Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
KZ ATE (2015) vs CCA C12
The KZ ATE (2015) makes for a good, if unremarkable, Canal Earphone for people with a $9 budget.
The CCA C12, however, is merely mediocre at its $48 asking price, when compared to similarly priced products, and won't satisfy the needs of most people.
In either case, we suggest that you first take a look at some other options at the $9 and $35 price points before committing to one of these - it's likely that you'll be able to find some better alternatives.
If you're still interested in learning more about the KZ ATE (2015) and CCA C12, however, we wrote a summary of what we could find about them:
The reviewers at Head-fi have featured the KZ ATE (2015) in their KZ ATE In-Ear Monitors review roundup. However, it fell short of making it to the top of their list.
As for the CCA C12 - Head-fi, a source that conducts reliable hands-on testing, has featured it in its CCA C12 review roundup. However, it didn't make it to any of the top spots.
We conducted an analysis of all of the review data that we could find on these two products. First, we focused on sources that tested and rated both of them, like Head-fi, and learned that they all showed a preference for the CCA C12.
Then we took a look at the highest review scores that these two Canal Earphones received. We found that the KZ ATE (2015) managed to earn a rating of 9 from WIRED, whereas the CCA C12 got its highest, 9, score from reviewers at Head-fi.
Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Canal Earphones on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Canal Earphones being 7.4 out of 10, whereas the KZ ATE (2015) and CCA C12 managed averages of 8.6 and 9.0 points, respectively.
Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct KZ ATE (2015) vs. CCA C12 comparison might not be entirely fair - some sources don't take value for money into account when assigning their scores and therefore have a tendency to rate more premium products better.