ATK Dragonfly A9 VS ATK Dragonfly A9 Plus

In terms of raw performance, the ATK Dragonfly A9 and the ATK Dragonfly A9 Plus are completely identical across every measured spec in this category. Both mice share a 1000 Hz polling rate, a 650 IPS maximum tracking speed, and a 50G maximum acceleration — a combination that positions them firmly in the competitive gaming tier, capable of handling even the most aggressive flick shots without sensor dropout.

On the DPI front, both offer a 26000 DPI ceiling and a 50 DPI floor, with full adjustability in between. The high ceiling is largely a marketing figure for most users — in practice, anything above 3200–6400 DPI introduces pixel-skipping on standard displays — but the low 50 DPI minimum is genuinely useful for precision tasks or ultra-low sensitivity players who prefer to run near-zero DPI with high in-game sensitivity scaling.

Since every performance specification is a perfect match between the two products, this category results in a clear tie. Neither the A9 nor the A9 Plus holds any measurable tracking or responsiveness advantage over the other. If performance is your sole deciding criterion, this group offers no differentiation — buyers should look to other spec groups such as design, connectivity, or weight to make their final call.

Both mice are purpose-built for gaming and share the same dual-mode connectivity via USB and Bluetooth 5, making them equally versatile for wired competitive play or wireless desktop use. The more meaningful distinction lies under the hood: the A9 runs on the PixArt PAW3395 SE, while the A9 Plus uses the standard PixArt PAW3395. The ″SE″ designation typically denotes a modified or binned variant — not necessarily inferior, but a subtle divergence that suggests ATK may have differentiated component sourcing between the two models.

Where the gap becomes impossible to ignore is battery life. The A9 Plus nearly doubles the endurance of the base model, rated at 240 hours versus the A9′s 120 hours. In practical terms, a user charging once a month on the A9 would charge roughly once every two months on the A9 Plus — a meaningful quality-of-life difference for anyone who dislikes interruptions in their workflow. Neither model supports use while charging or wireless charging, so when the battery does run out, the mouse is temporarily out of commission regardless of which variant you own.

The A9 Plus holds a clear edge in this category. The doubled battery life is a tangible, everyday advantage, and while the sensor variant difference warrants attention, it does not offset the endurance gap. Users who prioritize longer time between charges — especially in wireless-first setups — will find the A9 Plus the more practical choice based strictly on these specs.

The button layout is identical across both mice. Each features 5 total buttons — including 2 side buttons — with all five fully programmable. For a gaming mouse, this is a competent but conservative configuration: enough inputs to cover genre staples like push-to-talk, weapon swapping, or ability binds, without the cluttered button sprawl that can compromise grip consistency.

A dedicated DPI switching button is present on both, allowing on-the-fly sensitivity changes — useful for players who shift between sniping and close-quarters scenarios mid-game. The absence of a profile switching button on either model means users cannot hot-swap full configuration profiles without software, which is a minor limitation for those who share a mouse across multiple games or use cases. Combined with the fact that neither mouse offers onboard memory profiles (as noted in the General Info specs), configuration flexibility is somewhat constrained on both.

This category is a straightforward tie. Every button-related specification is a mirror image between the A9 and the A9 Plus, so hardware input capability plays no role in differentiating the two. The decision here ultimately comes down to the specs covered in other groups.

Physically, these two mice are essentially the same object. Identical dimensions — 125 mm long, 64 mm wide, 40 mm thick — and the same 320 cm³ volume mean the A9 and A9 Plus will feel indistinguishable in hand. Both are right-handed designs, neither carries RGB lighting, and neither offers customizable weight inserts. For users evaluating ergonomics or form factor, there is nothing to separate them.

The one measurable divergence is weight: the A9 comes in at 53 g while the A9 Plus weighs 57 g. A 4-gram difference is at the lower boundary of what most users can perceive during extended sessions, but in the ultra-lightweight gaming mouse segment where every gram is scrutinized, it is worth noting. The A9′s lighter build gives it a marginal edge for players who favor low-mass mice for rapid directional changes and reduced fatigue over long play sessions.

The A9 holds a narrow advantage in this category purely on the basis of its lighter weight. Given that every other design attribute — dimensions, cable length, orientation, and feature set — is completely shared, the 4 g difference is the sole differentiator here. It is a small but real distinction, and for weight-sensitive users, it tips the scale toward the base A9.