Debunking Myths: HPS vs. LED - What's True & What's Hype?
The debate between HPS and LED grow lights is filled with strong opinions, outdated information, and marketing claims. Let's separate fact from fiction by examining common myths about both lighting technologies.
Myths About LED Grow Lights
MYTH: "LEDs don't push shit"
This outdated view stems from early LED technology (pre-2015) that truly was underpowered. Modern commercial-grade LED fixtures can match or exceed HPS yields when properly designed and used.
MYTH: "A 300W LED is equivalent to a 1000W HPS"
Exaggerated equivalency claims have damaged LED credibility. While LEDs are more efficient, realistic comparisons are closer to: 300W LED ≈ 450W HPS, 600W LED ≈ 900W HPS. Always check actual PPFD measurements rather than marketing claims.
MYTH: "LEDs don't penetrate the canopy"
While early LEDs struggled with penetration, modern fixtures with proper optics and higher power can penetrate canopies effectively. HPS still has an edge in very dense or tall canopies, but the gap has narrowed significantly.
Myths About HPS Grow Lights
MYTH: "HPS is outdated technology"
While HPS is older technology, it remains effective and relevant. Many commercial operations still use HPS exclusively or in hybrid setups with LEDs. A technology being older doesn't automatically make it inferior.
MYTH: "HPS produces lower quality results"
Many experienced growers report that HPS produces denser, more resinous flowers. While LED can match this quality, the claim that HPS inherently produces inferior results is contradicted by decades of award-winning grows under HPS.
MYTH: "HPS is always more expensive to run"
While generally true for electricity costs, this doesn't account for seasonal heating needs. In cold climates during winter, the heat from HPS can reduce or eliminate heating costs, potentially making the overall operational cost comparable to LED in those specific circumstances.
The Historical Context
Understanding the evolution of both technologies helps explain why certain myths persist:
The Early LED Era (2008-2015)
Early LED grow lights were genuinely underpowered, with poor spectrum distribution and inadequate intensity. Many growers who tried these early models were rightfully disappointed and returned to HPS. Unfortunately, these negative experiences created lasting impressions that still influence opinions today.
The Marketing Problem
Exaggerated marketing claims by some LED manufacturers (particularly regarding wattage equivalency) created skepticism in the growing community. When a "300W equivalent to 1000W HPS" LED failed to perform as advertised, it reinforced negative perceptions of all LED technology.
The Modern Reality (2016-Present)
Current commercial-grade LED fixtures have overcome most early limitations. They feature:
- Higher actual wattages (300-650W for 4×4 coverage)
- Improved diode efficiency and quality
- Better heat management
- Optimized spectrums for different growth stages
- Improved optics for better penetration
What's Actually True?
FACT: Both technologies can produce excellent results
When properly implemented, both HPS and quality LED systems can produce outstanding yields and quality. The grower's skill and environment management are typically more important factors than the light type.
FACT: LEDs are more energy-efficient
Modern LEDs convert more electricity to usable light and less to heat, making them more efficient. A quality LED fixture typically uses 30-40% less electricity than an HPS system with comparable output.
FACT: HPS has better initial value for budget growers
The lower upfront cost of HPS makes it more accessible for those with limited initial budgets, despite higher long-term operational costs.
FACT: Growing techniques need adjustment when switching technologies
Plants respond differently to different light sources. When switching from HPS to LED or vice versa, adjustments to watering, feeding, and environmental parameters are typically necessary.
The Bottom Line
Both HPS and LED technologies have their place in modern growing. Rather than viewing them as competitors in a winner-take-all contest, consider them as different tools with different strengths. Some growers even use both technologies together, leveraging the strengths of each while minimizing their weaknesses.
The best approach is to make decisions based on current, factual information rather than outdated perceptions or marketing hype from either camp.