Skip to content
Head to head

ESP D-320E NATURAL SATIN vs Ibanez TOD100N

ESP D-320E NATURAL SATIN
Acoustic—
No ratings yet
82Overall / 100
Ibanez TOD100N
Ibanez
TOD100N
Acoustic—
No ratings yet
66Overall / 100

The verdict

The ESP D-320E NATURAL SATIN comes out ahead overall — 82 to 66 on our estimated score.

Estimated from specs & owner reviews — a starting point, not a substitute for playing both.

ESP D-320E NATURAL SATIN wins on
  • Better build (96 vs 66)
  • Better playability (78 vs 64)
  • Better value (81 vs 66)
Ibanez TOD100N wins on

No standout advantage.

Scorecard

Estimated scores
MetricD-320E NATURAL SATINTOD100N
Overall8266
Build9666
Playability7864
Sound6868
Value8166

Full specifications

Specification comparison
SpecD-320E NATURAL SATINTOD100N
BrandESPIbanez
TypeAcousticAcoustic
Years——
CountryJP—
Body woodOvangkolSolid Sitka Spruce
Neck woodMahogany—
FretboardRoasted JatobaEbony
Strings66
Frets2022
Scale25.5"25.6"
PickupsFishman SonicoreFishman® Acoustic Matrix™ Undersaddle / Fishman® Bridge Mounted Body
Rating——
Price——
BridgeRoasted Jatoba Bridge w/ Graphtech Nubone SaddleEbony double hole bridge
Bridge pickupFishman Sonicore—
Case-—
Case IncludedN—
ConstructionSet-Neck—
ControlsActive—
FinishNatural Satin—
Fretboard radius350mm—
HardwareBlack—
Neck profileThin U—
NutGraphtech Nubone—
Nut width43mm—
Scale length25.5"651mm/25.6"
Strap ButtonStandard—
Top woodSolid Red CedarSolid Sitka Spruce top
TunersLTD—
A Length—17 1/2"
A Width—46mm at NUT
Back Sides—Solid Okoume back & Solid Okoume sides
Battery—9V x1
Body Binding—Rosewood body binding
Body shape—FRH chambered body
Bracing—Fan Bracing for Chambered FRH body
B Width—13 15/16"
C Max Depth—1 15/16"
C Thickness—21mm at 1F
D Thickness—22mm at 7F
Factory Tuning—1E,2B,3G,4D,5A,6E
Inlay—Tree of Death inlay
Output Jack—1/4" Endpin Jack (Mono or Stereo)
Preamp—Fishman® Aura® TOD100N Custom Tim Henson System
Radius—400mmR
String Gauge—.028/.032/.040/.028W/.035W/.044W
String Space—11.1mm
Tuning Machine—Gold Classical tuners

More D-320E NATURAL SATIN comparisons