[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-565068-105":53,"doc-detail-565068-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","comparative-5g-performance-report-android-smartphones-vs-iphone-16e-may-2025","Comparative 5G Performance Report - Android Smartphones vs iPhone 16e - May 2025","","Comparative evaluation of 5G performance across an iPhone 16e with Apple’s first-generation C1 modem and two Qualcomm-powered Android flagship devices using T-Mobile sub-6 GHz 5G Standalone (SA) in New York City. Testing covered near-, mid-, and far-cell RF environments with mixed low- and mid-band FDD/TDD spectrum, measuring both uplink and downlink throughput, carrier aggregation behavior, spectral efficiency, and performance under deteriorating signal conditions. Qualcomm-based Android consistently delivered higher average throughput, with larger gaps in sub-optimal environments such as deep indoor use, highlighting stronger platform maturity and utilization of carrier aggregation features.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":11,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/comparative-5g-performance-report-android-smartphones-vs-iphone-16e-may-2025/565068/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/comparative-5g-performance-report-android-smartphones-vs-iphone-16e-may-2025/565068.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Eliana","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-10-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What phones were tested in the report?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The study compares an iPhone 16e with Apple’s first-generation C1 modem against two Qualcomm-powered Android devices: Android A (Snapdragon X80) and Android B (Snapdragon X75).","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Where and under what network conditions was testing performed?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Testing was conducted on T-Mobile’s commercial sub-6 GHz 5G SA network in New York City and Astoria, NY, using a mix of low- and mid-band FDD and TDD spectrum configurations.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did Android devices compare to iPhone 16e in throughput?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Across RF scenarios, the report states Qualcomm-based Android outperformed iPhone 16e, with download speeds about 34.3%–35.2% faster and upload speeds about 81.4%–91.0% faster.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},565068,1792454694,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":8,"category_name":11,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":35,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":140},4398048949847,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002536579ef2da7f?_k=1778318612642679267","Comparative 5G Performance Report: Android Smartphones vs . iPhone 16e  \nMay 2025  \nConducted by  \nCellular Insights, Inc  \n[www.cellularinsights.com](www.cellularinsights.com)  \nCommissioned by Qualcomm Technologies, Inc  \nAs the sole authors of this performance report, Cellular Insights fully stand by the methodology, results and the analysis that we provide in this paper.  \nTable of Contents  \n- Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………. 3  \n- Key Highlights ………………………………………………………………………... 3  \n- Network and Test Conditions ………………………………………………………4  \n- Test Methodology ……………………………………………………………………. 5  \n- T-Mobile SA 5G Network Characteristics and Observations …………………5  \n- Standalone vs Non-Standalone Connectivity …………………………………... 6  \n- Spectrum and ULCA Behavior …………………………………………………….. 6  \n- Thermal Management and Performance Impact on iPhone 16e …………….. 6  \n- Peak Throughput Observations …………………………………………………... 7  \n- Location Selection and Far-Cell Conditions ……………………………………. 7  \n- Test Location 1 ……………………………………………………………………….. 8  \n- Test Location 2 ………………………………………………………………………11  \n- Test Location 3 ………………………………………………………………………14  \n- Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………... 16  \n- Final Thoughts ………………………………………………………………………17  \nMay 27 , 2025-5G Smartphone Performance Report 2  \nExecutive Summary  \nThis report presents a comparative evaluation of 5G performance between the iPhone 16e, equipped with Apple’s first-generation C1 modem, and two Qualcomm-powered Android smartphones. Testing was conducted across a variety of real-world radio environments—near- , mid- , and far-cell—within New York City connected to T-Mobile’s sub-6 GHz 5G Standalone (SA) network.  \nAcross all RF scenarios, the Qualcomm-based Android devices consistently outperformed the iPhone 16e, revealing several key advantages:  \n● Tangible performance gains in both uplink and downlink throughput under all signal conditions  \n● Superior carrier aggregation capabilities, leveraging 4CC downlink and 2CC uplink carrier aggregation ( ULCA) versus suspected 3CC downlink and no ULCA on the iPhone 16e  \n● Higher spectral efficiency and more consistent utilization of available bandwidth  \n● Performance gaps observed to be wider in sub-optimal RF conditions. This directly impacts user experience in typical use scenarios such as being deep indoors  \n● Greater platform maturity, with forward compatibility for features like FDD+FDD ULCA  \nAverage Throughput Advantage (3 Locations, NYC) :  \n● Download speeds: Android devices were 34.3% to 35.2% faster  \n● Upload speeds: Android devices were 81.4% to 91.0% faster  \nThese findings underscore the performance gap between iPhone 16e powered by Apple’s C1 modem and Android devices powered by Qualcomm’s X75/X80 platforms, particularly in more demanding RF conditions and high-load network environments. For users seeking consistent, high-throughput 5G performance, Qualcomm-powered devices currently hold a clear edge.  \nKey Highlights  \nCellular Insights conducted a performance report of 5G NR smartphones from two leading suppliers, powered by two different modem platforms. For this study, we included smartphones equipped with baseband chipsets from Qualcomm and Apple. Testing was performed on T-Mobile’s sub-6 GHz Standalone (SA) 5G network in New York City, which utilizes a mix of low-and mid-band FDD and TDD spectrum. Devices tested:  \n● iPhone 16e powered by Apple’s first-generation C1 modem priced at $599  \n● Android A, a 2025 flagship device powered by Snapdragon X80 5G Modem-RF System priced at $799  \n● Android B, a 2024 flagship device powered by Snapdragon X75 5G Modem-RF System priced at $619  \nMay 27 , 2025-5G Smartphone Performance Report 3  \nThis study yielded several notable insights—some expected, others surprising. While all three devices delivered somewhat comparable 5G performance under ideal, near-cell conditions, performance deltas became increasingly pronounced as signal conditions deteriorated. In particular, when the n","cbCaijyUgofP03Tk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijyUgofP03Tk","pdf",4957170,"English","# Executive Summary\n## Key Highlights\n## Network and Test Conditions\n## Test Methodology\n## Standalone vs Non-Standalone Connectivity\n## Spectrum and ULCA Behavior\n## Thermal Management and Performance Impact on iPhone 16e\n## Peak Throughput Observations\n## Location Selection and Far-Cell Conditions\n## Test Location 1\n## Test Location 2\n## Test Location 3\n## Conclusion\n## Final Thoughts","[{\"question\":\"What phones were tested in the report?\",\"answer\":\"The study compares an iPhone 16e with Apple’s first-generation C1 modem against two Qualcomm-powered Android devices: Android A (Snapdragon X80) and Android B (Snapdragon X75).\"},{\"question\":\"Where and under what network conditions was testing performed?\",\"answer\":\"Testing was conducted on T-Mobile’s commercial sub-6 GHz 5G SA network in New York City and Astoria, NY, using a mix of low- and mid-band FDD and TDD spectrum configurations.\"},{\"question\":\"How did Android devices compare to iPhone 16e in throughput?\",\"answer\":\"Across RF scenarios, the report states Qualcomm-based Android outperformed iPhone 16e, with download speeds about 34.3%–35.2% faster and upload speeds about 81.4%–91.0% faster.\"}]","Comparative 5G Performance Report - Android Smartphones vs iPhone 16e - May 2025 | PDF",1791846198,6]