I see many posts as well as emails to myself asking what's the difference? I'm no expert but this is the best I can explain. First remember we need to remember the roots of Boldenone. It was created while trying to develop a long ester dianabol.Then if we remember the origin of dianabol, it is basically a derivative of Testosterone. So what the hell does that mean to us? While very few people actually report or claim they suffer from water retention from using EQ, it's history sure would tell us it may have that possibility considering its ancestry. Boldenone Acetate was first marketed as Boldenone with less water retention. Again I think most of us would say "what water retention? ". I think the most logic explanation for the development of Boldenone Acetate is a faster acting compound. Undecylenate is the slowest acting ester I'm aware of, even slower than deconate. This is why EQ is typically run 16-20 weeks to reap the full benefits of the compound. I have no hard core evidence this is true or one version is better than the other. This is simply the conclusion I came to; Acetate form is faster acting and can be run on a shorter cycle. I have never run the acetate form just the Undecylenate. Anyone with experience with both I would love to hear.