The predecessor had much higher output, at the cost of more electrons, and more blade noise.
The new box trumpeted how it was 20% quieter and more efficient. Easily done. Derate the motor, so that it won't turn as fast or have the same draw.
Except when you buy a fan because you're soaked in sweat, a reduction in noise doesn't nearly compensate for the reduction in cooling.
Meanwhile, despite disassembly and cleaning (access is reasonable for anyone with a minimal toolkit), it took more and more time to start up, and, not long into its life, would not start.
Which was the same result we had with the first. But the first had all that power - 25% more, after you do the inversion (20% reduction reversed requires 25% increase) - to move air.
Because it's cheap, it doesn't rate in cubic feet per minute (CFM) - but if you were to compare this with its exact-look predecessor, I'm betting you'd find more than a 25% reduction. Of course, since it doesn't give you the CFM, it also doesn't give you the watts.
So, ignorant of either how much it will suck down the batteries we use to make our 120VAC power, or the huff-and-puff-and-blow-your-house-down it will deliver, we took it home, expecting the same thing as we had before, but quieter blades due to some wizardry in design (submarines go to great length to quieten their propellors; why not table fans???).
Nope. Sorry. Not as much as on "two" on the old one, for "3" on the new one, and no way to ramp it up.
Despite that, as that's all that's available, and CFM info isn't generally available for this sort of thing, we'll replace it with the same thing and continue to sweat, with more of it remaining liquid than we'd like.
The good news is that you'll have to work hard to not get change from a sawbuck.