1. Hoya : „Hoyalux ID“ Claims of Hoya
Theoretical and practical evaluation results
Progressive lens- revolution through two progressive surfaces in one lens with the following benefits:
No Revolution! Design is according existing soft design concepts. This cann also be realized with only one progressive surface.
Largest usful viewing fields.
Very little viewing fields in near and far vision area
Lowest swimming effects
Far vision: yes;
Near vision inferior than Impression
Optimized vision in all directions of sight.
No. No individual optimization. Viewing fields not ideal for every wearer.
Adapted near vision area.
No overlapping near vision areas in binocular vision (causes problems while reading)
Reduktion of distortions
Static distortion in near vision area higher than with Impression.

2. Hoyalux ID vs. ImpressionILT
Design
Soft design
Balanced design
Power increase
Power starts early to increase (bluring in far vision area)
For reading higher viewing angle necessary.
Power starts increasing significantly underneath the centering point.
No blur in the far vision area.
Far vision area
smaller
wider
Intermediate zone
Progression zone relatively wide (due to design)
Progression zone some smaller (due to design)
Near vision area
bigger
Inset
Inset nearly not to perceive
Variable Inset
Peripherie
Max. astigmatism (1.8dpt)
Max. Astigmatism (2.1dpt)

3. „Ysis“ von R+H Claims of R+H Theoretical evaluation results
Ysis considers a so far not used number of different personal data of the wearer:
No individual optimization. That does not result in optimal visual fields for every wearer.
Visual habits (head inclination) determine the length of the progression zone.
No noteworthy difference in progression lengths. Solely from the head inclination the length of the progression zone is not computable.
Through giving preferences (far, near intermediate vision) the preferred vision area will be made larger.
No noteworthy design difference between preferences. Ysis is comparable to Life 2 (similar „hard Design“).
Physiognomy (CVD) and Anatomy (PD) influence progression zone and inset.
Not evaluated so far.

4. „Ipseo“ von Essilor Claims from Essilor Theoretical evaluation results
Varilux Ipseo – so unique as every single person.
No individual parameters as PD, CVD FFA or PT are taken into account. No individual optimization. That does not result in optimal visual fields for every wearer.
Personal viewing strategy of the customer will be calculated into the design of Varilux Ipseo.
No consideration of the head inclination; only one progression length (18 mm).
Essilor uses obviously existing designs.
A „Eye Mover“ gets a „hard design“.
The „Eye Mover Design“ is comparable to „Varilux Comfort“.
A „Head Mover“ gets a „soft design“.
The „Head Mover Design“ is comparable to „Varilux Panamic“.

5. „Super P1“ von Seiko Claims from Seiko Theoretical evaluation results
Individualized progressive lens with progressive surface on rear side.
No individual parameters as PD, CVD FFA or PT are taken into account. No individual optimization. That does not result in optimal visual fields for every wearer.
Maximum compatibility through the choice of 3 different design concepts.
Design A (var vision accented): „Hard Design“.
No remarkable differences in comparison to Design B (balanced) and C (near vision accented): Both match a „Soft Design“.
Different Designs provide no give no predication about compatibilty of the lens.
Up to 30% reduction of distortions
No, max. perpheral astigmatism wirh design A : approx D, Design B: approx. 1.8 D and design C: 2.0 D. Impression: 2.1 D.
5 different lengths of progression zone and 9 different insets.
Not evaluated so far.