I work on connector and harness programmes at KONNRA, so the interest is declared: the alternative part in this answer is ours. I have tried to write it the way I would want a competitor’s engineer to write it — the useful finding first, then the three places where we are behind the original, without softening.
The short answer
The equivalent is the KR3000 series — a 3.00mm pitch crimp family that does both wire-to-board and wire-to-wire, in 2 to 12 circuits single row and 2 × 1 to 2 × 12 dual row, with PA66 housings in UL94 V-0 or V-2, LCP, PA9T or PA46 wafers, phosphor bronze terminals and brass wafer pins. Our published ratings are 250V, 5A at 20 AWG, −40 to +105°C, 10mΩ contact resistance and 1,000MΩ insulation resistance at 500VDC.
“Is it interchangeable” is the harder half of the question, and my honest version is this: on the mechanical layer and on most of the electrical sheet, yes. On the voltage rating, on the coarse end of the wire window, and on one post-humidity row, no.
The finding I would lead with: two of the force pairs are the original’s own numbers
Four separate force measurements exist in these documents and they do not share a basis — per contact, per circuit, whole-connector and measured-on-a-gage-pin. Separate them and the picture is unusually clean.
At the contact level, both companies publish the same two numbers:
- Contact insertion force. Molex publishes 14.7N maximum per contact. Our specification publishes 1.5kgf maximum, written as 1.5kgf (14.7N). Check the arithmetic: 1.5 × 9.80665 = 14.710N.
- Contact retention to housing. Molex publishes 24.5N minimum. We publish 2.5kgf minimum, written as 2.5kgf (24.5N). Check it: 2.5 × 9.80665 = 24.517N.
That is not two engineers arriving independently at a figure. It is the same figure in a different unit, and our documents print both units.
At the connector level Molex publishes a window rather than a point — a maximum insertion force and a minimum withdrawal force, per circuit — and our two per-circuit figures sit inside it:
- Mating force. Molex publishes 8N maximum per circuit. We publish 0.80kgf per circuit maximum, which is 7.85N. Ours is 0.15N tighter.
- Unmating force. Molex publishes 2.4N minimum per circuit. We publish 0.25kgf per circuit minimum, which is 2.45N. Ours is 0.05N stronger.
Convert the original’s corridor to kilogram-force and it reads 0.8158kgf maximum and 0.2447kgf minimum per circuit. Because our grid is two decimal places, our maximum is 0.0158kgf below the original’s and our minimum is 0.0053kgf above it — both ends on the stricter side, which is the safe direction.
I cannot prove from the documents why our per-circuit table was built that way, and I am not going to claim I can. What I can say is that the arithmetic is reproducible, and that the practical meaning for a designer is simple: the connector we ship is specified to take less force to mate and to hold on harder than the original requires.
Our specification is also a ladder rather than two numbers, and it brackets the original at every circuit count, not just on average. At 2 circuits it reads 1.60kgf = 15.7N maximum insertion against the original’s 16.0N, and 0.50kgf = 4.9N minimum withdrawal against 4.8N. At 12 circuits it reads 9.60kgf = 94.1N against 96.0N, and 3.00kgf = 29.4N against 28.8N. At the full dual-row 2 × 12 = 24 positions it reads 19.20kgf = 188.3N against 192.0N, and 6.00kgf = 58.8N against 57.6N.
Two more force rows point the same way. On pin retention in the header, the original publishes 13.3N minimum in the BMI specification and 13.7N minimum in the dual-row specification, against our 1.5kgf = 14.7N minimum. On wire pull-out, our minimum crimp strength at 20, 22 and 24 AWG is 66.7N, 44.5N and 35.6N against the original’s 57.9N, 35.5N and 26.6N in the BMI specification. Note only that the original publishes two different minimums for 24 AWG — 26.6N in that specification and 22.2N in the test summary requirement column — and that our clause cites no test rate while Molex specifies 25 ± 6 mm per minute.
Three limits, stated plainly
This is the part a cross-reference answer usually buries. I would rather put it before the good news.
1. Voltage: our published 250V against the original’s 600V agency rating
Molex’s agency rating for the family is 600V — 600V across UL, CSA and IEC for the dual-row and single-row housings and headers — and the family datasheet also quotes 600V maximum at the product level. We publish 250V.
A harness that is fine on a 400V DC bus with the original is not covered by our published rating, whatever else matches, and this is the single most consequential difference in the comparison.
It also explains our dielectric test level. Molex publishes a formula rather than a number — two times the rated voltage plus 1,000 volts, VAC, for 1 minute — which at its own 600V rating calls for 2,200VAC. Our specification states 1,500V AC for 1 minute, exactly what the same formula yields at 250V (2 × 250 + 1,000 = 1,500). The gap on this row is the rating, not the test method.
2. The wire window: 20# to 24# against 18 to 30 AWG
Molex accepts 18 to 30 AWG stranded copper. We document 20# to 24#. That is three of the seven conductor sizes in the original’s own derating table, or five nominal AWG steps out of thirteen.
Four of the misses are fine gauges we simply do not document, which is a coverage statement rather than a defect for most power work. The one that matters commercially is 18 AWG, because that is where the original’s headroom lives: 8.5A in a 2-circuit wire-to-board configuration per Molex’s own reference table, against our published 5A at 20 AWG. A customer running 18 AWG at 6A on a two-way connector is outside our documented window, and by Molex’s own table the original covers it. That single row is the first thing to check before quoting a cross-reference.
One comparison there is in our favour. Molex’s test summary measures 20 AWG at 5.5A and 24 AWG at 4.0A at 30°C maximum temperature rise, while we publish 5A at 20 AWG — a conservative publication rather than an optimistic one. But our single 5A figure is a rating, not a derating table.
The insulation window is narrower than the original’s at both ends as well. Molex publishes a ceiling and no floor: 1.85mm maximum for 18 to 24 AWG and 1.27mm maximum for 26 to 30 AWG. We publish a corridor, 1.3 to 1.8mm.
- At the top end we are 0.05mm tighter. A 24 AWG wire with 1.83mm insulation is inside the original’s published maximum and outside ours.
- At the bottom end we impose a floor the original does not impose at all. A thin-wall 22 AWG wire with 1.2mm insulation is covered by the original’s document and rejected by ours.
That bottom floor is the bigger risk: no Molex Micro-Fit document states a minimum insulation diameter, so a designer who has validated a part with thin-wall wire has no reason to look for a lower bound. If your wire is thin-wall, send the insulation diameter before you specify.
3. Post-humidity insulation resistance: 100MΩ against 1,000MΩ
Our specification requires 100MΩ minimum after humidity. The original requires 1,000MΩ. That is an order of magnitude, and it is the row where we are weakest.
It is worth naming a pattern: the same clause value appears in our 2.5mm, 2.54mm and 3.00mm specifications, so it reads as a family-template figure rather than a tested result for this series. If your application sits in condensing or high-humidity duty, this is the row to raise at enquiry.
What does match, exactly
Five electrical rows agree, on the value and on the test condition:
- Contact resistance, initial: 10mΩ maximum on both sides, both measured at 20mV and 100mA as a dry-circuit test with wire resistance excluded.
- Insulation resistance: 1,000MΩ minimum at 500VDC on both sides — the test voltage matches, not just the value.
- Durability: 30 mating cycles on both sides, tin or gold.
- Humidity: 96 hours at 40 ± 2°C and 90–95% R.H. on both sides.
- Temperature-rise basis: Molex’s derating table is built on not exceeding 30°C temperature rise, and our clause states 30°C maximum.
The insulation row is the one to look at twice: matching the value is easy, matching the test voltage is not. A supplier can pass a 1,000MΩ specification at a lower test voltage and the datasheet looks identical; here it does not.
One thing on our side I would not call a strength
Our §8.0 ladder publishes the withdrawal minimum both at initial mate and at the 30th cycle, and the two columns are identical — 0.25kgf per circuit in both. That models no withdrawal-force loss across the full rated life, even though our durability clause requires the contact resistance to stay at or below 20mΩ after the same 30 cycles. The original publishes no force-versus-cycle table, so do not read “0.25kgf at cycle 30” as a measured value; if retention over life matters, ask for the measured ladder.
So is it a drop-in?
On fit, retention and the interface the case is strong: 3.00mm pitch, the same 2 to 12 single-row and 2 × 1 to 2 × 12 dual-row position ranges, matching contact and insulation resistance including the test voltage, matching 30-cycle durability and humidity duration, and contact insertion and retention forces published as the same numbers.
On three points the answer is no: the voltage rating is 250V against 600V, the wire window is 20#–24# while the original accepts 18–30 AWG, and the post-humidity insulation resistance is 100MΩ against 1,000MΩ.
So treat it as a drop-in for a ≤250V, ≤5A, 20–24 AWG application, and as an evaluated alternative anywhere else. Two things I would still ask us in writing: what distinguishes our two female terminals T3000FP***01A and T3000FP***01C, since the original documents its second female terminal as the reduced mating force version and we do not state the difference; and the plating thickness, because Molex publishes 0.25µm select tin and 0.38µm / 0.76µm select gold over nickel while we publish the plating system without a thickness.
If you want the full comparison, with every table and every place our own documents disagree with each other, these two pages are the starting point: KR3000 Series product page and the KR3000 Series wire-to-board product page.
https://konnra.com/molex-micro-fit-3-0-connector-complete-guide/
Dongguan Konnra Electronics Co., Ltd
