Here's how 2014's flagships fare against each other with equalized battery capacity

The quest for better battery life will hardly ever cease to push manufacturers to try hard to boost their game in this so vital and most-appreciated department. Sure, we value big and sizable batteries as much as the next man, but isn't software optimization a tad more important that pure battery capacity? We decided to check out if this is truly the case by normalizing the battery capacity of some of 2014's most popular devices.

How did we do it? First things first, we took our battery life tests (in minutes) of 11 noteworthy devices from 2014 and divided them by the capacity of their respective batteries (in milliampere-hours). For each device, the resulting value (min/mAh) is then multiplied by the average battery capacity of all 11 phones - and voila! - we have the equalized battery life for all devices. Here's the formula, simplified even further:

[battery life (min) ÷ battery capacity (mAh)] × average battery capacity = normalized battery life 

What does the results listed below actually show us? It will show us how long would each tested device last if all had the same battery capacity - in this case, roughly 2933 mAh. Figuratively speaking, it's like putting different race drivers in one and the same cars for a 1-mile drag race - the only thing that matters will be the very driving skills of the racers and not the properties of their vehicles. Thus, we can easily see which manufacturers have succeeded in optimizing their devices and which have not. All in the name of science!

PhoneBattery capacity (in mAh)Actual result in our battery life testEstimated battery life with a 2933mAh battery
Sony Xperia Z3 Compact260010 hours and 2 minutes11 hours and 19 minutes
Sony Xperia Z3 31009 hours and 29 minutes8 hours and 58 minutes
Apple iPhone 618105 hours and 22 minutes8 hours and 41 minutes
HTC One (M8)26007 hours and 12 minutes8 hours and 7 minutes
Motorola DROID Turbo390010 hours and 42 minutes8 hours and 2 minutes
Samsung Galaxy S528007 hours and 38 minutes7 hours and 59 minutes
Samsung Galaxy Note 432208 hours and 43 minutes7 hours and 56 minutes
OnePlus One31008 hours and 5 minutes7 hours and 38 minutes
Google Nexus 632207 hours and 53 minutes7 hours and 11 minutes
Apple iPhone 6 Plus29156 hours and 32 minutes6 hours and 34 minutes
LG G3 30006 hours and 14 minutes6 hours and 5 minutes



1. aksa123

Posts: 367; Member since: Jan 30, 2014

Nokia 3310 : 10 years (exellent)

5. fatexo

Posts: 221; Member since: May 21, 2010

You beat me to this comment XD

6. boosook

Posts: 1442; Member since: Nov 19, 2012

Homing pigeon: 20 years (if you feed it...)

21. Taters

Posts: 6474; Member since: Jan 28, 2013

Pigeons have a 20 year life span? That's pretty high for a bird. I had no idea. Lol

64. neela_akaash

Posts: 1239; Member since: Aug 05, 2014

where is xperia z2? That is also released in 2014....

18. akki20892

Posts: 3902; Member since: Feb 04, 2013

U meant....10 Million years

24. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

lies. It would survive nuke war, be dug up by bipedal cockroach cavemen in the distant future and still be juiced enough to play snake.

66. mail2eswar

Posts: 15; Member since: Mar 06, 2013

This is so stupid that they have order the phones with Estimated backup with 2933 batter". How can they order like that. Most important thing is what is the backup we are getting. Phonearena sorted the content in a way if it has a battery of size 2933mAh. How does it matter. For example, Look at iPhone 6. It has 1810mAh battery and has 5h of backup. But they have sorted the content in way that if iPhone has 2933 battery it would have got 8h of back up. But iPhone doesn't have such battery and it will not. So, what is the point projecting these numbers. Its just misleading.

69. JoshN

Posts: 202; Member since: Apr 01, 2015

It could pull a captaim america and be frozen for gazzillions of years then be thawed and still have enough battery to boot faster than the latest iphone :-)

2. azirgi

Posts: 7; Member since: Mar 28, 2013

There is no point in increasing the capacity of traditional lithuim ion batteries, smartphone companies need to search for alternatives. CPU, GPU and Display are three major power drainers.

4. rency0722

Posts: 158; Member since: Jun 12, 2013

That's the point. The search for an alternative to the ever-traditional Li-ion or Li-Po batteries inside the smartphone is slower these years than the rapid growing advancements on the SoCs and displays.

7. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Cell network connection drains a battery quite a bit...

13. jaytai0106

Posts: 1888; Member since: Mar 30, 2011

But what if you tackle the problem from both end? Bam! just got 24 hrs of on screen time :P

3. shy2papa

Posts: 336; Member since: Jan 23, 2010

The Gionee M3 has a 5000 mah battery in a 5.0inch phone but without highend specs calculat that one.

8. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

My Nexus 5 would last two days with normal use by flashing Hammerhead Bricked kernel. Hopefully, the developer makes one for my Nexus 6, arriving next week.

9. vishalvenky

Posts: 79; Member since: Feb 12, 2012

Where is Lumia 1520? It lasts a day or two

10. roldefol

Posts: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 2011

Conspicuously missing from the list: Droid Turbo, which already has a 3900 mAh battery. I feel like the article could have been one long Turbo ad.

12. TU_Buckeye29

Posts: 13; Member since: Sep 06, 2011

I've noticed Droid Turbo doesn't get much mention on PA and has conspicuously been left out of the last few "battery" & performance" articles....

16. DocOc78

Posts: 17; Member since: Nov 05, 2014

Yeah, forget the "what-if".....the Turbo already gets 10+ hours.

48. corvette72778

Posts: 166; Member since: Feb 25, 2012

at the expense of a pretty thick phone. Note 4 is the best between thin and long life.

58. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

They must have updated the article... In the graph below the slideshow the Turbo is clearly present in the middle of he pack at 8 hours 2 min. I was interested in the Turbo, still am, but I'd like to know why exactly it didn't well enough to make it in the top 5.

11. TyrionLannister unregistered

Where's galaxy alpha. it would last beyond 16 hours.

65. laughmi

Posts: 283; Member since: Oct 28, 2014

yes Alpha is sorely missing and also Xiaomi/Huawei. PA is biassed towards Chinese OEMs

14. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

It is nice to dream of more hours of use per day. But, we need to look at the overall problem of the battery lifespan. The current typical Li/Po battery has a charge cycle of 400-550 times. It is also very fragile in terms of discharge limitations. Completely draining this type of battery then initiating a charge cycle will kill the battery. Increasing capacity to allow 10 hours of use is still less than a full 24hr day. So with a recommendation of not allowing a complete dischage, a charge once a day will only give a battery lifespan of 14 months respectively. Add the fact that most people like a full charge to start the day, they will charge it evey night anyway. Adding 4000mah battery will not increase the lifespan of the battery. We still be looking at a possible battery replacement at 14-15 months regardless. I think everyone knows where I'm going with this. Sealing a battery in where it can't be replaced means the battery will possibly die before the two year contract is up. This means rather than just spending 25-40 dollars on a replacement battery, the customer may be forced to pay up to $200 for a refurbished phone just for a battery issue. With Apple, a battery replacement can be done for $80 but is still 2-3 times the cost of a customer being able to perform their own replacement. To summerize: This whole battery fiasco leads to point that everything reported on this or that accessory or expanding battery capacity is useless when sealing in the very component that has the highest fail rate of any part in the phone with the exception of cracked screens. Let's keep batteries accessible until we can force the battery manufacturers to redesign the common rechargeable battery. John B.

28. strudelz100

Posts: 646; Member since: Aug 20, 2014

That's the idea. OEM's want battery degradation to be a driving cause of cell phone replacement now that general performance is excellent across most devices. Quick Charge tech was designed to exacerbate this problem. Since you took a long time to write this response, I'll offer an alternative solution. Personally, I think that there is absolutely no reason to continue increasing performance with the A series reaching half the singe threaded performance of a Intel laptop CPU. Companies could easily flip Moore's law to keep the performance the same, and half the power draw. Even if the battery tech is slow to improve, there is plenty of room to continue reduce power draw with ever shrinking NM processes, and improved software enhancements. As long as we aren't constantly looking for double the processing power every year. Less power draw means, less charging and longer battery cycles.

37. corvette72778

Posts: 166; Member since: Feb 25, 2012

quick charge was designed to exacerbate this problem? Lol. thats like saying cpu power is up to drain the battery quicker to we have to upgrade sooner. stupid comment. It is a very valuable feature

40. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

Strudelz100 is correct. Quick charging current technology batteries is a huge detriment due to heat buildup. The cells are not designed for administrating a flash charge. Quick charging should be reserved for emergencies only. All these quick chargers are often backed by the battery manufacturers. Why do you think that is? Wireless charging is even worse. Most of the device manufacturers are trying to design software and components to compensate for 30 year old battery technology. If battery life is getting better, it is due to device design; not battery. John B.

42. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

correct. the faster you charge the battery the more it stresses the chemical and physical components of it, be it from heat, damage from the current, whatever. Also I bet money once a battery becomes damage it will be much more likely to explode under "quick charge" then regular charge. All of our longevity increases are due to better SoC's and better optimized software.

49. corvette72778

Posts: 166; Member since: Feb 25, 2012

I am going to predict that when I upgrade to the Note 5 from my Note 4, I wont' notice a difference to my battery as a result of using the quick charger over a year of time.

41. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

Thank you for understanding the issue at hand. It is important that when people purchase a device without removable battery, that they have full knowledge of the implications that can arise from such purchase. John B.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.