Compare BlackBerry Q5 vs Vivo Y55S

Feature Comparison

  • Vivo Y55S has 40.0% more Screen Size
  • Vivo Y55S's 16GB Internal Storage is more than BlackBerry Q5's 8GB Internal Storage
  • The RAM on Vivo Y55S is 33.0% more
 
BlackBerry Q5
Vivo Y55S
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
42 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
53 Value For Money Score
71 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
3.1 inch 5.2 inch   
Screen Resolution
720 x 720 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
328.5 PPI 282 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
- Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.2GHz 1.4GHz   
Processor
- Qualcomm Snapdragon 425   
Processor Type
Dual-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
- Adreno 505   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
5MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
1MP 5MP   
Camera Details
2592x1944 Pixels f/2.0 Aperture, Auto Focus, Contious Focus, Digital Zoom, Geo tagging, Panorama, HDR, Touch Focus, Face Detection, White Balance, ISO Setting, Exposure Compensation, Self Timer, Scene Mode, Screen Flash   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
BlackBerry Android   
OS Version
- Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
BlackBerry OS 10 Funtouch OS 3.0   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touch and Type Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
120 x 66 x 10.8 147.9 x 72.9 x 7.5   
Weight
120 grams 142 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Red, Black, White Gold, Space Gray   
Build Material
- Metal   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- 12GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 256GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2180mAh 2730mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

BlackBerry Q5 vs Vivo Y55S Specs

Specs
BlackBerry Q5Vivo Y55S  
Screen Size 3.1 inch5.2 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 5MP13MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2180mAh2730mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 1MP5MP  

BlackBerry Q5 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • The physical keyboard is one of the best keyboards to type on mobile
  • Battery backup easily gets you by a whole day
  • Screen is bright and colours are true, good outdoor visibility
  • Due to the space between screen & top of keyboard, there is room for gestures unlike on Q10
The Bad
  • The squared aspect ratio of the screen is awkward and takes time to get used to
  • App ecosystem on Blackberry in general is poor
  • The design has no flair and the phone feels a little cheap
  • Performance is not the most fluid, as there are stutters in UI

Vivo Y55S Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Sleek & light weight design
  • Decent battery life
  • Dedicated MicroSD card slot
The Bad
  • Lacks fingerprint sensor
  • Poor cameras
  • Average performance for the price

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare BlackBerry Q5 with Vivo Y55S. When you see BlackBerry Q5 Vs Vivo Y55S 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 BlackBerry Q5 stands against Vivo Y55S and which one you should buy. The best price of BlackBerry Q5 is currently Rs. 8,390. The lowest price for Vivo Y55S is Rs. 10,350. The prices for both these products were updated October 22, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page