Compare Apple iPhone 4 vs HTC One E9+

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of HTC One E9+'s is 36.0% more than Apple iPhone 4
  • HTC One E9+ has 75.0% more Internal Storage
  • HTC One E9+ has 83.0% more RAM
 
Apple iPhone 4
HTC One E9+
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
40 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
93 Value For Money Score
81 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
3.5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
960 x 640 pixels 2560 x 1440 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
329.7 PPI 534 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass 4   
Chipset     
Brand
Apple A series MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1GHz 2GHz   
Processor
Apple A4 MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10   
Processor Type
Single-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
512MB 3GB   
Graphics
PowerVR SGX535 PowerVR G6200   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
5MP 20MP   
Front Camera Resolution
0.3MP 4MP   
Camera Details
Autofocus, Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, HDR Dual-LED Flash, Automatic Simultaneous Video And Image Recording, Geo-Tagging, Face/Smile Detection, HDR, Panorama   
Video Recording Resolution
HD Video Recording (720p) 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
iOS Android   
OS Version
- Android 5.0 Lollipop   
OS Detail
iOS Sense UI   
OS Upgradable To
- Android 6.0   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Apple 30-pin Connector Micro USB   
Features
GPS Front Facing Stereo Speakers, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 156.5 x 76.5 x 7.54   
Weight
137 grams 149 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
White, Black Meteor Grey, Rose Gold   
Build Material
Glass, Metal -   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- 22GB   
Card Slot
- Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
- 2TB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- -   
SIM 2 Details
- -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
1420mAh 2800mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Apple iPhone 4 vs HTC One E9+ Specs

Specs
Apple iPhone 4HTC One E9+  
Screen Size 3.5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 5MP20MP  
RAM 512MB3GB  
Battery Capacity 1420mAh2800mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 0.3MP4MP  

HTC One E9+ Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Mindboggling display quality at 534PPI with Gorilla Glass 4 protection
  • HTC BoomSound Stereo speakers
  • Metal unibody construction makes it feel premium
  • Decent performance and battery life
The Bad
  • Runs outdated Android 5.0 Lollipop
  • Lacks fingerprint sensor
  • No fast charging support

Apple iPhone 4 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Fresh and gorgeous new design
  • Extremely premium build quality
  • Retina display is probably the best display we have seen at the time of the launch of this phone
  • iOS 4 is fresh and brings tons of improvements
  • Apple's ecosystem has tons of apps and games
The Bad
  • No expandable storage
  • The glass on the back of the phone is prone to shattering
  • Uses a 30 pin Apple proprietary cable for charging and syncing
  • Questions being raised about the reception on the device
  • The speaker is not the loudest

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Apple iPhone 4 with HTC One E9+. When you see Apple iPhone 4 Vs HTC One E9+ comparison on Pricebaba, watch-out for the specifications of these phones and also the VFM score. With Pricebaba’s Value For Money Score, you can know how Apple iPhone 4 stands against HTC One E9+ and which one you should buy. The lowest price for HTC One E9+ is Rs. 30,499. The prices for both these products were updated July 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page