Alto-Shaam BQ-96vsTurbo Air PRO-50-4H
Side-by-side holding cabinet comparison
Alto-Shaam BQ-96
Internal Volume
46.2cu ft
Max Idle Rate
235W
Energy Usage
235W
Doors
1
Turbo Air PRO-50-4H
Internal Volume
47cu ft
Max Idle Rate
384W
Energy Usage
195W
Doors
4
Key differences
Alto-Shaam BQ-96 is 39% more efficient at 235 W versus 384 W for the Turbo Air PRO-50-4H. The Turbo Air PRO-50-4H is larger at 47 cu ft versus 46.2 cu ft. Overall, the Turbo Air PRO-50-4H sits higher in the category, ranking above 88% of certified commercial hot food holding cabinets.
Capacity
| Spec | Alto-Shaam | Turbo Air |
|---|---|---|
| Internal Volume(cu ft) | 46.2 | 47 |
| Doors | 1 | 4 |
| Door / Wall Type | Solid | Solid |
Energy
| Spec | Alto-Shaam | Turbo Air |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Usage(W) | 235 | 195 |
| Maximum Idle Rate(W) | 235 | 384 |