Eargo SE vs Fortell AI Hearing Aids

The Eargo SE is a premium-priced OTC hearing aid at $1,699, featuring an invisible-in-ear design and earning a B grade with a SoundScore of 3.1/5 in our lab testing. This places it in the top 85% of the OTC hearing aid category, ranking #56 of 65 devices tested. In our testing, the Eargo SE demonstrated solid performance in speech clarity for quiet environments, scoring 3.2/5—0.43 points above the category average. Feedback handling was excellent at 4.6/5, meaning users should experience stable performance without whistling issues. However, the device showed limitations in challenging listening situations, with speech in noise scoring 1.3/5, which falls 0.23 points below the category average. A notable weakness is the complete absence of music streaming capability, scoring 0.0/5 compared to the category average of 1.92/5. Own-voice comfort scored 2.4/5, slightly below the category average. These mixed results suggest the Eargo SE prioritizes its discreet form factor over comprehensive audio features. The Eargo SE may appeal to users who prioritize an invisible design and primarily need help hearing conversations in quieter settings. However, given its premium price point and the availability of alternatives like the Jabra Enhance Select 50R that deliver stronger overall scores at lower prices, value-conscious consumers may want to explore other options before committing.

The Fortell AI Hearing Aids are a premium prescription behind-the-ear device priced at $6,800, earning an A grade with a SoundScore of 6.0/5 in HearAdvisor lab testing—an exceptional result that places this device at the top of the prescription hearing aid category. Speech performance is where the Fortell AI truly distinguishes itself. Speech in noise scores an outstanding 6.0/5, a full 3.89 points above the category average of 2.11/5—the kind of margin that represents a meaningful difference in challenging listening environments like restaurants or group conversations. Speech in quiet also excels at 4.6/5, sitting 1.20 points above the category average. Music streaming performs strongly at 4.2/5, coming in 1.44 points above average for the category. The device does have a notable limitation: own-voice comfort scores just 1.5/5, falling 1.20 points below the category average. This low absolute score suggests wearers may notice occlusion effects when speaking. Feedback handling is excellent at 4.8/5, essentially matching the category average. Best suited for: Users who prioritize understanding speech in difficult listening situations and value streaming quality, and who can tolerate potential own-voice occlusion. Given the premium price point, buyers should weigh whether the exceptional speech-in-noise performance justifies the investment compared to alternatives like the Oticon Intent or Oticon Zeal, which offer strong performance at lower price points.