EPOMAKER Split70 vs EPOMAKER TH108
The short answer
EPOMAKER TH108 wins this comparison with a score of 68/100, ahead of EPOMAKER Split70 (64).
Scores are computed from 6 public spec attributes; missing values stay marked unknown in tables and are imputed at the category median, never passed off as measured.
At a glance
0–100 per group, normalized within the category · Tap a group for details
Best price now
Cheap alternatives
Logitech MX Keys S
Razer BlackWidow V4 Pro
Aula F99
MCHOSE G75 Pro
Lofree -68
B.FRIENDit K23
The record
Grouped and collapsible · Tap a group to fold
Design4▾
| EPOMAKER Split70 | EPOMAKER TH108 | |
|---|---|---|
| Layout | — | QWERTY |
| Hot-swappable | — | ✓ |
| Per-key RGB | — | ✓ |
| Key count | — | 108 |
Connect1▾
| EPOMAKER Split70 | EPOMAKER TH108 | |
|---|---|---|
| Wired | — | ✓ |
Feel1▾
| EPOMAKER Split70 | EPOMAKER TH108 | |
|---|---|---|
| Switch type | — | Linear |
Data sources: Amazon
FAQ
Which is better, EPOMAKER Split70 or EPOMAKER TH108?
EPOMAKER TH108 has the higher overall score (68 vs 64).
What are the main differences?
Scores are computed from 6 public spec attributes; missing values stay marked unknown in tables and are imputed at the category median, never passed off as measured.
How are the scores calculated?
We normalize 6 public spec attributes within the category and weight them by group into a 0–100 score; missing values are inherited from spec-identical twins or imputed at the category median, so a sparse spec sheet never earns an advantage. The methodology is public.