Best Gaming Mice · head-to-head

Glorious Model O 2 Wireless vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless

A sourced, side-by-side comparison. SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless is cheaper at $109.99. Every spec and price links to its source.

Which is better: the Glorious Model O 2 Wireless or SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless?

The Glorious Model O 2 Wireless wins 2 of the 2 specs we compare head to head; the other wins 0.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Prices verified at capture; live price may differ.

Key specs, head to head

The numbers that decide it, drawn to scale — longer bar wins, the accent bar is the stronger figure.

Sensor (dpi)
Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 26000
SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 18000

Full spec sheet

marks the stronger figure where "more" — or "less", for price and weight — is unambiguously better.

Spec Glorious Model O 2 Wireless SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless
US price $109.99
BrandGloriousSteelSeries
Released2023-042022-01
Sensor (dpi) 26000 18000
Weight (g) 68 74
Connectivity 2.4 GHz wireless + Bluetooth 5.2 + USB-C wired 2.4 GHz Quantum 2.0 wireless + Bluetooth 5.0
Buttons 6 9
Polling (Hz) 1000 1000
Battery hr 110 180
Switch type Glorious optical Golden Micro IP54
Release 2023-04 2022-01

Sources — Glorious Model O 2 Wireless: gloriousgaming.com (verified 2026-06-15). SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless: steelseries.com (verified 2026-06-15).

What's the difference between the Glorious Model O 2 Wireless and SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless?

Where the two actually differ on the specs we track (6 of 7). Matching specs are omitted.

  • Sensor (dpi): Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 26000 vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 18000
  • Weight (g): Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 68 vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 74
  • Connectivity: Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 2.4 GHz wireless + Bluetooth 5.2 + USB-C wired vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 2.4 GHz Quantum 2.0 wireless + Bluetooth 5.0
  • Buttons: Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 6 vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 9
  • Battery hr: Glorious Model O 2 Wireless 110 vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless 180
  • Switch type: Glorious Model O 2 Wireless Glorious optical vs SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless Golden Micro IP54

What reviewers say

Sourced tester consensus for each — the "what people who used it think" layer, not just specs.

Glorious Model O 2 Wireless

After verification, only Tom's Guide supplies confirmable evaluative content, and it is strongly positive: an Editor's Choice that praises the light weight, smooth glide and tasteful RGB, while flagging no onboard dongle storage and Windows-only software. TechPowerUp is retained solely for a verified 71 g weight spec, because the fetched page returned only its intro/specs section, so its harsher wireless-performance conclusions could not be located and were dropped. RTINGS was JS-only and discarded. (2 sourced reviews, 2 lab-tested.)

Praised: Smooth, low-friction glide on the PTFE feet; Solid build quality despite the light, perforated shell; Vibrant RGB lighting that isn't tacky.

Flagged: No onboard storage for the 2.4GHz dongle; Windows-only companion software (no macOS support).

SteelSeries Aerox 5 Wireless

After verification, two of the draft's sources survive: Tom's Guide (which physically tested battery) and TechRadar (which reviewed the mouse but ran no drain test). TechPowerUp was dropped because the fetched URL returned only the review's intro page, leaving its cited weight/battery/latency figures and quotes unverifiable; RTINGS was JS-only. Both surviving sources praise the Aerox 5 Wireless as a light, well-built, versatile 9-button mouse with a fast, accurate sensor; Tom's Guide adds smooth PTFE glide. The headline flaw is battery: Tom's Guide measured only ~12 hours at 1,000Hz with RGB enabled versus the 180h claim. Both note it is expensive (~$140). (2 sourced reviews, 1 lab-tested.)

Praised: Lightweight body; Fast, accurate, responsive sensor; Versatile nine programmable buttons and deep SteelSeries GG customization.

Flagged: Expensive at ~$140; Poor real-world battery life at 1,000Hz with RGB (measured ~12 hours vs. 180h claimed); Divisive honeycomb design and lackluster RGB lighting.

← All gaming mice compared · Open data