Test report
Physical products category
| Testnumber: | 250513257 |
| Test: | 05.2025 |
INVISION – Dual Monitor Arm

| Manufacturer: | Invision Technology |
| Product: | Dual Monitor Arm |
| Modelnr.: | MX400 |
| Colour: | Black |
| Size: | Maximum height – 400mm Maximum width – 940mm Maximum reach – 530 mm |
| Version: | 2 Monitors |
| MSRP: | €73.73 |

Score achieved: 90/100
Test result: EXCELLENT
Test
Note about the test
A total of 18 different test criteria are tested and rated. The scores achieved are added together and converted into an overall score using an evaluation key. A maximum of 100 points can be achieved across all evaluation criteria.
The test procedure is based on clearly defined criteria that are consistently applied to every product under the same conditions. The products are tested and evaluated exclusively by experienced engineers who can ensure an independent, well-founded and precise assessment of all test criteria.The following evaluation table is based on our test procedure.
For further comprehensive explanations and detailed evaluation criteria:
See: Testing procedure
Evaluation Table
| Evaluation Criteria | Achieved Score/ Maximum Points |
Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Product Properties 70 Points in total | |||
| 1.1 Material Properties 15 Points | |||
| Material Composition | 8/10 | Good | The material composition of the majority of materials used in the product is good. |
| Material Defects | 8/10 | Good | The product exhibits only a few or minor material defects (e.g., contamination, inclusions). |
| Material Quality is evaluated based on two criteria: material composition and material defects. The following formula is used for the evaluation: Material Quality = 0.5 × (Score for Material Properties + Score for Material Defects). | |||
| Material Quality:* | 8/10 | Good | The material quality of the majority of materials used is good. |
| Build Quality | 4/5 | Good | The product exhibits overall good build quality. Gap dimensions, fit accuracy, stability of connections, edge finish, and surface quality mostly show no issues. |
| 1.2 Application 20 Points | |||
| Product Usability | 8/10 | Simple | The application of the product is simple, a brief introduction may be required. |
| Assembly/Installation | 3/5 | Manageable | The assembly or installation of the product is manageable, but specific steps may need to be followed for success. |
| User Manual | 5/5 | Very clear / Self-explanatory | The product’s user manual is very clear, or the product’s usage is self-explanatory and does not require a manual. Errors and misunderstandings in using the product are least likely. |
| 1.3 Function 20 points | |||
| Fit For Purpose | 15/15 | Fully fulfilled | The product fully fulfills its intended purpose when used as intended. |
| Technical Implementation | 5/5 | Very good | The technical implementation of the product is excellent, and the intended purpose is fulfilled very efficiently; the form fully follows the function. |
| 1.4 Maintenance 15 Points | |||
| Wear And Tear | 4/5 | Low | The expected wear and tear of the product during intended, regular use in the specified application area is low. |
| Cleaning | 4/5 | Easy | The product can be easily cleaned with standard cleaning products in the usual manner. A slight additional effort due to geometric inaccessibility may be required. |
| Additional Costs | 5/5 | None / Not Applicable | The product does not cause unexpected additional costs during normal use compared to other products in its category. |
| Archieved Score Product Properties | 61/70 | ||
| 2. Packaging 20 Points in total | |||
| 2.1 Product protection5 Points | |||
| Product Protection | 5/5 | Optimal / Product-dependent not relevant |
The packaging elements used for the product are optimal for protecting the product, especially during transport and storage, from typical internal and external influences such as shocks, pressure, and moisture. This also includes products that, due to their nature and type, do not require packaging. |
| 2.2 Sustainability15 Points | |||
| Material Separation | 5/5 | Very Good | Up to 100% of all packaging materials used can be separated from each other. |
| Materials Used | 5/5 | Very high recyclability | The packaging materials used are generally up to 100% designed for recyclability. This includes products that require no packaging at all. |
| Packaging Size Relative to Product | 5/5 | Very Good | The ratio of product packaging size to product size including accessories, considering necessary protection and minimum packaging sizes from shipping service providers, is excellent with a ratio of up to 1.5:1. This also includes products that do not require any packaging at all. |
| Archieved Score Packaging | 20/20 | ||
| 3. Miscellaneous 10 Points in total | |||
| Information And Contact Options | 5/5 | Available | The postal address and additional contact options such as email addresses, phone numbers, or website addresses are available. |
| Price-Performance Ratio | 4/5 | Good | The price-performance ratio of the product is good, expectations are met. |
| Archieved Score Miscellaneous | 9/10 | ||
| Archieved Totalscore | 90/100 | ||
The product achieved an overall score of 90/100 points in the test and is rated as ‘Excellent’ using the evaluation key.
Test result: EXCELLENT (1,3)
Summary
In our test, the Invision MX400 Dual Monitor Arm stood out for its flexibility, smooth handling, and solid build quality. It supports monitors between 13 and 32 inches and held even heavier screens securely in place. Thanks to the gas spring system, adjusting height, tilt, and angle was easy and precise. The included mounting system felt stable and worked well with different desk types.
One thing to note is that, due to its wide range of motion, the arm setup requires a bit of space behind the desk. In tighter work areas, this could limit flexibility slightly.
Evaluation Scale*
| Achieved Score | Rating | Grading |
|---|---|---|
| 100-85 | Excellent | 1,0 – 1,5 (First Class) |
| 84-69 | Good | 1,6 – 2,5 (Upper Second Class) |
| 68-53 | Satisfactory | 2,6 – 3,5 (Lower Second Class) |
| 52-45 | Sufficient | 3,6 – 4,0 (Third Class) |
| 44-0 | Poor | 5,0 (Fail) |
*You can find the detailed breakdown of the score for grading in our Testing procedure.
