Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
KZ ZST (2016) vs Jays a-Jays Five (2013)
Jays a-Jays Five (2013)
The KZ ZST (2016) is a relatively good Earphone for people that are willing to spend around $13. The Jays a-Jays Five (2013), by contrast, is quite unremarkable and doesn't stand out in any meaningful way from other products at this price point.
If you're still interested in learning more about the KZ ZST (2016) and Jays a-Jays Five (2013), however, we wrote a summary of what we know about them:
The KZ ZST (2016) was loved by reviewers at Rtings, a highly trusted source that performs reliable in-depth testing. It did great in its "The 5 Best Earbuds And Headphones Under $20 - Winter 2021" roundup where it was named its "Runner Up for Best Earbuds Under $20 - Wired Alternative", which, in itself, makes it a product worth considering.
As for the Jays a-Jays Five (2013), it wasn't able to earn a top spot in any roundups from trusted sources that conduct their own hands-on testing. Nevertheless, it managed to impress reviewers at Head-fi, TrustedReviews, What Hi-Fi?, and Gear Patrol enough to make it onto their respective shortlists.
When we thoroughly analyzed their review scores, we learned that all of the sources that tested both Earphones, including Head-fi, preferred the KZ ZST (2016) over the Jays a-Jays Five (2013).
We also took a look at which sources they managed to impress the most. The KZ ZST (2016) was liked best by Head-fi, which gave it a score of 8.3, while the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) got its highest, 7, score from Digitaltrends.
Finally, we compared them to other Earphones on the market and found that the two of them got reviewed similarly to the majority of their competitors. The overall average review score for Earphones in general is 7.3 out of 10, whereas the KZ ZST (2016) and Jays a-Jays Five (2013) managed averages of 6.9 and 6.5 points, respectively.
It should be noted that it might not be entirely fair to do a direct KZ ZST (2016) vs. Jays a-Jays Five (2013) comparison due to the difference in their pricing; some sources have a tendency to review more premium products better than more affordable ones.