OXVA XLIM Pro 2 vs XLIM SQ Pro 2: 47 g for 300 mAh

The OXVA XLIM Pro 2 vs XLIM SQ Pro 2 choice comes down to mass against capacity. On OXVA’s own pages the SQ Pro 2 carries 1600 mAh and a 1.09-inch touch screen at 114 g; the Pro 2 carries 1300 mAh and a 0.56-inch screen at 67 g. Both run 5–30 W on the same XLIM pods.

That is the whole comparison in one paragraph, and it is more than the retailer pages ranking for this pairing manage. The three we read in preparing this piece give a charge time for one device and none for the other, table no dimensions or weight for either, and one of them compares the previous-generation SQ Pro rather than the SQ Pro 2. So this desk went to the manufacturer. Every figure below is from OXVA’s model pages for the XLIM Pro 2 and the XLIM SQ Pro 2, read on 11 September 2026, and every one of them is a stated specification rather than anything measured here. The comparison is evergreen: neither device is new, and nothing in it depends on a date.

OXVA XLIM Pro 2 vs XLIM SQ Pro 2 on the manufacturer’s own sheets

What is the difference between the XLIM Pro 2 and XLIM SQ Pro 2?

On OXVA’s own pages, the SQ Pro 2 has a 1600 mAh cell against 1300 mAh, a 1.09-inch touch screen against a 0.56-inch colour screen with a button, and a 30-day puff diary. Both run 5 to 30 W with side airflow control on the same XLIM pods. The SQ Pro 2 is a squat 48 by 20 mm body at 114 g; the Pro 2 is a 25 by 15 mm stick at 67 g.

The electrical envelope is identical. Same wattage range, same charging input, same side-mounted airflow control, same cartridge platform. What differs is the packaging around that envelope, and the packaging is where the numbers get interesting.

Where the 47 grams go

Subtract OXVA’s weights and the SQ Pro 2 is 47 g heavier. Divide, and it is 70 percent heavier for 23 percent more capacity. Per milliamp-hour that is 0.071 g on the SQ Pro 2 against 0.052 g on the Pro 2, so the larger cell is not the whole story; a touch panel and a wider chassis are presumably carrying mass that a stick-format body does not need.

Treat the stated dimensions as a box and the gap widens. The Pro 2 encloses roughly 43 cubic centimetres; the SQ Pro 2 roughly 90. That is a derived figure, and it overstates both because neither device is a rectangle, but the ratio holds: the SQ Pro 2 occupies about twice the volume to hold 23 percent more cell. We made the same point about OXVA’s NeXLIM 2 Mini, where the small one turned out to be a weight decision rather than a size decision. Here it is the reverse: the SQ Pro 2 is a screen decision dressed as a battery decision.

How long does the OXVA XLIM Pro 2 take to charge?

OXVA states 25 minutes to 80 percent at 5V/2A for the XLIM Pro 2, and does not publish a full-charge time on the model page we read. For the SQ Pro 2 it states 45 minutes to a full charge at the same 5V/2A input. Neither figure is something this desk has measured; they are the manufacturer’s stated rates.

Those two claims are not the same claim, and the retailer pages we read that repeat the 45-minute figure do not say so. Twenty-five minutes to 80 percent and 45 minutes to 100 percent describe different end states; the last 20 percent of a lithium cell is the slow part of any constant-current, constant-voltage charge, so the Pro 2’s full time is longer than 25 minutes by an amount OXVA does not state, and we will not guess it.

What can be compared is the input. Two amps into a 1300 mAh cell is a nominal 1.5C; two amps into 1600 mAh is 1.25C. That is arithmetic on the port rating, not a measurement of what the cell sees, and OXVA publishes no cell-side charge current for either device. It does mean the smaller device is, on paper, the one being pushed harder relative to its capacity, which is consistent with a quicker headline figure. As we noted when we looked at how USB-C charging behaviour varies across pods, the port spec tells you the ceiling and nothing about the curve.

On endurance, OXVA claims four days of use for the Pro 2 with a footnote that the data is based on testing at 0.8 ohm from OXVA’s own lab. For the SQ Pro 2 it claims one charge equals one week, and separately lists a 7-day Eco Mode; on the page we read, the week claim carries no footnote, so its test condition is not stated. Both are manufacturer claims and should be read as such.

Do XLIM SQ Pro 2 and XLIM Pro 2 use the same pods?

Yes, according to OXVA. Both model pages carry the line ‘XLIM pods all compatible’, and the Pro 2 page states the device is compatible with all XLIM series pods and supports both nicotine salt and freebase liquids. The SQ Pro 2 page lists 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.2 ohm as compatible resistances. That is wider than the ‘V2 and V3’ wording on at least one retailer page we read.

This matters more than the screen. A shared cartridge line means the consumable shelf does not fork, which is the single strongest argument for staying inside one family, and the reason we treat refillable pod systems as a class rather than as isolated products. It is also one point of lock-in: whichever body you choose, you are choosing OXVA’s cartridge roadmap.

Only one of them has a DNA version

OXVA sells an XLIM Pro 2 DNA Version with an OXVA x Evolv DNA chip that OXVA says reads 30,000 times a second, with anti-burn and flavour replay, a second button for replay, a real carbon-fibre body and PC-programmable curves. The same 0.56-inch screen and 1300 mAh cell as the standard Pro 2. OXVA’s own comparison panel notes that the standard XLIM top-fill cartridge fits the DNA device but does not support anti-burn or flavour replay; those need the stainless-steel DNA cartridge.

There is no SQ Pro 2 equivalent that we can find. The obvious model-page slug on OXVA’s site returns a 404, and the product list on that error page does not name one. That is a scoped absence: OXVA’s site, on the day we read it. If the touch screen and the DNA chip are both on your list, OXVA’s pages, as read here, do not put them in one device.

Pros and cons

Is the XLIM SQ Pro 2 worth it over the Pro 2?

It depends on what the extra mass buys you. On OXVA’s figures the SQ Pro 2 carries 23 percent more capacity for 70 percent more weight, plus a touch screen and a puff diary. If you want a pocketable stick and can charge daily, the Pro 2 is the tighter design. If you want the screen and fewer charges, the SQ Pro 2 is the one.

Our assessment, on published material rather than on time with either device: the electrical case for the SQ Pro 2 is real but modest, 300 mAh, and the case against it is 47 g and roughly double the volume. Buy it for the screen and the diary, or do not buy it. The Pro 2 is the one the format was designed around, and the only one of the two with a DNA road open to it.

A closing line we make a habit of: these are devices for nicotine-containing e-liquid, nicotine is addictive, and nobody below the legal purchase age — 21 in the United States, 18 in many other markets — is the reader we are writing for.