These sit in different price classes - Kanto TUK costs roughly 2.3x what Kanto ORA4 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 |
B |
Kanto TUK digs deeper - 50Hz against 60Hz. |
| Built-in power |
B |
Kanto TUK has the bigger amplifier (130W vs 70W RMS). |
| Connections |
B |
Kanto TUK adds phono and digital inputs. |
| Size |
depends |
Kanto ORA4 is easier to place; Kanto TUK is bigger, which usually goes with fuller bass. Your room decides. |
| Expandability |
depends |
Kanto ORA4: a sub output; Kanto TUK: a sub output. |
| Price |
A |
Kanto ORA4 is cheaper - $399 against $900, about 56% less; arguably a different class. |
A Kanto ORA4
B Kanto TUK
depends neither is better in the abstract - it turns on your room, placement 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?
The usual trade-off: Kanto TUK measures better, Kanto ORA4 costs about 56% less. Whether that gap is worth the money is the call only you can make - and in a normal room it is often smaller than the numbers suggest. If a subwoofer is in your plans, the bass gap largely stops mattering - you would be crossing over above 60Hz anyway, which makes the cheaper Kanto ORA4 much easier to justify. In a large or open-plan room, Kanto TUK has the cabinet volume to fill it more easily; in a small room, near a wall or at desk distance, Kanto ORA4 is the easier speaker to get right.
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.