Compare HTC Desire 826 vs Intex Aqua Ace 4G

Feature Comparison

  • The HTC Desire 826's Screen Size measures in at 5.5 inch. When compared to the other product's Screen Size, it is 9.0% more
  • Internal Storage of HTC Desire 826 is the same as Intex Aqua Ace 4G
  • The 3GB RAM on the Intex Aqua Ace 4G is 33.0% more
 
HTC Desire 826
Intex Aqua Ace 4G
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
71 Value For Money Score
71 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD AMOLED   
Pixel Density
400.5 PPI 293.7 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.7GHz 1.3GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 615 MediaTek MT6735   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 405 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
13MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Simultaneous HD Video and Image Recording, HDR Add Face Detection, Gesture Capture, Take Photo While Recording, Voice Capture,Panorama, Mira Vision   
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
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.0 Lollipop Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
Android 6.0 -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
Front Facing Stereo Speakers, GPS, FM Radio FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
158 x 77.5 x 7.99 145 x 71.5 x 6.7   
Weight
183 grams 122 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
White Birch, Blue Lagoon White, Black   
Build Material
Plastic Glass, Plastic   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
10GB 10.01GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2600mAh 2300mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

HTC Desire 826 vs Intex Aqua Ace 4G Specs

Specs
HTC Desire 826Intex Aqua Ace 4G  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2600mAh2300mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 13MP5MP  

HTC Desire 826 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Sharp and vivid display at 401PPI
  • Stereo speakers with BoomSOund technology
  • Smooth user interface
The Bad
  • Below average battery life
  • Heats up while performing graphic intensive tasks
  • Does not support 4G LTE

Intex Aqua Ace 4G Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Sharp AMOLED display with Gorilla Glass 3 protection
  • Ample 3GB of RAM for excellent multitasking experience
  • Support 4G LTE network in India
The Bad
  • Average battery life
  • Not that great processor performance
  • Android Lollipop is a slight disappointment in Marshmallow era

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare HTC Desire 826 with Intex Aqua Ace 4G. When you see HTC Desire 826 Vs Intex Aqua Ace 4G 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 HTC Desire 826 stands against Intex Aqua Ace 4G and which one you should buy. The best price of HTC Desire 826 is currently Rs. 12,750. The lowest price for Intex Aqua Ace 4G is Rs. 8,599. The prices for both these products were updated October 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page