Onzadog said, "They all test to the same standard. once they reach the standard, they stop testing. Bottom line, the best protection comes from the best fit. After that, you're paying for weight, ventilation, paint jobs and "other features"."
So a lot of people say. Total rubbish IMO. It's like saying "This pole is set at 1 metre, so every polejumper that clears it jumped exactly 1 metre".
HJC do decent entry-level helmets, but they don't tend to last very well- the padding compresses and so you end up having to replace it early even though the shell itself's perfect. Annoying, that. My Arais have all worked out cheaper in the long run, my Condor lasted twice as long as my HJC til I had a big crash, then I sent it away for testing and they gave it the thumbs up, then it lasted as long again- so even though it was 3 times as expensive it lasted 4 times as long. Still, that's a big expense up front.
Other protective gear's well worth having, if I'd had hip armour in my old motorbike trousers I wouldn't have broken my hip, so all in all I kind of wish I'd had hip armour
As a cyclist especially you can't afford a big leg injury. For some reason, motorcyclists seem to see shoulder armour as an essential, even though it's fairly ineffectual, but lots of riders don't bother about knee or hip armour even though it's more likely to take a hit, and more likely to make a difference. Odd that.