These sit in different price classes - JBL 4305P costs roughly 2.2x what KEF Coda W does. Expect it to lead on paper; the question is whether the gap is audible enough in your room to be worth it.
| Area | Better | Why |
|---|
| Bass | A | KEF Coda W digs deeper - 41Hz against 45Hz. A subwoofer would even that out. |
| Built-in power | B | JBL 4305P has the bigger amplifier (300W vs 100W RMS). |
| Connections | B | KEF Coda W adds HDMI; JBL 4305P adds Wi-Fi and streaming. |
| Size | depends | Similar cabinet size - neither is easier to fit. |
| Expandability | depends | KEF Coda W: a sub output; JBL 4305P: a sub output. |
| Price | A | KEF Coda W is cheaper - $999 against $2,200, about 55% less; arguably a different class. |
A KEF Coda W B JBL 4305P
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 speakers are judged; anything missing on either side is left out rather than guessed.
Which should you choose?
JBL 4305P is ahead, but only on 1 of the measured areas, and it costs about 120% more. That is a lot of money for a narrow margin on paper - KEF Coda W looks like the sensible buy unless something else about the JBL 4305P appeals to you. Think about the whole system, not just the speakers: the roughly $1,201 saved by taking the cheaper pair would buy a subwoofer or a better amplifier, and either usually does more for the sound than the difference between these two.
And remember what a spec sheet cannot show: how each looks in your room and whether the finish suits it, what dealer support and warranty are like where you live, and how they actually sound to you. If you can hear them first - ideally with your own music - that will tell you more than any number above.