Scale Magazine Comparisons                     
"CJ vs. CS Comparison Test"


Based again on the popularity of our previous comparisons between scales that look similar but are actually different, this Month we again decided to compare and contrast two digital scales that look similar but are actually quite different.  The Jennings CJ Series compared to the Ohaus CS Series (now renamed the "Ruby")

The Ohaus CS/Ruby digital scale was first introduced in 1998 as the replacement for the aging Ohaus LS.  It gained instant success in the early market because there wasn't much competition for this mid-sized digital scale. The CS was originally made for Ohaus in China by Bonso.  This year Ohaus tells us they have left Bonso in order to improve quality and moved production to a new Ohaus/Mettler factory in China.  Ohaus also recently updated the looks of the CS/Ruby with a new paint job and new fake stainless steel buttons. The CS has developed strong reputation for quality over the years.

The JScale CJ digital scale was introduced in August of 2003.  It has a shape that is slightly similar to the Ruby but appears to be much newer looking with many updates. It's almost as if the CJ looks like the new CS (honestly).

Based on their similar looks and competing market we knew it was time that we C&C (compare and contrast) these two digital compact scales and evaluate them ourselves.

Jennings CJ
Ohaus CS / Ruby
*Model Compared* CJ-300 (300g x 0.1) CS/Ruby 300 (300g x 0.1)
All Models Available
CJ-300 (300g x 0.1)
CJ-600 (600g x 0.1)
CJ-4000 (4000g x 0.5)
CS/Ruby 300 (300g x 0.1)
CS/Ruby 2500 (2500g x 1.0)
CS/Ruby 5000 (5000g x 2.0)
4 German HBM Sensors
4 German HBM Sensors
Weighing System
3" Aluminum Load Cell
3" Aluminum Load Cell
Stabilization Time
~1 Second
~3 Seconds
Maximum Capacity
300 Grams (CJ-300)
300 Grams (CS/Ruby-300)
Grams, Ounces, Pennyweight, Parts counting
Grams, Ounces, Pennyweight, Troy Ounces
Counting Sizes 10, 20, 50, or 100 pcs No Count Feature
Tare Max
300 Grams
300 Grams
Yes, with 200g weight
Yes, with 300g weight
Display 1.2" (34mm) 0.4" (11mm)
5 Years with $10 fee
1 Year (no fee)
Included Accessories
Stainless Steel Tray, cover / bowl with pour spout, 3 AAA batteries
3 AA Batteries
Fuzhou China
Shenzhen China
Suggested Retail
$59.95 (CJ-300)
$99.95 (CS/Ruby-300)

Testing Results:

We tested 5 CJ-300's vs. 5 Ruby-300's.  All scales were put in a 70f room and allowed to sit for 24 hours before tested.   Our test facility is a controlled environment that allows us to fully evaluate scales.  First (if possible) we calibrate the scales using a 100gram F1 weight.  We use F1 test weights for all of our tests and record the results on a spreadsheet to fully compare the products.   Each scale is tested by placing a 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 250, and 300 gram weight on the tray 10 times.   The results are then compared for an overall accuracy number, skew (reproducibility) and stability.  Then we put the scales into a 45f refrigerator for 30 minutes,  removed them and then ran the tests again in order to test for temperature compensation.

The tests were completely flat.  Both scales performed almost exactly the same with the same accuracy and repeatability overall.  We noted that the CJ does give much faster results than the Ohaus.  The tests for durability & temperature compensation were dead-even.  The Ohaus has better RF interference protection than the CJ, this is important if you use your scale in a high-interference environment.  We opened an Ohaus and found an RF protecting metal sleeve around the wiring harness, this explains why the Ohaus has such great RF protection.

The older Ohaus CS used a rubber keypad that we liked but the new Ohaus Ruby uses a very strange fake stainless steel plastic material.  We think this was done for cosmetic reasons alone. It looks nice but feels cheap, especially when compared to the nice rubber keypad of the JScale CJ or older Ohaus CS.   We also thought it was ironic that the Ohaus uses a fake stainless steel material for the keypad and yet a black plastic weighing tray.  The JScale CJ uses actual stainless steel for its weighing tray.

The CJ appears to be the better value.  Although both scales performed identically, the CJ has more features,  more accessories,  a larger display and costs much less.
a) The CJ and CS/Ruby tests yielded very similar results.
b) The CJ offers parts counting mode whereas the CS/Ruby lacks this feature
c) The CJ has a nice rubber keypad that felt soft to the touch. The Ruby uses a strange fake stainless steel plastic material for the keypad that we didn't like.
d) The CJ is much faster than the CS/Ruby.  This is a big factor when weighing items.  Nobody likes to wait for results.
e) The CJ comes with a stainless steel platform, the CS/Ruby has a plastic platform
f) The CJ has a much larger display (3 times larger than the CS/Ruby).
g) The CJ comes with a really innovative bowl with pouring spout. This bowl also acts as a cover for the scale when not in use.
f) The CJ costs 40% less than the Ohaus.

NOTE:  The older Ohaus CS Series had a lower capacity (200g) and only read in Grams and Ounces. There are still many of these old CS Scales in the market, don't confuse the CS with the Ruby.  The Ruby has a nice silver paint job with the higher 300g capacity whereas the old CS has a flat gray finish.   

We feel that overall the JScale CJ offers a much better value.  As with any scale be sure to purchase the optional calibration weight so that you can recalibrate the scale when you receive it (to keep it perfectly accurate).  If you are in a high-interference environment, the Ohaus should be your scale of choice.

Notes:  The Ohaus CS/Ruby design is a lot older than the CJ and thus this may be the reason for it's small LCD.  LCD prices have dropped tremendously over the past 5 years enabling the newer scales to use much larger displays without much higher cost. 

Learn More about these Scale Brands:


FeedbackWe encourage you to provide feedback on this article and/or tell us your personal experience with a scale.
*Within reason - we stepped on the platform,  dropped the scale from 4 ft, all without any damage except for cosmetic.

Important Disclaimer: Scales are sometimes difficult to compare. Our results are just a sample of tests done at random conditions. The actual operating conditions of your scale may vary from our test conditions and your results may differ from our results. We did our best to test the scales in a blind and unbiased manner. We receive advertising and other consideration from companies that support this site. We do our best to not allow this to affect the results of our tests and evaluations. However, we strongly recommend that you do your own comparison tests in your actual operating environment to determine which scale is best for your needs.
The terms PalmScale 7.0 and all are trademarks or trade names of their respective parties. Names are used for comparison purposes only and for the purposes of this article.

Scale All Rights Reserved