Came here to say this. And it’s not just lefties who lose from the poor a11y design; it’s everyone.
I have a Keychron M1, which is truly symmetrical. It has 4 side buttons, two on each side, all four of which are independently programmable. I have the thumb side buttons as the standard mouse navigation, and the pinky side as Ctrl/Shift.
I got pretty excited when I saw that Glorious had released an “ambidextrous” mouse. Given how much better their keyboards are, they must have a better mouse, right?
Comparing Keychron M1 to Glorious O2 Pro 1kHz
Note: these two mice are not the only mice which exist. You are welcome to dislike either of these, and you are welcome to prefer any other mice. I’m comparing these because I own one, and considered buying the other.
Here’s how you can make your own tables.
For fields where one option is generally and/or measurably superior, the best is marked in bold. In cases where both devices are the same, both are marked in bold.
|
Keychron M1 |
Glorious O2 Pro 1kHz |
| Aesthetics |
— |
— |
| Shape |
Symmetrical |
Symmetrical |
| RGB |
Programmable, Presets |
N/A |
| Shell |
Stamped |
Solid |
| Ergonomics |
— |
— |
| Texture |
Smooth |
Grip |
| Ambidextrous |
- |
- |
| - industry-specific definition |
no comment |
yes |
| - for equal usability in either hand |
yes |
no |
| Side Buttons |
both sides |
right only |
| Size |
— |
— |
| Width (max) |
66.4mm |
67mm |
| Length (max) |
130.2mm |
128mm |
| Height (max) |
38.3mm |
38mm |
| Functionality |
— |
— |
| Programmable Buttons |
7 |
6 |
| Center Button |
no |
yes |
| DPI Button |
- |
- |
| - claimed |
Dedicated |
Dedicated |
| - actual |
Dedicated (base) |
Programmable Option* |
| Connectivity |
2.4GHz, Bluetooth, Wired |
2.4GHz, Wired |
| Technology |
— |
— |
| Battery |
70hrs |
80hrs |
| Sensor |
PixArt PAW 3395 |
Glorious BAMF 2.0 Optical |
| Polling |
1000Hz (Bluetooth 125Hz) |
1000Hz |
| DPI (max) |
26k |
26k |
| IPS |
650 |
650 |
| Weight |
79g |
57g |
| Acceleration |
50g |
50g |
| Switches |
Kailh GM 8.0 |
Glorious Optical 100M |
| Kind |
Mechanical |
Optical |
| Response Time |
“Ultra-Low”(1) |
0.2ms |
| Rated Clicks |
80M |
100M |
| LOD |
1-2mm |
1-2mm |
| Price |
$45.00 |
$99.99 |
* Not 100% certain/able to verify, inferred from looking at the spec sheet, gallery, and product reviews and coming to a conclusion based on available information. Verifiable corrections welcome.
(1) Unable to find a reference to a millisecond value.
The More Factual Bit
warning: may contain opinions
The O2 Pro wins objectively on weight (28% lighter), battery life (14% longer life), response time (est. 800μs faster) and switch longevity (25% higher clicks).
The M1 objectively wins on connectivity (+Bluetooth, though not a huge win), button count (one more), accessibility (is truly ambidextrous), and price (55% cheaper).
Original remark for posterity: It’s also worth highlighting that calling the O2 Pro “ambidextrous” is deceptive if not an outright lie. See the definition of “ambidextrous” below, the O2 Pro is quite blatantly far better suited to one handedness (right) than the other as the two side buttons (a third of the inputs) are difficult to access if the mouse is in the left hand.
Amended: The use of “ambidextrous” to describe a mouse which is not of equal usability by both left and right handed people is not a lie from Glorious; it is a term which has already been standardized by the mouse manufacturing industry as a whole.
This term is poorly chosen, and as seen in this post and in various forums the end result is misled consumers. Sensibly, the below definition of ambidextrous would be assumed, however the intended definition is synonymous with “symmetrical”.
ambidextrous
/ˌambɪˈdɛkstrəs/
adjective
- (of an implement) designed to be used by left-handed and right-handed people with equal ease
Glorious’ hands are more or less tied in this matter - there’s little they can do with one product’s marketing to change the industry, so fair enough; it’s a game they’re forced to play.
The point still stands however that the O2 Pro is suited specifically to the right hand, and it will likely be difficult or uncomfortable to access the side buttons when the O2 Pro is used in the left hand.
As correctly highlighted by @LiquidMaverick, optical switches have a notably different user experience and performance. The general consensus is they’re significantly better in most if not all aspects compared to mechanical switches.
As to whether the wins for the O2 Pro validate the price, that’s up to your own wallet and priorities.
The Less Factual Bit
warning: definitely contains opinions
On the whole and with the sincerest apologies to the designers (who I’m sure fulfilled the requirements given to them expertly), the O2 Pro is a bit of a disappointment.
Glorious are veteran mouse vendors, having released at least eight previous SKUs across five product lines, yet their first “ambidextrous” mouse is trading blows with Keychron’s first venture into the world of computer mice.
When factoring in the fact that the O2 Pro is more than twice the price of the M1 (2.2x), it’s very difficult to justify the O2 Pro.
As for the O2 Pro 4K/8K, it’s differences are +$30 price, -56% battery longevity (when using 4kHz), and +2g weight. to me, that only really validates itself against the O2 Pro, not against the competition in general.
Edits:
- Correction to which mouse is best at what field (paragraphs), undo accidentally deleting half of the final paragraph.
- Corrections regarding O2 Pro connectivity and 8K polling, this short note to self about proof-reading.
- amendments regarding the use of “ambidextrous” to describe a symmetrical mouse. omit unnecessary subscript. more detail on optical switches. clarity on opinion/fact sections, clarity on meaning in some phrases.
