Micromax Q66 Rivals and Competitors
Phone RivalsClick on a rival to jump to it.
Micromax Q66 vs. Micromax Q55
Micromax Q55
- Dual SIM card support
- Slow data means slow Internet browsing (EDGE)
- Lacks a standard (3.5mm) headphones jack
Common for both Pros & Cons
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches vs 0.64 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. Nokia 7705 Twist
Micromax Q66
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an e-mail client
Nokia 7705 Twist
- Small dimensions (2.71 x 2.71 x 0.59 inches inches)
- Lacks a standard (3.5mm) headphones jack
Common for both Pros & Cons
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. Motorola FLIPOUT
Motorola FLIPOUT
- Slow processor (720 MHz)
- Low-resolution camera (3 megapixels)
- Low-resolution video capture
- Lacks a proximity sensor that turns the display оff during a phone call
- No front-facing camera
Common for both Pros & Cons
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches vs 0.67 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi vs 143 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. i-mobile S286
Common for both Pros & Cons
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches vs 0.69 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an e-mail client
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. Motorola FLIPOUT US
Micromax Q66
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- Lacks an e-mail client
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
Motorola FLIPOUT US
- Slow processor (720 MHz)
- Low-resolution camera (3 megapixels)
- Low-resolution video capture
- No front-facing camera
Common for both Pros & Cons
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches vs 0.67 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi vs 143 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. Huawei U8300
Micromax Q66
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches)
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an e-mail client
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
Huawei U8300
- Small dimensions (3.70 x 2.52 x 0.43 inches inches)
- Resistive touchscreen technology means its display is less sensitive than you would like it to be
- Low-resolution camera (3.2 megapixels)
- No front-facing camera
Common for both Pros & Cons
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi vs 154 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
in-depth comparison
Micromax Q66 vs. Nokia C2-03
Nokia C2-03
- Dual SIM card support
- Slow data means slow Internet browsing (EDGE)
- Resistive touchscreen technology means its display is less sensitive than you would like it to be
- Low resolution display (240 x 320 pixels)
- Lacks a proximity sensor that turns the display оff during a phone call
Common for both Pros & Cons
- Lacks Wi-Fi
- It is so thick it needs a personal fitness trainer (0.71 inches inches vs 0.67 inches inches)
- Low pixel densitiy screen, below 180ppi (167 ppi vs 154 ppi)
- The camera lacks autofocus
- The camera lacks flash
- Lacks an ambient light sensor for automatic screen brightness adjustment
in-depth comparison

