IBC Technologies SFT 199 vs Richmond SFT 199-1: which uses less energy?
At the high draw pattern the Richmond SFT 199-1 uses 188 therms a year and the IBC Technologies SFT 199 190 — 2 therms (1%) less, about 21 therms over ten years. Both are filed as a gas tankless unit, so the comparison holds. Enter your ZIP below to price the difference.
Side by side
Compared within one class only: models filed as a gas tankless unit at the high draw pattern.
| Figure | IBC Technologies SFT 199 | Richmond SFT 199-1 |
|---|---|---|
| UEF (Uniform Energy Factor) | 0.89 | 0.9 (better) |
| Energy use per year (therms) | 190 | 188 (better) |
| Max flow (GPM) | 5.4 | 5.3 |
| Installed cost range | $2,075–$3,074 | $2,122–$3,129 |
| ENERGY STAR certified | not matched | not matched |
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 Richmond SFT 199-1 if running cost matters most: it uses 2 therms less a year on the same test.
- Pick the IBC Technologies SFT 199 if you run more fixtures at once: it lists 5.4 GPM against 5.3.
- Neither if you need more than 5.4 GPM at the same time — neither unit lists more. Check how to size a tankless unit by GPM.
Each model on its own
-
IBC Technologies SFT 199
Its filed figures, class position and running cost on your ZIP.
-
Richmond SFT 199-1
Its filed figures, class position and running cost on your ZIP.