Every tint shop says their film blocks heat. Very few will show you the specification sheet. Here are five films side by side — compared at matched shade and matched price tier — including where XPEL wins and the one XR film that doesn't justify its quote.
Last verified: September 2026 · Written by the team at Ceramic Pro Fuel House, a Ceramic Pro Elite Dealer in Bonner Springs, KS. All figures below are taken directly from published manufacturer specification sheets.
The short version. Carbon film absorbs heat and needs to be dark to do it well. Ceramic film rejects heat and holds that performance even at light, legal shades. If you want a 35% front window, that difference is the whole ballgame.
And the part nobody mentions: "ceramic" is a construction category, not a performance promise. XPEL's own spec sheet shows its XR Black film rejecting 58% of full-spectrum infrared while XR Plus rejects 70% — a 12-point gap between two films sold under the same premium XR name.
Where we'll be straight with you: XPEL's flagship XR Plus posts the highest TSER figures on this page, and we say so in every table below. What it doesn't do is justify quoting XR Black at premium-ceramic pricing — and there's more to a film than one number, which we cover at the end.
Both films are dye-free, so neither turns purple or fades the way old dyed tint did. Both block essentially all UV. The difference is how they handle heat.
Carbon film suspends carbon particles in the film layers. Those particles absorb infrared energy. Absorption works, but it scales with how much material is in the light path — so a carbon film has to be dark to reject a lot of heat.
Ceramic film uses non-conductive ceramic nanoparticles that reject infrared energy rather than soaking it up. That mechanism is far less dependent on visible darkness, which is why a light ceramic film can still block serious heat. Ceramic is also non-metallic, so it never interferes with GPS, cellular, keyless entry, or driver-assist sensors.
The tell is on the spec sheet. Look at how much a film's heat rejection falls as the shade gets lighter. A film that collapses as it lightens is absorbing heat. A film that holds steady is rejecting it.
| IR rejection by shade | Darkest shade | Mid shade | Lightest shade | Drop-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Carbon X | 95% (5) | 83% (35) | 80% (50) | −15 pts |
| KAVACA Ceramic IR | 96% (5) | 92% (35) | 88% (70) | −8 pts |
Shade designation in parentheses. Carbon X loses 15 points of IR rejection while only lightening to 50; Ceramic IR loses 8 while going all the way to a nearly clear 70. Ceramic IR at its lightest shade still out-rejects Carbon X at 35.
The most honest single number on any spec sheet. TSER rolls visible light, infrared, and UV into one percentage, so it captures total heat and can't be inflated by choosing a flattering wavelength. If you only compare one number across brands, compare TSER.
How much light passes through. This is the legal number: Kansas allows 35% VLT or darker on front side windows. Comparisons are only meaningful at matched VLT — a darker film will always look better on paper.
Infrared is the heat you feel on your arm. The problem is the measurement basis. A single-wavelength reading (usually 1025 nm) always produces a bigger number than a full-spectrum reading across 780–2500 nm. Both get printed as "IR rejection."
To their credit, both manufacturers disclose this. XPEL's sheet states plainly that its IR rejection figure is "reported at a singular wavelength, 1025 nm," and publishes a separate full-spectrum IRER column. Ceramic Pro's Carbon X sheet lists a headline IR figure alongside a lower "film only" figure. The disclosure is there. Most quotes just don't mention it.
| Same film, two ways to measure | Headline IR figure | Full-spectrum / film-only |
|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Carbon X 5 | 95% | 74% (film only) |
| KAVACA Carbon X 35 | 83% | 39% (film only) |
| XPEL XR Plus | 96% (1025 nm) | 70% (780–2500 nm) |
| XPEL XR Black | 78% (1025 nm) | 58% (780–2500 nm) |
Every one of these pairs comes off the manufacturer's own published sheet. The gap between the two columns is why "97% IR rejection!" on a quote means nothing without the measurement basis.
This is the part worth slowing down for. "Ceramic" describes how a film is built, not how well it performs. Two films can both be legitimately ceramic and be separated by a wide margin — and you can see it inside a single brand's own catalog.
XPEL's USA specification sheet lists XR Plus and XR Black together. Both carry the premium XR name. Their full-spectrum infrared rejection is not close:
| XPEL XR lineup | Full-spectrum IRER (780–2500 nm) | IR @ 1025 nm | UV rejection |
|---|---|---|---|
| XR Plus (all shades 5–55) | 70% | 96% | 99% |
| XR Black (all shades 5–55) | 58% | 78% | 99% |
Figures as published on XPEL's Prime USA specification sheet (R0523). IRER and 1025 nm values are constant across the 5–55 shade range for both films.
That is a 12-point full-spectrum gap and an 18-point gap at 1025 nm, between two films in the same product family. XR Black is the lower-performing film of the two — and in our experience it is frequently the one quoted, often described simply as "XR" or "the ceramic," at pricing that sits well above an entry-level ceramic or carbon film.
We are not claiming XR Black is a bad film. We are saying that if you are paying premium-ceramic money, you should know which XR film is on the quote, because the sheet shows they are not interchangeable.
For context on price-to-performance: on the metric most often quoted to customers — IR rejection at 1025 nm — KAVACA Carbon X reads 95% against XR Black's 78%, and Carbon X is our entry-level film. If a quote leans on a big IR number to justify a premium, ask which film and which wavelength.
Two rules make a tint comparison meaningful, and most comparisons break both. First, compare at matched VLT — a darker film always looks better on paper. Second, compare films in the same price tier. Putting a mid-tier film against a competitor's flagship isn't a comparison, it's a setup.
So here they are sorted properly: flagship against flagship, then the tier below.
| ~35% VLT (legal front) | VLT | TSER | IR (headline) | Full-spectrum IR | UV | Glare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Ultimate IR 35 | 36% | 55% | 92% | — | 99.9% | 59% |
| XPEL XR Plus 35 | 38% | 59% | 96% (1025 nm) | 70% | 99% | 58% |
| ~20% VLT (common rear) | VLT | TSER | IR (headline) | Full-spectrum IR | UV | Glare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Ultimate IR 25 | 24% | 59% | 93% | — | 99.9% | 75% |
| XPEL XR Plus 20 | 18% | 66% | 96% (1025 nm) | 70% | 99% | 80% |
Straight answer: XR Plus posts the higher TSER here, and we're not going to pretend otherwise. It is a genuinely strong film and XPEL's best. Two caveats worth knowing. First, XPEL's figures are measured per EN 410 on 1/8" (3 mm) glass with a ±3% tolerance; TSER shifts with the glass it's measured on, and manufacturers don't always publish an identical basis, so a 4-point gap is closer to a tie than it looks. Second, KAVACA holds a real edge on UV — 99.9% versus 99% means one-tenth the transmitted UV reaching your interior and your skin. Where KAVACA separates decisively is warranty and documentation, covered below.
This is the matchup that actually costs people money, because XR Black is frequently quoted as "the ceramic" at pricing near the flagship.
| ~35% VLT (legal front) | VLT | TSER | IR (headline) | Full-spectrum IR | UV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Ceramic IR 35 | 36% | 56% | 92% | — | >99% |
| KAVACA Carbon X 35 | 38% | 51% | 83% | 39% (film only) | 99.9% |
| XPEL XR Black 35 | 35% | 59% | 78% | 58% | 99% |
| ~20% VLT (common rear) | VLT | TSER | IR (headline) | Full-spectrum IR | UV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KAVACA Ceramic IR 25 | 24% | 60% | 93% | — | >99% |
| KAVACA Carbon X 20 | 21% | 57% | 91% | 54% (film only) | 99.9% |
| XPEL XR Black 20 | 20% | 64% | 78% | 58% | 99% |
XR Black carries a few points of TSER, but gives up 14 points of headline IR to Ceramic IR (78% vs 92%) and sits at 58% full-spectrum. Note too that Carbon X — our entry-level film — reads 83–91% headline IR against XR Black's 78%. If a quote is priced like a flagship and the film is XR Black, the sheet does not support the price.
| Ultimate IR | 5 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 55 | 70 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLT | 8 | 17 | 24 | 36 | 46 | 53 | 70 |
| IR rejection | 96 | 94 | 93 | 92 | 93 | 91 | 88 |
| TSER | 66 | 64 | 59 | 55 | 49 | 49 | 44 |
| UV rejection | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 |
| Glare reduction | 93 | 82 | 75 | 59 | 48 | 43 | 25 |
All values in percent, from the KAVACA Ultimate IR specification sheet. Ultimate IR details and pricing →
| Ceramic IR | 5 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 55 | 70 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLT | 8 | 17 | 24 | 36 | 53 | 70 |
| IR rejection | 96 | 94 | 93 | 92 | 91 | 88 |
| TSER | 67 | 65 | 60 | 56 | 50 | 45 |
| UV rejection | >99 | >99 | >99 | >99 | >99 | >99 |
| Glare reduction | 93 | 82 | 75 | 59 | 43 | 25 |
All values in percent, from the KAVACA Ceramic IR specification sheet. Ceramic IR details and pricing →
| Carbon X | 5 | 20 | 35 | 50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VLT | 5 | 21 | 38 | 48 |
| IR rejection | 95 | 91 | 83 | 80 |
| IR rejection (film only) | 74 | 54 | 39 | 32 |
| TSER | 61 | 57 | 51 | 47 |
| UV rejection | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 |
| Glare reduction | 95 | 82 | 58 | 29 |
All values in percent, from the KAVACA Carbon X specification sheet. Note that Ceramic Pro publishes both IR figures side by side. Carbon X details and pricing →
Everything above is a lab number. None of it tells you what happens in year four when a film starts to fail, or who pays. These are the differences that don't appear in any TSER column — and for most owners they matter more than four points of solar rejection.
| Beyond the numbers | Ceramic Pro KAVACA | Typical XPEL XR quote |
|---|---|---|
| UV rejection | 99.9% — one-tenth the transmitted UV | 99% |
| Warranty registration | Registered to your VIN with the manufacturer | Varies by dealer; often shop-held paperwork |
| Vehicle history documentation | Qualifying Ceramic Pro work appears on Carfax | Not documented on Carfax |
| Installer certification | Elite Dealer — highest Ceramic Pro tier, certified techs | Any authorized dealer, training varies |
| Published data transparency | Publishes both headline and film-only IR figures | Publishes full-spectrum IRER — but per-shade TSER only |
| Metal content / signal | Non-metallic — no GPS, cell, or sensor interference | Non-metallic |
| Full product ladder | Carbon X → Ceramic X → Ceramic IR → Ultimate IR | XR Black → XR Plus |
The last row matters more than it looks. A four-tier ladder means we can quote a film that fits your shade and budget instead of pushing you up or down to the two options we stock.
The practical version: if you're choosing purely on peak lab TSER, XR Plus has a defensible claim and we'd rather you hear that from us. If you care about UV load on your interior, a warranty attached to your VIN rather than a shop's filing cabinet, documentation that follows the vehicle to resale, and a film matched to your actual shade — that's where KAVACA and an Elite Dealer install earn it.
Honestly, it depends on the shade you want — and we quote both films for exactly that reason.
We're a Ceramic Pro Elite Dealer in Bonner Springs, and we install the full KAVACA lineup — Carbon X, Ceramic IR, Ceramic X, and Ultimate IR. Tell us your vehicle and the shade you want and we'll show you the spec sheet for the film we're recommending, along with what it costs.
611 W 2nd St, Bonner Springs, KS 66012
(913) 393-9727 · Mon–Fri, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Sources and method. Figures are transcribed from published manufacturer specification sheets: the KAVACA Carbon X, KAVACA Ceramic IR, and KAVACA Ultimate IR product sheets (Ceramic Pro) and the XPEL Prime USA Specification Sheet (R0523). XPEL notes that its data was gathered using a LAMBDA 1050+ UV/Vis/NIR spectrophotometer with films applied to 1/8" (3 mm) glass, that visible light and solar energy data are reported using EN 410 methodology, that IR rejection is reported at a singular wavelength of 1025 nm, and that performance tolerances are +/− 3%. Ceramic Pro publishes both a headline IR rejection figure and a film-only figure on the Carbon X sheet. Because manufacturers do not always use identical measurement bases, cross-brand comparisons here are presented at matched VLT with the measurement basis labeled on every value. Specifications are subject to change by the manufacturers; ask us for the current sheet before you buy. XPEL, XR Plus, and XR Black are trademarks of XPEL, Inc., referenced here for factual comparison. Ceramic Pro Fuel House is an authorized Ceramic Pro Elite Dealer and is not affiliated with XPEL, Inc.