Compare Xolo Era 2X 3GB vs Intex Aqua Supreme+

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of Xolo Era 2X 3GB is the same as Intex Aqua Supreme+
  • Both Xolo Era 2X 3GB and Intex Aqua Supreme+ have same Internal Storage
  • Xolo Era 2X 3GB has 33.0% more RAM
 
Xolo Era 2X 3GB
Intex Aqua Supreme+
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
77 Value For Money Score
72 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
294 PPI 294 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.25GHz 1.3GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6737 MediaTek MT6737   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
3GB 2GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 MP1 Mali-T720   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
8MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Auto Focus Rear Camera with 5P Largan Lens, F2.0, Blue Glass Filter, Face Beauty, HDR, Panorama, Gesture Recognition, Voice Capture, Smile Shot, Face Detection, Self Timer, Time Lapse Video f/2.0 aperture, 1.12um pixel size   
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 6.0 Marshmallow Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
Fingerprint Scanner, GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
144 x x72.3 x 9.5 143 × 72.3 × 7.95   
Weight
- 133 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black and Gun, Latte Gold Champagne Gold, Black, Champagne Black   
Build Material
- -   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
1 Year for Mobile & 6 Months for Accessories -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2500mAh 3000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes Yes   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Xolo Era 2X 3GB vs Intex Aqua Supreme+ Specs

Specs
Xolo Era 2X 3GBIntex Aqua Supreme+  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 8MP13MP  
RAM 3GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 2500mAh3000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

Xolo Era 2X 3GB Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good build quality
  • Useful fingerprint sensor embedded gestures
  • Decent overall performance
  • Reliance Jio (VoLTE) supported
The Bad
  • Big footprint despite a 5-inch display
  • Average display quality
  • Median camera output
  • Poor battery life

Intex Aqua Supreme+ Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Lightweight
  • Native language integration
The Bad
  • Average overall performance for the price
  • Mediocre build quality
  • Camera on either sides could have been way better

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Xolo Era 2X 3GB with Intex Aqua Supreme+. When you see Xolo Era 2X 3GB Vs Intex Aqua Supreme+ 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 Era 2X 3GB stands against Intex Aqua Supreme+ and which one you should buy. The best price of Xolo Era 2X 3GB is currently Rs. 6,234. The lowest price for Intex Aqua Supreme+ is Rs. 6,590. The prices for both these products were updated October 18, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page