Equipment and testing arrangements: I purchased the Temu irons. Under Par Studio made the genuine TaylorMade P790s available for testing and provided the testing session at no charge. We mentioned Under Par Studio in the video; no money changed hands for the session. I also had a Temu affiliate link through which I could earn a commission on qualifying purchases. No affiliate purchase links are included in this article.
What I wanted to find out
Can a P790-inspired Temu iron offer a useful comparison with a genuine TaylorMade P790 once you start hitting shots? In this episode, Derek and I explored that question during an indoor session at Under Par Studio. We looked beyond the similar appearance to strike feedback, consistency and feel.
My takeaway from this session
The useful question for me was not simply which seven-iron produced the longest shot. I was interested in the grouping and whether good strikes and misses led to predictable distances.
Some of the numbers discussed were similar, but that did not make the clubs interchangeable. The fitting conversation brought together consistency, response on misses and feel. This was a first-session comparison, not a settled buying verdict.
Watch the test
I Tested $255 Temu Irons Against $1,400 TaylorMade P790s — watch the original comparison
The prices in the original video title are historical episode wording, not checked current prices or purchase offers.
What I tested and how
Derek and I hit seven-irons from the Temu set, a newer genuine P790 and an older genuine P790. The original episode description identifies the launch monitor as a Foresight GCQuad.
This was a fitting-style session using selected shots. It was not a randomized or blinded trial, and this account does not establish a comparison of fully matched club configurations. The observations belong to the samples and swings in the episode, not every inexpensive iron sold through a marketplace.
What happened
At 06:40, I described feeling a mishit in my hands more clearly than with the Callaway Apex irons I was playing at the time. By 07:30–07:47, my attention was on grouping and predictable distances across different strikes.
The early genuine-P790 discussion described similar overall numbers alongside a little more speed and help on misses. In the fitting discussion at 10:49–12:02, the tradeoff considered for my delivery was that extra speed might help a miss while making the distance of a well-struck shot harder to predict. That is an interpretation from this session, not a general rule about every faster swinger or every P790.
The older-P790 comparison added another qualification: strike location and right misses affected the discussion of the averages. At 13:55–14:20, the fitter described excluding the poorest shots. That selection matters when interpreting the apparent similarity; the comparison should not be read as a complete record of every swing.
What worked, what did not, and who might care
The similar-looking irons gave us more to discuss than appearance alone. In the later conversation, the genuine P790 was described as crisper, while the Temu sample was described as less lively off the face. Those are subjective feel impressions, not verified findings about the clubs' internal metals or manufacturing.
For someone considering different irons, the useful distinction is between the results of this session and a club that fits their own delivery and misses. This first test does not establish long-term finish quality, durability, consistency between marketplace samples or an improvement in handicap.
What I would do next
At the end of the episode, I said I planned to play the Temu irons for 30 days and revisit their finish and on-course performance. That was the next step proposed in the video—not a completed long-term result reported in this article.
Keep following
Explore the other gear comparison and follow my effort to lower my handicap on Mulligan Mic.
