Amana 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/ Electronic Controls vs TCL 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/Digital Controls

The Amana 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/ Electronic Controls and the TCL 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/Digital Controls are close alternatives: the Amana 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/ Electronic Controls is cheaper at $349.99. Set your room size to see which one fits it better.

The Amana 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/ Electronic Controls is cheaper at $349.99, versus $399.99 for the TCL 10,000 BTU Window Air Conditioner w/Digital Controls. That is the current live retailer price where we have one, otherwise the listed price.

Neither needs a professional: both are window units you set up yourself (usually no permit).

A common US rule of thumb for a standard, reasonably insulated room with an 8-foot ceiling is about 20 BTU per hour per square foot, so a 300 sq ft room is often quoted around 6,000 BTU and a 500 sq ft room around 10,000 BTU. compare.ac instead sizes against the official ENERGY STAR room air conditioner chart, which is not a flat rate: it recommends about 7,000 BTU for that same 300 sq ft room and about 12,000 BTU for a 500 sq ft room, then adjusts up for a hot or humid climate and down for a mild one once you pick your region. Add capacity for a sunny west-facing or top-floor room, a kitchen, or extra people who are regularly in it. Undersizing means the unit runs flat out and never cools; oversizing short-cycles and leaves the room cool but clammy.

Running cost is driven by efficiency: CEER on window and portable units, and SEER2 on mini-splits. Higher is better on both, but they are separate scales and a SEER2 number cannot be read as a ratio against a CEER number. Directionally, an efficient inverter mini-split is the cheapest type to run, while a single-hose portable can cost roughly two to three times as much for the same comfort, because much of its capacity is lost back through the exhaust hose. For window and portable units that ENERGY STAR certifies, we go a step further and show an estimated dollars-per-year figure, taken from the model's published annual energy use (a DOE test that assumes about 750 hours of cooling a year) priced at the average US residential electricity rate. It is a standardized figure for comparing units, not a personal bill: your real cost depends on how much you run it, your local electricity rate, and your climate. Mini-splits are usually the most efficient of all but are rated on SEER2, so we do not convert those to a dollar figure, and a missing running cost is a data gap, never a sign a unit is worse.