Compare HTC Desire 828 32GB vs Yu Yunicorn

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of HTC Desire 828 32GB is the same as Yu Yunicorn
  • Internal Storage of HTC Desire 828 32GB is the same as Yu Yunicorn
  • The Yu Yunicorn's RAM measures in at 4GB. When compared to the other product's RAM, it is 25.0% more
 
HTC Desire 828 32GB
Yu Yunicorn
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
85 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
73 Value For Money Score
79 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
401 PPI 401 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 1.8GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6753 MediaTek MT6755 Helio P10   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
3GB 4GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 Mali-T860 MP2   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
4MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama -   
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 5.1 Lollipop Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
Sense 6.0 YU OS   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
157.7 x 78.9 x 7.9 153.3 x 75.4 x 8.1   
Weight
148 grams 172 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
White, Dark Gray Rush Gold, Silver Rush   
Build Material
Plastic Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- 1 Year Product Warranty & 6 months for accessories   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
27GB 25GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
2TB -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM + CDMA GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- Yes   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2800mAh 4000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- Yes   

HTC Desire 828 32GB vs Yu Yunicorn Specs

Specs
HTC Desire 828 32GBYu Yunicorn  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 3GB4GB  
Battery Capacity 2800mAh4000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 4MP5MP  

HTC Desire 828 32GB Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Rear camera has Optical Image Stabilisation (OIS)
  • Crisp Full HD display with a pixel density of 401 PPI
  • Decent battery life
  • Smooth User Interface by HTC
The Bad
  • Lots of bloatware pre-installed
  • No fast charging support
  • Lacks a fingerprint sensor

Yu Yunicorn Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good build quality with a nice premium-ness about it
  • Fantastic battery life
  • Fingerprint scanner is fast and accurate
  • Colours are sharp and pack a punch
The Bad
  • The phone feels a bit bulky and heavy
  • Missing an FM Radio
  • Camera shutter speed can be slow, overall camera performance is very average
  • Few duplicate apps are included

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare HTC Desire 828 32GB with Yu Yunicorn. When you see HTC Desire 828 32GB Vs Yu Yunicorn 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 828 32GB stands against Yu Yunicorn and which one you should buy. The best price of HTC Desire 828 32GB is currently Rs. 10,999. The lowest price for Yu Yunicorn is Rs. 8,900. The prices for both these products were updated October 17, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page