eufy Video Smart Lock E330

eufy Video Smart Lock E330 Feature Scores

Explore all 32 feature scores for eufy Video Smart Lock E330, organized into pros and cons.

Scores by Feature

Summary

32 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    19 (59%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    8 (25%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    3 (9%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    2 (6%)

Pros

Sort
  • 4.9
    10 reviews strong consensus
    Fingerprint: 4.9, 10 reviews, strong consensus
    Fingerprint access was one of the strongest areas, repeatedly described as fast, accurate, responsive, convenient, and the preferred unlock method.
  • 4.6
    11 reviews strong consensus
    Installation and Setup: 4.6, 11 reviews, strong consensus
    Installation and setup were consistently praised as quick, easy, straightforward, foolproof, or among the easiest smart-lock setups reviewers had tried.
  • 4.9
    7 reviews strong consensus
    Build quality and durability: 4.9, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    Build quality was rated very highly, with reviewers repeatedly describing the lock as metal, sturdy, well made, durable, and high quality.
  • 4.4
    12 reviews strong consensus
    Camera and doorbell performance: 4.4, 12 reviews, strong consensus
    Camera and doorbell performance was generally strong, with sharp 2K video, good night vision, fast loading, and useful two-way features, though field of view and door placement limited some setups.
  • App
    4.5
    9 reviews strong consensus
    App: 4.5, 9 reviews, strong consensus
    The app was consistently praised as simple, polished, and useful for setup, live view, lock control, access management, and monitoring.
  • 4.9
    5 reviews strong consensus
    Notifications: 4.9, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    Notifications were a clear strength, with reviewers describing alerts as nearly instant, responsive, fast, or consistent.
  • 4.8
    5 reviews strong consensus
    Auto-lock: 4.8, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    Auto-lock drew strong praise for reliably relocking after a set time and reducing worry about whether the door was left unlocked.
  • 4.8
    5 reviews strong consensus
    Remote access: 4.8, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    Remote access was rated very highly because reviewers liked being able to view, unlock, greet visitors, or control the lock from the app remotely.
  • 4.5
    5 reviews strong consensus
    Industrial design: 4.5, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    Industrial design was well liked, with reviewers calling the lock sleek, compact, sharp, premium-looking, and attractive.
  • 5.0
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Security features (encryption): 5.0, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Security features such as scramble passcode and failed-attempt protections were praised as sensible, useful, and security-enhancing.
  • 4.3
    6 reviews strong consensus
    Value and Price: 4.3, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Value was mostly positive thanks to all-in-one convenience and savings versus higher-tier models, though one reviewer stressed that the lock is not cheap.
  • 4.6
    4 reviews strong consensus
    Keypad: 4.6, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    The keypad was viewed positively for reliability, passcode flexibility, and backlighting, although one reviewer treated keypad access as less preferred than fingerprint.
  • 4.8
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Weather resistance: 4.8, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Weather resistance scored strongly where reviewers found the lock handled rain, hot conditions, or outdoor exposure well.
  • 4.4
    4 reviews strong consensus
    Key override reliability: 4.4, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Key override reliability scored well because reviewers appreciated the hidden physical key and backup power options for dead-battery situations.
  • 4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Access logs: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Reviewers who evaluated event history found it useful for checking clips and seeing who came or went, especially for family awareness.
  • 4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Guest Codes and Access: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Guest access was praised when reviewers could give temporary or remote user access without handing over physical keys.
  • 4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Locking reliability: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Locking reliability scored highly where reviewers focused on the smart-lock half, calling it responsive and saying it worked as advertised.
  • 4.3
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Voice control: 4.3, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Voice control was positively received, especially Alexa integration, chime support, and hands-free unlocking through assistants.
  • 4.0
    4 reviews strong consensus
    Smart-home integration (Alexa, Google, Siri, HomeKit, Matter, Thread): 4.0, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Smart-home integration was mixed-positive: Alexa, Google, Apple Watch, and Eufy ecosystem links were appreciated, but lack of HomeKit hurt one review.
  • 3.7
    10 reviews low consensus
    Battery: 3.7, 10 reviews, low consensus
    Battery feedback was the most divided area: some reviewers liked the removable rechargeable pack, while others reported short runtime or slow charging.
  • 4.5
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Locking motor: 4.5, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The locking motor was praised as smooth and responsive in hands-on use.
  • 5.0
    1 review
    Auto-relock after failed attempts: 5.0, 1 review
    The failed-attempt lockout behavior was viewed as a strong security safeguard when someone keeps entering wrong codes or fingerprints.
  • 5.0
    1 review
    Lock/unlock speed: 5.0, 1 review
    Lock and unlock speed scored strongly in the one clear opinionated review that called the lock fast and quiet.
  • 4.0
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Wi-Fi: 4.0, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Wi-Fi was mixed-positive: one reviewer saw fast alerts even on weak 2.4GHz Wi-Fi, while another warned experience depends on network strength.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    Existing hardware reuse: 4.5, 1 review
    Existing hardware reuse scored well in the one clear opinionated case, where the lock worked with an existing strike plate and the reviewer called that nice.
  • 4.5
    1 review
    User access management: 4.5, 1 review
    User access management scored well where reviewers valued adding users, codes, and fingerprints with access rules.
  • 3.5
    1 review
    Hub requirement: 3.5, 1 review
    Hub requirement was mixed because the lock can work without a HomeBase, but one reviewer disliked needing a separate chime when used alone.

Cons

Sort
  • 2.3
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Keyway quality: 2.3, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Keyway quality was a recurring weakness because multiple reviewers noted the lock cannot be rekeyed or needs a locksmith for extra keys.
  • 2.5
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Door compatibility (deadbolt fit): 2.5, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Door compatibility was a major caveat because screen doors, storm doors, deep jambs, and awkward door angles could compromise the camera or overall fit.
  • 2.0
    1 review
    Door-sense: 2.0, 1 review
    Door-sense was weakly supported because a reviewer specifically wanted a sensor to know whether the door was open or closed.
  • 2.5
    1 review
    Touchscreen: 2.5, 1 review
    Touchscreen visibility scored poorly in the one clear opinionated review because the keypad and doorbell button were hard to find in the dark.
  • 3.0
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Facial recognition: 3.0, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Facial recognition was mixed: HomeBase-linked identification worked in one test, while another reviewer wanted face-based unlocking added.