Compare Oppo F1 vs HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition

Feature Comparison

  • Both Oppo F1 and HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition have same Screen Size
  • Internal Storage of Oppo F1 is the same as HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition
  • The Oppo F1 has 3GB RAM, which is 33.0% more
 
Oppo F1
HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
96 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
78 Value For Money Score
78 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
294 PPI 441 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.7GHz 2.2GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 616 MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
3GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 405 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
8MP 4MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama ISO control, Continuous Shooting, High Dynamic Range Mode, Digital Zoom   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash Autofocus, Triple LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 5.0 Lollipop   
OS Detail
ColorOS 2.1 Sense 7.0   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS Front Facing Stereo Speakers, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
143.50 x 71 x 7.25 144.6 x 69.7 x 9.61   
Weight
134 grams 158 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Gold, Rose Gold Gold, Gunmetal Gray, Silver   
Build Material
Metal Unibody Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 2TB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Single   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
Nano SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2500mAh 2840mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
No No   
Fast Charging
No -   

Oppo F1 vs HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition Specs

Specs
Oppo F1HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 3GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 2500mAh2840mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 8MP4MP  

HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Excellent display quality with 441PPI
  • HTC BoomSound Stereo speakers
  • Metal unibody construction makes it feel premium
The Bad
  • Runs outdated Android 5.0 Lollipop
  • Mediocre performance with Helio X10 processor and only 2GB of RAM
  • Lacks Dual SIM support
  • Only 16GB of internal storage

Oppo F1 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Selfie camera is quite good, if you click a lot of selfies
  • Metal Body Construction, Great Build
The Bad
  • No NFC Support
  • Smaller battery may be a problem for power users

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Oppo F1 with HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition. When you see Oppo F1 Vs HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition 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 Oppo F1 stands against HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition and which one you should buy. The best price of Oppo F1 is currently Rs. 16,500. The lowest price for HTC One M9+ Prime Camera Edition is Rs. 17,441. The prices for both these products were updated August 15, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page