Jaybird X4 (2018) vs KZ ATE (2015)

The KZ ATE (2015) makes for a mediocre Canal Earphone and should be avoided by the majority of people.

In the case of the Jaybird X4 (2018), however, we were unable to find enough data to come to any meaningful conclusions.

There are considerably better alternatives that can be found for around $11 and $60 available on the market.

If you're still interested in reading more about the KZ ATE (2015), however, here's a quick summary of what we know about it:

The reviewers at headphonesaddict.com have featured the KZ ATE (2015) in their KZ ATE Review – Are the Chinese Earbuds Worth the Hype? roundup. However, it fell short of making it to the top of their list.

Returning to the Jaybird X4 (2018), SoundGuys, a source that's known for its high-quality in-depth testing, has great things to say about it. In fact, it was named its "Best workout" in its "Best alternatives to Beats" roundup, which is quite a feat.

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 headphonesaddict.com, and learned that they all showed a preference for the Jaybird X4 (2018).

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 Jaybird X4 (2018) got its highest, 9, score from reviewers at TrustedReviews.

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 Jaybird X4 (2018) managed averages of 7.8 and 8.4 points, respectively.

Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct KZ ATE (2015) vs. Jaybird X4 (2018) 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.