Compare Samsung Galaxy A3 vs Lenovo Phab Plus

Feature Comparison

  • The Lenovo Phab Plus's got 6.8 inch Screen Size, while Samsung Galaxy A3's Screen Size is 4.5 inch
  • The Internal Storage on Lenovo Phab Plus is 50.0% more
  • The Lenovo Phab Plus has 2GB RAM, which is 50.0% more
 
Samsung Galaxy A3
Lenovo Phab Plus
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
61 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
70 Value For Money Score
79 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
4.5 inch 6.8 inch   
Screen Resolution
960 x 540 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
245 PPI 326 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 4 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.2GHz 1.5GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 Qualcomm Snapdragon 615   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
1GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 306 Adreno 405   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
8MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama 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, Dual Tone LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 4.4 KitKat Android 5.0 Lollipop   
OS Detail
TouchWiz UI -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
130.1 x 65.5 x 6.9 186.6 x 96.6 x 7.6   
Weight
110 grams 229 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
Midnight Black, Soft Pink, Platinum Silver, Pearl White, Light Blue, Champagne Gold Gunmetal Grey   
Build Material
Plastic Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
10GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 64GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
3G, 2G, Nano SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
3G, 2G, Nano SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes Yes   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
1900mAh 3500mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Samsung Galaxy A3 vs Lenovo Phab Plus Specs

Specs
Samsung Galaxy A3Lenovo Phab Plus  
Screen Size 4.5 inch6.8 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 8MP13MP  
RAM 1GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 1900mAh3500mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

Lenovo Phab Plus Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Fine finish & build
  • Near Stock Android interface
The Bad
  • Unsatisfactory camera output
  • Huge footprint due to the 6.8-inch display

Samsung Galaxy A3 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Compact design that is ideal for one-handed usage
  • Good design and a solid build quality
  • Good color reproduction and strong contrasts thanks to AMOLED display
  • The rear camera takes good pictures in well lit conditions
The Bad
  • Performance occasionally can be sluggish
  • No 4G LTE on board
  • No LED notification light
  • Lacks an HD display

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Samsung Galaxy A3 with Lenovo Phab Plus. When you see Samsung Galaxy A3 Vs Lenovo Phab Plus 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 Samsung Galaxy A3 stands against Lenovo Phab Plus and which one you should buy. The best price of Samsung Galaxy A3 is currently Rs. 12,700. The lowest price for Lenovo Phab Plus is Rs. 20,990. The prices for both these products were updated September 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page