Short answer: the TANGZU XuanNv. Both are rated 4.5/5 for sound quality (#115 and #103 of 1291 in-ear headphones), and the TANGZU XuanNv costs $79 against $89.99 for the Moondrop Ultrasonic, so with nothing between them on sound quality, price settles it.
The case for the Moondrop Ultrasonic: It is a true wireless earbud with active noise cancelling, LDAC and LC3 support over Bluetooth 5.3, and 6 hours of playback with 24 in total from the case. The tradeoff: Sub-bass falls about 2.9 dB below target and 3.4 dB down at 30 Hz, so deep bass lacks the slam many wireless buyers expect.
The case for the TANGZU XuanNv: Its dual dynamic drivers score 80.4 in squig.link hobbyist measurements, with a smooth 1.32 dB deviation and a slightly warm tilt. The tradeoff: Presence sits about 3.1 dB below target with a 5.2 dB dip near 6.2 kHz, so vocal articulation and snare crack lose some bite.
Buy the TANGZU XuanNv. Both are rated the same for sound quality, and it costs $10.99 less than the Moondrop Ultrasonic.
Looking for alternatives? See the complete Headphones rankings.
It is a true wireless earbud with active noise cancelling, LDAC and LC3 support over Bluetooth 5.3, and 6 hours of playback with 24 in total from the case.
Amazon $89.99 eBay
Its dual dynamic drivers score 80.4 in squig.link hobbyist measurements, with a smooth 1.32 dB deviation and a slightly warm tilt.
Amazon $79.00 eBayPrices on this page were last checked October 16, 2026 at 5:46 PM UTC. Product prices and availability are accurate as of that date/time and are subject to change; the price and availability shown on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
As an eBay Partner, we may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Specifications Side By Side
| Moondrop Ultrasonic | TANGZU XuanNv | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $89.99 | $79.00 |
| Ranked | #103 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones | #115 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones |
| Form Factor | In-ear | In-ear |
| Back | Closed | Closed |
| Harman Preference Score | 80 (median of 10 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) | 79 (median of 16 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) |
| Deviation From Target | 1.48 dB standard deviation | 1.42 dB standard deviation |
| Tonal Tilt | +0.00 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) | -0.39 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) |
| Sub-bass Extension | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (-3.1 dB at 30 Hz) | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (-0.4 dB at 30 Hz) |
| Connection | True wireless | Wired |
| Driver Type | Hybrid (1 dynamic + 1 balanced armature) | Dynamic |
| Drivers | 1 x 13mm dynamic + 1 x balanced armature | 1 x 10mm dynamic + 1 x 8mm dynamic |
| Active Noise Cancelling | Yes | - |
| Battery Life | 6 hours (24 with case, Manufacturer specified) | - |
| Bluetooth Version | 5.3 | - |
| Bluetooth Codecs | SBC, AAC, LDAC, LC3 | - |
| Built-in Microphone | Yes | No |
| Impedance | - | 8.5 ohms |
| Sensitivity | - | 98 dB |
| Frequency Response | - | 7Hz - 20kHz (Manufacturer specified) |
Frequency Response Compared
Both headphones’ measurements overlaid on the Harman target. Above the target sounds louder in that range, below it quieter. Each curve is the median of several independent measurements, shifted so its 500 Hz to 2 kHz average sits at 0 dB, so only the tuning is compared.
Measurement data: the Moondrop Ultrasonic from atechreviews, audioamigo, filk, flare, gadgetrytech, listener, musicafe, regancipher, superreview and suporsalad; the TANGZU XuanNv from achoreviews, aftersound, audioamigo, bassaudio, csi-zone, fernandagunsan, hbb, jaytiss, obodio, sl0the, soundcheck39, soundignity, theaudiostore, therollo9, treblewellxtended and vortexreviews, all via squig.link.
Related Headphone Comparisons
More top alternatives to Moondrop Ultrasonic: