If you want an open-ear fit with a flexible ear hook, sweat resistance, and 24 hours of total playback, choose Monster Open Ear AC317; if you need Bluetooth 6.0, a lanyard, and up to eight hours of listening per charge, choose Monster Open Ear AC360. For a big head, I’d start with the AC317 if its hook-style fit sounds more secure for your ears; the AC360 is the more compelling option if its rotating magnetic cover and carrying lanyard matter more.
• AC317’s biggest strength: A flexible ear hook, open-ear listening, IPX6 sweat and water resistance, and up to 24 hours with the case. Trade-off: Its stated Bluetooth version is 5.4, and its individual listening time is seven hours.
• AC360’s biggest strength: Bluetooth 6.0, up to eight hours per charge, and a supplied lanyard. Trade-off: Its listed water-resistance rating is IPX5, below the AC317’s IPX6.
• AC317 is for: People who want a hook-style open-ear design and the stronger stated resistance rating for workouts or outdoor use.
• AC360 is for: People who value newer Bluetooth version numbering, a magnetic rotating cover, and a convenient way to carry the earbuds.
• Both keep the ears open and list up to 24 hours of total listening with their charging setup. Neither lists noise cancellation.
The AC317 is the more clearly hook-oriented choice. Its flexible ear hook and balanced earbud weight are intended to hold it in place without putting the earpiece into the ear canal. That open-ear layout can suit someone who wants to listen while remaining aware of nearby sounds, such as a cyclist paying attention to surroundings or a person working around other people. It is still headphones, not a substitute for hearing traffic or other hazards clearly.
For a big head, the relevant distinction is the ear-level fit, not headband size: neither model has a headband. The AC317’s hook wraps around the ear, so its design gives buyers a specific feature to consider if ordinary in-ear buds feel insecure. But the data does not provide adjustable dimensions or a range of ear sizes, so I wouldn’t assume that the hook fits every ear equally well. Someone searching for a kids headset for big head should also note that the listed age range is adult; there is no stated child-specific fit.
Its battery is rated for seven hours per charge and up to 24 hours with the case. The case is described as charging through Type-C, and the feature details state that it can be fully charged in one hour; separate product information lists a two-hour battery charge time. Because those figures differ, I would not treat the one-hour claim as a guarantee for every charging situation. The earbuds also offer touch controls, Bluetooth 5.4, AI noise reduction for calls, and IPX6 resistance against sweat and rain splashes. That mix makes the AC317 a sensible candidate for calls and active use, though its open-ear design and listed noise control of “none” do not suggest strong isolation from surrounding sound.
We compare products from their published specs and features; the verdicts below are our independent editorial opinions.
Updated: 2026-10-15 · 8 min read · Independent comparison
Who should skip it: Skip the AC317 if you specifically want Bluetooth 6.0, more than seven hours from one charge, or an earbud design without a hook.
The AC360 also uses an open-ear design, but its standout practical features are different: Bluetooth 6.0, a supplied lanyard, and a rotating magnetic cover. The lanyard gives you a dedicated way to carry the earbuds, while the cover adds a distinctive handling feature. Those details may matter to someone who moves between listening and putting the earbuds away throughout the day. The product information does not explain how the magnetic cover functions in every situation, so I wouldn’t read extra storage or protection benefits into it.
Its stated listening time is up to eight hours per charge, with up to 24 hours using the charging dock. That gives it one more hour per charge than the AC317 on the supplied figures, while the total figure is the same. The AC360’s DNN 6th-generation smart noise-filtering technology is described as supporting HD calls. That is a call-focused feature, not a claim that the earbuds block surrounding noise for the listener. Like the AC317, the AC360 lists no noise control, so an open listening experience remains central to the design.
For a shopper comparing bluetooth earbuds for big head or sports earbuds for big head, the AC360’s fit is described as ergonomic, lightweight, and non-slip, including during intense exercise. That can make it worth considering for activity, but the information does not specify an adjustable hook, fit dimensions, or a head-size range. Its IPX5 rating is stated to protect against rain and sweat. That is a defined level of resistance, but it is lower than the AC317’s listed IPX6 rating, so I’d give the AC317 the edge if resistance is the deciding factor. The AC360’s product information lists a 24-hour battery charge time, a figure that should not be confused with its 24-hour total playback claim.
Who should skip it: Skip the AC360 if IPX6 resistance is a priority or if you want a clearly specified flexible ear hook.
• Best for a specified hook-style fit → Monster Open Ear AC317. It has a flexible ear hook and balanced earbud weight; the AC360’s information instead describes an ergonomic, lightweight fit.
• Best for the higher stated water-resistance rating → Monster Open Ear AC317. Its IPX6 rating is higher than the AC360’s IPX5 rating. Both are described as suitable for sweat and rain exposure, but neither rating means the earbuds are intended for every kind of water use.
• Best for longest stated single-charge listening → Monster Open Ear AC360. Its claimed maximum is eight hours per charge, compared with seven hours for the AC317.
• Best for total playback with the case or dock → Tie. Both list up to 24 hours altogether, so the difference is how much use each claims between charging sessions.
• Best for Bluetooth version number → Monster Open Ear AC360. It lists Bluetooth 6.0, while the AC317 lists Bluetooth 5.4. The version numbers alone do not establish how the connection will perform with every device.
• Best for included carry convenience → Monster Open Ear AC360. Its package includes a lanyard; the AC317’s listed contents include a user manual and Type-C charging cable.
• Best for touch controls → Tie. Both list touch control, so neither has a clear advantage on that point from the available details.
• Best for open-ear awareness → Tie. Both are open-ear products. Neither lists noise control, so shoppers wanting strong isolation should consider a different style of headphone.
My Verdict
For a big head, I would choose the Monster Open Ear AC317 if I wanted the more clearly specified, flexible hook-style fit and the higher stated IPX6 resistance.
I’d choose the AC360 instead if eight hours between charges, Bluetooth 6.0, and the lanyard are my priorities.
My pick is the AC317 because its fit design and resistance rating make the stronger case for active, open-ear use.
Before choosing, think about what “fit for a big head” means in this case. Neither product has a headband, and neither listing gives a head-size measurement or an adjustable-size range. The AC317’s flexible ear hook is the clearest fit detail; the AC360 is described as ergonomic and non-slip, but its fit details are less specific. If you have had trouble keeping earbuds on your ears, that distinction may matter more than the Bluetooth version.
Consider your listening environment, too. Both models leave the ears open, which can help you remain aware of your surroundings, but it also means they are not designed to seal out background sound. Their call features differ in description: the AC317 lists AI noise reduction, and the AC360 describes DNN noise filtering for calls. Neither lists noise control, so those call-focused features should not be mistaken for active noise cancellation during music listening.
For exercise, compare the stated resistance ratings rather than assuming the products are interchangeable. The AC317 lists IPX6 and describes protection from sweat and rain splashes; the AC360 lists IPX5 and describes resistance to rain and sweat. If workouts regularly expose your earbuds to moisture, I would favor the AC317 on the rating listed. If you mainly want the longest stated run between charging sessions, the AC360’s eight-hour figure has the advantage.
Finally, check the current price on Amazon before deciding, since the right choice depends on what you value rather than on a spec sheet alone. Both products claim up to 24 hours of total playback, so I would not choose between them on that figure. Match the design to your routine: hook and IPX6 for the AC317, or Bluetooth 6.0, a lanyard, and an extra hour per charge for the AC360.
They are open-ear earbuds, not over-ear headsets with a headband, so head circumference is not the key fit measurement. The AC317 has a flexible ear hook; the AC360 is described as lightweight and ergonomic, but neither listing gives fit dimensions.
The AC360 lists up to eight hours per charge, compared with seven for the AC317. Both claim up to 24 hours of listening with their charging case or dock.
The AC317 lists IPX6 resistance, while the AC360 lists IPX5. Both descriptions mention sweat and rain, but the AC317 has the higher stated rating.
Neither lists noise control, and both use an open-ear design. The AC317’s AI noise reduction and the AC360’s DNN filtering are described in connection with calls, not as noise cancellation for listening.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
When you buy through links on this page, we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon or its affiliates. This site is an independent third-party review and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Amazon or the product brands mentioned.