Best Avalanche Beacons: Our Big Test
Time for a new transceiver? We have tested the leading avalanche beacons on the market and delved into their features and how they are used. This is the result.
Åre Avalanche Center (ÅLC) has conducted an in-depth review and tested the latest transceiver models on the market. ÅLC has periodically gathered expertise from various sectors to carry out independent tests without the participation or influence of manufacturers. This year’s test panel collectively has several decades of experience using transceivers, but we have tried to keep the average users in mind as we assessed both performance and user-friendliness. Some of the transceivers have a number of special features, but to avoid complicating the test, we focused on the functions that are fundamental to all transceivers regardless of brand.
| Avalanche Beacon | Rating: Fine- Coarse Search | Rating: Multiple Burials |
| Mammut Barryvox S2 | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Pieps Mini IPS | 4.3 | 4.2 |
| Pieps Pro Ips | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| BCA Tracker S | 2.3 | 2 |
| BCA Tracker 4 | 2.25 | 2 |
| Ortovox Diract Voice | 1.8 | 1.2 |
Pieps Pro IPS
About the transceiver: Everyone agreed that it is easy to get an overall picture of how it works, making it simple to use even though several in the panel had never used it before. The on/off button is easy to understand, and it has a clear display. It was somewhat slow when flagging multiple burials, but that may be related to the number of signals. Overall, a satisfied panel.
Test leader’s comment: The IPS is an incredibly advanced transceiver with many interesting features, but we chose not to examine them closely in our test. It would be interesting to delve into the IPS interference protection in a future test and see if we can measure how effective the interference protection is, as this technology may become an industry standard.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 4.3
- Multiple Burials: 4.0
Range: (below are the highest and lowest measured values. We also report the margin of error in the transceiver’s distance measurement in percentage compared to the actual.)
- X-antenna: 193-246 ft
- Y-antenna: 72-226 ft
- Margin of error: 9.33%
Scan function: A feature where the transceiver scans the area covered by its range and shows how many transmitters are present and the distance to them. We tested this function, and those in the test group with experience in organized avalanche rescue felt they did not find this function useful.
Pieps Mini IPS
About the transceiver: Everyone was generally satisfied with the IPS Mini. Not as intuitive as its bigger brother IPS, but when you buy a transceiver, you are expected to read up and practice with it. Despite this, it is easy to use, and it was simple to find the first buried victim. It flagged quickly in multiple searches, making it efficient, but became a bit slower as more were flagged. It was perceived as comparable to the IPS.
Test leader’s comment: The smaller format of the IPS Mini means that the transceiver has a smaller antenna than the IPS, which obviously affects the range. That is why it ranks among those with the lowest range.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 4.3
- Multiple Burials: 4.2
Range:
- X-antenna: 92-135 ft
- Y-antenna: 75-118 ft
- Margin of error: 3.23%
BCA tracker 4
About the transceiver: The display is black and can be misinterpreted as being off in a stressful situation. Good during coarse search, quick to signal to the display for some in the test group, while others felt that the values it provided were inaccurate. It was perceived to skip some distance readings, making it inaccurate at long range. Only after 66 ft did it start to become more accurate. The fine search was poorly calibrated – it indicated distances that were too high compared to reality.
Test leader’s comment: BCA has chosen a different technical solution to handle scenarios with multiple burials. Instead of a function where the transceiver filters out a marked signal, BCA has opted for a technique they call “Signal Suppression.” This means that the transceiver ignores the strongest found signal and shows the direction and distance to the next transmitter. This can lead the searcher back to the first found signal in the event of more than two burials. This happened to the test panel several times during the test.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 2.25
- Multiple Burials: 2
Range:
- X-antenna: 121-164 ft
- Y-antenna: 39-98 ft
- Margin of error: 22.22%
Scan function/big picture
Was perceived as difficult to interpret, and the test group felt that they did not see any occasion when they would find this function useful.
BCA tracker S
About the transceiver: The buttons are unclear for someone who has never used it before, but when you buy a transceiver, you are expected to read up and practice with it. The test group experienced the same issues with the Tracker S as with the Tracker 4, namely that the display is black and can be misinterpreted as off when switching to search in a stressful situation. Difficult in multiple searches, the panel had trouble finding more than two buried victims.
Test leader’s comment: The “S” in the name stands for simplicity, and BCA wanted to create a simpler model than the Tracker 4 with fewer features. What they removed is the update function, so this model will never receive any updates. They use the same technique, “Signal Suppression,” in this model for multiple burials.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 2.3
- Multiple Burials: 2
Range:
- X-antenna: 128-190 ft
- Y-antenna: 69-164 ft
- Margin of error: 25%
Mammut Barryvox S2
About the transceiver: The version tested was with the latest software; 4.2. This is perceived as very user-friendly. There are no buttons that can be misinterpreted, and the display is clear in its instructions. During multiple searches, it is perceived as a bit laggy, but that may be related to the number of burials. Easy to flag. If you are used to previous versions of the brand, it is easy to handle.
Test leader’s comment: ÅLC conducted a more in-depth test of this model for a larger client last spring, where we found a number of problems with it lagging when searching for multiple burials. The manufacturer was made aware of our conclusions and has addressed these issues with the new software.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 4.5
- Multiple Burials: 4.2
Range:
- X-antenna: 193-226 ft
- Y-antenna: 154-187 ft
- Margin of error: 30%
Ortovox Diract Voice
About the transceiver: Good sound in fine search and clear when flagging multiple burials. The direction indicator was perceived as misleading, and test subjects were shown in completely the wrong direction. In distance search, a ghost signal occurs, which was manageable during that search but difficult to handle when searching for multiple burials.
Test leader’s comment: The cause of the ghost signals is difficult to explain, but when the test panel set aside electronics, the test environment was tested for disturbances around 457 kHz. This indicates that ghost signals say something about the transceiver’s sensitivity to disturbances. No other models detected ghost signals during the test. Ortovox will release a new model, the Pro focus, in winter 2026, but since it is not yet available on the market, we chose not to test it.
Panel’s ratings:
- Fine- Coarse Search: 1.8
- Multiple Burials: 1.2
Range:
- X-antenna: 85-121 ft
- Y-antenna: 52-82 ft
- Margin of error: 12.5%
About the test:
The test was conducted as part of Åre Avalanche Center’s (ÅLC) internal training. In addition to our own staff, we also had invited representatives from the Police Mountain Rescue and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV).
All manufacturers were offered the opportunity to participate in the test. Arva’s Swedish representative chose not to participate in the test.
The test group consisted of:
- Christer Ridderstråle – instructor at ÅLC for 3 years, avalanche technician, experienced ski tourer.
- Hilke Chaudron – worked in the Police Mountain Rescue for 10 years and is active as an instructor within the organization.
- Lasse von Friedrichs Collin – instructor at ÅLC for 10 years, avalanche technician, trained ski patroller, 12 years in the ski patrol in Åre.
- Marcus Fröberg – trained ski patroller, dog handler in the Police Mountain Rescue for 8 years, and instructor within the organization.
- Mattias Söderin – worked in Alpine mountain rescue for 19 years, responsible for FMV’s avalanche equipment.
- Mårten Johansson – founder of ÅLC, UIAGM mountain guide, CAA operational level 3, trained ski patroller – 30 years of experience in avalanche rescue.
- Oscar Wahlund – Instructor at ÅLC, UIAGM mountain guide for 10 years, experienced ski tourer.
We conducted the test in four parts to evaluate the transceivers based on private users, professional use, and organized rescue. The parts consisted of range, searching for multiple burials, coarse and fine search. Everyone in the panel performed the same tests and then openly reported their results and discussed the pros and cons between the different models. Range in search mode, multiple search, coarse and fine search.
Range in search mode
This test was performed by placing a transmitting transceiver (a Barryvox S with new batteries) on a 16-inch high wooden platform to minimize any potential interference. The transmitting antenna was directed towards the test group. The first part consisted of the individuals approaching with the searching transceiver with the antenna in the same line as the transmitting transceiver, that is, the best possible reception. When the searcher received a stable signal (5 signals with direction and distance), the actual distance was measured with a measuring tape and compared with the distance indicated by the transceiver. The same test was conducted with the searcher at a 90-degree angle to the transmitting transceiver to test the range of the transceiver’s Y-antenna, which is often a shorter antenna in a less favorable position.
Function to find multiple burials
We placed 6 transmitting transceivers in well-visible buckets on the snow surface to test the functions for finding multiple burials. It may seem like a difficult test and an unlikely scenario with so many buried, but since previous generations of transceivers (e.g., Barryvox Pulse) have had no problems handling so many signals, we believe that today’s technology should be tested against the same level of difficulty. Since it is difficult to get an exact value in such a test, we asked the test group to rate how the searcher’s function for multiple searches was perceived on a scale of 1 to 5.
Responsiveness in coarse and fine search
Our test group was asked to assess the transceiver’s function during coarse and fine search on a scale of 1 to 5.
Scan function
Since some models have a scan function, we also tested how these worked. This was done by marking distance rings in the snow at 30, 60, and 100 ft, placing transceivers visibly on the snow surface within their distance markings so it was easy to see what the scan function would identify and at what distances. The test group was asked to comment based on their own experience in avalanche rescue whether they would find this function useful in a real situation.
Test environment
The area for the test is controlled for interference with an analog transceiver, Barryvox 2000, to exclude any background noise around 457 kHz. Potential sources of interference are controlled with a spectrum analyzer with a directional antenna to ensure that the test environment is free from ghost signals.
The test was conducted in Åre on December 6, 2025.
