Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) vs Jays a-Jays Five (2013)

While the Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) makes for a fairly good Wireless Earphone for people with a $85 budget, we weren't able to find enough data on the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) to come to any reliable conclusions.

In either case, we suggest that you look at some other options before committing to one of these.

If you'd nonetheless like to learn more about the Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) and Jays a-Jays Five (2013), however, we wrote a summary of what we know about them:

The Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) hasn't managed to get enough recognition from sources that do high-quality hands-on testing and therefore didn't make it into any relevant roundups. That, by itself, makes it difficult to recommend.

As for the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) - it wasn't considered to be a good enough purchase to earn a spot in any roundups conducted by sources that perform objective hands-on testing, which typically indicates that a product isn't worth its asking price.

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 Digitaltrends, and learned that they all showed a preference for the Jays a-Jays Five (2013).

Then we took a look at the highest review scores that these two Wireless Earphones received. We found that the Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) managed to earn a rating of 6 from Digitaltrends, whereas the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) got its highest, 7, score from reviewers at Digitaltrends.

Finally, we analyzed all of their review data and compared their averages to other options on the market. With an average review rating of 7.0 out of 10 points, the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) performed similarly to most of its competitors - the overall average review score for Wireless Earphones being 7.2 - whereas the Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) performed worse than most, with its 6.0 average.

It's worth keeping in mind that a direct Beats Powerbeats3 (2016) vs. Jays a-Jays Five (2013) comparison might not be entirely fair because some sources tend to ignore value for money when assigning their scores and thus often give better reviews to more expensive products.