Why Qualcomm’s study results need context

The latest study comparing iPhone 16e and Android 5G performance has made headlines, but the findings warrant careful examination beyond the surface numbers. A report by Cellular Insights, commissioned by Qualcomm Technologies, claims that Android smartphones powered by Snapdragon X75 and X80 modems significantly outperform Apple’s iPhone 16e equipped with the company’s first-generation C1 modem.

While the technical findings appear thorough, the context of the research raises questions about how results should be interpreted.

The study’s key claims

According to the May 2025 report, testing conducted on T-Mobile’s standalone 5G network in New York City revealed substantial performance gaps. The Android devices achieved 34.3% to 35.2% faster download speeds and 81.4% to 91.0% faster upload speeds compared to the iPhone 16e in three test locations.

The numbers represent averages in near-cell, mid-cell, and far-cell conditions, with performance gaps widening in weaker signal environments. The most striking disparities emerged in upload performance during far-cell conditions.

At Test Location 2, Android devices delivered up to 108% higher download throughput and 100% higher upload throughput than the iPhone 16e.

The report attributes the differences to superior carrier aggregation capabilities, with Android devices supporting 4CC downlink and 2CC uplink carrier aggregation while the iPhone 16e appeared limited to 3CC downlink with no uplink carrier aggregation.

Technical method and limitations

Cellular Insights conducted its testing over several weeks, generating over 3TB of traffic between three devices. The methods included sustained high-bandwidth UDP traffic tests with 4,000 Mbps downlink and 600 Mbps uplink transfers over two-minute intervals.

The researchers used AirScreen software for chipset-level analysis on Android devices while being limited to application-layer analysis on the iPhone 16e due to iOS diagnostic restrictions.

The testing limitation represents a significant constraint.

The report acknowledges that “due to the lack of chipset-level information on iOS, we were limited to analysing application-layer throughput for the iPhone, whereas Android allowed full chipset-level access.” The asymmetry in diagnostic capability makes it difficult to determine whether observed performance differences stem from modem hardware limitations, software optimisations, or measurement inconsistencies.

The study also noted subjective thermal issues with the iPhone 16e during outdoor testing, namely the device “frequently became noticeably hot to the touch and exhibited aggressive screen dimming in just 2-minute test intervals.”

However, researchers could not quantify the direct impact of thermal throttling on performance metrics due, the testers said, to iOS diagnostic limitations.

The report’s commissioning by Qualcomm introduces an inherent bias that cannot be ignored. While Cellular Insights maintains that they “fully stand by the methodology, results and the analysis,” the financial relationship between the research firm and Qualcomm creates a conflict of interest that colours interpretation of the findings.

This doesn’t invalidate the technical work, but it does require readers to approach the conclusions with appropriate scepticism. The device selection also favors Qualcomm’s narrative. The study compares a $599 iPhone 16e against Android devices priced at $619 and $799, with the more expensive Android device featuring Qualcomm’s latest X80 modem.

The price disparity suggests the comparison may not be entirely balanced, as consumers would expect premium-priced devices to deliver superior performance.

Real-world implications

Despite the potential bias, the technical findings highlight legitimate differences in modem capabilities that could impact user experience. The iPhone 16e vs Android 5G performance gap appears most pronounced in challenging RF environments – precisely the conditions where users most need reliable connectivity.

The absence of uplink carrier aggregation on the iPhone 16e, if confirmed, could significantly impact activities like video calling, live streaming, and cloud uploads in areas with poor signal strength. The report documents upload speeds as low as 5 Mbps for the iPhone 16e in far-cell conditions, compared to substantially higher performance from Android devices.

However, consumers should consider whether these extreme test conditions reflect their typical use patterns. The study focused on dense urban environments with specific network configurations that may not represent the broader 5G landscape in different carriers and geographic regions.

Network constraints and fair testing

Interestingly, the study revealed a network-imposed throughput ceiling of approximately 2.5 Gbps in all tested locations, suggesting that even Android devices couldn’t fully use their theoretical capabilities. The finding indicates that real-world performance is often limited by network infrastructure rather than device capabilities alone.

The researchers speculated that “in the absence of this network-imposed cap, Android devices would have demonstrated even higher peak downlink performance.” The observation raises questions about whether laboratory-style testing in commercial networks provides the most relevant performance comparisons for consumers.

The broader context

Apple’s C1 modem represents the company’s first attempt at developing cellular modem technology in-house after years of relying on Qualcomm and Intel solutions. As a first-generation product, some performance limitations compared to Qualcomm’s mature X75 and X80 platforms might be expected.

The more relevant question is whether these differences materially impact typical smartphone use patterns. For most consumers, 5G performance differences may be less noticeable during routine activities like web browsing, social media, and standard video streaming.

The performance gaps become more significant for power users engaged in bandwidth-intensive applications or those frequently operating in areas with poor cellular coverage.

Conclusion

The documented performance differences appear genuine, but the Qualcomm sponsorship, testing limitations, speculation by the researchers, and extreme test conditions mean consumers should view these results as one data point rather than a definitive purchasing guide.

Ultimately, smartphone choice involves numerous factors beyond raw 5G performance, including ecosystem preferences, software experience, camera quality, and overall value proposition.

While this study highlights important technical differences, consumers should consider how these performance gaps align with their specific use patterns and priorities before making purchasing decisions based solely on modem performance benchmarks.

Photo by James Yarema)

See also: HarmonyOS NEXT: Huawei’s bold move to challenge Apple and Android

Looking to revamp your digital transformation strategy? Learn more about Digital Transformation Week taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with IoT Tech Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, Cyber Security & Cloud Expo, and other leading events.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: android, iPhone, mobile, telecoms