Compare Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I vs LeEco Le 2 64GB

Feature Comparison

  • LeEco Le 2 64GB has 7.0% more Screen Size
  • LeEco Le 2 64GB's got 75.0% more Internal Storage
  • LeEco Le 2 64GB's 3GB RAM is more than Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I's 2GB RAM
 
Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I
LeEco Le 2 64GB
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
69 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
87 Value For Money Score
91 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.1 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
AMOLED LCD   
Pixel Density
432 PPI 401 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
2.5GHz 1.8GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 Qualcomm Snapdragon 652   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
- Adreno 510   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
16MP 16MP   
Front Camera Resolution
2MP 8MP   
Camera Details
Anti Shake Reduction, Auto Close Camera, Camera Function Volume, Detection Display, Face Detection, Location Tags, ISO Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
4K Video Recording (2160p) 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, OIS, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 4.4 KitKat Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
- EUI 5.5 UI   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB USB Type C   
Features
Fingerprint Scanner, FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, InfraRed (IR) Blaster, GPS   
Dimensions (mm)
142.0 x 72.5 x 8.1 151.1 × 74.2 × 7.7   
Weight
145 grams 153 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm USB Type C   
Color
- Rose Gold, Gold, Gray   
Build Material
- Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 64GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes No   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- -   
SIM 2 Details
- -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2800mAh 3000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- Yes, Quick Charge 2.0   

Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I vs LeEco Le 2 64GB Specs

Specs
Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900ILeEco Le 2 64GB  
Screen Size 5.1 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 16MP16MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2800mAh3000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 2MP8MP  

LeEco Le 2 64GB Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good performer, thanks to the processor and 3GB RAM
  • Very sharp display with Corning Gorilla Glass 3 protection
  • Rear camera supports OIS and 4K video recording
  • USB Type-C port that supports Quick Charge 2.0
  • Fast and accurate fingerprint scanner
The Bad
  • Heavily skinned User Interface which may slow the overall UI
  • Some users are complaining of a creaking display
  • Very minor pink tinge to pictures taken by the camera in moderately lit conditions
  • No 3.5 mm headphone jack, users need to carry an adapter to use headphones.

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I with LeEco Le 2 64GB. When you see Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE SM-G900I Vs LeEco Le 2 64GB 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 S5 LTE SM-G900I stands against LeEco Le 2 64GB and which one you should buy. The lowest price for LeEco Le 2 64GB is Rs. 13,249. The prices for both these products were updated October 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page