Compare InFocus M535 vs Micromax Canvas 6 Pro

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of InFocus M535 is the same as Micromax Canvas 6 Pro
  • Both InFocus M535 and Micromax Canvas 6 Pro have same Internal Storage
  • Micromax Canvas 6 Pro has 50.0% more RAM
 
InFocus M535
Micromax Canvas 6 Pro
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
58 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
61 Value For Money Score
73 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
267 PPI 401 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Bezel Less
- No   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 2GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6753 MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
2GB 4GB   
Graphics
- -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Dual Rear Camera
- No   
Front Camera Resolution
8MP 5MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
- No   
Camera Details
- -   
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 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
Android (5.1) -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Sensors
- Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Magnetometer   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
156.00 x 76.80 x 6.99 -   
Weight
158 grams -   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Silver, Gold Black   
Build Material
- Plastic   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Body SAR
- -   
Head SAR
- -   
In The Box
- Device, Charger & Cable Separate, SIM Ejector Tool, User Manual   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- 10.78GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 64GB   
OTG Support
- -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
2G Bands
- GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900   
3G Bands
- HSDPA 900 / 2100   
4G Bands
- LTE 850 / 1800 / 2100 TD-LTE 2300   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2600mAh 3000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes Yes   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- -   

InFocus M535 vs Micromax Canvas 6 Pro Specs

Specs
InFocus M535Micromax Canvas 6 Pro  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 2GB4GB  
Battery Capacity 2600mAh3000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 8MP5MP  

Micromax Canvas 6 Pro Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Unlike most Micromax devices, a well built and a good looking smartphone
  • User removable back panel and replaceable battery
  • 4GB RAM ensures that the performance is virtually lag free
  • On-screen buttons are present
The Bad
  • A ton of pre-installed apps come with the device
  • Any serious gaming leads to the phone heating up
  • No fingerprint scanner
  • Less than adequate battery backup
  • Overall dissapointing camera performance

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare InFocus M535 with Micromax Canvas 6 Pro. When you see InFocus M535 Vs Micromax Canvas 6 Pro 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 InFocus M535 stands against Micromax Canvas 6 Pro and which one you should buy. The best price of InFocus M535 is currently Rs. 6,800. The lowest price for Micromax Canvas 6 Pro is Rs. 7,940. The prices for both these products were updated December 13, 2017.
Report an error on this page