Samsung EP-TA200 comparison
While sorting through some boxes at home, I found a Samsung EP-TA200. It looked like the fake unit I'd tested before, but this one turned out to be genuine. A good opportunity to compare the two side by side.
General design, cable type and length
Here is the rear of the charger. Notice that the plug is slightly angled; that's intentional, not a manufacturing defect. Counterfeit chargers often use completely straight contacts instead.
Blank side of the charger.
Side with the USB output.
Samsung fast-charging logo marking.
The labels on the genuine and counterfeit chargers look quite similar at first. The logos and fonts reveal differences, however. The genuine marking appears laser-etched, whereas the counterfeit looks printed. Even the letters in the fake Samsung logo are inconsistent—the 'U', for example, appears thinner than its neighbors.
The plastic housings also feel different. The genuine charger has a rougher, higher-quality texture; the counterfeit is completely smooth and feels like ordinary inexpensive plastic.
As for the figures on the label:
9.0 V = 1.67 A 15 W; 5.0 V = 2.00 A 10 W
The fake doesn't even list its wattage. It can nevertheless provide up to 15 W. In my phone test it delivered roughly 7.62 V at 1.62 A, so it can change output voltage and provide that amount of power.
This is the cable from the genuine unit: USB-A at the charger end and USB-C at the phone end. It's about 100 cm long, which is rather short.
AC input stage: internal design, EMI filter, bridge rectifier, manufacturer and PCB rear side
The difference inside is substantial. The genuine unit uses plenty of securing compound to stop components from moving, while the counterfeit uses none. The original also looks cleaner and better organized.
EMI filter
At the input, the genuine charger has a 2.8-ohm resistor serving as an inrush limiter and fuse, plus a choke for filtering. The counterfeit has only the resistor for the first two functions. Notice the black protective coating around the genuine component; the fake lacks it, and the component is not even mounted neatly on the PCB.
Bridge rectifier
Genuine
RABF 25010 2.5 A 1000 V ×1
Counterfeit
MB10F 1 A 700 V ×1
The counterfeit bridge rectifier has both a lower current rating and a lower voltage rating. The difference is significant.
Manufacturer and rear side of the PCB
Samsung has shinier solder joints, although there is still a lot of flux residue.
Flux residue was left around many component leads. The maker of the counterfeit is also unknown. The genuine charger, on the other hand, was made by...
SOLUM EP-TA20W REV 8.0 19.10.25
SOLUM, of course—a well-known supplier that manufactures chargers for Samsung.
Primary circuit: bulk capacitor and controller
Bulk capacitor
Genuine
CapXon KM 15 µF 400 V 105°C @ 2,000 h ×1; CapXon KM 12 µF 400 V 105°C @ 2,000 h ×1
Counterfeit
Niomi GR 6.8 µF 450 V 105°C @ ?.??? h ×1
The genuine unit has 27 µF of bulk capacitance versus just 6.8 µF in the counterfeit—almost a fourfold difference. The fake uses Niomi capacitors, a brand for which I could find almost no information. The original uses the better-known CapXon.
There are also quality differences between the capacitors on the PCB.
Genuine
CapXon SZ 2.2 µF 35 V 105°C @ 1,000 h ×1
Counterfeit
MHS GD 47 µF 25 V 105°C @ ?.??? h ×1
The genuine charger uses this capacitor for its auxiliary rail; the fake uses it to filter the primary controller's VCC supply. Naturally, the fake's capacitor is unbranded, while the original at least uses CapXon.
Controller
Genuine
CA02657
Counterfeit
CSC7203
I couldn't locate the genuine controller's datasheet, so a complete comparison isn't possible. The part names are surprisingly similar. The chip in the original may well be a Samsung-designed device.
Genuine
HCT70R1K6 3.2 A @ 100°C 700 V
The controller in the genuine charger doesn't integrate its switching transistor. A separate transistor is installed, rated at 3.2 A, which is sufficient here.
Transformer design and isolation
Genuine
TA-20MW SM 2140 XM-01B
Counterfeit
No readable model marking was found on the other transformer.
Even the insulating tape on the counterfeit transformer's windings looks carelessly applied. The genuine unit's windings are much neater, although internal construction matters more than appearance alone.
Counterfeit
The counterfeit transformer had no additional protective layer over the secondary windings. The secondary was also not kept away from the primary to improve safety.
Genuine
The genuine transformer, by contrast, uses a protective wrap over the secondary and provides additional separation from the primary windings.
Isolation
The minimum primary-to-secondary clearance in the genuine charger is 5 mm, limited by the Y capacitor. Without it, the spacing is roughly 8–9 mm. In the counterfeit the gap shrinks to about 2–3 mm. The difference is considerable, and the genuine unit has an extra plastic barrier as well.
The capacitor bridging primary and secondary is another important difference. The genuine charger uses an actual Y1 safety-class capacitor with extended leads for insulation. The counterfeit uses an ordinary 1 kV capacitor without a Y1 or Y2 safety rating, and without extended leads.
Secondary side, feedback & voltage switching
Genuine
CA02851
Counterfeit
LP1035
Information about the two feedback devices is limited. The counterfeit uses a smaller IC; the original uses a larger chip. Feedback is integrated into the original device, while the counterfeit relies on a TL431.
Rectification, type and filtering
Genuine
SFTN6015MP 22 A @ 100°C 60 V ×1 — N-channel MOSFET
Counterfeit
SR5100 5 A 100 V ×1 — Schottky diode
One of the biggest differences is rectification: the counterfeit uses passive diode rectification, whereas the genuine Samsung uses synchronous rectification.
The counterfeit also uses a mere 5 A Schottky diode for a 15 W charger. The original has a 22 A rectifier with considerably more current headroom, which affects heat and efficiency.
Filtering
Genuine
470 µF 12 V ×1 — polymer capacitor
Counterfeit
ChangX 470 µF 10 V ×2 — electrolytic capacitors
The genuine adapter has one output capacitor, while the counterfeit has two electrolytics in parallel. The original's polymer capacitor can offer low ESR and high ripple-current capability. The counterfeit's arrangement is less appealing.
Regulation and ripple tests
Tests were performed at 5 V. The figures in the table cover each charger's output capability at that voltage.
Samsung's regulation is excellent. At full load, output voltage changed by only −0.19% relative to the initial measurement, better than the other adapters in this comparison.
Ripple is good as well: 46.50 mV at full load and up to 52.71 mV with an additional 0.70 A load. That puts Samsung at the top of this comparison.
Conclusion
The genuine Samsung doesn't merely use better parts; it also clearly wins on electrical performance, regulation, ripple and isolation. The counterfeit may charge a phone and look similar from the outside, but inside it is a completely different product.
The difference goes far beyond typography or plastic texture. A weaker EMI filter, smaller bulk capacitor, lower-rated bridge rectifier, passive rectification, inferior isolation and a capacitor without a safety classification add up to a markedly different charger.
The real question in power electronics isn't only what happens when everything works normally; it's what happens when something goes wrong. A well-designed charger shuts down or limits a fault. A poorly designed one may not.
So the question isn't merely 'will this fake charge a phone?' It probably will. The more important questions are whether it'll keep doing so tomorrow, remain safe five years from now and respond properly to a fault. In electronics, a tiny saving in component cost can make the difference between years of safety and, occasionally, smoke, flames or worse.
A phone accepting a charge doesn't make its charger good. What matters is how well it delivers that power—and how it behaves when something eventually goes wrong.
Pros
- Very good electrical performance
- Good internal components
- Solid build quality
- No obvious cost-cutting in safety components.
Cons
- The flux residue could have been cleaned.