Compare
Drop Shot Explorer 9.0 vs Hyper Pro+ 2.0


The Hyper Pro+ 2.0 is the better racket, 98 to 76: more power and handling. The Explorer 9.0 costs €170 less.
Our scores, updated 9 November 2026 · How we score
Score by score
How we score →The green bar wins the round. The Hyper takes 5 of the six, the Explorer 9.0 takes value.
Feel is read from the core and the face until hardness is measured.
The €170 question
€170
more for the Hyper. This is what it buys you.
- +25Power98 against 73
- +24Handling96 against 72
- +21Sweet spot92 against 71
- 12KA 12K carbon faceagainst 3K: a stiffer face, a crisper answer on volleys
Worth it if these numbers are the ones you play for. If not, keep the €170: the Explorer 9.0 is 76 in Our score.
What is different
Four things change between them. Pick one to look closer.


12K packs 12,000 carbon filaments into each thread against 3,000: a stiffer face that answers sooner on volleys. The Explorer 9.0's 3K is a little softer and gives you more time when you are late.
Edge: the Hyper, for precision
* The feel starts from the core's rated hardness (estimated from the core material where there is no rating), then the face: carbon 12K and up is firmer, fibreglass softer.
The Explorer 9.0 is about 365 g lighter: quicker to the ball at the net. The Hyper puts a little more weight behind a smash.
Edge: the Explorer 9.0, for quick hands
The balance point is not listed for both.
No edge either way
* Drawn to scale: a 455 mm racket in its shape's outline (traced from a real racket of that shape), with the balance point the shops list marked on it. Real rackets vary by a few millimetres.
€170 apart at PadelProShop today. Under the launch price: Explorer 9.0 44%. The Explorer 9.0 wins the value round, 66 to 62.
Edge: the Explorer 9.0, for your wallet
Specs from the makers and the shops that sell them. Weights are the maker's figures, not measured by us.
Which one sounds like you?
Tap every line that sounds like you.

Explorer 9.0
Our score 76 · €117Skip it if you want more power: the Hyper has 98 for power against its 73.

Hyper Pro+ 2.0
Our score 98 · €287Skip it if you want more racket for the money: the Explorer 9.0 has 66 for value against its 62.
Our recommendation for most players
The Hyper Pro+ 2.0
The higher score, 98 to 76.
Not sure of your level? Padel DNA matches rackets to how you play.
What other reviewers scored them
Out of 100, each linked to its page.
Our score
Hyper +22
No other site has scored the Explorer 9.0 or the Hyper yet. When one does, it shows here.
Your shape
What players said
2 players who own or have owned one of them told us how it plays. It is their word: it is not a review and does not count towards Our score.

Explorer 9.0
No player has told us about the Explorer 9.0 yet.

Hyper Pro+ 2.0
0 of 2 liked it
Liked it 0No strong view 2Did not 0
Only 2 players so far: too few to rank what they said.

Our recommendation
Oxdog Hyper Pro+ 2.0
The better racket, 98 to 76: more power and handling.
- 5 of 6 scores
- Carbon 12K face
When you buy through PadelProShop we earn a commission. It never changes a score.
Price alert
Share the cards
The comparison as two cards, for a post, a story or a group chat.

Download
Or share the page
Before you buy
Questions
Straight answers.
Which is better, the Explorer 9.0 or the Hyper Pro+ 2.0?
The Hyper Pro+ 2.0 is the better racket, 98 to 76: more power and handling. The Explorer 9.0 costs €170 less.
What is the difference between the Explorer 9.0 and the Hyper Pro+ 2.0?
12K packs 12,000 carbon filaments into each thread against 3,000: a stiffer face that answers sooner on volleys. The Explorer 9.0's 3K is a little softer and gives you more time when you are late. The Explorer 9.0 is about 365 g lighter: quicker to the ball at the net. The Hyper puts a little more weight behind a smash. The balance point is not listed for both.
Which is better for power?
The Hyper Pro+ 2.0: power 98 against 73.
What is the price difference?
€170 apart at PadelProShop today. Under the launch price: Explorer 9.0 44%. The Explorer 9.0 wins the value round, 66 to 62.

