After more than a decade in foreign trade-starting with 120 lm/W LED street lights and now regularly hearing claims of 200 lm/W and above-luminous efficacy has remained one of the core points in every negotiation. The question I hear most often from buyers is: "Is the efficacy figure you quote for the chip or for the complete luminaire? And where exactly is the real gap between first-tier brands and the cheaper ones?" Today I'll share practical insights from years of real projects and clearly explain the current industry watershed for LED efficacy as well as the actual differences between first-, second-, and third-tier brands.
Where Does the Current Industry Watershed for LED Efficacy Sit?
Let's start with the conclusion. In 2025–2026, system efficacy (complete luminaire efficacy) for LED street lights and outdoor lighting can be roughly divided into three bands.
The entry-level band sits between 130–150 lm/W. These products meet basic lighting needs, but their energy-saving advantage is no longer significant. The mainstream mid-range band is stably positioned at 160–180 lm/W; this is where most medium-to-large projects, both domestic and international, currently land in actual tenders. The high-end and ultra-high-end band reaches 190–220 lm/W or higher, with some modules already claiming figures above 250 lm/W (always check the test conditions carefully).
At the chip level, first-tier brands' mid-power and high-power packages can already deliver 200–230 lm/W or more. Once the chips are built into a complete luminaire, however, driver losses, optical losses, and thermal derating typically reduce system efficacy by 20–40 lm/W. Products that can stably achieve and maintain 190 lm/W or higher system efficacy in volume production remain relatively few.
National energy-efficiency standards are also rising. In the latest efficiency grades for LED luminaires used in road and tunnel lighting, Grade 1 requirements have increased noticeably, with the threshold for higher color-temperature products approaching or exceeding 160–175 lm/W. Products that cannot reach this level will find it increasingly difficult to enter government procurement and large-scale projects in the future.
Where the Real Efficacy Gaps Between First-, Second-, and Third-Tier Brands Appear
Many buyers look at brochures that all claim "high efficacy" and assume the numbers are comparable. After actual use, they discover the differences lie mainly in three areas.
First is chip selection and drive current. First-tier brands (both international leaders and top Chinese manufacturers) preferentially choose higher-bin chips and deliberately keep the drive current in the "sweet spot" of the efficiency curve. They sacrifice a little single-chip brightness in exchange for higher efficacy and lower junction temperature. Second-tier brands typically use mid-bin chips and push the current higher; initial efficacy looks acceptable, but performance drops faster once the product heats up. Third-tier products often start with average chips and frequently overdrive them to hit a higher advertised number, resulting in inflated system efficacy that declines sharply after six to twelve months.
Second is thermal management and optical design. Efficacy is never an isolated number-temperature rise directly reduces output. First-tier brands invest more heavily in substrate materials, thermal paths, and lens transmittance, so system losses stay lower. Second-tier brands usually provide adequate but not exceptional cooling; measured efficacy can drop noticeably in hot climates. Third-tier products more often cut corners on heat dissipation; the fixtures run hot to the touch, light depreciation accelerates, and real service life falls well short of the advertised figure.
Third is consistency and long-term lumen maintenance. First-tier brands perform stricter binning and aging tests before shipment, so batch-to-batch variation in color and efficacy is small. Second- and third-tier manufacturers exercise looser control; brightness differences between luminaires on the same project become obvious, and later maintenance costs rise. What frustrates buyers most is not the attractive number on the datasheet, but the fact that illuminance has dropped significantly after three years and complaints start arriving.
Practical Ways to Help Buyers Judge Real Efficacy in Foreign Trade
Over the years, I have developed a few simple but effective checks when discussing efficacy with customers.
Always clarify whether the quoted figure is chip efficacy or complete-luminaire efficacy. Many quotations claim "efficacy ≥ 200 lm/W," only for the buyer to discover it is a chip-level number. Insist on a full-luminaire IES file or a third-party LM-79 test report that shows system efficacy.
Ask about the drive current and designed junction temperature. Higher current almost always means lower efficacy. First-tier suppliers will clearly state the current and temperature conditions under which the data were measured.
Finally, look at real project track records. Products that can truly maintain 190 lm/W or higher over the long term still show controlled lumen depreciation after two or three years in high-temperature, high-humidity, or dusty environments. Impressive paper numbers that cannot survive field conditions are of little value.
In our own export projects we prefer not to play number games with customers. We would rather state the real system efficacy clearly, leave sufficient thermal and driver margin, and avoid chasing the most attractive figure on a brochure. A customer who comes back after successful use is worth far more than a one-time low-price order.
If you are currently selecting LED street lights or outdoor luminaires, or if you want a realistic comparison of efficacy performance across different brands, feel free to send the project power, operating environment, target illuminance, and budget. We can prepare a targeted efficacy and lifetime calculation from chip to complete system to help you avoid being misled by inflated parameters.
