Author Topic: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison  (Read 7649 times)

Mariuszuzd

Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« on: January 14, 2026, 04:46:03 AM »
I finalized my testing of three power meters. It took place from 16.12.2025 until 06.01.2026. All screens and readings of power were made on https://compare-the-watts.com/. All files you can find here - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zK7ZtPF-K969JV58sm26zGjgVzL1gek8?usp=sharing. Some photo examples I attached in the post. I will add some videos into the google drive, from rides and showing the calibration etc. Comparison is also on Facebook group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/975602387895509/?ref=share.

The tests and all workouts were recorded on: Garmin Fenix 8, Huawei Mate tablet and Bryton S810. The following devices have been compared:

1.   Favero Assioma Duo, used since 2021 (4.5 years)
2.   Elite Justo, used since 2023 (almost 3 years)
3.   Xcadey gen 2 easton 110 BCD (almost new)

Before every ride sources 1 and 3 were calibrated as Elite Justo is self-calibrated device, however, two times it was also calibrated and before all tests. The firmware for all devices has been updated, and it is the newest possible. All the data is on my google drive including all original fit files for all dates. Unfortunately, several times I had some issues, it was not related to connection or to any power source but the recording device ( I believe). Sometimes it was due to changing windows on my tablet and then My Whoosh device turned off the training, or I wanted to change recording device, and switch to another source.
During the testing period so for full three weeks which include many different workouts all sources showed rather consistent results, and the results were not identical of course. However, some unexpected episodes also happened, which I describe below:

1.   For each workout, for each day you can find fit file;
2.   For each workout you can find general screen and some detailed comparisons for the interval part if occurred;
3.   Except for the FTP test from 03.01.2026 all workouts have been done using ERG mode;
4.   For one workout I switched, and the Bryton S810 was a controllable device of the smart trainer. For most of the time the Elite Justo controlled the watts and workout in ERG mode;
5.   Screens are from Compare the watts;
6.   Sometimes the workout timeline is moved, that is due to the different methods of pausing the activity for each device, mostly the MyWhoosh (elite justo) recording is moved. I adjusted it in the Compare the watts by time offset, and the detailed comparison is correct. Due to that, the average watts for the entire workout are different and not correct. Then the interval part can be compared;
7.   For Favero and Xcadey there are L/R balance data;
8.   Sprints are much better recorded on Favero and Xcadey, and showed more reliable watts;
9.   The maximum data from Compare the watts and recorded in the file is different for Favero and Xcadey;
10.   I noticed different readings of watts during workout for all devices, for all of them I have 3s average watts so that should not be the case;
11.   I identified some issues with displaying watts, I connect Xcadey and Favero to Garmin Fenix 8 and to MyWHoosh and it presented different readings;
12.   I connected Xcadey as power source to mywhoosh and Elite Justo as controllable device for workouts in Mywhoosh, and the watts were displayed different on the Mywhoosh, and different on Garmin Fenix 8;
13.   Favero and Xcadey are more sensible and reads all  fluctuations of wattage more reliable;

The results overall:

1.   Are consistent for all power sources, the graphs, watts and the cadence recorded are not identical but similar;
2.   The comparison to other sets is always different, never been the same and within 1%, between the sources;   
3.   The graphs are very similar, Favero and Elite Justo are closer, and the GAP is probably around 1-5%;
4.   The GAP for Xcadey is bigger, around 1-6%, except for two days 24-25.12, were I noticed some serious issues for all devices, the readings on all devices were strange,
5.   The watts recorded and presented by Xcadey are always higher, around 5-10w from Elite Justo;
6.   The maximum watts are much lower on Elite Justo and certainly not accurate;
7.   Based on the workout assumptions, Elite Justo was in a lower or middle range of watts required, Favero Assioma was always below, Xcadey always met the requirements,
8.   Favero and Xcadey L/R balance are very similar, the differences are very low;
9.   I have different FTP based on the results obtained from all devices, between 352, 357 and 362w;
10.   I charged Favero and Xcadey 16.12.2025 and today so 14.01.2026 the batter level is 10% (Xcadey). During that period, I rode more than 50h. However, the readings are not representative as my son (1.5 years) loves to spin the pedals, and the Xcadey was very often activated, even when Favero was not installed,
11.   On the 12th of January I decided to swap pedals, and I installed Favero on my second bike. For me the results of Justo and Xcadey are reliable and enough. I just adjusted my FTP for the readings from Justo and Xcadey. 

Riding for around 4.5 years with a power meter I still don’t know which is the most accurate one from those three, however I have one conclusion from my side. If you use power meter, perform all tests on it, that is crucial, and you should stick to it. If you change power meter, you always should perform a new FTP test on it. Even if it shows some lower or higher watts, you will have the proper and valid readings. I didn’t notice any unusual results so one showed 400w and another 600 w, except sprints, for sure that is the biggest flaws of a smart trainer due to their build and way of working. I also noticed that the feeling of 200w outside is a bit different than inside using all three devices. After all rides and tests, I would say that the watts are in the middle. I will repeat it when the weather will be more convenient in Poland. Lastly, my Favero Assioma now has some issues with the body, I changed the bearings but now I felt some play, again. It was noticed by many people in the past.

If you have any suggestions/comments/questions, I’m happy to answer.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2026, 10:38:01 AM by Mariuszuzd »

Tpower59

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2026, 07:48:55 AM »
Thanks for you hard work ! Really appreciate

It is a certain relief for the owners of this XCadey Powermeter since GPLama crushed it here :
Maybe a faulty unit ?

Mariuszuzd

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2026, 09:26:32 AM »
thank you! Almost just after the GPLama review I received mine power meter, so I was also rather concerned.I just wanted to lower the weight of my Avenger Shuttle SL, I decided to change the crank and other elements. I contacted Xcadey directly. They said almost the same as below his video on Youtube. Unfortunately, they had some batch in which they needed to adjust some internal materials. They didn't detect this in their tests.

One thing I could add is that I didn't check the offset during the ride, and I didn't use their app during the ride. Unfortunately, in all devices there is no info regarding that. From Favero I have some data about the offset. recorded in the fitfile. What I also get from them is that offset will change and will fluctuates with changes of environment e.g. temperature, humidity and voltage.

Lastly, I cannot confirm that all previous versions are reliable, mine is, so this is good. Just before my testing I get the software update no. 41, maybe that all changed something, for good of course.

The only disturbing thing is a different displaying of watts for all devices depending on the device so garmin, mywhoosh or bryton. I will try to record some another harder ride and record Favero and Xcadey only on Garmin.

gplama

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2026, 05:56:56 PM »
That's a LOT of testing. Nice work on that. I will point out our testing scopes are very different, so it's impossible to conclude the issues I had don't apply to your unit too.

I've had a look through the data but can't find any peak power tests >1000W. Did you perform any sprint testing? This was one critical issue I had with their meter. Sprints caused issues with cadence sensing and residual torque (meter not returning to zero point after peak power efforts). This isn't unique to XCadey. I've replicated this with Elilee EK01, and again on that unit with 1202 firmware (after they'd published a press release claiming it was solved).

Was there any outdoor testing performed with the XCadey Gen 2? Indoor there's a lot less external variables - less temperature drift, less bike movement/vibrations, less stop-start pedalling which can also indicate lag/delay with meters. I can't see any coasting in the datasets you've posted.

Here’s what I think is happening with the XCadey and a few other spider power meters I’ve tested lately: The hardware simply isn’t capable of reliably measuring cadence in all scenarios, especially during fast acceleration peak-power road sprints. Garmin ran into the same issue with the Vector 3/Rally x00 series, and only solved it once they added a gyroscope in the Rally x10. This wasn't covered/known as most review tests simply didn't perform any high peak power testing. On top of that, these budget spider designs appear to use materials and/or bonding glues that return to a non-zero torque state after high torque efforts. This was confirmed within the XCadey app. That behaviour isn’t unusual for spider-based meters, but it does require good auto-zero logic to correct itself when coasting or back-pedalling.

Finally, I don't believe I was sent a faulty unit by chance. I suspect they're all going to fail due to the hardware design. Someone has posted ~1000W sprint data in another thread here that appears to replicate the cadence/power reporting issue. XCadey has made no attempt to send another "non-faulty" unit to retest, which I'd expect given their response. I can literally retest within an hour of receiving a new unit, I can have a video published a few hours later. I've heard nothing from them for almost two months (25th Nov 2025).

Mariuszuzd

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2026, 02:05:45 AM »
Hi, thank you for the response! I agree that riding outdoor can change everything due to the temperature and vibrations, that is on my list.
1. I'm not a sprinter so I didn't have any real sprint, only something around 850-900w, I'm aiming for a longer rides in mountains,
2. Unfortunately due to weather I rode only on a smart trainer, we have winter in Poland,
3. Sure I will test it outside, but probably within 1-2 months, I will repeat the comparison for two power sources,
4. During my rides I haven't identified any cadence related issue of Xcadey, sometimes I had it with Elite Justo,
5. I should have around 1200-1300w in a sprint, so I will test it, maybe next week and I will provide the data,

TrackTyrant

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2026, 04:35:05 AM »
Hi, thanks for publising your results. I have the xcadey gen2 144bcd, used exclusively on track. Based on GPLamas review of the gen1, I did some testing dual recording with assioma duos, and found that I had to apply a negative 4% offset to the Xcadey PM for it to line up with the Assiomas. Other than that it seems pretty stable. Besides than some funky g-forces in the turns, this is a also very stable environment with no coasting, no bumps, and almost zero temp change.

I noticed in the GPLama review of the gen2 that you mentioned that there were no option to turn off auto zero. My PM has that option (on fw 41).  I cannot find it in the app, but on my Edge 830 it is hidden under "senor details" I believe. Also its not available immediately, but pops up maybe 30 sec after the PM has connected. Wonder if that could have influenced the results in some way.

nick82

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2026, 09:21:19 AM »
That's a LOT of testing. Nice work on that. I will point out our testing scopes are very different, so it's impossible to conclude the issues I had don't apply to your unit too.

I've had a look through the data but can't find any peak power tests >1000W. Did you perform any sprint testing? This was one critical issue I had with their meter. Sprints caused issues with cadence sensing and residual torque (meter not returning to zero point after peak power efforts). This isn't unique to XCadey. I've replicated this with Elilee EK01, and again on that unit with 1202 firmware (after they'd published a press release claiming it was solved).

Was there any outdoor testing performed with the XCadey Gen 2? Indoor there's a lot less external variables - less temperature drift, less bike movement/vibrations, less stop-start pedalling which can also indicate lag/delay with meters. I can't see any coasting in the datasets you've posted.

Here’s what I think is happening with the XCadey and a few other spider power meters I’ve tested lately: The hardware simply isn’t capable of reliably measuring cadence in all scenarios, especially during fast acceleration peak-power road sprints. Garmin ran into the same issue with the Vector 3/Rally x00 series, and only solved it once they added a gyroscope in the Rally x10. This wasn't covered/known as most review tests simply didn't perform any high peak power testing. On top of that, these budget spider designs appear to use materials and/or bonding glues that return to a non-zero torque state after high torque efforts. This was confirmed within the XCadey app. That behaviour isn’t unusual for spider-based meters, but it does require good auto-zero logic to correct itself when coasting or back-pedalling.

Finally, I don't believe I was sent a faulty unit by chance. I suspect they're all going to fail due to the hardware design. Someone has posted ~1000W sprint data in another thread here that appears to replicate the cadence/power reporting issue. XCadey has made no attempt to send another "non-faulty" unit to retest, which I'd expect given their response. I can literally retest within an hour of receiving a new unit, I can have a video published a few hours later. I've heard nothing from them for almost two months (25th Nov 2025).

are you going to review the magene p515

patliean1

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2026, 09:46:57 AM »
This is some next level testing. Thank you kind sir!

And thank you for showing me another power meter testing website besides the paywall I've been using with DC Rainmaker for years.

I am currently testing the Magene TEO 515 against various PMs on my smart trainer. So far I am seeing a very constant 2% increase in power reading on every ride. If I ever share the results here I'll make a separate thread out of respect to OP's hard work.

geramonta

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2026, 02:05:14 AM »
That's a LOT of testing. Nice work on that. I will point out our testing scopes are very different, so it's impossible to conclude the issues I had don't apply to your unit too.

I've had a look through the data but can't find any peak power tests >1000W. Did you perform any sprint testing? This was one critical issue I had with their meter. Sprints caused issues with cadence sensing and residual torque (meter not returning to zero point after peak power efforts). This isn't unique to XCadey. I've replicated this with Elilee EK01, and again on that unit with 1202 firmware (after they'd published a press release claiming it was solved).

Was there any outdoor testing performed with the XCadey Gen 2? Indoor there's a lot less external variables - less temperature drift, less bike movement/vibrations, less stop-start pedalling which can also indicate lag/delay with meters. I can't see any coasting in the datasets you've posted.

Here’s what I think is happening with the XCadey and a few other spider power meters I’ve tested lately: The hardware simply isn’t capable of reliably measuring cadence in all scenarios, especially during fast acceleration peak-power road sprints. Garmin ran into the same issue with the Vector 3/Rally x00 series, and only solved it once they added a gyroscope in the Rally x10. This wasn't covered/known as most review tests simply didn't perform any high peak power testing. On top of that, these budget spider designs appear to use materials and/or bonding glues that return to a non-zero torque state after high torque efforts. This was confirmed within the XCadey app. That behaviour isn’t unusual for spider-based meters, but it does require good auto-zero logic to correct itself when coasting or back-pedalling.

Finally, I don't believe I was sent a faulty unit by chance. I suspect they're all going to fail due to the hardware design. Someone has posted ~1000W sprint data in another thread here that appears to replicate the cadence/power reporting issue. XCadey has made no attempt to send another "non-faulty" unit to retest, which I'd expect given their response. I can literally retest within an hour of receiving a new unit, I can have a video published a few hours later. I've heard nothing from them for almost two months (25th Nov 2025).
I noticed that Xcadey has released a new firmware version. According to the release notes, they have fixed the cadence measurement issue as well as the power spikes recovery errors that occurred after short, high-power efforts.

These are the release notes:
https://xcadey.com/2026/06/16/xcadey-gen2-spider-power-meter-v109-stable-firmware-released-battery-life-extended-to-350-hours/

In case you'd like to take a look.

Rolle2k

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2026, 07:45:53 AM »
oh, great. Hopefully we get a full test from @GPLama soon then  ;)

Re: Xcadey GEN 2 - power sources comparison
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2026, 08:11:30 AM »
I recently scapped my Xcadey power meter and mounted another bulletproof Power2Max.

I dig a hole in a plastic cover of Xcadey. Twice. First time I got unstable offset and odd power values that turned out to be a crack that let moisture in. Repaired by an Xcadey dealer. Next time it was just a big hole that led to the same issue and at the end it just died. It was my newest power meter, the rest is just ancient now and works like day one.
I had several spider power meters, I treat every bike rather harsh and this happened only with this Xcadey. Twice! It's very, very fragile. One light rock hit and it's dead. It also showed around 10% more than my two Power2Maxes and a Quarq Dzero, but chinese app allows to adjust it so it's fine. All tested against the same turbo trainer, you can't directly compare multiple spiders :)
Charging port is also a fragile area. Anyway, you can look at my direct comparsion photo (attachment) and see it looks very thin and light in comparsion.
Chinese carbon is great but electronics is something I prefer to avoid. Xcadey was definitely an unsuccessfull experiment.