We may earn a commission when you buy through our links. Rankings are formula-based and never paid for. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Disclosure

Avallon AWC242DPRSLH vs Avallon AWC152DPRGLH

Two of the wine and beverage coolers in our best wine and beverage coolers comparison, lined up spec by spec. Every figure comes from the manufacturer pages linked below, and the scores use the same published formula as the full ranking.

Affiliate disclosure: We earn a commission if you buy through links on this page, at no extra cost to you. It never affects our rankings, which come from the published scoring formula. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more.

#16 of 32 in Wine and Beverage Coolers

Avallon AWC242DPRSLH

3.2/10

Best for: Official 21% less energy than the U.S. federal standard, 5.4 cu ft total volume, 157 kWh/year

Check price at Amazon
#31 of 32 in Wine and Beverage Coolers

Avallon AWC152DPRGLH

2.8/10

Best for: Official 21% less energy than the U.S. federal standard, 3.1 cu ft total volume, 143 kWh/year

Check price at Amazon

Spec-by-spec comparison

Green marks the better published figure. "Not listed" means the manufacturer doesn't publish it.

SpecAvallon AWC242DPRSLHAvallon AWC152DPRGLHWeight
Percent less energy than U.S. federal standardOfficial ENERGY STAR figure for how much less annual energy the model uses than the U.S. federal standard for its product class. Higher is better. A few official records list a negative figure; we still use that official number. Missing values take the category minimum. 21 % 21 % 40%
Certified total volumeOfficial ENERGY STAR certified total volume in cubic feet. ENERGY STAR does not publish a bottle count in the fields we used. Missing values take the category minimum. 5.4 cu ft 3.1 cu ft 32%
Annual energy useOfficial ENERGY STAR annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year. Lower is better. Missing values take the category minimum (the highest energy use in the set). 157 kWh/year 143 kWh/year 28%
Percent less energy use than U.S. federal standard (ENERGY STAR)21%21%info
Annual energy use (ENERGY STAR)157 kWh/year143 kWh/yearinfo
Certified total volume (ENERGY STAR)5.4 cu ft3.1 cu ftinfo
Annual energy use per cubic foot (computed)29.1 kWh/year per cubic foot, computed as certified annual energy use ÷ certified total volume46.1 kWh/year per cubic foot, computed as certified annual energy use ÷ certified total volumeinfo
U.S. federal standard energy use (ENERGY STAR)198 kWh/year180 kWh/yearinfo
Adjusted volume (ENERGY STAR)5.4 cu ft3.1 cu ftinfo
Type (ENERGY STAR)Compact CoolerCompact Coolerinfo
Product class (ENERGY STAR)3 - Freestanding Compact Cooler3 - Freestanding Compact Coolerinfo
Built-in (ENERGY STAR)NoNoinfo
Defrost type (ENERGY STAR)Not listedNot listedinfo
Connected functionality (ENERGY STAR)NoNoinfo
Dimensions (ENERGY STAR)34.1 × 23.8 in (H × W)34.1 × 15 in (H × W)info
Refrigerant (ENERGY STAR)Not listedNot listedinfo
Meets ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2025 criteriaNoNoinfo
Certified model numberAWC242DPRSLHAWC152DPRGLHinfo
Official brand name on the ENERGY STAR recordAVALLONAVALLONinfo
CrispPick score3.2/102.8/10100%

Where each one comes out ahead

Avallon AWC242DPRSLH

Better published figure on: Certified total volume.

What we like

  • Official certified ratings are published for every scored criterion

Watch out for

  • No additional scored gaps in the official record we used

Avallon AWC152DPRGLH

Better published figure on: Annual energy use.

What we like

  • Official certified ratings are published for every scored criterion

Watch out for

  • No additional scored gaps in the official record we used

Verdict

Both official ENERGY STAR records list these models as Compact Cooler. The Avallon AWC152DPRGLH record lists 21% less energy than the U.S. federal standard, 3.1 cu ft total volume and 143 kWh/year. The Avallon AWC242DPRSLH record lists 21% less energy than the U.S. federal standard, 5.4 cu ft total volume and 157 kWh/year.

Avallon AWC242DPRSLH on AmazonAvallon AWC152DPRGLH on Amazon
Spec sources

Related comparisons