GE Profile Opal 2.0 vs Opal 2.0 Ultra

These two machines are sold as a step up and a step down from each other, and the published documentation does not support that framing. On every field both manuals print, they are the same appliance. What the Ultra adds is in the box rather than in the cabinet, and what it takes away is an inch of counter space and one published number.

Both manuals, side by side

What is genuinely identical

• Current: 3.0 A on both. Which means the same 360 VA nameplate ceiling, the same circuit requirement and the same running-cost ceiling. There is no efficiency story here in either direction.
• Bin capacity: 3.0 lbs on both. The number that actually limits a countertop ice maker at home is unchanged, so the Ultra does not buy you more ice on the counter at once.
• Empty weight: 37.6 lbs on both. Identical to the tenth of a pound, which is a strong hint that the cabinet and the refrigeration system are the same hardware.

Three shared figures printed to the same precision in two separate manuals is not a coincidence. Whatever GE changed between these models, it was not the part that makes ice.

The four-inch problem

The Ultra's manual specifies 4 inches of installation clearance where the standard 2.0 specifies 3 inches. That is the most practical difference between them and the one nobody mentions.

Clearance is not a suggestion on a machine like this. It is the gap through which the condenser rejects heat, and a machine boxed in tighter than its rating runs longer for the same ice, which costs money and shortens the compressor's life. If you are fitting this into an alcove, a bar nook or a run of cabinets, that extra inch on each side is four inches of counter width you may not have.

Measure first. The full set of fitting numbers across the category, including the under-cabinet heights, is on nugget ice makers for small kitchens.

The specification GE stopped printing

The standard Opal 2.0 publishes both a daily and an hourly rate: 38 lbs per day and 1.6 lbs per hour. That pairing is unique in this category and it is the reason "when will I have a glass of ice" is answerable for that machine from the spec sheet.

The Ultra's specification table, in the copy we could read, does not carry a legible ice-making rate. So this site records it as Not published, and does not substitute the standard model's figure. That is a deliberate refusal: the two machines share a cabinet and a current rating, which makes it tempting to assume a shared rate, and an assumption printed in a table stops looking like an assumption very quickly.

What the Ultra actually adds

GE's own product page for the XPIO43SCSS describes it as the Opal 2.0 nugget ice maker with a side tank and four Opal filters. That is the difference you are paying for, and it is a real one if you were going to buy those things anyway.

• The side tank. A larger external reservoir means fewer refills. It does not make the machine hold more finished ice, because the bin is still 3.0 lbs and still unrefrigerated.
• Four filters. A filter reduces the mineral load going in, which lengthens the interval between descales rather than eliminating them. If you are on hard water this is the part of the bundle worth having, and the reasoning is on Opal water filters.

One genuine documentation advantage

The Ultra's manual is the only document on this site that states a descaling interval. It describes the Clean button as running a rinse cycle that defrosts the ice maker and then starts making ice again, and says descaling should be performed every 4 weeks depending on water hardness.

The standard 2.0's manual describes holding the Clean button for 3 seconds and a descaling procedure involving an 18-hour soak, but names no interval. So if you buy the standard machine, borrow the Ultra's four-week guidance — it is the same manufacturer describing the same hardware. How the cycles compare across the category is on the self-cleaning roundup.

Running cost: no difference

Both machines are rated 3.0 A. At 120 V that is 360 VA, and at four running hours a day and 18 cents per kWh that is about $7.78 a month as a ceiling for either. Neither manufacturer publishes a wattage, so neither figure is a consumption measurement, and the column on this site says so. The arithmetic is on the running-cost page.

Which one to buy

• Buy the standard 2.0 unless you specifically want the side tank and filters. It is the same machine on every shared specification, it needs an inch less clearance, and it is the one with a published ice rate.
• Buy the Ultra if you are on hard water, would have bought filters anyway, and refill frequency annoys you. The bundle is then doing real work.
• Buy neither yet if you have not measured. Four inches of clearance on each side is a bigger constraint than anything else on this page.

If you are still deciding between generations rather than trims, the older comparison is the original Opal against the 2.0, which is where most of the wrong numbers about this machine come from.