
FJHEPERPOO 240W USB C to USB C Cable, 2-Pack 3.3ft, Nylon | Fast Charging, iPhone 17 16 15 Pro Max Compatible, MacBook Pro/Air Compatible, iPad Pro Compatible, Galaxy S25 S24 Compatible
Price: $12.99
Ordered on: 2026-01-21
Reviewed on: 2026-02-18
There's something about this cable that trips up my cable tester, making it think there's no cable connected when I try to read the e-marker. But when I use it with an actual computer, it seems to work fine. I don't have any devices that can charge at the full 240W, but I tested both a Windows laptop and a MacBook, and both were able to go over 65W, indicating that they can read the e-marker.
I contacted the manufacturer of the cable tester (Treedix), and they actually sent me a second tester, thinking mine might be faulty. However, the replacement both cables had the same issue with . (And the tester works fine with several other 240W cables.)
Then, on a whim I tried adding an extension cable between this cable and the tester, and it worked! The tester was suddenly able to read the e-marker!
When I look at the end of the cable, it appears that some pins are completely missing - so maybe that's what's tripping up the tester. The extension cable has all of it's pins. (I also sent my findings to the tester manufacturer.)
Aside from that, it works fine for USB 2.0 data, with real-world speeds of a bit over 40 megabytes per second (~330 megabits per second).
It's labeled 240W on one end, which I appreciate. Labeling the other end would also have been good, along with the data speed, but oh well.
The cable is braided and flexible and feels pretty nice. It's about 4.5mm thick. The housing measures 6.3 x 10.6mm, which is small enough to fit in my phone's case easily. It's 20.3mm long, enough to get a good grip on. There is no strain relief at all. Each cable has a nice velcro strap to wrap it up.
All in all, the cable is mostly fine, but if it confused my cable tester, then there's a reasonable chance that it will confuse other devices too, so I can't give it a full 5 stars.
This review originally appeared on Amazon, however nathananderin.com should be considered the canonical source as I keep it up-to-date over time.








