The Hoverzon XLS is a typical hoverboard in that it is primarily designed for use on a smooth, flat surface. While it ranks high in the fun factor metric, it registers in the middle of the pack when it comes to outdoor capabilities and battery life. The nail in the coffin that took this board out of the competition for any accolades was the abysmal customer service. These deficiencies are not mitigated by the relatively low price of this product. Accordingly, we recommend looking at the other options.
Hoverzon XLS Review
Pros: Fun board, maneuverable, and comfortable to ride
Cons: Terrible customer support, so-so battery life and limited all-terrain capabilities
Compare to Similar Products
|Price||$460 List||$400 List|
$379.00 at Amazon
$250 at Amazon
$489 at Amazon
$249.99 at Amazon
|Pros||Fun board, maneuverable, and comfortable to ride||Fast, stable, all-terrain crusher||Stable at speed, nimble, inexpensive||Smooth ride, all-terrain master, good customer service||Playful, inexpensive, long run time|
|Cons||Terrible customer support, so-so battery life and limited all-terrain capabilities||Limited maneuverability, heavy, limited color options||Limited range/ battery life, performance limited on soft surfaces||Non-adjustable steering column, heavy, only two color options||Poor on rough roads and off-pavement, a little sluggish|
|Bottom Line||While this board is relatively fun to ride, the abysmal customer support makes it a deal breaker for those concerned with the longevity of this product||This burly hoverboard is fleet, stable, great off-road and competitively priced.||Fast, fun and affordable, this machine is a gas on smooth surfaces.||Not to be mistaken for a toy, the Ninebot S packs power and longevity across all terrain types||A quality product for those looking to save some money|
|Rating Categories||Hoverzon XLS||Swagtron T6||Swagtron T380||Segway Ninebot S||Swagtron T1|
|Fun Factor (50%)|
|Outdoor Capabilities (20%)|
|Specs||Hoverzon XLS||Swagtron T6||Swagtron T380||Segway Ninebot S||Swagtron T1|
|Measured Runtime||82 min||120 min||50 min||95 min||87 min|
|Measured Weight||24.8 lbs||31.7 lbs||22.1 lbs||29.6 lbs||22.8 lbs|
|Measured Speed||8.8 mph||11.9 mph||8.6 mph||10.5 mph||8.7 mph|
|Measured Range||5 mi||12 mi||4 mi||11.3 mi||7.9 mi|
|Weight Limit||44 - 220 lbs||220 lbs||44 - 220 lbs||88 - 220 lbs||44 - 220 lbs|
|Bluetooth||Yes; Music||Yes; Music||Yes; App & Music||Yes; App||No|
|Warranty||12 months limited||12 months limited||12 months limited||Vehicle body: 12 months
Attachment parts: 6 months
Components subject to wear: 3 months
|12 months limited|
|Measured Charge Time||1 hour, 20 min||2 hours, 20 min||1 hour, 25 min||2 hours, 40 min||1 hour, 20 min|
Our Analysis and Test Results
Following a strong performance in our fun factor testing, the XLS faltered throughout the outdoor capabilities and battery evaluations. Finally, Hoverzon completely failed to show up for the support analysis. Thus, this board landed in the back of the pack in the overall scoring.
All TechGearLab reviews are the product of our direct comparison analysis protocol. Accordingly, all the gizmos we review are subjected to the same tests so that we can make a point-by-point evaluation of each product's performance relative to its class. This type of review removes the guesswork that was inherent in the traditional consumer experience. Our hoverboard reviews are built upon four categories or metrics. The details of the categories mentioned above and how the Hoverzon XLS performed in each are explained below.
Fun Factor is the only metric in which the XLS excels. It's a good thing that this metric accounts for 50% of the total score as it is the sole reason that this product didn't land at the bottom of the class overall. The fun factor tests are split up into four parts, with the heaviest weighting falling on a board's max speed and its performance in our built-to-purpose obstacle course.
The remaining submetrics are an evaluation of the accessories included with or available for aftermarket purchase and a measure of a board's weight.
Our testers noted that during the obstacle course exercise the XLS was stable at speed and when performing in-place spins. However, it was also said that this stability faltered when the board was pushed to its limits. Moreover, the XLS showed its lack of motor power when performing rapid back and forth direction changes. However, the board did hit a maximum speed of nearly nine mph in our tests, which is above average for the class.
This model is available in six colors, and it has a carrying handle which is a bit of a rarity for these products. Weighing in at 24.8 pounds, the XLS is about average for the group. In addition, the board sports Bluetooth capabilities to play music but unfortunately did not fit any of the third-party accessories we researched.
Many consumers will want to venture off flat, smooth surfaces with their hoverboards. To address these desires we evaluate how each board handles the demands of uneven surfaces and rugged terrain in our outdoor capabilities metric. In this series of tests we run the boards over cracks, bumps, and thresholds. We also traverse grass, dirt, and sand, and attempt to climb and descend a steep (14% grade) hill. The Hoverzon XLS delivered an average performance in this set of evaluations.
This model clears cracks and thresholds with little difficulty, even at slower speeds. This task is a challenging feat for boards like the XLS, which have smaller wheels and solid tires. This board felt equally as good when riding over packed dirt and short grass. However, XLS is decidedly limited when trying to traverse longer sections of shaggy grass.
The biggest complaint we had with this board was the result of its behavior during the steep hill evaluation. While the board made it up the hill fine, it suffers from what felt like a momentary loss of power that caused the motors to disengage unexpectedly. This phenomenon occurred multiple times throughout our hill tests, and it precipitated a few moments of terror before the wheels re-engaged.
Support is an important metric for hoverboards as these products can easily be damaged and often require maintenance. Accordingly, we attempt to make contact with the manufacturers. If contact is made we evaluate the level of support we receive based on the resolution of our inquiries. Finally, we evaluate the relative durability of each board based on the damage it sustains during our tests. The XLS did not do well here.
The primary issue with Hoverzon was that we were never able to make contact with their customer support department. We made multiple attempts, but the listed phone number led us through a circular chain of automated message systems that reached neither voice mail nor human. Adding to the frustration is that there are no other means of reaching for support. We felt this negligence effectively voided their advertised one-year warranty, as what good is a warranty if you can't contact the company to make a claim? The only ray of sunshine in this otherwise dreary assessment is that the XLS sustained relatively little damage throughout our testing.
Batteries are a critical component of hoverboards because, unlike an electric scooter, hoverboards are unrideable without power. As such, we test for the max travel radius (range), run time, and their recharge time. The Hoverzon delivered a mediocre performance.
To assess range we ran each board on a flat, smooth track that provides ideal conditions for maximum efficiency. The XLS made it a total of five miles before throwing in the towel, which is about average for these machines. Evaluating run time differs in a significant way. Instead of providing ideal conditions, we wanted to know how long these boards would run when used in playful scenarios that would be more common to the average user. As such, we continuously ran these boards through our obstacle course. The XLS lasted for 1 hour, 22 minutes. Finally, we compared the manufacturer's claimed charge time with our tested charge time. Surprisingly, it only took 1 hour, and 20 minutes to charge — way better than the claimed 2-3 hours.
Despite this board's competitive price, we would still refrain from considering it a value item. This judgment is not based on the board's average performance in the outdoor capabilities and battery evaluations. Although that plays a part. The lack of value we've assigned to this product is due to the manufacturer's complete absence of accountability in addressing problems with their product.
We would feel remiss in our obligation to provide accurate and useful information to our readers if we recommend this product. The lack of customer support is a red flag. Moreover, the tendency of this board to freewheel on steep hill descents is concerning. Accordingly, we must caution against this model and suggest that you check out one of our award winners instead.
— Nick Miley, David Wise and Austin Palmer