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 an example of a great In-Ear Monitor at its $25 budget.
In the case of the Jays a-Jays Five (2013), however, we weren't able to find enough data to come to any reliable conclusions.
headphonesaddict.com, a review site with a history of doing objective hands-on testing, has great things to say about the KZ ZST (2016). In fact, it's "Best cheap" in its "7 Best In-Ear Monitors for Musicians and Demanding Users (2019)" roundup, which points toward it being a good In-Ear Monitor.
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 What Hi-Fi?, Head-fi, and TrustedReviews 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 In-Ear Monitors, 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, while the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) got its highest, 7, score from Digitaltrends.
Lastly, we compared their average review performance to that of the rest of their competition and found that neither option got received particularly well. With an average rating of 7.3 out of 10, the KZ ZST (2016) performed similarly to most other In-Ear Monitors on the market - the overall average review score for this product category being 7.7 - while the Jays a-Jays Five (2013) did worse than most, with its average of 6.3 points.
There's one caveat here - a direct KZ ZST (2016) vs. Jays a-Jays Five (2013) comparison might not be entirely justifiable due to the difference in their pricing and the fact that some sources tend to give lower ratings to cheaper products because they don't take value for money into account.