Compare Desloc D110 Plus Smart Lock vs eufy FamiLock S3 Max Smart Lock

Access logs were useful for seeing lock history, entry timing, and who entered.

The app was generally described as simple, easy, and user-friendly, with good access controls and setup flow.

The Eufy app was considered capable and feature-rich, with useful controls and setup help, but one reviewer found it sprawling.

Auto-lock was praised for peace of mind and convenience, but multiple reviewers flagged limits around timing and open-door behavior.

Auto-lock was viewed as a meaningful convenience and peace-of-mind feature, especially for families that forget to lock up.

Failed-attempt lockout drew criticism from one reviewer because the settings and behavior were not clearly adjustable or explained.

Wrong-try lockout was viewed positively as a useful safeguard against repeated bad attempts.

Battery impressions were good overall but not exceptional, ranging from solid and efficient to fine but not incredible.

The dual-battery design was one of the most praised practical features, although heavy camera use made one reviewer doubt the advertised runtime.

Most reviewers described the lock as solid, sturdy, or durable for the price, while one found the construction quality questionable.

Build quality drew strong praise, with reviewers describing the lock as robust, durable, and safe-like despite its size.

Camera and doorbell performance was mixed-positive: daytime video, field of view, and the indoor screen drew praise, while low-light video, audio, and doorbell-button expectations were caveats.

Door-sense was a clear weakness because reviewers noted there is no door sensor and the bolt can extend while the door is open.

Door-sense received qualified praise because it can infer door state without a separate sensor, though with some edge-case caveats.

One reviewer cautioned that very thick doors may require modification even though standard doors worked well.

Door fit/usefulness is context-dependent: glass, windowed, screen, or storm doors can reduce the value of the camera and interior display.

Facial recognition was praised when paired with HomeBase, but reviewers treated it as an add-on rather than a built-in core feature.

The 90-day follow-up praised Desloc for frequent firmware updates and meaningful improvements.

Fingerprint access was one of the most praised areas, with many fast and accurate reports, though PCWorld found it hit-and-miss.

Finish durability was only lightly covered, but one reviewer said the black metal casing still looked good after use.

Guest access was praised for one-pass, scheduled, IC-card, and Airbnb-style temporary access options.

Reviewers consistently liked that no separate hub or gateway is required.

HomeBase dependence was a downside when reviewers wanted facial recognition or the most advanced alerts.

Industrial design was praised as sleek, ergonomic, modern, and premium-looking rather than overly bulky.

Industrial design was seen as modern and premium, though several reviewers noted that the lock is large or visually high-tech.

Installation was usually described as quick and simple, but one reviewer had jammed bolts and another noted a short cord and over-tightening sensitivity.

Reviewers generally found setup straightforward and app-guided, though one pre-release unit caused connection and install friction.

One reviewer specifically reported no jamming during several days of testing.

Backup mechanical keys were valued as a practical fallback, especially for power loss.

Reviewers treated the physical key override as a useful fallback for emergencies or users who prefer non-smart access.

Keypad impressions were mixed: PCMag found it responsive and well-lit, PCWorld found it slow to wake, and another liked the soft glow.

The keypad was generally praised as responsive, visible, and easy to use, with scramble-code support helping privacy.

The hidden keyway cover was the weakest physical detail, with one reviewer finding it hard to reseat securely.

Speed was mostly positive for voice and remote response, though one reviewer found it fast but slower than pricier locks.

Lock/unlock responsiveness was excellent in testing, especially with voice commands.

Motor feel was mixed: one reviewer found it smooth and quiet, while another warned that over-tightening could make the bolt struggle.

The motorized lock button was praised as making operation easier, particularly for users with limited hand comfort.

Reliability was a strength across several reviews, with reports of perfect testing, stable 90-day use, and natural daily fit.

Locking reliability was consistently strong in the reviews that tested repeated lock/unlock behavior and routines.

Notifications were useful for awareness and security, but one reviewer wanted push notifications instead of emergency emails that went to spam.

Motion and doorbell notifications were mostly praised for speed and accuracy, with one reviewer noting a small delay.

Reviewers repeatedly liked the small on-lock display, describing it as helpful for setup, status, battery, alerts, and local control, though one saw it as basic rather than groundbreaking.

Palm vein recognition was not included, and one reviewer missed that faster, convenient method from another lock.

Palm vein recognition was the clearest strength, repeatedly described as fast, reliable, convenient, and easier than fingerprints, with minor caveats about angle and unlock-only use.

Physical resistance evidence was moderate: reviewers cited BHMA certification and durability, but one emphasized it is the lowest acceptable commercial level.

Physical attack resistance had limited but positive evidence, with reviewers pointing to solid construction and tough security design.

Pick resistance was praised in reviews that discussed the encrypted cylinder or difficulty of picking the lock.

Remote access was a major convenience, especially for managing the lock away from home or unlocking for guests.

Remote access had limited evidence but was described as quick and reliable.

Security features such as anti-peeping and anti-hijacking were viewed as useful or reassuring, with PCMag also noting enhanced security options.

Security encryption evidence was limited but positive, centered on the encrypted lock cylinder adding protection.

Smart-home integration was the main limitation: Alexa and Google were supported, but reviewers missed HomeKit, Matter, IFTTT, or broader security-system support.

Smart-home integration was the most split area: basic Matter, Alexa, Google, and HomeKit control worked, but advanced lock, camera, and palm features often stayed inside Eufy.

The touch surface/keypad was praised as responsive, well lit, and visually integrated into the front panel.

Touchscreen/keypad usability was supported by positive comments about responsiveness and backlighting.

User access management was a strong point, with praise for simple schedules, temporary codes, and control over different users.

User access management was praised for making family access easy and supporting different time slots.

Value was the broadest strength because most reviewers saw a lot of features for the price, although PCWorld rejected the value claim after testing.

Value was mixed: reviewers repeatedly called it expensive, but some felt the all-in-one lock, camera, and doorbell package justified the premium.

Voice control worked well in the reviews that tested it, especially with Alexa and Google Assistant.

Voice control worked quickly where tested, especially through Alexa, Siri, or Google lock commands.

Weather resistance was generally viewed positively, including rain/outdoor use, though one reviewer called the IP54 rating tame.

Weather resistance received limited but positive support tied to the lock’s durable construction for harsh conditions.

Built-in Wi-Fi was praised for direct connectivity and remote use, and one follow-up noted updates that improved Wi-Fi stability and power use.

Wi-Fi performance was positive overall, with quick setup, steady connectivity, and claimed responsiveness from Wi-Fi 6 support.