🖱️🔍 A mystery regarding two identical Bluetooth mice

08 Nov, 2026

I presented Qwen3.8-Max and Gemini 3.1 Pro High with the following mystery (because Gemini 4 Argon crashed several times during the day without answering any question):

The HP 240 (3V0G9AA) and HP 245 (81S67AA) Bluetooth-only mice are identical, except for the battery life: up to 24 months for the HP 240 and up to 15 months for the HP 245.
I couldn’t find official product pages for them on the US site, but only in Romanian:
https://www.hp.com/ro-ro/products/accessories/product-details/2100860182
https://www.hp.com/ro-ro/products/accessories/product-details/2101819045

Now, why is the battery life different, and what causes it? My hypothesis:

• HP 245 being cheaper than HP 240, it might use a cheaper sensor that requires more powerful light.
• HP 245 uses a less aggressive power-saving than HP 240, i.e., it “goes to sleep” after a longer inactivity time (there’s no software to adjust the sleep policy).
• HP 245 uses a "less LE Bluetooth Low Energy" than HP 240 in the sense that it broadcasts more often. This mouse enters pairing mode right after being turned on (there is no other button!), and Windows detects it right away! Some BLE mice can be difficult for some OSes to detect. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the HP 245.

What is the truth? Can you investigate? Maybe FCC documents for both models, schematic diagrams, etc.

At first, Qwen didn’t search the web and answered “logically” but uselessly. When I insisted it investigate, it included this in its answer:

Now that I have investigated the FCC records, hardware schematics, and official HP datasheets, I can provide you with the definitive truth.

Your three hypotheses regarding the hardware (sensor efficiency, sleep policies, and BLE advertising) are all incorrect. The mice are 100% identical in hardware and firmware. The discrepancy in battery life is actually the result of a marketing copy-paste error on HP’s regional websites.

Here is the breakdown of the investigation:

1. The Hardware Identity (FCC & Teardown Evidence)

I located the FCC filings for both the HP 240 and the HP 245. They share the exact same FCC ID: PRDMU98.

• Manufacturer: Acrox Technologies Co., Ltd. (an OEM for HP).
• Internal Model: MU98.

Under FCC regulations, devices sharing the same FCC ID must use the exact same radio frequency (RF) circuitry, PCB layout, and transmission characteristics. This confirms that both mice use the same Bluetooth System-on-Chip (SoC), the same optical sensor, and the same firmware governing power states, connection intervals, and advertising packets. There is no "cheaper sensor" or "less efficient BLE" in the HP 245; physically and electronically, they are the same device.

2. The Truth Behind the "24 Months" Rating

The premise that the HP 240 has a 24-month battery life is based on incorrect information found on several retail and regional HP product pages.

• Official Datasheets: The official HP QuickSpecs and datasheets for the HP 240 (e.g., document c08622051 for the Lunar White model) explicitly state the battery life is "Up to 15 months". This matches the HP 245’s official rating perfectly.
• The "24 Months" Error: The "24 months" claim found on some HP 240 product pages is a result of HP marketing teams accidentally copying text from a different, premium mouse: the HP 430/435 Multi-Device Wireless Mouse.
  • The HP 430/435 features a "smart power system" enabled via the HP Accessory Center (HPAC) software, which allows the mouse to aggressively manage sleep states to achieve a 24-month life.
  • Because the HP 240 is a budget, 3-button mouse without programmable buttons, it does not support HPAC software. However, its product descriptions on certain sites (especially in EMEA and Africa) incorrectly inherited the "24 months with the smart power system" bullet point from the HP 430.

Conclusion

Your intuition that the mice are identical was correct, but your hypothesis about why they differ was based on flawed data found online.

The truth is that both mice have a 15-month battery life. The HP 245 (released later) has the correct spec listed on its packaging and pages. The HP 240 is identical to it, but its web presence was cluttered with "24-month" claims stolen from the marketing materials of HP’s more expensive programmable mice.

Gemini came up with another hypothesis about BLE (likely incorrect), but the “enterprise SKU” part makes sense! It’s the only explanation for having 2 names for the same product: the HP 245 is not meant for retail!

Your hypotheses regarding the sleep policy and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) broadcasting are precisely why the battery metrics differ, though the underlying silicon and sensors are identical.

The HP 240 and HP 245 are physically the exact same hardware. According to their FCC certification filings, both mice share the identical FCC ID: PRDMU98. They are manufactured by the same OEM, Acrox Technologies Co., Ltd., under the internal base model MU98. Because they share this single FCC certification, it legally confirms they possess the exact same printed circuit board layout, the same 1600 DPI optical sensor, and the same Bluetooth 5.1 radio.

The discrepancy between the 24-month and 15-month battery life claims comes down to firmware tuning for different target markets, coupled with different duty-cycle testing methodologies:

• Firmware Tuning (Swift Pair & Sleep States): HP segments the HP 245 strictly as a "Business/Office" peripheral, heavily marketing its "Bluetooth Swift Pair Connectivity". To make Microsoft Swift Pair work seamlessly—where Windows detects the mouse and triggers a pairing notification the moment the device is powered on, without requiring a dedicated pairing button—the HP 245 firmware is configured to aggressively broadcast its BLE advertising beacon. Furthermore, enterprise-targeted mice typically employ a less aggressive deep-sleep timer. Business users generally reject peripherals that exhibit wake-up latency when shifting back to a spreadsheet after five minutes of keyboard use. This constant beaconing and higher active-idle state naturally draw more sustained current from the AA battery.
• Marketing Duty Cycle Calculations: Battery life in "months" is an arbitrary calculation based on expected demographic usage. The HP 240 is categorized as a "Home" consumer mouse. Consumer battery longevity claims are traditionally modeled on about 2 hours of active daily use. The HP 245 is an enterprise SKU, where battery calculations are modeled on a standard 8-hour workday, 5 days a week.

When you subject the identical Acrox hardware to a heavier 8-hour daily duty cycle and flash it with a more aggressive, latency-averse firmware profile, the chronological lifespan logically drops from 24 months to 15 months. You aren't getting a cheaper sensor in the HP 245; you are just looking at a corporate firmware profile measured against a heavier enterprise usage standard.

My follow-up:

“The HP 245 is an enterprise SKU.” This might explain why it comes in a non-descript box, not a retail one. However, I cannot imagine a business use case for a BT-only mouse! It’s unlikely to be offered as a bonus for an HP laptop, but why would a business make a bulk order of HP 245?

Gemini:

The non-descript packaging is standard "commercial packaging" (often just a plain cardboard box with a SKU barcode). When an IT department provisions 500 workstations, they despise glossy retail clamshells—it is a logistical and waste-management nightmare to unpack them at scale.

As for why a business explicitly wants Bluetooth-only mice, it comes down to a ruthless calculation of port scarcity, IT logistics, and security:

• The Death of USB-A: Modern enterprise fleet laptops (like HP EliteBooks, Dell Latitudes, or MacBooks) are thin-and-light machines heavily biased toward USB-C and Thunderbolt ports. Traditional 2.4GHz wireless mice rely on USB-A dongles. Issuing USB-C adapters for a mouse is clunky, and native USB-C dongles often stick out too far for travel. Bluetooth requires zero physical ports.
• The "Lost Dongle" E-Waste Trap: In hybrid work environments, employees constantly move between home and the office. If an employee loses a proprietary 2.4GHz USB receiver, the entire mouse becomes instant e-waste because those receivers are rarely universally re-pairable. A Bluetooth mouse eliminates this single point of physical failure, dramatically reducing peripheral replacement budgets.
• Security and the "MouseJack" Exploit: Many proprietary 2.4GHz RF dongles historically transmitted unencrypted data, allowing attackers to inject malicious keystrokes into corporate machines from across the room (the "MouseJack" vulnerability). Modern Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) uses standardized AES-CCM encryption. Enterprise IT departments prefer security protocols managed directly by the Windows OS, which they can audit and lock down via Group Policy (GPO) or Microsoft Intune, rather than relying on unpatchable third-party dongle firmware.
• Bill of Materials (BOM) Cost: Omitting the dedicated USB receiver hardware drops the manufacturing cost per unit. When a company is buying 10,000 units, saving a fraction of a dollar on a physical dongle and skipping retail packaging translates to significant budget savings.

While they are occasionally bundled by Value-Added Resellers (VARs) into kits (Laptop + Dock + Bag + Mouse), large organizations absolutely buy them as standalone bulk SKUs simply to stock the IT supply closet for new hires.

All things considered, the real difference between 240 and 245 is the packaging: retail for 240 and brown cardboard for 245. And the real battery life is “up to” 15 months with typical 8-hour-a-day usage and a Duracell AA battery for both devices!

Pointers for HP 245:

• Germany: Amazon.de
• France: Amazon.fr
• Romania: Vexio, Vexio on eMag, PC Garage