Compare Xolo Black 1X vs HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim

Feature Comparison

  • HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim's Screen Size is 9.0% more
  • The Xolo Black 1X's Internal Storage measures in at 32GB. When compared to the other product's Internal Storage, it is 50.0% more
  • The 3GB RAM on the Xolo Black 1X is 33.0% more
 
Xolo Black 1X
HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
95 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
80 Value For Money Score
72 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
440.6 PPI 400.5 PPI   
Screen Protection
Asahi Dragontrail Glass -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.3GHz 1.5GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6753 MediaTek MT6753   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
3GB 2GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 MP3 Mali-T720 MP3   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 4MP   
Camera Details
- Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama, OIS, BSI Sensor   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, OIS, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
144.6 x 72 x 7.6 157.7 × 78.9 × 7.9   
Weight
125 grams 150 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
Black White, Dark Grey   
Build Material
Glass, Plastic Plastic   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
25.46GB 9.14GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2400mAh 2800mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Xolo Black 1X vs HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim Specs

Specs
Xolo Black 1XHTC Desire 828 Dual Sim  
Screen Size 5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 3GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 2400mAh2800mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP4MP  

HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Rear camera has Optical Image Stabilisation (OIS)
  • Crisp Full HD display with a pixel density of 401 PPI
  • Decent battery life
  • Smooth User Interface by HTC
The Bad
  • Lots of bloatware pre-installed
  • No fast charging support
  • Lacks a fingerprint sensor

Xolo Black 1X Pros & Cons

The Good
  • 3GB RAM ensures that the overall performance of the device is snappy
  • Display offers good and vibrant colours
  • The phone feels solidly built despite its light weight
The Bad
  • Camera performance in challenging lighting is poor
  • Battery life does not last one full day
  • Speakers are quite muted

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Xolo Black 1X with HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim. When you see Xolo Black 1X Vs HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim 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 Xolo Black 1X stands against HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim and which one you should buy. The best price of Xolo Black 1X is currently Rs. 7,957. The lowest price for HTC Desire 828 Dual Sim is Rs. 9,549. The prices for both these products were updated August 19, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page