EB vs OSRAM H11 LEDr: A Side-by-Side Comparison

These two H11 LEDr samples look similar at the connector, but the photographs tell a more useful story once the cartons, emitters and beam are viewed in sequence. This H11 LED bulb comparison follows what the camera and instruments recorded: packaging footprint, PGJ19-2 construction, source geometry, projected distribution, surface temperature and fan noise. EB uses the more compact package and closer opposing LED emitting surfaces; OSRAM shows a broader centre-left distribution, a lower B50L reading and a quieter fan.

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 37.60% less nominal box volume and 43.33% less empty-package mass. OSRAM uses a larger formed insert and includes printed installation instructions.
• Lamp construction: both samples use an H11 connector, keyed PGJ19-2 base and metal retaining spring. Their rear heat sinks, cable coverings and external-driver housings differ.
• Emitting geometry: EB uses one continuous phosphor window and measures 1.154 mm between opposing emitting surfaces. OSRAM uses three visible segments and measures 2.446 mm.
• Beam distribution: EB records higher values at 25R, 50R, 75R and EMAX. OSRAM is higher at 25L, 50L, 50V and 25V and records the lower B50L result.
• Temperature and noise: EB is 7.0°C cooler at the measured emitting-area surface after 30 minutes. OSRAM is 5.7 dBA quieter at 3.5 cm.

Packaging Section

Compare the contents, package size and empty-box weight to assess storage space and transport burden.

1.Package and included contents

The first comparison covers kit contents and how the package organises them.

EB includes two lamps, two external drivers, two plain inner boxes and an accessory bag. OSRAM uses a formed insert and includes printed installation instructions. Both outer packages have hanging-display hooks for peg-hook retail presentation.

2.External package dimensions

External package dimensions affect warehouse space, carton density and the per-unit logistics burden when charges are volume-based.

EB measures 118 × 55 × 120 mm, while OSRAM measures 136 × 57 × 161 mm. Their nominal external volumes are 0.779 L and 1.248 L respectively.

3.Empty-package weight

Empty-package mass separates product mass from the transport weight added by the packaging itself.

The empty EB package weighs 51 g and the OSRAM package weighs 90 g.

Packaging Size, Weight and Presentation

Item	EB	OSRAM	Comparison
External dimensions	118 × 55 × 120 mm	136 × 57 × 161 mm	EB is smaller in all three recorded dimensions.
Nominal external volume	0.779 L	1.248 L	EB uses 37.60% less nominal box volume.
Empty-package weight	51 g	90 g	EB is 39 g lighter (43.33%).
Internal presentation	Two plain inner boxes and an accessory bag	Formed insert and printed installation instructions	EB uses a simpler layout; OSRAM provides a more structured retail presentation.
Hanging-display feature	Hanging hook present	Hanging hook present	Both outer packages support direct peg-hook display.

EB uses 37.60% less nominal box volume and 43.33% less empty-packaging weight. Across 100 packages, this represents approximately 46.9 L less nominal box volume and 3.9 kg less empty packaging, helping reduce storage and transport demand for bulk orders. OSRAM uses a larger fitted insert and includes printed instructions, giving it a more structured retail presentation. Both packages include hanging hooks and can be placed directly on peg-hook displays.

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.

1.Lamp and external-driver overview

The front views compare the heat-sink, cable and external-driver designs.

Both samples use fan-assisted cooling and an external driver. EB combines a cylindrical rear heat sink with braided leads and a narrow driver housing. OSRAM uses a radial-finned heat sink, smooth black cable and a broader rectangular driver.

2.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.

3.PGJ19-2 base and locating features

The H11 LEDr category specification identifies PGJ19-2 as the applicable cap designation and refers the interface dimensions to IEC 60061.

H11 Base Standard Reference

Reference	What it specifies	Structural effect	Purpose
UN R37 and the H11 LEDr category sheet	H11 LEDr uses the H11 PGJ19-2 cap designation.	Defines the applicable H11 mounting interface.	Keeps the replacement source within the H11 category configuration.
IEC 60061-1, sheet 7004-110-3	Defines the PGJ19 cap dimensions and locating features relevant to interchangeability, including the three-tab interface.	Controls the installation direction and the cap’s reference position in the holder.	Allows the cap to mate with the corresponding PGJ19 holder.

Shared structure: Both samples use the same keyed PGJ19-2 mounting structure, with asymmetric metal locating tabs and a red sealing ring.

4.Base installation-section measurement

The caliper readings compare the diameters of the two base installation sections.

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

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.

5.Metal retaining spring

The metal retaining spring applies elastic preload to the mounting interface. It secures the seated lamp, while the keyed features control orientation and the sealing ring closes the interface.

Retaining-Spring Standard Reference

Reference	What it specifies	Structural effect	Purpose
IEC 60061-2, PGJ19 holder and connector sheet 7005-110-3	Defines the corresponding PGJ19 holder and connector interface, including its retaining arrangement.	Applies elastic preload to keep the cap seated in its installed position.	Secures the light source after the keyed base establishes its orientation.

A separate metal retaining spring is visible beneath the flange on both samples. It supports the seated position after the keyed base establishes orientation.

Lamp-Construction Comparison

Item	EB	OSRAM	Practical difference
Installation-section diameter	18.88 mm	18.73 mm	EB is 0.15 mm larger at the measured section.
Locating structure	Keyed PGJ19-2 base with metal locating tabs	Keyed PGJ19-2 base with metal locating tabs	Both use the same visible locating principle to establish installation direction and reference position.
Sealing structure	Red sealing ring	Red sealing ring	Both seal the mounting interface using the same visible arrangement.
Metal retaining spring	Present	Present	Both apply elastic preload to keep the lamp seated after the keyed base establishes its orientation.
Rear cooling assembly	Cylindrical heat sink and fan	Radial-finned heat sink and fan	The different profiles require different amounts and shapes of rear installation space.
Cable	Braided outer covering	Smooth black outer covering	The leads differ in construction and bending behaviour.
External driver	Narrow, elongated housing	Broader rectangular housing	Each shape requires a different driver position behind the headlamp.

Both samples use the same visible PGJ19-2 locating, sealing and spring-retention arrangement, and their measured installation-section diameters differ by only 0.15 mm. In the tested samples, EB uses a cylindrical heat sink, braided cable and visibly narrower driver housing, while OSRAM uses a radial-finned heat sink, smooth cable and broader rectangular driver. EB’s measured advantage in this section is not the base diameter, but the narrower driver profile and bundled braided cable visible behind the base, which reduce the number of wide components that must be positioned within the rear housing.

LED emitting structure and Box system

The close-ups compare the emitting surfaces, the micrometer records their separation, and the Box images show where each source sits in the reference frame. The criteria follow the UNECE H11 LEDr Configuration-2 reference.

1.LED emitting-surface close-up

The close-ups compare the shape and arrangement of the visible LED emitting areas.

EB uses one continuous rectangular phosphor window. OSRAM divides the visible emitting surface into three rectangular segments, creating two physical gaps across the source.

2.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.

3.Box system reference-frame check

The H11 LEDr Box System checks whether most luminous flux remains in Area B, is distributed across B1–B3, and is limited in Areas A, C and D. These controls help preserve source position, beam focus and stray-light control.

H11 LEDr Box-System Reference Criteria

Area	UNECE requirement	Role	Optical relevance
A+B+C	≥ 90% of total luminous flux E	Main emitting envelope	Keeps at least 90% of the total luminous flux within the defined main emitting region.
Area A	≤ 10% of A+B+C	One side of Area B	Limits luminous flux on one side of Area B to prevent the distribution from shifting away from the core.
Area B	≥ 72% of A+B+C	Core emitting region	Concentrates at least 72% of the A+B+C luminous flux within the core emitting region.
B1 / B2 / B3	Each ≥ 15% of Area B	Three subdivisions of the core	Ensures that each subdivision receives at least 15% of the luminous flux in Area B.
Area C	≤ 22% of A+B+C	Opposite side of Area B	Limits luminous flux on the opposite side of Area B to prevent excessive off-centre distribution.
Area D	Required contrast between A+B+C and D	Region outside the main emitter	Restricts luminous flux outside the main emitting region to reduce stray light and glare.

The unlit Box-system photographs show the position and edges of each lamp’s phosphor surface without illumination obscuring them. The EB H11 LEDr phosphor surface covers more of the marked height of Area B, while the OSRAM H11 LEDr phosphor surface is positioned higher within the same reference frame.

4.Box system with the emitting area illuminated

The illuminated Box-system photographs show that both lamps cover Areas B1–B3 and keep Area D visually dark. The EB H11 LEDr illuminated band aligns more closely with the core Area B region, while the OSRAM H11 LEDr illuminated band is positioned higher within the upper reference framework.

Box-System Image Comparison

Area	Reference focus	EB observation	OSRAM observation
A+B+C	Main emitting envelope	The EB H11 LEDr phosphor strip extends across Area B and into Area C.	The OSRAM H11 LEDr phosphor segments remain within the A–C framework but sit higher relative to Area B.
Area A	Emitting material on one side of B	The left edge of the EB phosphor strip begins near the A/B boundary.	The left edge of the OSRAM phosphor surface also begins near the A/B boundary.
Area B	Core emitting region	The EB phosphor strip covers more of the marked height of Area B.	The OSRAM phosphor surface occupies the upper part of Area B, leaving more of its lower portion uncovered.
B1 / B2 / B3	Coverage across the three subdivisions	One continuous EB phosphor strip spans all three subdivisions.	The segmented OSRAM phosphor surface also spans all three subdivisions but is positioned higher.
Area C	Emitting material beyond B	The right end of the EB phosphor strip extends visibly into Area C.	The right end of the OSRAM phosphor surface also reaches Area C.
Area D	Region outside the main emitting area	The EB phosphor surface does not enter Area D, which remains visually dark in the illuminated image.	The OSRAM phosphor surface does not enter Area D, which also remains visually dark in the illuminated image.

Measured Emitting-Structure Difference

Item	EB	OSRAM	Result
Distance between opposing emitting surfaces	1.154 mm	2.446 mm	EB is 1.292 mm thinner (52.82%).

The EB H11 LEDr combines a continuous phosphor strip with a 52.82% thinner opposing-surface structure. Its emitting surface also covers more of the marked height of Area B, while the segmented OSRAM surface sits higher within the same reference frame. For buyers, EB provides a thinner, uninterrupted and more centrally aligned emitting geometry for the headlamp optics to control.

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.

1.White-wall beam pattern

Both products produce a recognizable low-beam pattern, but they differ around the cutoff. EB keeps more light below the cutoff and leaves the area above it cleaner, while OSRAM shows more light spreading around and above the rising section.

This difference is consistent with their emitting structures. EB has a 52.82% thinner opposing-surface distance and its emitting area aligns more closely with the core Area B region. OSRAM’s thicker emitting structure sits higher within the Box-system frame. In the white-wall test, these structural differences correspond to better control above the cutoff for EB and more upward light spread for OSRAM.

2.Rainbow map and hotspot distribution

The EB rainbow map shows a broad, continuous red-orange hotspot with a smooth transition into the surrounding yellow and green zones. The OSRAM rainbow map shows a narrower high-illuminance core whose right side extends farther upward.

The Box-system images help explain the vertical difference. The EB emitting band covers more of the marked height of Area B, placing the source closer to the intended core region. The OSRAM emitting band sits higher, which changes the angle at which its light enters the headlamp optics and corresponds with the upward extension visible on the right side of its hotspot.

The emitting structure also affects how tightly the optics can collect the light. EB uses a continuous phosphor window and measures 1.154 mm between opposing emitting surfaces, while OSRAM uses a segmented surface and measures 2.446 mm. EB’s thinner, uninterrupted source gives the optics a more compact emitting area to control, helping produce the smoother and more continuous energy distribution shown in its rainbow map.

3.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.

Pattern and Illuminance Comparison Summary

Comparison	EB observation	OSRAM observation	Result
White-wall beam pattern	More light remains below the cutoff, leaving the area above it cleaner.	More light spreads around and above the rising cutoff section.	EB provides better control of upward light around the cutoff.
Rainbow map and hotspot	A broader, more continuous red-orange core transitions smoothly into the surrounding yellow and green zones.	A narrower high-illuminance core shows a more noticeable upward extension on the right.	EB concentrates light more continuously around the target hotspot.
Nine-point illuminance	Higher at EMAX and all three right-side points: 25R, 50R and 75R.	Lower at B50L and higher through the centre-left points.	EB delivers 4.25% higher peak illuminance and consistently stronger right-side readings; OSRAM records 2.4 lux less at B50L.

The three comparisons show a consistent advantage for EB. Its white-wall pattern keeps the area above the cutoff cleaner, while its rainbow map shows a broader and more continuous concentration of light around the hotspot. The measured data supports these visual observations: EB reaches 1,741 lux at EMAX and exceeds OSRAM at 25R, 50R and 75R. OSRAM records the lower B50L value and places more light through the centre-left, but EB provides the stronger overall combination of cutoff control, hotspot continuity, peak illuminance and right-side illumination.

Temperature and Fan Noise

Comparison focus: Emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes and fan noise measured at 3.5 cm.

1.Emitting-Area Surface Temperature After 30 Minutes

This measurement compares emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes under the same conditions.

After 30 minutes at 13.2 V in a 26°C environment, EB recorded 67.3°C and OSRAM recorded 74.3°C at the emitting-area surface.

2.Operating noise at 3.5 cm from the fan

This measurement compares operating sound level 3.5 cm from the cooling fan.

At 3.5 cm from the cooling fan, EB recorded 54.6 dBA and OSRAM recorded 48.9 dBA.

Temperature and Fan-Noise Results

Metric	Test condition	EB	OSRAM	Result
Emitting-area surface temperature	13.2 V, 26°C ambient, after 30 minutes	67.3°C	74.3°C	EB records a 7.0°C lower surface temperature.
Fan noise	Measured 3.5 cm from the cooling fan	54.6 dBA	48.9 dBA	OSRAM records a 5.7 dBA lower noise level.

EB maintains a 7.0°C lower emitting-area surface temperature after 30 minutes, giving it the thermal advantage in this test. OSRAM operates more quietly, recording 5.7 dBA less fan noise at 3.5 cm. Buyers prioritizing lower LED operating temperature may prefer EB, while those prioritizing quieter fan operation may favour OSRAM.

What This Comparison Means for Buyers

• Packaging: EB uses 37.60% less box volume and 43.33% less empty-packaging weight, reducing storage and freight demand.
• Construction: Both use a keyed PGJ19-2 base and metal retaining spring. EB adds a narrower driver profile.
• Emitting geometry: EB’s continuous emitting structure measures 1.154 mm between opposing surfaces—52.82% thinner than OSRAM.
• Light distribution: EB produces a cleaner cutoff area, a more continuous hotspot, higher EMAX and stronger readings at 25R, 50R and 75R.
• Temperature and noise: EB runs 7.0°C cooler at the emitting surface, while OSRAM records 5.7 dBA less fan noise.

EB offers the stronger combination of packaging efficiency, compact emitting geometry, right-side illumination and thermal performance. OSRAM’s main advantages are its retail presentation, centre-left output and quieter fan. For wholesale buyers prioritizing logistics efficiency and balanced optical performance, EB is the more competitive option.

EB vs OSRAM H11 LEDr FAQ

---

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.

References