B50L | 34.4 | 32.9 | +1.5 | +4.56% | Philips is lower at this glare-control point; the difference is small. |
| 50V | 1,085 | 935.6 | +149.4 | +15.97% | EB is higher at the central 50V point. |
| 25V | 1,006 | 1,153 | −147.0 | −12.75% | Philips is higher at the central 25V point. |
| 75R | 1,131 | 655.5 | +475.5 | +72.54% | EB is higher at the right-side reference point. |
| 50R | 1,646 | 1,369 | +277.0 | +20.23% | EB is higher at the right-side reference point. |
| 25R | 422.3 | 403.3 | +19.0 | +4.71% | EB is higher at the right-side reference point. |
| EMAX | 1,741 | 1,735 | +6.0 | +0.35% | Peak readings are nearly identical. |
Conclusion:
EB’s clearest illuminance advantage is on the right: 75R is 72.54% higher and 50R is 20.23% higher. EMAX is effectively level, with EB ahead by 6 lux. Philips records the lower B50L value—32.9 lux versus 34.4 lux—but the difference is only 1.5 lux. Philips is also higher at 25L and 25V, while EB is higher at 50V and the remaining right-side points.
5. Temperature and Fan Noise
Temperature and operating noise are recorded separately because they describe different operating characteristics.
Emitting-Area Surface Temperature After 30 Minutes
EB measures 67.3°C at the LED emitting section, while Philips measures 83.8°C. The surrounding areas are almost the same at about 34°C.
Philips is 16.5°C hotter at the measured emitting surface. EB shows lower local heat accumulation under the same test conditions.
These are surface temperatures, not LED junction temperatures.
Operating noise at 3.5 cm from the fan
EB records 54.6 dBA and Philips 56.7 dBA at 3.5 cm from the fan. EB is 2.1 dBA lower in this close-range measurement.
| Metric | Condition | EB | Philips | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emitting-area surface temperature | 13.2 V, 26°C, after 30 minutes | 67.3°C | 83.8°C | EB is 16.5°C lower |
| Operating noise | 3.5 cm from cooling fan | 54.6 dBA | 56.7 dBA | EB is 2.1 dBA lower |
EB records the lower result in both measured categories: 16.5°C lower emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes and 2.1 dBA lower fan noise at 3.5 cm.
6. What This Comparison Means for Customers
- Packaging documentation: EB provides package dimensions, volume and empty-package mass that can be used directly in storage and carton calculations. Philips packaging cannot be compared because it was damaged in transit.
- Product specifications: the shared H11 connector, PGJ19-2 locating structure and retaining spring can be listed as common features. Heat-sink, cable and driver forms should be recorded separately.
- Light-source geometry: EB’s 1.154 mm opposing-surface distance is 1.091 mm thinner than Philips, giving buyers the more compact measured dual-sided geometry in this comparison.
- Right-side distribution: EB provides the stronger 50R and 75R results, while maintaining an EMAX value nearly identical to Philips.
- B50L: Philips records 1.5 lux less light at this glare-control point. The result should be retained as a specific Philips advantage without treating it as a whole-beam score.
- Operating records: EB records both the lower emitting-area surface temperature and the lower close-range fan-noise value.
Overall: EB gives buyers the stronger combined record in this comparison: documented packaging data, thinner emitting-surface geometry, substantially higher 50R and 75R readings, and lower measured temperature and fan noise. Philips’ main measured advantages are the slightly lower B50L value and higher readings at 25L and 25V.
EB vs Philips H11 LEDr FAQ
Were the two lamps tested under the same conditions?
Yes. Both were operated at 13.2 V in a 26°C environment and used the same 3.5 m illuminance setup, 30-minute warm-up and 3.5 cm fan-noise distance.
Why are the Philips packaging fields blank?
The Philips packaging was damaged in transit, so package contents, dimensions, volume and empty-package mass were not estimated.
What does the 1.154 mm versus 2.245 mm measurement describe?
It is the measured distance between the two opposing LED emitting surfaces. EB is 1.091 mm thinner in this comparison.
How did the illuminance distribution differ?
EB was higher at 25R, 50R, 75R, 50V and EMAX. Philips was higher at 25L and 25V and recorded the lower B50L value. The EMAX values were nearly identical.
How did the temperature and noise records differ?
EB was 16.5°C lower in the 30-minute emitting-area surface-temperature record and 2.1 dBA lower in the 3.5 cm fan-noise measurement.
References
Author: Jack Liu, Co-founder and Director of Product at LEDOAUTO
Reviewed by: LEDOAUTO Engineering Team; verified in accordance with official documents from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Last Updated: September 3, 2026
The category terminology used in this comparison follows the UNECE light-source category resolutions. Additional context is available in the ECE R37 H11 LEDr background.