iPhone 16e should’ve killed the SE — instead, it inherited its worst flaw

At the higher price tag of $600, the iPhone 16e replaced the aging iPhone SE as Apple’s entry-level model. It comes with a modern design, a powerful A18 chip, a more capable camera, and support for Apple Intelligence.

But there are several caveats about the 16e that make it a questionable purchase decision. First, the AI capabilities are seriously lagging behind those on phones from Samsung and Google, and that will probably continue into next year. Second, while the camera is capable, it is still just a single camera.

However, there is another issue that is arguably the worst of them all, as it can genuinely ruin your user experience.

The iPhone 16e’s screen is shockingly dim. In a market where nearly every mid-range competitor is pushing for better displays, Apple has used a panel that falls drastically behind the curve in one of the most important usability categories.

The data doesn’t lie

In the lab tests we did during our iPhone 16e review, its OLED display reached only 791 nits of peak brightness at 20% APL (Average Picture Level). For context, that’s not just below average — it’s by far the dimmest screen we’ve tested on any phone at this price in 2025.

Compare that to its competition:

• Pixel 9a: 2,561 nits
• OnePlus 13R: 2,384 nits
• Galaxy S24 FE: 1,756 nits

These phones range from $499 to $649, yet all of them leave the iPhone 16e in the dust.

The problem becomes even more painfully obvious the moment you step outdoors. In direct sunlight, the iPhone 16e is difficult to read. You have to shade the screen with a hand just to see what’s on it. Framing shots, reading messages, or navigating with Maps becomes a frustrating experience in anything brighter than overcast daylight.

The rest of the iPhone 16e’s display metrics don't do much to redeem it either—color accuracy and contrast are average, but definitely not remarkable.

So why is the screen so poor?

Interestingly, the iPhone 16e also comes with a Super Retina XDR display, which is Apple’s premium branding for its OLED displays used across the lineup. But clearly, not all “Super Retina XDR” panels are created equal.

The likely reason for the disappointing brightness lies in the supplier. Apple has chosen BOE Technology, China’s biggest OLED panel vendor, as the lead supplier of flexible LTPS OLED displays for the iPhone 16e. BOE managed to secure this major design win over Samsung Display and LG Display — and while that’s a huge business milestone for BOE, it’s possible we’re seeing the consequences in real-world performance.

BOE’s panel ASP (average selling price) is reportedly positioned aggressively, and while that may benefit Apple’s margins, it doesn’t necessarily benefit the user. We don’t know yet if the dim screen is due to panel limitations, tuning decisions, or both — but it’s hard to ignore the fact that this Super Retina XDR display behaves more like a budget panel than what Apple’s branding implies.

No 120Hz, either

Another glaring omission is the refresh rate. While the competition — even from budget Android phones — has moved to 120Hz panels, the iPhone 16e sticks with a 60Hz screen.

The Pixel 9a, OnePlus 13R, and Galaxy S24 FE all offer 120Hz OLED displays with vibrant colors and higher resolutions. They’re easier on the eyes, smoother to scroll, and more responsive in games and apps. The 16e just can’t keep up.

Of course, the lack of a 120Hz refresh rate is a much more ridiculous omission on the iPhone 16 and 16 Plus, but that’s besides the point here.

So who is the iPhone 16e for?

I can overlook the lack of secondary cameras and a smarter Siri, because the iPhone 16e is powerful, responsive, and the one camera it has is pretty good.

However, even casual users deserve a display that meets modern standards. Especially at this price. For example, I can easily recommend to my father—who doesn’t need much from a phone—a handset with a single camera, but I wouldn’t recommend him one that comes with poor display brightness.

Apple has clearly chosen to save costs here, but the problem is that it has chosen to sacrifice a part affecting your experience every single second you use the phone.

The iPhone 16e could have been the no-compromise budget iPhone — a true replacement for the SE that doesn’t feel like a step down. But in the current market, we have $500 Android phones shipping with displays that rival last year’s flagships, so Apple’s decision to ship a screen that maxes out under 800 nits with a 60Hz refresh rate feels unfair and poorly calculated.

I am a guy that enjoys the outdoorsy life. I hike a lot and I’ve had phones with poor display brightness while on a trail — it’s not fun. Any time I want to use the camera or check navigation it is a battle to figure things out, which is especially a problem considering how complicated trail navigation apps can be.

So, if you’re considering the iPhone 16e, ask yourself: how often do you use your phone outside? If the answer is “a lot,” then it is not for you and you should probably consider one of the alternatives. That, or go for a second-hand/refurbished older flagship iPhone model.