Performance of a mousepad is a rather subjective thing; how well it can perform in a variety of settings and applications in everyday use, not to mention how it just “feels” when compared against another surface you are accustomed to using. That being said, there is one quasi-objective tool we’ve come across that measures quality of a tracking surface: the S.Q.A.T. feature found on the Mionix Naos mice models.
Tthe Surface Quality Analyzer Tool that is included in the software package. The S.Q.A.T. takes advantage of the laser sensor by allowing users to run the mouse across various surfaces and then analyzing the tracking ability of that surface on a scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent). We cannot verify for absolute certain what actually constitutes a “better” surface for the S.Q.A.T. results, but I have tried many surfaces, mousepads and otherwise, and can anecdotally say that it does indeed work very well.
Consequently, I tried the Ensis 320 with the S.Q.A.T utility and found it to provide an “Excellent” result, shown below in the bottom left area of the screenshot.
In order to make sure there isn’t any biased voodoo going on, I also tried a Mionix Alioth 400 control mat and it scored an “Acceptable” rating. Clearly, something was very different between the two pads. Then I tried a SteelSeries 5L control pad and it provided a “Good” result. And lastly, I tried a Cooler Master Battlepad speed mat and it also scored a “Good” rating.
Granted, I can’t conclusively base my impression entirely on the S.Q.A.T utility results, but it did provide some strong support of my own personal anecdotal observations. Frankly, the Ensis 320 was wonderfully smooth and responsive with various mice (both laser and optical) I tried from manufacturers including Mionix, Razer, and Cooler Master. Some speed mats can be “too fast” and lack fine control, but the Ensis 320 had no such problems.