Compared samples: one EB H11 LEDr lamp and one OSRAM NIGHT BREAKER LED SMART ECE H11 LEDr lamp. Every photograph and measurement below belongs to these two samples. The complete records remain available in the individual EB H11 LEDr review and OSRAM H11 LEDr review.
Test conditions
Both lamps operated at 13.2 V in a 26°C environment. After a 30-minute warm-up, illuminance was recorded at the same E-Mark panel points from 3.5 m. Emitting-area surface temperature was also recorded at 30 minutes, and fan noise was measured from 3.5 cm.
Key Comparison Points
- Packaging: EB uses a smaller and lighter package; OSRAM uses a formed insert and printed instructions.
- Lamp construction: Both samples share the H11 connector, PGJ19-2 keyed base and metal retaining spring. Their rear heat sinks, cables and external drivers differ.
- Emitting geometry: EB has a continuous rectangular emitting window and a smaller distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces. The illuminated Box-system images show different B1–B3 coverage.
- Beam and illuminance: Both samples produce a central-right hotspot. EB is higher at the right-side and peak points, while OSRAM is higher through the centre-left and slightly lower at B50L.
- Temperature and noise: EB records the lower emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes; OSRAM records the lower fan-noise level at 3.5 cm.
1.Packaging Section
Compare the contents, package size and empty-box weight to assess storage space and transport burden.
Package and included contents
The first comparison covers kit contents and how the package organises them.
Package and included contents supplied with the reviewed EB H11 LEDr.
Package and included contents supplied with the reviewed OSRAM H11 LEDr.
Included contents: EB is shown with two lamps, two external drivers, two plain inner boxes and an accessory bag. OSRAM includes a formed insert and printed installation instructions.
External package dimensions
External package dimensions affect warehouse space, carton density and the per-unit logistics burden when charges are volume-based.
Dimensions and volume:The EB package measures 118 × 55 × 120 mm, with a nominal external volume of approximately 0.779 L. The OSRAM package measures 136 × 57 × 161 mm, approximately 1.248 L.
Empty-package weight
Empty-package mass separates product mass from the transport weight added by the packaging itself.
Measured mass:The EB empty package weighs 51 g and the OSRAM empty package 90 g, a difference of 39 g per box.
Packaging Size, Weight and Presentation
| Differentiating item | EB | OSRAM | Recorded difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Package dimensions | 118 × 55 × 120 mm | 136 × 57 × 161 mm | EB package is more compact |
| Nominal external volume | 0.779 L | 1.248 L | EB is 37.60% lower |
| Empty-package mass | 51 g | 90 g | EB is 39 g lighter, a 43.33% reduction |
| Package presentation | Main hardware presented directly with two plain inner boxes | Formed insert and printed installation instructions | Different presentation methods |
Conclusion: The table shows that the EB package occupies 37.60% less volume and its empty box weighs 43.33% less. For volume buyers, the smaller box and lower packaging mass improve warehouse and master-carton utilisation while reducing transport weight attributable to packaging. OSRAM’s formed insert and printed instructions provide a more complete retail unboxing presentation.
2.Lamp Construction Comparison
Both samples use the same H11 connector, PGJ19-2 keyed base and metal retaining spring. The relevant differences are behind the base: the heat sink, cable and external driver.
Lamp and external-driver overview
The front views compare the heat-sink, cable and external-driver designs.
Lamp construction: Both samples use fan-assisted cooling and an external driver. EB combines a cylindrical rear heat sink with braided cable and a narrow driver housing; OSRAM uses a radial-finned heat sink, smooth black cable and a broader rectangular driver.
H11 Connector Interface
The images show the connector face used by each sample.
Shared structure: 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.
Shared structure: Both samples use the same keyed PGJ19-2 mounting structure, with asymmetric metal locating tabs and a red sealing ring.
Base installation-section measurement
The caliper readings compare the diameters of the two base installation sections.
Installation-section diameter: EB measures 18.88 mm and OSRAM 18.73 mm—a difference of 0.15 mm, with EB measuring 0.80% larger.
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 incorporate a metal retaining spring in the lamp base.
Lamp-Construction Comparison
| Item | EB | OSRAM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Installation-section diameter | 18.88 mm | 18.73 mm | EB is 0.15 mm larger |
| Rear heat sink | Cylindrical | Radial-finned | Different geometry |
| Cable | Braided | Smooth black | Different construction |
| External driver | Narrow and elongated | Broad and rectangular | Different proportions |
| Metal retaining spring | Present | Present | / |
Conclusion and recommendation: Both samples use the same basic H11 mounting arrangement, including a metal retaining spring, and their installation-section diameters differ by only 0.15 mm. The main construction differences are the rear heat sink, cable and external-driver housing. Buyers should therefore verify and record the dimensions of these rear components when preparing product specifications or evaluating installation-space requirements.
3.LED emitting structure and Box system
Comparison focus: This section compares the visible emitting-area geometry, the distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces and their positions within the Box system. The applicable category requirements are available in 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.
Visible emitting areas: EB uses a continuous rectangular phosphor window, while OSRAM uses three separate rectangular segments.
Distance between opposing LED emitting surfaces
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.
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.
Measured result:EB measures 1.154 mm, compared with 2.446 mm for OSRAM. Both are within the 2.9 mm requirement, but EB is 1.292 mm thinner, or about 52.82% lower.
In simple terms, both meet the dimensional requirement, but EB has a noticeably more compact emitting structure. Whether that actually produces a better beam is something we need to confirm in the beam-pattern and illuminance tests below.
Box system reference-frame check
The table below summarizes the luminous-flux requirements for each area in the H11 LEDr Box System and explains how they relate to actual beam performance. The main objective is to keep most of the light concentrated in Area B and B1/B2/B3, while limiting excessive light in Areas A and C and unwanted emission in Area D. This helps maintain the intended emitting position, support a controlled beam pattern, and reduce stray light and glare.
| Area | UNECE Requirement | What the Area Represents | Why It Matters to Beam Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+B+C | ≥ 90% of total luminous flux E | The main effective light-emitting region | Too much light outside A+B+C indicates poor light concentration and can produce more stray light in the projected beam. |
| Area A | ≤ 10% of A+B+C | One side of the core emitting region | Excessive light in Area A shifts the luminous distribution away from the core region and can move the hotspot or alter the beam distribution. |
| Area B | ≥ 72% of A+B+C | The core light-emitting region | Insufficient light in Area B means less luminous flux is concentrated in the core region, which can reduce beam focus and optical control. |
| B1,B2,B3 | Each ≥ 15% of Area B | Three sections that define the distribution within the core B region | Insufficient light in any section makes the core emission less uniform and can affect beam uniformity, hotspot position and cutoff formation. |
| Area C | ≤ 22% of A+B+C | The opposite side of the core emitting region | Excessive light in Area C shifts the luminous distribution away from the core region and can alter the hotspot or projected beam distribution. |
| Area D | Required contrast between A+B+C and D | The glare-control region outside the main emitting area | Visible light or light spots in Area D indicate unwanted emission outside the intended light-emitting region and can lead to glare. |
| Area | What the Standard Focuses On | EB Observation | OSRAM Observation | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A+B+C | Most of the luminous flux should remain within the defined effective light-emitting region | The main emitting band is largely concentrated within A+B+C, with little visible emission outside the region | The main emitting area is also largely within A+B+C, but its overall position is noticeably higher | Both products keep most of the visible emission near the intended region, but EB is positioned more closely to the center of the reference frame |
| Area A | Limits excessive luminous flux on one side of the core B region to prevent the emitting position from shifting | Only limited emission extends into Area A, with the main emission beginning near B1 | No obvious large-area emission is visible in Area A | No clear abnormality is visible for either product. The actual luminous-flux ratio is required for a quantitative comparison |
| Area B | The core light-emitting region where most of the useful luminous flux should be concentrated | The main emitting band overlaps the vertical range of Area B more completely | The main emitting band is clearly shifted upward, leaving less coverage in the lower part of Area B | This is the clearest difference. EB aligns more closely with the core B region, while OSRAM shows a noticeable upward shift |
| B1/B2/B3 | Checks whether the core emitting region is continuously distributed rather than concentrated in only one section | B1, B2 and B3 are all covered by a continuous emitting band with relatively complete vertical coverage | All three sections are illuminated, but most of the emission is concentrated toward their upper portions | EB shows more complete coverage across B1–B3, while OSRAM’s distribution is consistently shifted upward |
| Area C | Limits excessive luminous flux on the opposite side of Area B to prevent the emitting position from shifting toward C | The right end of the emitting band extends visibly into the C side | The emitting area also approaches the C boundary, with less visible extension | No reliable performance advantage can be concluded from the image alone. Actual Area C luminous-flux data is needed |
| Area D | Controls unwanted emission outside the main light-emitting region; visible light or light spots here may contribute to glare | Area D remains essentially dark in the illuminated image, with no obvious isolated light spots | Several small visible light spots appear within Area D | EB shows cleaner control of unwanted emission. OSRAM’s visible light spots in Area D may increase the risk of glare |
Overall Comparison
Across the four images, EB’s clearest advantage is the position of its core emitting area. Its main emitting band aligns more closely with Area B, with B1, B2 and B3 covered more completely. OSRAM also covers all three sections, but its entire emitting band is noticeably shifted upward, leaving less coverage in the lower part of Area B.
A second clear difference appears in Area D. EB keeps this region essentially dark, while OSRAM shows several visible light spots outside the main emitting area. This indicates more unwanted emission outside the intended light-emitting region and may increase the risk of glare.
Overall, EB shows better alignment with the core B region and cleaner control of unwanted emission in Area D, while OSRAM shows a clear upward shift in its main emitting area and visible light spots in the D region.
4. Beam Pattern and Illuminance Comparison
The wall photographs show the shape of the beam, the rainbow maps show how intensity spreads around the hotspot, and the nine-point readings identify where the measured differences occur.
White-wall beam pattern
Both products produce a recognizable low-beam pattern, but there is a clear difference in light control around the cutoff. EB keeps more of the light below the cutoff, with a cleaner area above it, while OSRAM shows more visible light spreading around and above the rising section of the cutoff.
This result is consistent with the earlier structural tests. EB has a smaller distance between the opposing LED emitting surfaces, giving it a thinner and more compact emitting geometry. Its main emitting area also aligns more closely with the core B region of the Box System, giving the headlamp optics a more accurately positioned light source to work with.
OSRAM has a thicker emitting geometry and its main emitting area is shifted upward. Visible light spots were also observed in Area D, which corresponds with the additional light seen above the cutoff in the white-wall test.
Comparison result: EB provides better control of light above the cutoff, while OSRAM shows more upward light spread. This indicates that the differences in emitting thickness and emitting-area position are reflected in the final low-beam pattern.
Rainbow map and hotspot distribution
The rainbow maps are useful for showing where the light energy is concentrated and how it spreads away from the hotspot, rather than simply comparing cutoff shape.
Both products form a hotspot slightly to the right of center, but the energy distribution is different. EB shows a broader and more continuous red/orange high-illuminance area, with a smoother transition into the surrounding yellow and green zones. OSRAM has a narrower high-illuminance core, with a more noticeable upward extension on the right side of the hotspot.
This pattern is consistent with the earlier Box System comparison. EB’s main emitting area aligns more closely with Area B and B1/B2/B3, giving the headlamp optics a more stable emitting position. OSRAM’s emitting area is shifted upward, and a similar upward tendency appears in its high-illuminance distribution on the rainbow map.
The difference in emitting thickness may also contribute. EB’s opposing emitting surfaces measure 1.154 mm, compared with 2.446 mm for OSRAM, giving EB a more compact emitting geometry. However, the hotspot shape cannot be attributed to emitting thickness alone, as the final distribution also depends on the LED intensity profile and the headlamp optics.
Comparison result: EB shows a more continuous concentration of light around the target hotspot, while OSRAM shows a more noticeable upward shift in the high-illuminance region. This supports the earlier finding that differences in emitting-area position can be reflected in the final hotspot and energy distribution.
Nine-point illuminance with B50L focus
The nine-point record turns the visual differences into specific B50L, centre, left, right and peak readings.
Key readings: B50L is close—32.0 lux for OSRAM and 34.4 lux for EB, a difference of 2.4 lux. At EMAX, EB reaches 1,741 lux versus 1,670 lux. EB is also higher at 25R, 50R and 75R, while OSRAM records the higher centre-left values.
How to Read the Nine-Point Results
| Point or group | Measurement purpose | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| B50L | Glare-control point above and left of the cut-off | Lower illuminance is preferable |
| 50L | Controlled left-side distribution below the cut-off | Must be assessed against the applicable upper and lower limits |
| 25L | Left-side illumination | Higher values indicate more light at this point; it is not a glare-control point |
| 50V / 25V | Central distribution | Shows the amount of light placed in the centre |
| 75R / 50R / 25R | Right-side distribution | Shows the amount of light placed at the right-side reference points |
| EMAX | Peak illuminance | Records the highest measured illuminance |
Complete Nine-Point Illuminance Data
| Point | EB (lux) | OSRAM (lux) | Difference (EB − OSRAM) | EB relative to OSRAM | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B50L | 34.4 | 32.0 | +2.4 | +7.50% | OSRAM records 2.4 lux less at the glare-control point |
| 25L | 278 | 366.6 | −88.6 | −24.17% | OSRAM is higher at the left-side point |
| 50L | 402.3 | 516.4 | −114.1 | −22.10% | OSRAM is higher; applicable limits determine the result |
| 50V | 1085 | 1192 | −107 | −8.98% | OSRAM is higher at the central point |
| 25V | 1006 | 1022 | −16 | −1.57% | OSRAM is slightly higher at the central point |
| 75R | 1131 | 1037 | +94 | +9.06% | EB is higher at the right-side point |
| 50R | 1646 | 1568 | +78 | +4.97% | EB is higher at the right-side point |
| 25R | 422.3 | 361.8 | +60.5 | +16.72% | EB is higher at the right-side point |
| EMAX | 1741 | 1670 | +71 | +4.25% | EB records the higher peak illuminance |
Conclusion: B50L and EMAX describe different parts of the beam. OSRAM records the lower B50L value, but the two samples are separated by only 2.4 lux: 32.0 versus 34.4 lux. EB records the higher EMAX at 1,741 lux, 4.25% above OSRAM, and is also higher at all three right-side points—25R, 50R and 75R. OSRAM places more measured light through the centre-left. For buyers, EB’s advantage is the combination of higher peak output and consistently higher right-side readings, rather than a single isolated value. These 3.5 m readings compare the two samples; approval limits require the prescribed regulatory test setup.
5. Temperature and Fan Noise
Comparison focus: Emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes and fan noise measured at 3.5 cm.
Emitting-Area Surface Temperature After 30 Minutes
This measurement compares emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes under the same conditions.
Temperature readings:The emitting-area surface temperature is 67.3°C for EB and 74.3°C for OSRAM.
Operating noise at 3.5 cm from the fan
This measurement compares operating sound level 3.5 cm from the cooling fan.
Noise at 3.5 cm:EB records 54.6 dBA and OSRAM 48.9 dBA, a difference of 5.7 dBA.
| Metric | Condition | EB | OSRAM | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emitting-area surface temperature | 13.2 V, 26 °C, after 30 minutes | 67.3 °C | 74.3 °C | EB is 7.0 °C lower |
| Fan noise | Measured 3.5 cm from the fan | 54.6 dBA | 48.9 dBA | OSRAM is 5.7 dBA lower |
Conclusion: After 30 minutes, EB’s emitting-area surface temperature is 7.0 °C lower. At 3.5 cm, OSRAM’s fan noise is 5.7 dBA lower.
6.What This Comparison Means for Customers
- EB’s package uses 37.60% less volume and 43.33% less empty-package mass. For bulk orders, this reduces the carton space and packaging weight required for storage and transport.
- EB uses a continuous rectangular emitting window, with 1.154 mm between opposing LED emitting surfaces compared with OSRAM’s 2.446 mm. This gives EB a more compact dual-sided light-source geometry.
- EB records higher illuminance at 25R, 50R, 75R and EMAX. At EMAX, EB measures 1,741 lux versus OSRAM’s 1,670 lux.
- After 30 minutes of operation, EB’s emitting-area surface temperature is 7.0 °C lower than OSRAM’s.
- At B50L, EB measures 34.4 lux and OSRAM 32.0 lux—a difference of only 2.4 lux. Because this is a glare-control point, the lower OSRAM reading is preferable, but the two results are close.
- The same comparison also records OSRAM’s higher centre-left illuminance, lower fan noise at 3.5 cm and more structured retail packaging.
Both samples share the H11 connector, PGJ19-2 keyed base and metal retaining spring. Overall, the measured data gives EB its clearest advantages in packaging efficiency, compact emitting geometry, right-side and peak illuminance, and emitting-area surface temperature.
EB vs OSRAM H11 LEDr FAQ
Were the two lamps tested under the same conditions?
Yes. Both lamps operated at 13.2 V in a 26 degrees C environment. Illuminance was recorded at the same E-Mark panel points at 3.5 m after a 30-minute warm-up, temperature was recorded after 30 minutes, and noise was measured at 3.5 cm.
What does the 1.154 mm versus 2.446 mm measurement describe?
It is the distance between the two opposing LED emitting surfaces. The EB sample measured 1.154 mm and the OSRAM sample measured 2.446 mm.
How did the illuminance distribution differ?
EB was higher at 75R, 50R, 25R and EMAX. OSRAM was higher at 25L, 50L, 50V and 25V, and it recorded the lower B50L value.
How did the temperature and noise records differ?
EB recorded the lower emitting-area surface temperature, at 67.3 degrees C after 30 minutes. OSRAM recorded the lower operating-noise value, at 48.9 dBA measured 3.5 cm from the fan.
Author: Jack Liu, Co-founder & Product Director, LEDOAUTO
Regulatory check: LEDOAUTO Engineering Team, verified against official UNECE documents
Last updated: 27 Aug 2026
Update note: rewrote the comparison around reader-first explanations and section-specific insights while preserving the original measurements.
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.
