Compare Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G vs HTC Desire 626 LTE

Feature Comparison

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G's 5.5 inch Screen Size is more than HTC Desire 626 LTE's 5 inch Screen Size
  • The HTC Desire 626 LTE has 16GB Internal Storage, which is 50.0% more
  • Both Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G and HTC Desire 626 LTE have same RAM
 
Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G
HTC Desire 626 LTE
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
85 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
66 Value For Money Score
72 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
267 PPI 293.7 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.6GHz 1.7GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 MediaTek MT6752   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
2GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 305 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Zero Shutter Lag, Face Recognition, High Dynamic Range (HDR), Real-time Filters Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
- Android 4.4 KitKat   
OS Detail
Android (4.4) -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
154 x 78.7 x 9.45 146.9 x 70.9 x 8.2   
Weight
185 grams 140 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
- Blue Lagoon, White Birch   
Build Material
- Polycarbonate   
Device Warranty
- -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
6.1GB 11.75GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Mini (Normal) SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
3200mAh 2000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G vs HTC Desire 626 LTE Specs

Specs
Xiaomi Redmi Note 4GHTC Desire 626 LTE  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 2GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 3200mAh2000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

HTC Desire 626 LTE Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Well designed and built
  • Display is sharp enough at 294PPI
  • Excellent user interface
  • 4G LTE supported
The Bad
  • Mediocre performance due to the chipset
  • Outdated Android version (Android 4.4 KitKat)
  • Below average battery life
  • Lots of bloatware

Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good battery backup
  • The back of the device as well as the battery is user removable
  • Overall the MIUI is snappy with little lags
The Bad
  • The phone feels too bulky and big to use single handedly
  • Sharp corners and flat back makes it uncomfortable to hold in the palm
  • Non standardized squared Micro USB port makes it difficult to know which way to insert the cable

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G with HTC Desire 626 LTE. When you see Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G Vs HTC Desire 626 LTE 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 Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G stands against HTC Desire 626 LTE and which one you should buy. The lowest price for HTC Desire 626 LTE is Rs. 9,590. The prices for both these products were updated October 23, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page