Redragon S101 (2016) vs Roccat Leadr

The Redragon S101 (2016) and the Roccat Leadr are decent Gaming Mice at their respective price points, but don't manage to stand out from their direct competitors in any meaningful way. We suggest that you also look at some alternatives that can be found for around $35 or $120.

If you're still interested in learning a bit more about the Redragon S101 (2016) and the Roccat Leadr, however, read on for a summary of what we could gather about them:

The Redragon S101 (2016) was loved by reviewers at Go Mechanical Keyboard, a trustworthy source that performs objective hands-on testing. It did great in their "Best Computer Keyboards for Kids in 2021" roundup - in fact, they named it their "5 Best Computer Keyboard and Mouse Sets – Ages 7+". That, by itself, points toward it being a noteworthy Gaming Mouse.

Returning to the Roccat Leadr, PCmag, a source that's known for its high-quality in-depth testing, has great things to say about it. In fact, it was named its "Best for MMO Fans, Wireless Aficions" in its "The Best Mice for MMO Games" roundup, which is quite a feat.

We couldn't find any sources that tested both of these Gaming Mice, so we only analyzed how they performed in reviews from different sites.

We first examined which sources rated each of these best and found that the Redragon S101 (2016) got its highest, 9.1, rating from Gadget Review, while the Roccat Leadr earned its best, 9, score from kitguru.net.

Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Gaming Mice on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Gaming Mice being 7.5 out of 10, whereas the Redragon S101 (2016) and Roccat Leadr managed averages of 9.1 and 8.3 points, respectively.

Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct Redragon S101 (2016) vs. Roccat Leadr comparison might not be entirely fair - some sources don't take value for money into account when assigning their scores and therefore have a tendency to rate more premium products better.