One is a streaming all-in-one and the other is an amplifier. Judge them on how many boxes you want and what you already own, not on the spec sheet alone.
| Area | Better | Why |
|---|
| Power | A | NAD C 389 has more power - 130W against 80W into 8 ohms. That is about 2.1dB, so it plays usefully louder before it runs out and has more in hand on peaks. |
| Room size | depends | We rate NAD C 389 the better fit for a large room and a very large room, and NAD C 700 for a small room. Match the amplifier to the room you actually have, not the one you want. |
| Grip on hard loads | evenly matched | Both behave much the same into 4 ohms - output barely increases (130W and 80W). |
| Noise floor | A | NAD C 389 is the quieter design on paper - 95dB against 84dB. Audible mainly with sensitive speakers in a quiet room. |
| Built-in DAC | A | Both decode on board. NAD C 389 goes higher - 384kHz against 192kHz. Very few recordings exist above 192kHz, so treat this as headroom, not as sound quality. |
| Streaming | B | Only NAD C 700 has AirPlay 2, Roon and BluOS. |
| Analogue inputs | A | NAD C 389 takes more analogue sources - 3 against 2. |
| Phono stage | depends | NAD C 389 has a built-in phono stage (MM) and NAD C 700 does not. Decisive if you own a turntable, completely irrelevant if you do not - and an outboard phono stage is easy to add later either way. |
| Room to grow | evenly matched | The same expansion options on both. |
| Headphones | depends | Only NAD C 389 has a headphone output. Worth something if you listen late, nothing if you never do. |
| Shelf space | depends | NAD C 700 takes up about 62% less shelf area (651cm² against 1705cm²), and it is 96mm shallower, which is the measurement that decides whether a rack door shuts. |
| Price | A | NAD C 389 costs less - $1,499 against $1,599 at list. |
| Watts per dollar | A | NAD C 389 is the cheaper watt - about $12 per watt against $20. A blunt measure, and it says nothing about how either sounds, but it is the honest one for raw output. |
A NAD C 389 B NAD C 700
depends neither is better in the abstract - it turns on your room, your system or how you will use them. Only specs published for both amplifiers are judged; anything missing on either side is left out rather than guessed.
Which should you choose?
NAD C 389 has the edge on paper, though not by much. The rows marked "depends" are more likely to decide this than the score is. Start with the room. In a large or open-plan room, or with speakers that are hard to drive - low sensitivity, or an impedance that dips - NAD C 389 has the headroom, and headroom is what stops an amplifier hardening up on peaks. At desk distance or in a small room, 80 watts is already more than most people ever use, and the extra 50 watts would be headroom you pay for and never hear - we rate NAD C 389 poorly for near-field use for exactly that reason. If you play records, NAD C 389 saves you buying a phono stage; if you do not, ignore that row entirely.
What a spec sheet cannot show: how either sounds with your speakers, how the controls feel day to day, and what the app is like to live with - which is where most all-in-one amplifiers are actually won or lost. Power figures are the manufacturers' own and are not measured to a common standard, so treat small differences as noise. If you can hear both, that will tell you more than any row above.