Compare Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 vs Oppo Neo 7

Feature Comparison

  • The 5 inch Screen Size on the Oppo Neo 7 is 5.0% more
  • Internal Storage of Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 is the same as Oppo Neo 7
  • The Micromax Canvas Selfie A255's RAM measures in at 2GB. When compared to the other product's RAM, it is 50.0% more
 
Micromax Canvas Selfie A255
Oppo Neo 7
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
72 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
71 Value For Money Score
68 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
4.7 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 960 x 540 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
312.5 PPI 220.3 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.7GHz 1.2GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6592 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
2GB 1GB   
Graphics
Mali-450 MP4 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 8MP   
Front Camera Resolution
13MP 5MP   
Camera Details
- -   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) HD Video Recording (720p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 4.4 KitKat Android 4.4 KitKat   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
146.3 x 67.3 x 9.65 142.7 x 71.7 x 7.55   
Weight
138 grams 141 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Angelic White, Mystic Blue White, Black   
Build Material
Plastic Glass, Metal   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
1 Year for Mobile & 6 Months for Accessories -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
12.14GB 9.7GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
3G, 2G, Nano SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2300mAh 2420mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
Yes No   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
No -   

Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 vs Oppo Neo 7 Specs

Specs
Micromax Canvas Selfie A255Oppo Neo 7  
Screen Size 4.7 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP8MP  
RAM 2GB1GB  
Battery Capacity 2300mAh2420mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 13MP5MP  

Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Front facing flash for low light selfie and selfie lovers
  • Crisp display at 312PPI with Gorilla Glass 3 protection
The Bad
  • Quite old Android version (4.4 KitKat)
  • Mediocre performance

Oppo Neo 7 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Compatible with 4G LTE bands in India
  • The phone is quite a looker thanks to a glass and metal build
  • The screen doubles as a flash when taking selfies for brighter snaps
The Bad
  • The display is not HD which leads to poor viewing experience
  • The rear camera over the period of usage tends to get sluggish
  • TFT display instead of LCD or AMOLED, which makes the colors look dull

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 with Oppo Neo 7. When you see Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 Vs Oppo Neo 7 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 Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 stands against Oppo Neo 7 and which one you should buy. The best price of Micromax Canvas Selfie A255 is currently Rs. 5,999. The lowest price for Oppo Neo 7 is Rs. 8,200. The prices for both these products were updated August 23, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page