Chiltrix Inc. DHW105 vs Noritz ME120HPT: which uses less energy?
At the high draw pattern the Chiltrix Inc. DHW105 uses 1,002 kWh a year and the Noritz ME120HPT 1,468 — 466 kWh (32%) less, about 4,655 kWh over ten years. Both are filed as an electric tank, so the comparison holds. Enter your ZIP below to price the difference.
Side by side
Compared within one class only: models filed as an electric tank at the high draw pattern.
| Figure | Chiltrix Inc. DHW105 | Noritz ME120HPT |
|---|---|---|
| UEF (Uniform Energy Factor) | 4.95 (better) | 3.38 |
| Energy use per year (kWh) | 1,002 (better) | 1,468 |
| First hour rating (gal) | 133 | 105 |
| Rated storage volume (gal) | 99 | 109 |
| Installed cost range | not published | not published |
| ENERGY STAR certified | not matched | yes |
| Sound level (dB) | not filed | 54 |
| Refrigerant | not filed | R-134a, GWP 1430 |
| On the market since | not filed | 2024-07-01 |
What it costs to run
Reliability
Not published: Reliability, failure rates and each model’s actual warranty term.
The registries these figures come from certify energy performance under a federal test; none of them records how long a unit lasts or how often it fails, so this page does not rank the two on reliability.
What is here instead:
- The filed efficiency, capacity and tank size of both models, side by side below.
- The actual warranty term is printed in each model’s documentation, not in any registry.
Which should you pick?
- Pick the Chiltrix Inc. DHW105 if running cost matters most: it uses 466 kWh less a year on the same test.
- Pick the Noritz ME120HPT if it is the one you can get installed sooner or for less — on the filed figures it has no advantage over the Chiltrix Inc. DHW105.
- Neither if your household's busiest hour needs more than 133 gallons of hot water — neither lists more.
Each model on its own
-
Chiltrix Inc. DHW105
Its filed figures, class position and running cost on your ZIP.
-
Noritz ME120HPT
Its filed figures, class position and running cost on your ZIP.