LED vs metal halide lighting comparison: efficacy (130-180 vs 65-115 lm/W), CRI (80-95 vs 65-85 Ra), lumen maintenance (…
| Comparison | Option A | Option B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 130-180 lm/W | 65-115 lm/W | LED (50-100% more) |
| CRI | 80-95 Ra | 65-85 Ra (varies by type) | LED (consistent quality) |
| Lumen Maintenance (L70) | 50,000-100,000 hours | 6,000-15,000 hours | LED (5-10× longer) |
| Restrike Time | Instant on/off | 10-15 minutes after power cycle | LED (no downtime) |
| Color Shift Over Life | <5% shift (stable) | 30-50% shift (noticeable pink/green) | LED (stable color) |
| UV/IR Emission | None | High UV (fades merchandise) | LED (retail-safe) |
| 5-Year TCO (100 fixtures) | $18,000-35,000 | $38,000-65,000 | LED (50-55% savings) |
| Best For | Stadium, arena, retail, warehouse, gym | Legacy high-ceiling only — phase-out recommended | LED (modern standard) |
LED surpasses metal halide in every metric that matters: 50-100% higher efficacy, 5-10× longer lumen maintenance, consistent color without the notorious pink/green shift, instant restrike (critical for sports/TV broadcast), zero UV (safe for retail merchandise), and 50-55% lower 5-year TCO. Metal halide is the most expensive legacy technology to operate — stadiums switching to LED typically save $150K-$500K annually in energy alone. If you have existing metal halide, prioritize LED retrofit: ROI is typically 12-24 months.