Siblings in PrimaLuna's EVO range, so they share a design and a house sound. It comes down to power, features and price.
| Area | Better | Why |
|---|
| Power | B | PrimaLuna EVO 400 Power has more power - 70W against 44W into 8 ohms. That is about 2dB, so it plays usefully louder before it runs out and has more in hand on peaks. |
| Room size | depends | We rate PrimaLuna EVO 200 Power the better fit for desk or near-field listening and a small room, and PrimaLuna EVO 400 Power for a mid-size room, a large room and a very large room. Match the amplifier to the room you actually have, not the one you want. |
| Analogue inputs | evenly matched | The same number of line-level inputs (1). |
| Room to grow | evenly matched | The same expansion options on both. |
| Price | A | PrimaLuna EVO 200 Power costs less - $3,795 against $5,995 at list. |
A PrimaLuna EVO 200 Power B PrimaLuna EVO 400 Power
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?
PrimaLuna EVO 400 Power is ahead, but on only 1 of the measured areas, and it costs about 58% more. That is a lot of money for a narrow margin - PrimaLuna EVO 200 Power is the sensible buy unless a specific feature above decides it for you. Think about the whole system: the roughly $2,200 saved by taking the cheaper one would buy better speakers or a subwoofer, which does more for the sound than the difference between two competent amplifiers.
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.