# Rena XP3 vs Fluval 305



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

aspects said:


> Lol @ "this filter is better then a fluval" hahahahah. Good one.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice tank man. The scape and lighting looks good.


Thanks. 

Don't believe me about the Rena vs Fluval? I'm not sure by your response but I do own both. My tank was always just semi-clear until I got the Rena. Here is where I think the Rena does better:

- Both have similar footprint and height but the Rena has bigger baskets.
- There is no bypass on the Rena, it has to go through the baskets and all the sponge filters. On the Fluval some water can bypass the baskets and not all of the sponge's surface area gets used. How can I tell? I sometimes get shrimp shot through my Fluval, but they all get stuck in the Rena when it comes time to clean. Plus only small areas on the Fluval sponges pile up with gunk, showing that the flow through the filters is a poor design. So poor that I decided to use one of the baskets for extra sponges and filter floss when I first got the Fluval.

- Whenever I clean the Fluval and turn it back on crap comes out. With the Rena the amount of crap is a lot less. Maybe this is due to the Fluval having ridged tubing building up gunk?
- Speaking of tubing, the Rena uses standard sizes so you can plumb in a UV sterilizer, heater, or whatever you want. With the Fluval tubing it is a pain to mod. It also uses a weird size tube and rubber attachment whereas the Rena uses a standard size.
- - The Rena comes with a spraybar and other options like adjustable intake and output depth. The Fluval input must be cut to size and the output is set in stone.

Cons:
- I don't care for the light blue color of the Rena input
- The input does not have a ball joint like the Fluval so that flow can occur in the opposite direction on very rare circumstances 
- Putting the hoses back on the Rena after cleaning always feels like I'm gonna break them when I snap it back down. The fluval snap is a lot smoother....better build quality


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: My planted 75g Amazon tank*

I was comparing by price and number of baskets. Maybe compare the XP3 to the 405? Even then a lot of what I stated still holds true.

However I agree 100% that the FX5 pwns all but the Red Sea ocean clear filters....that I mentioned in the 180g tank thread. I would not be ashamed to own either of those 2 filters. I wish the 305/405 came with the output nozzle of the FX5!

Ocean Clear Canister Filters at AquariumGuys.com


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: My planted 75g Amazon tank*



aspects said:


> Generally the rena/ fluval canister comparison is done between the Fx5 and xp3. Both are the newest largest canisters, and are used on the same sized tanks.
> Can't say I'm familiar with the other one you named though. Might have to look into that.
> But between rena and fluval I would go fluval every time. Not to say the rena isn't an ok filter. Not to mention its cheap, so its good if need a big filter on a budget, but ime hagen makes better products.
> And I thought it was funny you mentioned the output of the Fx5, cause that's the one thing I don't like. Lol. Its ok for marine tanks, but for FW I always remove them.


I cannot see why. The FX5 retails for ~ $300 while the XP3 retails for $169. People who are shopping for filters compare similar priced filters. Hence the Fluval 305 or 405 comparison. There is also an XP4 that is taller and pushes more gph, but even this retail for $100 less than the FX5. 

You can't deny any of the difference I stated above though. The standard tubing alone is why I went with a Rena over a second Fluval. I needed to plumb a needle wheel pump in-line with the output tube to pump CO2 into my tank and it is much easier to do on the Rena models.

BTW if you don't like the output of the FX5 and you own one I would be happy trade you with the one from my 305. 

Here is another link to an Ocean clear filter. They come with a lot of options including micron filters and built in UV or heaters. The only problem is that you have to buy a seperate pump to run them. However they come with a pressure guage so you can get a reading of when it is clean vs when it is dirty to the point you need to clean it. I really like that feature:
Ocean Clear In-Line Filters


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

*Re: My planted 75g Amazon tank*



aspects said:


> You can not compare price between the two brands, rena is a cheaply made filter, hence the low cost. The 305 is only rated for a 70g tank but the xp3 is rated to handle a 175g tank. This is what you should be looking at, not the cost. You can't compare these 2.


If I have x amount of money to spend I am going to compare all the filters in that price range and pick the best one. That's how everyone shops, whether it is for a TV or a car. You buy the best you can afford, so of course I can compare the 2 if the 2 are at the same price range. Every other forum I've been to compares these models directly. I'm not sure when the XP3 came out but the 305 and 405 are fairly new remakes of the 304 and 404. 



aspects said:


> As for the tubing, I absolutely disagree. When you're dealing with a high flow filter such as the Fx5, smaller tubing will hinder flow and put strain on the motor over time. Its like putting a huge modified engine in a car and leaving the stock exhaust system.


I am not comparing two vastly different size tubings here...actually I think the XP3 uses a bigger tubing than the 305 or 405. What I was talking about is that the Fluval uses a ribbed tubing, so you you cannot easily cut it and clamp on a heater, or UV sterilizer in-line. The Rena uses a smooth tube. The ribbed tubing might also be the reason that crap shoots out of the 305 when turning it back on after cleaning...that is just annoying.



aspects said:


> And why the hell would I trade a Fx5 for a 305 lol.


You said you did not like the output nozzle of your FX5, so I was willing to take if off your hands. I'll be more than happy to buy it from you. I want flow in more directions in a planted tank, so I really don't like the nozzle that the 305 came with. How were you able to mod yours? That rubber fitting is not a standard size so you can't just add a PVC spay bar to it (another gripe I had with Fluval). Do you have pictures?


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

aspects said:


> Mods: please remove all of my posts from this thread. Had this been its own thread from the start I would not have responded.
> 
> You can not compare the functional properties of these two filters based on price.
> The xp3 is rated to filter a tank almost 3 times the size of the 305 (175g vs. 70g), so it goes without saying it should do a better job on a small tank.
> ...


Tank ratings are complete BS as most people know because a company can put any size there. A better comparison would be the actual flow rate. Here the 305 is rated at 260gph, the 405 is rated at 340gph and the XP3 is rated at 350gph. Even this can be skewed by the various companies who often rate them with the baskets completely empty. With media in it, they are often less. Comparisons have to be made at some point, so the one that makes the most sense is to compare similar priced filters. 

BTW the FX5 is rated at 925gph...way above the above canisters.

Before I added the XP3 I had the Fluval 305 running with a Magnum Pro with the micron filter in my 75g tank. I wanted to replace the Magnum with another filter and the 305, 405, and XP3 were my final choices based on price, gph flow, and overall customer satisfaction. Just thought I would add this, now that is is a seperate thread.


----------



## petlover516 (Nov 12, 2008)

I still have to go with fluvals. its really your choice.


----------



## Marty (Jan 1, 2009)

Well i have never tried the rena,so i cant knock it.But i have a fluval 305 for my cichlid tank and it works great!


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

Well, here is the plumbing I needed to add to one of my canisters. It is a needlwheel pump that makes micro bubbles from the the pressurize paintball CO2 tank:


----------



## 4dashorties (Mar 25, 2009)

How about noise level? I'm curious if there is a noticeable difference.


----------



## Dmaaaaax (Nov 20, 2008)

4dashorties said:


> How about noise level? I'm curious if there is a noticeable difference.


Both were quiet when I got them. With the cabinet doors closed you cannot hear anything. Now that I have added that pump in-line that makes micro CO2 bubbles I hear some noise that sounds like "rain in the background". It is very faint but is due to the bubbles getting chopped up by the impeller. When the CO2 is shut off at night, the system is dead silent again.


----------

