Back to Comparisons
Product Comparison

Eargo 6 vs Lucid Ultra 128

Side-by-side HearAdvisor lab results with SoundGrades, expert pick badges, and the same visualizations we use in product reviews.

Uses Official HearAdvisor Lab Data
Eargo 6 Hero
EargoSoundGrade B

Eargo 6

The Eargo 6 is a premium-priced OTC hearing aid ($2,250) that earned a B grade and a SoundScore of 3.4/5 in our lab testing, placing it in the top 63% of OTC hearing aids we've evaluated. This invisible-in-ear device delivers solid speech clarity in quiet environments, scoring 3.3/5—notably 0.53 points above the OTC category average. Own-voice comfort is also above average at 2.9/5, though mixed in absolute terms. However, the Eargo 6 shows significant weaknesses in challenging listening situations, with speech-in-noise performance scoring just 1.0/5, falling 0.48 points below the category average. The most notable limitation is music streaming, which scored 0.0/5 in our testing—substantially below the category average. Feedback handling scored 3.3/5, solid in absolute terms but 1.24 points below the OTC average of 4.54/5. The device uses rechargeable batteries and maintains a fully invisible profile when worn. The Eargo 6 may suit consumers who prioritize discreet aesthetics and primarily need help hearing conversations in quieter settings. However, shoppers should note that alternatives like the Sony CRE-C10 and Olive Union Air achieved higher SoundScores at lower price points. Those frequently in noisy environments or who value music streaming should explore other options.

Expert Choice
Expert
Choice
Lucid Ultra 128  Hero
LucidSoundGrade A

Lucid Ultra 128

The Lucid Ultra 128 is a premium behind-the-ear prescription hearing aid priced at $5,000, earning an A grade with a SoundScore of 4.4/5 in our lab testing. It ranks #16 of 36 devices in the Prescription Hearing Aid category. Speech performance is a clear strength for the Ultra 128. In our testing, speech in quiet scored a strong 4.3/5, landing 1.03 points above the category average. Speech in noise measured 2.7/5—above the category average by 0.74 points, though mixed in absolute terms. These results suggest the device prioritizes intelligibility in everyday listening situations. The Ultra 128 does show notable weaknesses. Feedback handling scored just 1.7/5, falling 3.01 points below the category average of 4.71/5—a significant gap that prospective buyers should consider. Music streaming measured 2.3/5, slightly below the category average. Own-voice comfort was mixed at 2.9/5, though this sits just above the category norm. The device uses disposable batteries and supports streaming to both iPhone and Android. At this price point, buyers may want to compare against higher-scoring competitors like the Phonak Sphere Infinio (5.0/5) or Oticon Intent (4.85/5). The Lucid Ultra 128 may suit those who prioritize speech clarity in quieter environments and can work with their hearing care provider to manage its feedback limitations.

Performance metrics

Scale 1-5 (Tuned)

Lab metric by fit

Scale 1-5 (Tuned)

Speech in quietNew
Eargo 63.3
Lucid Ultra 1284.3
Speech in noiseNew
Eargo 61.0
Lucid Ultra 1282.7
Own voice
Eargo 62.9
Lucid Ultra 1282.9
Feedback handling
Eargo 63.3
Lucid Ultra 1281.7
Music streaming
Eargo 60.0
Lucid Ultra 1282.3
Overall fit score
Eargo 63.4
Lucid Ultra 1284.2

Speech level

Adjust input dB (Tuned)

Amplification (REIG)

Insertion gain at 65 dB (Tuned)

Fitting configuration for tuned fit

Eargo 6Lucid Ultra 128
Ear CouplingSleeve Closed
Ear CouplingClosed Vented Dome
Receiver
ReceiverStandard
Fitting Formula
Fitting FormulaProprietary manufacturer default
Listening Program
Listening ProgramLucid (Automatic)
Volume Setting
Volume Setting54% (Default 7/13)
Software Version
Software VersionBT Firmware v12.0.29, Firmware v9.2.33
Tuning Adjustments
Tuning AdjustmentsProgrammed to N3 audiogram by Lucid team, LucidShape adjusted to match NAL-NL2 targets at 65 dB SPL, Other settings at manufacturer default
Notes
NotesDefault programming was performed by Lucid team, further adjustments were limited as we did not have access to their proprietary software.