Skip to content
Sprout & Spectrum

Mars Hydro TS 1000 vs Spider Farmer SF1000

The head-to-head buyers actually search for, decided on the figures both manufacturers publish rather than on anything we claim to have measured.

By Scooter M. — An enthusiast who's genuinely into this. I read the manuals, compile the published specs, and do the math. No lab coat.

Published · How we pick

Potted plants on a wooden cabinet beneath a wall-mounted lamp

Photographs on this site are licensed stock and are illustrative of the fixture type. We do not own the units we write about.

How this page is funded: the buy links here are Amazon Associates links, and we earn a commission on qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you. We have not been paid to feature anything on this page, we accept no free product, and commission plays no part in the ranking. Full disclosure.

We have not tested these units. Everything below comes from the manufacturer’s own published specifications, or from arithmetic we have shown our working for. Where a figure is not published, we say so instead of estimating one. Read the method.

Quick picks

Efficacy is photons out per joule in. Where a manufacturer publishes it we quote theirs; where they publish photon output and wattage but not efficacy, we divide and label it as ours; where they publish neither, the cell says so rather than guessing. Tap a row for the full write-up.

#ProductBest forEfficacyPrice
1
A flat white-light LED grow panel suspended above a tray of young plants on a wire rack
Mars Hydro TS 1000
The most photons of anything on this list, and one of only three fixtures here that publishes both PPF and efficacy so the claim can be checked against itself.
2 × 4 ft and larger2.3 umol/J
2
A square white LED grow panel hanging above leafy seedlings indoors
Spider Farmer SF1000
Publishes PPF to two decimal places and an efficacy figure that actually divides out of it. That internal consistency is rarer in this category than it should be.
2 × 2 to 3 × 3 ft2.5 umol/J

The reasoning

These two are compared more than any other pair in the home-grow panel class, and unusually for this category, the comparison can actually be done — both manufacturers publish photon output, efficacy and power, and both sets of figures divide correctly against themselves. That makes this one of the few head-to-heads on this site where every row is a published number or arithmetic on one.

We have tested neither. Everything below is from Mars Hydro’s and Spider Farmer’s own specification pages, linked in the sources, with our working shown.

Side by side, on published figures only

What each manufacturer publishes, quoted as stated
Mars Hydro TS 1000Spider Farmer SF1000
Rated power150 W ±5% at 100–277 V AC100 W ±5% at 100–277 V AC
Photon flux (PPF)343 µmol/s249.21 µmol/s
Efficacy2.3 µmol/J2.5 µmol/J
Coverage2.5 × 2.5 ft veg, 2.3 × 2.3 ft flower2 × 2 ft core, 3 × 3 ft maximum
Spectrum660–665 nm, 730–740 nm, 3000 K, 5000 K650–665 nm, 730–740 nm, 2800–3000 K, 4800–5000 K
DiodesBridgeluxBridgelux
Dimming0–100% knobDimming knob
Dimensions406 × 326 × 50 mm32.5 × 29.0 × 5.9 cm
Rated lifeNot published55,000 hours
PPFD at a stated distanceNot publishedNot published

Do the figures check out?

Efficacy, divided out of each manufacturer's own PPF and wattage

Mars Hydro: 343 ÷ 150 = 2.29 µmol/J. Published 2.3. Agrees.

Spider Farmer: 249.21 ÷ 100 = 2.49 µmol/J. Published 2.5. Agrees.

Both spec sheets are internally consistent. That is worth saying, because several fixtures we cover do not give you two figures to check against each other at all.

Output advantage, TS 1000 over SF1000
+38%

343 ÷ 249.21 = 1.376. For 50% more power. The photons-per-watt gap runs the other way: the SF1000 is about 9% more efficient.

Coverage — where the decision actually lives

Output only matters relative to the area you are lighting. Both fixtures overshoot a small area and both come up short on a big one; the question is where the crossover sits.

Area each covers at a seedling-appropriate 250 µmol/m²/s

TS 1000: 343 ÷ 250 × 0.8 = 1.097 m² = 11.8 sq ft.

SF1000: 249.21 ÷ 250 × 0.8 = 0.797 m² = 8.6 sq ft.

So over a 2 × 4 ft shelf (8 sq ft) the SF1000 is right at its limit and the TS 1000 has margin; over a 3 × 3 ft area (9 sq ft) the SF1000 is just under, computing to 238 µmol/m²/s.

Average PPFD each delivers, at 0.8 uniformity, over common home areas
AreaTS 1000 (343 µmol/s)SF1000 (249.21 µmol/s)Band
2 × 2 ft (0.372 m²)738536Both above the high band — dim either
2 × 3 ft (0.557 m²)493358TS above high band; SF in it
3 × 3 ft (0.836 m²)328238TS high; SF top of medium
2 × 4 ft (0.743 m²)369268TS high; SF top of medium
3 × 4 ft (1.115 m²)246179TS medium; SF medium
4 × 4 ft (1.486 m²)185134TS medium; SF low

Read that table against what you grow. University of Minnesota Extension’s bands are low 50–150, medium 150–250, high 250–450 µmol/m²/s. The SF1000 is the better-matched fixture up to about 3 × 3 ft; the TS 1000 is the one that still reaches the high band at 2 × 4 and the medium band at 4 × 4.

Running cost

Fourteen hours a day, five months, at 18.34 cents per kWh

TS 1000: 150 × 14 × 150 ÷ 1000 = 315 kWh = $57.77.

SF1000: 100 × 14 × 150 ÷ 1000 = 210 kWh = $38.51.

A $19 difference for the season — but the TS 1000 delivered 38% more photons for it. Per photon, the SF1000’s higher efficacy makes it about 9% cheaper to run for the same light.

If you would dim the TS 1000 to match the SF1000’s output, the gap shrinks to roughly the efficacy difference — a few dollars a season.

Where each one is honestly weaker

The gaps in each spec sheet, and what they cost you
TS 1000SF1000
PPFD at a stated distanceNot published — height is set by rule of thumb, not computedNot published — same limitation
Rated lifeNot published55,000 h published (though the threshold it represents is not stated)
DimmingUnmarked knob — a setting you cannot recordUnmarked knob — same
Over a small area738 µmol/m²/s over 2 × 2 ft is wasteful; you pay 150 W and dim most of it away536 over 2 × 2 ft is also above the band, but less so
Over a large areaStill medium band at 4 × 4Drops into the low band at 4 × 4 — not enough
Efficiency2.3 µmol/J — the lower of the two2.5 µmol/J

The verdict, by area

  • Up to 3 × 3 ft: the SF1000. It lands in the right band without dimming, it is 9% more efficient, and it publishes a rated life. The TS 1000 here is output you pay for and then dim away.
  • 2 × 4 ft and larger: the TS 1000. It is the only one of the two that keeps a 2 × 4 shelf in the high band and a 4 × 4 in the medium band. The SF1000 runs out.
  • Not sure how big the setup will get: the TS 1000, because you can dim it down now and grow into it — accepting that the dimmer is a knob you cannot record.

Both have full write-ups — the TS 1000 and the SF1000 — and the Mars Hydro is compared against the other fixture in its class in Mars Hydro versus ViparSpectra. Size either against your own space in the coverage calculator.

Every pick in full

A flat white-light LED grow panel suspended above a tray of young plants on a wire rack
01

Mars Hydro TS 1000

LED panel

2 × 4 ft and larger

The most photons of anything on this list, and one of only three fixtures here that publishes both PPF and efficacy so the claim can be checked against itself.

What Mars Hydro publishes

Power draw
150 W +/-5% at 100-277 V AC (source)
PPF (photon output)
343 umol/s (source)
Efficacy
2.3 umol/J (source)
Stated coverage
2.5 x 2.5 ft vegetative, 2.3 x 2.3 ft flowering (source)
Spectrum
660-665 nm, 730-740 nm, 3000 K, 5000 K (source)
Diodes
Bridgelux (source)
Dimming
Yes, 0-100% dimmer knob (source)
Dimensions
406 x 326 x 50 mm (source)

Our arithmetic

  • Average PPFD across its stated 2.5 x 2.5 ft vegetative footprint: about 470 umol/m2/s
    2.5 ft x 2.5 ft = 6.25 sq ft = 0.581 m2. 343 umol/s divided by 0.581 m2 = 590 umol/m2/s at perfect uniformity; applying a 0.8 uniformity factor gives about 472 umol/m2/s average.
  • Electricity used at 14 hours a day for 30 days: 63.0 kWh a month
    150 W x 14 h x 30 d / 1000 = 63.0 kWh.

Who should skip it

Skip it if you are lighting a bookshelf. 343 umol/s concentrated into a 2.5 ft square is far more light than a monstera wants, and you pay 150 W to deliver it.

A square white LED grow panel hanging above leafy seedlings indoors
02

Spider Farmer SF1000

LED panel

2 × 2 to 3 × 3 ft

Publishes PPF to two decimal places and an efficacy figure that actually divides out of it. That internal consistency is rarer in this category than it should be.

What Spider Farmer publishes

Power draw
100 W +/-5% at 100-277 V AC (source)
PPF (photon output)
249.21 umol/s (source)
Efficacy
2.5 umol/J (source)
Stated coverage
2 x 2 ft core, 3 x 3 ft maximum (source)
Spectrum
650-665 nm, 730-740 nm, 2800-3000 K, 4800-5000 K (source)
Diodes
Bridgelux (source)
Dimming
Yes, dimming knob (source)
Dimensions
32.5 x 29.0 x 5.9 cm (source)
Rated life
55,000 hours (source)

Our arithmetic

  • Does the published efficacy check out against the published PPF?: Yes — 2.49 umol/J computed against 2.5 umol/J published
    249.21 umol/s / 100 W = 2.4921 umol/J. The published 2.5 umol/J is that number rounded. Not every brand's two figures agree like this, which is exactly why we divide them.
  • Average PPFD across its 2 x 2 ft core footprint: about 536 umol/m2/s
    2 ft x 2 ft = 4 sq ft = 0.372 m2. 249.21 / 0.372 = 670 umol/m2/s at perfect uniformity; at a 0.8 uniformity factor, about 536 umol/m2/s.

Who should skip it

Skip it if raw output is what you are buying — the TS 1000 delivers 38% more photons per second, at the cost of 50 W more draw.

Questions people actually ask

+Is the Mars Hydro TS1000 or Spider Farmer SF1000 better?
It depends on the area. The SF1000 is the better match up to about 3 × 3 ft — it lands in the right band without dimming and is about 9% more efficient at 2.5 µmol/J versus 2.3. The TS 1000 publishes 38% more photons and is the one that still reaches the high band over a 2 × 4 ft shelf and the medium band over 4 × 4.
+How much more light does the TS1000 give than the SF1000?
38% more — 343 µmol/s against 249.21, both published — for 50% more power. At a seedling-appropriate 250 µmol/m²/s that is about 11.8 sq ft of coverage against 8.6, computed at 0.8 uniformity.
+Which costs more to run?
The TS 1000, at 150 W against 100 W: about $57.77 versus $38.51 across a five-month season at 14 hours a day and the US residential average rate. Per photon delivered, the SF1000's higher efficacy makes it roughly 9% cheaper.
+Do either of them publish PPFD at a distance?
No. Neither manufacturer publishes a light-density figure with the measurement distance stated, so hanging height for both is set by rule of thumb — 12 to 18 inches over seedlings — rather than computed. Both dim via an unmarked knob rather than stated steps.
+Have you tested these two panels side by side?
No. We have not owned or measured either fixture. Every figure above is quoted from Mars Hydro's and Spider Farmer's own specification pages, linked in the sources, with our arithmetic shown so you can check it.

Sources

Read next

Where this sits

This page belongs to Fixture Reviews and Roundups. Every figure on it is either quoted from a named published source or derived in view — the full method is on our methodology page, and how the site is funded is on the affiliate disclosure.