Daiwa 21 Ballistic MQ LT 4000D-CX vs Daiwa 22 Exist LT 2000D-PX

Daiwa 21 Ballistic MQ LT
Spinning
95.00 out of 100
Value for money5 out of 5
Quality classExcellent
Durability5.5 out of 10
Ergonomics6.23 out of 10
Gear ratio5.2:1
Maximum drag12kg / 26.46lbs
Weight230g / 8.11oz
Line retireve per crank82 centimeter / 32.28 inch
Ball bearings8
Technical Specifications
- BrandDAIWA
- The main category of the reelSpinning
- Price range~ €218.10
- Is saltwater resistantNo
- Spare spoolNo
- Reel size4000D-C
- Handle typeSingle handle
- Drag typeFront drag
- Handle orientationLeft, Right
- Line capacity monofilmm/meter: 0.37/150

Daiwa 22 Exist LT
Spinning
84.40 out of 100
Value for money3.5 out of 5
Quality classExcellent
Durability9.5 out of 10
Ergonomics6.5 out of 10
Gear ratio4.9:1
Maximum drag5kg / 11.02lbs
Weight150g / 5.29oz
Line retireve per crank64 centimeter / 25.2 inch
Ball bearings12
Technical Specifications
- BrandDAIWA
- The main category of the reelSpinning
- Price range~ €635.33
- Is saltwater resistantYes
- Spare spoolNo
- Reel size2000D-P
- Handle typeSingle handle
- Drag typeFront drag
- Handle orientationLeft, Right
- Line capacity monofilmm/meter: 0.23/150
Conclusion
Daiwa 21 Ballistic MQ LT 4000D-CX edges out Daiwa 22 Exist LT 2000D-PX with slightly better overall performance, especially on the ball bearings (8) and the maximum drag (12kg / 26,46lbs). Still, Daiwa 22 Exist LT 2000D-PX holds its own with strengths like a durability of 9.5 out of 10 and a weight of 150g / 5,29oz, making it a solid choice depending on your preferences and fishing needs.
What's the difference between Daiwa 21 Ballistic MQ LT and Daiwa 22 Exist LT?
Daiwa 21 Ballistic MQ LT 4000D-CX
- 6.71 out of 10 (82 centimeter / 32.28 inch) in line retrieve, means the reel delivers a steady and reliable retrieve which is ideal for most everyday techniques
- With an outstanding bearing score of 10 out of 10 (8), the reel offers top tier smoothness. Ideal for anglers who appreciate premium feel
Daiwa 22 Exist LT 2000D-PX
- Saltwater-safe design makes it perfect for spinning conditions.
Similar comparisons

Shimano Complex XR 2500X vs Daiwa 24 LUVIAS LT 1000DX


Penn Battle III 2000X vs Shimano Sahara 2500 DH R


Daiwa 19 Certate 3000D-CX vs Daiwa 22 SILVERCREEK X LT 2000 S-XHX


Daiwa 19 Certate 3000D-CX vs Daiwa 24 LUVIAS LT 1000DX


Penn Battle III 2000X vs Daiwa 20 Airity LT 2500-DX


Shimano Sedona C3000 HG FI vs Daiwa 17 Ballistic LT 3000D-CXHX


Shimano Catana 3000 SRC vs Daiwa 22 SILVERCREEK X LT 2000 S-XHX


Daiwa 23 LEXA LT 2500X vs Shimano Sedona C3000 HG FI


Shimano FX 1000 FCX vs Penn Battle III 2000X


Shimano Sedona C3000 HG FI vs Shimano FX 1000 FCX


Shimano Sahara 2500 DH R vs Daiwa Regal LT 2000 DX


Penn Battle III 2000X vs Shimano Vanford FA 2500HGAX


Shimano FX 1000 FCX vs Daiwa Regal LT 2000 DX


Shimano FX 1000 FCX vs Shimano Sedona C3000 HG FI


Daiwa 24 LUVIAS LT 1000DX vs Daiwa 23 LEXA LT 2500X


Daiwa 20 Fuego LT 1000X vs Daiwa 24 LUVIAS LT 1000DX


Daiwa Regal LT 2000 DX vs Delphin QUEEN MonoDRAG 2000X


Daiwa 20 Airity LT 2500-DX vs Shimano Sahara 2500 DH R


Shimano Sahara 2500 DH R vs Penn Battle III 2000X


Shimano Twin Power XD A C 3000 XGX vs Daiwa 22 SILVERCREEK X LT 2000 S-XHX
