If you want clearer call-focused features and longer listening between charges, choose Monster Open Ear AC317; if you need more total playback time from the case, choose Monster Open Ear AC210. For calls, I’d lean toward the AC317: it specifically lists AI noise reduction for hands-free calling, while the AC210’s clearest advantage is its longer combined battery life.
Both are open-ear Bluetooth headphones with touch controls and Type-C charging. Neither uses active noise control, so an open design means surrounding sounds remain part of the experience.
• AC317’s biggest strength: AI noise reduction is specified for calls. Trade-off: up to 24 hours of listening with the case, less than the AC210’s stated total.
• AC210’s biggest strength: up to 30 hours combined playback with its case. Trade-off: its listed single-charge listening time is up to 6 hours, compared with up to 7 for the AC317.
• Both: open-ear designs, Bluetooth connectivity, touch controls, and Type-C charging.
• Choose the AC317 if call clarity and a stated 7-hour listening stretch per charge matter most.
• Choose the AC210 if you want more combined playback time before recharging the case.
The AC317 is the more call-oriented choice on paper. Its feature set specifically names AI noise reduction for hands-free calls, alongside a design that leaves the ears open. That makes it worth considering if you want to take calls while staying aware of nearby activity rather than sealing off your ears. The stated Bluetooth 5.4 connection and touch controls round out a straightforward setup for listening and managing calls.
Its battery figures are also easy to parse: up to 7 hours per charge and up to 24 hours with the case. The case is described as charging through Type-C, and the product information lists a 10-meter Bluetooth range. For someone who prefers shorter charging cycles and wants the longer stated single-charge session of these two, the AC317 has a practical edge.
We compare products from their published specs and features; the verdicts below are our independent editorial opinions.
Updated: 2026-10-09 · 6 min read · Independent comparison
I’d skip it if your priority is the longest combined playback figure, since the AC210 is listed at up to 30 hours with its case. The AC317 is also not a noise-isolating design: its open-ear fit keeps you connected to the environment, which is useful in some settings but not a substitute for blocking surrounding sound. Its listed water resistance is IPX6, a distinction to weigh if sweat or rain exposure is relevant to your routine.
Monster Open Ear AC210: Who It's For
The AC210 makes its case with battery life. It is listed for up to 6 hours of listening on a charge and up to 30 hours with the charging case. If your routine involves several listening sessions spread across the day and you care most about the combined total, that larger figure is its clearest advantage over the AC317.
This model has an open-back design and touch controls, with Bluetooth 5 connectivity and a listed 10-meter range. Its product information identifies 12-millimeter dynamic drivers. Those details may appeal if you want an open-ear option for general listening and calls, while remaining aware that the published feature list does not specify AI noise reduction for calls.
The trade-off is that the AC210’s stated listening time per charge is an hour shorter than the AC317’s. Its listed water-resistance rating is IPX5, while the AC317 is listed as IPX6. That difference may matter if exposure to sweat or rain is part of your use, but neither rating turns open-ear headphones into a choice for every wet setting. I’d choose the AC210 for its case-supported playback total, not because its call features are described in greater detail.
• Best for calls based on specified call features → Monster Open Ear AC317. Its listing specifically describes AI noise reduction for hands-free calls; the AC210 does not list an equivalent feature.
• Best for longer listening on one charge → Monster Open Ear AC317. It is listed for up to 7 hours per charge, versus up to 6 hours for the AC210.
• Best for combined playback with the case → Monster Open Ear AC210. Its stated total is up to 30 hours, compared with up to 24 hours for the AC317.
• Best if you want the higher listed water-resistance rating → Monster Open Ear AC317. It is specified as IPX6; the AC210 is specified as IPX5.
• Best if driver size is a deciding factor → Monster Open Ear AC210. Its product details list 12-millimeter dynamic drivers. The AC317’s supplied details identify a different driver description, not a comparable driver size.
• Best for Bluetooth version → Monster Open Ear AC317. Its listed version is Bluetooth 5.4, while the AC210 lists Bluetooth 5.
• Best for an open fit while staying aware of surroundings → either. Both are described as open-ear headphones, so neither is the pick for someone who specifically wants an in-ear seal.
• Best if Type-C charging is a must → either. Type-C charging is listed for both, though the AC317’s description gives a one-hour case charge figure while the AC210’s product information lists a six-hour battery charge time. Those figures are not directly explained in the same way, so I wouldn’t treat them as a clean head-to-head charging-speed comparison.
The calls question deserves a little nuance. Open-ear headphones can suit someone who needs to hear the room while speaking, but the design also means outside sound is not shut out. If you are looking for “sleep headphones for calls,” neither product’s supplied details establish a sleep-specific fit or function. Likewise, neither is described as a gaming headset for calls; the AC317 does list low-latency listening, but that alone does not make either model a dedicated gaming headset.
My Verdict
I would buy the Monster Open Ear AC317 for calls. In my opinion, its specific AI noise-reduction call feature, 7-hour per-charge figure, Bluetooth 5.4, and IPX6 rating make it the more rounded fit for everyday call use. The AC210 remains a sensible alternative if up to 30 hours of combined playback matters more to you than the AC317’s call-focused feature set.
The AC317 is the clearer choice based on the listed features: it specifically describes AI noise reduction for hands-free calls. The AC210 lists clear calls in its title but does not specify an equivalent noise-reduction feature.
The AC210 is listed for up to 30 hours of combined listening with its case, compared with up to 24 hours for the AC317. The AC317 has the longer stated single-charge listening time: up to 7 hours versus up to 6.
Neither is listed with noise control, and both use open-ear designs. The AC317’s call noise-reduction feature is described for call audio; it should not be confused with noise isolation that blocks surrounding sound for the listener.
Which one should I choose if I want Type-C charging?
• QearFun Sparkly Unicorn Headphones vs Turtle Beach Airlite Fit
• Zoom MS-80IR+ or Jabra Evolve 65: which is better
• Cowyawn USB Type C vs AOC USB Headset comparison
• Hsility Headset vs Qecnato Headset: Business Bluetooth
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.