Are puff-count claims useful for comparing devices?

Do people here actually use published puff counts as a comparison point? I have always treated them as rough marketing context because usage patterns can change the result so much.

I would rather see a review explain how long the device lasted under a documented use pattern than repeat one big number without context.

That is how I would frame it. A stated count can be documented as a manufacturer claim, but it should not be presented as a measured universal result unless the test actually supports that conclusion.

Same. A number is useful when the method behind it is visible. Without that, it is mostly a label.

For comparisons, we can separate the stated claim from observed longevity and explain the conditions of the observation.