Was the premium name in portable power and is now the expensive one. Owner and long-term reviews are still positive about the hardware and much less positive about the value against newer LiFePO4 rivals.
This entry is written from the 4 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
It depends on how you will use it. 59% would buy it again, which means roughly 41% would not. NMC chemistry degrades faster than LiFePO4 over many cycles.
Nothing goes wrong. What changes is looking at what the same money now buys elsewhere.
NMC chemistry degrades faster than LiFePO4 over many cycles. Newer competitors offer more capacity for less money. Battery replacement is expensive and not user-serviceable.
Worth it for: Existing Goal Zero solar setups; People who value build quality above value; Light-cycle emergency backup. Think twice if: Heavy daily cycling; Buying purely on capacity per dollar; You want the newest battery chemistry.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 8.1 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 8.3 / 10 |
| One month | 7.6 / 10 |
| Six months | 7.1 / 10 |
| One year | 6.9 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 6.8 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Current-day value assessment of an older model.
Seven-year full-time owner account of a Yeti unit.
Owner reviews of the Yeti X line.
Customer reviews weighted toward service experience.