Compare Samsung Galaxy E7 vs HTC One M9+

Feature Comparison

  • Samsung Galaxy E7 has 5.0% more Screen Size
  • HTC One M9+ has 32GB Internal Storage and Samsung Galaxy E7 has 16GB Internal Storage
  • HTC One M9+ has 33.0% more RAM
 
Samsung Galaxy E7
HTC One M9+
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
57 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
74 Value For Money Score
79 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5.2 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 2560 x 1440 pixels   
Screen Type
AMOLED LCD   
Pixel Density
267 PPI 564.8 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 4 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.2GHz 2.2GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 306 PowerVR G6200   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 20MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 4MP   
Camera Details
- Dual-LED Flash, Automatic Simultaneous Video And Image Recording, Geo-tagging, Face/Smile Detection, HDR, Panorama   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Dual 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
Android 5.1 Android 6.0   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, Front Facing Stereo Speakers, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
151.3 x 77.2 x 7.3 150.99 x 71.99 x 9.61   
Weight
141 grams 168 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
White, Black Silver, Gold   
Build Material
Plastic Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
11.29GB 21GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 2TB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Single   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- -   
SIM 2 Details
- -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2950mAh 2840mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
No -   

Samsung Galaxy E7 vs HTC One M9+ Specs

Specs
Samsung Galaxy E7HTC One M9+  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5.2 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP20MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2950mAh2840mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP4MP  

Samsung Galaxy E7 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • The Super AMOLED display produces excellent contrasts and has high brightness
  • Good build quality that feels assuring in the hand
  • Solid cellular reception and call quality
  • Multi-window mode allows for good multitasking
The Bad
  • Lack of ambient sensor means no Auto Brightness
  • Hybrid SIM slot allows for either Dual SIM use or a Micro SD card, not both
  • Below average loudspeaker

HTC One M9+ Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Mindboggling display quality at 565PPI
  • HTC BoomSound Stereo speakers
  • Metal unibody construction makes it feel premium
  • Quick unlock with fingerprint sensor
  • Decent performance and battery life
The Bad
  • Runs outdated Android 5.0 Lollipop
  • Lacks fast charging support

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Samsung Galaxy E7 with HTC One M9+. When you see Samsung Galaxy E7 Vs HTC One M9+ 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 E7 stands against HTC One M9+ and which one you should buy. The best price of Samsung Galaxy E7 is currently Rs. 14,299. The lowest price for HTC One M9+ is Rs. 32,020. The prices for both these products were updated October 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page