Compare Samsung Galaxy J3 vs Phicomm Energy 653

Feature Comparison

  • Both Samsung Galaxy J3 and Phicomm Energy 653 have same Screen Size
  • Both Samsung Galaxy J3 and Phicomm Energy 653 have same Internal Storage
  • The 1.5GB RAM on the Samsung Galaxy J3 is 33.0% more
 
Samsung Galaxy J3
Phicomm Energy 653
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
51 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
74 Value For Money Score
60 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
Super AMOLED LCD   
Pixel Density
294 PPI 293 PPI   
Screen Protection
Asahi Dragontrail Glass -   
Bezel Less
No -   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
Spreadtrum Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 1.1GHz   
Processor
Spreadtrum SC9830 Qualcomm Snapdragon 210   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
1.5GB 1GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
8MP 8MP   
Dual Rear Camera
No -   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 2MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
No -   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, touch focus, face detection, HDR -   
Video Recording Resolution
HD Video Recording (720p) -   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
Samsung Experience -   
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 -   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
142.3 x 71 x 7.9 144.00 x 70.00 x 8.00   
Weight
138 grams 127 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black, Gold, White Black, White   
Build Material
Plastic -   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
6 Month Accessories Warranty -   
Body SAR
1.12W/kg -   
Head SAR
1.17W/kg -   
In The Box
Device, Charger, Earphone, User Manual -   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 8GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
4.4GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 64GB   
OTG Support
No -   
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 -   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
2G Bands
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 -   
3G Bands
HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 -   
4G Bands
LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 5(850), 7(2600), 8(900), 20(800) -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2600mAh 2300mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes Yes   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
No -   

Samsung Galaxy J3 vs Phicomm Energy 653 Specs

Specs
Samsung Galaxy J3Phicomm Energy 653  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 8MP8MP  
RAM 1.5GB1GB  
Battery Capacity 2600mAh2300mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP2MP  

Samsung Galaxy J3 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Thanks to an AMOLED panel, the colors are crisp and punchy with good contrasts
  • An inbuilt S-Bike mode allows for safe bike riding
The Bad
  • No Gorilla Glass protection
  • Launched with an older Android version (Android Lollipop) with no information on updates
  • Lack of basic sensors such as Ambient Light Sensor or Magnetometer
  • A rather new and unknown processor

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Samsung Galaxy J3 with Phicomm Energy 653. When you see Samsung Galaxy J3 Vs Phicomm Energy 653 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 J3 stands against Phicomm Energy 653 and which one you should buy. The prices for both these products were updated December 12, 2017.
Report an error on this page