Alto-Shaam 750-CTUSvsCambro PCU800HH615
Side-by-side holding cabinet comparison
Alto-Shaam 750-CTUS
Internal Volume
6.7cu ft
Max Idle Rate
144W
Energy Usage
144W
Doors
1
Cambro PCU800HH615
Internal Volume
7cu ft
Max Idle Rate
150W
Energy Usage
106W
Doors
2
Key differences
Alto-Shaam 750-CTUS is 4% more efficient at 144 W versus 150 W for the Cambro PCU800HH615. The Cambro PCU800HH615 is larger at 7 cu ft versus 6.7 cu ft.
Capacity
| Spec | Alto-Shaam | Cambro |
|---|---|---|
| Internal Volume(cu ft) | 6.7 | 7 |
| Doors | 1 | 2 |
| Door / Wall Type | Transparent | Solid |
Energy
| Spec | Alto-Shaam | Cambro |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Usage(W) | 144 | 106 |
| Maximum Idle Rate(W) | 144 | 150 |