The Tesla Powerwall 3 and FranklinWH aPower 2 are two large single-unit home batteries built around LFP chemistry. This comparison lists only what each manufacturer publishes, so the numbers can be read directly rather than through a ranking.
How to read this comparison
Every figure below comes from the named manufacturer's own product page or datasheet. Two numbers matter most: capacity in kilowatt-hours, which sets how long the battery runs your loads, and continuous power in kilowatts, which sets how much can run at once. Warranty terms are stated differently by each company, so compare the exact wording.
Both are single large units rather than small stackable modules, which makes a per-unit comparison meaningful here. Both also use lithium iron phosphate chemistry.
No winner is declared. The right choice depends on target system size, whether solar is being added at the same time, and local installer support.
Tesla Powerwall 3, from Tesla's specs
Tesla rates the Powerwall 3 at 13.5 kWh of nominal battery energy with up to 11.5 kW AC continuous power per unit. It integrates a solar inverter with direct solar inputs.
Tesla lists support for up to 20 kW DC of solar into the Powerwall 3, letting the battery and solar share one inverter. The product carries a 10-year warranty.
FranklinWH aPower 2, from FranklinWH's specs
FranklinWH lists the aPower 2 at 15 kWh of capacity with 10 kW of continuous power. It uses lithium iron phosphate battery technology.
FranklinWH backs the aPower 2 with a 15-year warranty and also lists a 60 MWh throughput figure, covering both a time term and total energy delivered.
Where they differ on paper
On single-unit capacity the aPower 2 lists 15 kWh versus the Powerwall 3's 13.5 kWh. On continuous power the Powerwall 3 lists up to 11.5 kW versus the aPower 2's 10 kW.
Architecture differs too. The Powerwall 3 integrates a solar inverter with up to 20 kW DC of direct solar input, while the aPower 2 is a battery paired with FranklinWH's separate aGate controller for energy management.
Warranty terms differ on paper: Tesla lists 10 years, while FranklinWH lists 15 years plus a 60 MWh throughput figure. Both use LFP chemistry. Which fits depends on target size, solar integration, and installer availability.