Compare Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) vs InFocus Bingo 50

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) is the same as InFocus Bingo 50
  • The Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) has 32GB Internal Storage, which is 50.0% more
  • Both Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) and InFocus Bingo 50 have same RAM
 
Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB)
InFocus Bingo 50
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
79 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
78 Value For Money Score
70 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
443 PPI 293.72 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 4 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 1.3GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 615 MediaTek MT6735   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
3GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 405 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 8MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 8MP   
Camera Details
Sony Exmor IMX214 Sensor; f/2.0 Aperture HDR, Panorama, Geotagging, Digital zoom, Continuous shooting, Autofocus, ISO setting, White balance setting, Face detection, Touch focus, Scene mode, Self timer, Exposure compensation   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) HD Video Recording (720p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.0 Lollipop Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
- InLife UI 2.0   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
146 x 74 x 8 150.96 x 71.45 x 10.60   
Weight
147 grams 152 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
Black Sandstone Gray   
Build Material
Plastic Polycarbonate   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
24.71GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 64GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
Nano SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
3000mAh 2500mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
Yes, Quick Charge 1.0 -   

Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) vs InFocus Bingo 50 Specs

Specs
Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB)InFocus Bingo 50  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP8MP  
RAM 3GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 3000mAh2500mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP8MP  

InFocus Bingo 50 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Android 6.0 Marshmallow out of the box
  • Ample 3GB of RAM
The Bad
  • Build and design leave more to be desired
  • Average camera

Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Excellent build quality and an interesting design
  • Unique packaging with a tansparent box
  • Sharp display with good colours
  • Fast charging enabled
The Bad
  • Overall performance can be laggy
  • Camera app is slow and sluggish
  • Gets a little hot when you really push the phone to its maximum limit
  • Camera really struggles in low light shooting

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) with InFocus Bingo 50. When you see Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) Vs InFocus Bingo 50 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 Obi Worldphone SF1 (3GB/32GB) stands against InFocus Bingo 50 and which one you should buy. The prices for both these products were updated October 23, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page