Compare Koh Young, Mirtec, and other SMT inspection systems with real shop-floor tests: defect coverage, 3D methods, programming speed, data links, and smoother line flow.
You can spend weeks arguing about brands. You can watch ten demos. You can still buy the “wrong” system for your line.
So let’s flip it.
If you want fewer escapes, less rework, and less line drama, you should compare problems, not logos. Then you match the tool to your real scenes: shiny parts, tight pitches, mixed models, rushed changeovers, and new operators at 2 a.m.
Below is a practical way to compare Koh Young vs Mirtec vs others (Viscom, Omron, Saki, Nordson, TRI, etc.). I’ll keep it simple and shop-floor friendly. I’ll also tie it back to how you run the area around inspection—because storage and flow matters more than people admit. That’s where Rear Wire Shelving helps, and where QIAO can fit naturally.
Before you compare any brand, ask one question:
What defect are you trying to catch, and when?
If your pain is “bridges after reflow,” don’t over-weight SPI features. If your pain is “random opens on fine pitch,” you probably need strong SPI + process control, not just prettier AOI images.
Real scene: You run a mixed-model line. One product uses tiny passives. Another uses big connectors. Your defect list changes every hour. You need a system that stays stable across that mess.
People say “3D” like it’s one thing. It isn’t.
Vendors use different 3D approaches. The method affects what you feel every day:
Here’s the practical take:
Real scene: Your board has metal shields and glossy IC tops. A basic 2D setup can panic. A stronger 3D/lighting strategy stays calmer. That calm saves you time, because you don’t keep re-checking good boards again and again.
In many factories, the biggest cost isn’t the machine. It’s the time you lose while you “teach” it.
So compare this first:
If you run high-mix, this matters more than raw speed. Even if a machine is fast, it feels slow when you spend hours tuning windows, thresholds, and part definitions.
Real scene: You swap to a new PCB revision. Pads move a little. Silkscreen changes. Half your rules break. The best system is the one that gets you back to stable inspection with less babysitting.
Specs can trick you. Vendors might highlight one number that looks amazing, but it hides trade-offs.
When you compare brands, keep these three together:
A wider FOV can reduce moves, which helps speed. A finer resolution can catch tiny issues, but it can slow the scan. You want a balance that matches your board density and takt time.
Also watch the “fine print” that never says fine print:
Modern inspection isn’t just pass/fail. It’s data you can act on.
If you already use MES or plan to, compare:
Real scene: Your line builds up small drift. Paste volume slowly drops. If SPI trends trigger a correction early, you avoid a pile of rework later. You don’t need magic. You need data flow that actually works on your floor.
Note: numbers vary by model and options, so use this as a decision guide, not a promise sheet.
| Comparison Lens | What You’re Really Testing | Koh Young (typical positioning) | Mirtec (typical positioning) | Others (Viscom / Omron / Saki / Nordson / TRI, etc.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defect focus | What defects it catches reliably | Strong 3D strategy, stable detection logic | Good 2D/3D options, often flexible for teams | Varies: some push speed, some push multi-angle, some push metrology |
| 3D method | How it measures height/shape | True 3D shape measurement focus | Moiré-style 3D in some lines | Structured light / multi-angle / reflection control (depends) |
| Lighting + glare control | How it behaves on shiny parts | Often strong here | Can be strong, depends config | Some brands really specialize in reflection suppression |
| Programming flow | Changeover speed in real life | CAD/Gerber driven workflows often emphasized | Usability varies by model/software package | Some have very strong offline programming tools |
| Speed vs detail | Does it meet takt time without losing sensitivity | Balanced approach | Can be very competitive in scan speed by model | Some are extremely fast, some are extremely detailed |
| Data integration | Hermes/CFX/MES readiness | Usually supports factory data approach | Often supported via options | TRI and others may emphasize smart factory standards strongly |
People think inspection problems come from optics only. But many problems come from messy flow:
That’s why Rear Wire Shelving can quietly make inspection smoother.
Here’s how teams use it in real world:
If you run OEM/ODM work, you know every customer wants their own labeling and storage style. That’s why custom shelving matters. You can build the storage around the process, not the other way around.
At wireshelvingmfg.com, the point isn’t “a shelf.” The point is custom wire shelving: you bring a layout, or we help design it. You pick corrosion-resistant finishes, build for labs or warehouse, and ship globally with ISO quality habits. That keeps your inspection zone clean and repeatable, even when production is chaotic.
I also like to say it plain: if your business sells Freezer Components and Customized Products, your factory already lives in high-mix reality. Your inspection flow should match that reality, not fight it.
If you need custom rear mesh and rear wire shelving for the inspection area, QIAO can support OEM/ODM builds based on your drawings or your line layout.
Bring the same “pain boards” to every demo. Don’t bring easy boards only.
| Test | What You Bring | What You Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Shiny parts test | Board with shields, glossy ICs | False call rate and review time |
| Fine pitch test | Tight pitch QFP/QFN, small passives | Escapes, repeatability, re-check effort |
| Mixed model changeover | Two products with different rules | Setup time, library reuse, stability |
| Data test | A simple traceability need | Can you export results cleanly, fast |
| Operator test | New operator runs it | How many “gotcha” steps happen |
Don’t chase perfect slides. Chase less chaos on Monday morning.
Koh Young, Mirtec, and the other big names all make capable tools. The “best” one depends on your defect mix, your board surfaces, your changeover pace, and your data plan.
Do this and you’ll pick smarter:
