Comparing the differences between Yokogawa EJA transmitters and Yokogawa EJX transmitters based on personal experience.

The Yokogawa EJA transmitter is a relatively conventional series of transmitters from Yokogawa. Why is the Yokogawa EJA transmitter considered conventional? This is mainly due to the low procurement cost, wide range of applications, and high usage rate of the EJA. Meanwhile, the EJX transmitters under Yokogawa are considered high-end products, typically achieving an accuracy of 0.02% or higher. The accuracy of the EJA is generally around 0.065% or higher. However, many users, while completing their projects, hope to make them aesthetically pleasing. Certainly, many users are thinking about the EJX series products.
Last week, I personally experienced the feelings of doing business (due to work requirements, I often need to write various articles, so the experience is very important, focusing on solving the real concerns of users). During the reception of visiting users, I found that project managers hope to complete projects successfully while minimizing costs. Here, the technical editor from Shaanxi Huibo Electromechanical will explain the distinction between the Yokogawa EJA and EJX transmitters, hoping to assist those who want to use EJX for their projects. Below is an explanation based on one user's situation.
When I first received the user, after the user provided the company name and contact information (the company requires knowing who the quote is for before providing it), the model provided by the user was EJX. However, what puzzled me was that the parameters following this EJX model were completely similar to those of EJA. I initially thought the user had made a mistake in providing the model, but after inquiring, the user's response was affirmative. Of course, although I have been moving between transmitters for a long time, my understanding of EJX is not extensive. Therefore, when the user confirmed that this was the model, I could not be sure if it was accurate. It can be confirmed that rewriting EJX as EJA would definitely not be wrong. So, I sought help from a colleague in our technical department. The result was that this was indeed an EJA model, and they were forcibly using EJX to indicate a desire to convert EJX to EJA usage.
After receiving this signal, my first impression was that the user hoped to make the project aesthetically pleasing. Of course, the user is also in the initial understanding process and is not very clear about the price difference between EJA and EJX. In the subsequent communication with the user, they provided the complete EJX model and gave a quote.
The next day, the user contacted me again. Due to the high price, they decided to revert to the original EJA model. Of course, I responded with a very enthusiastic attitude and offered a corresponding discount. During this process, I was also constantly reflecting to find areas that could be explained. Ultimately, due to my limited understanding of EJX, we can only present the distinction between Yokogawa EJA and EJX in this way. What do you see?