Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) vs KZ ZS3
Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017)
While the KZ ZS3 makes for a passable Earphone for its asking price, the Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) simply doesn't make the cut and should be avoided by the majority of people. In either case, we suggest that you look into some better alternatives that cost around $11 or $30.
However, if you'd nonetheless like to find out more about the KZ ZS3 and the Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017), you can continue reading for our summary of what we know about them:
The reviewers at Head-fi have featured the KZ ZS3 in their KZ-ZS3 Hifi High-End 3.5mm In-Ear Earphone Headphones Earpiece Original Headset Bass Earbuds With Microphone review roundup. However, it fell short of making it to the top of their list.
As for the Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) - CNET, a source that conducts reliable hands-on testing, has featured it in its Plantronics BackBeat Fit 300 Series review roundup. However, it didn't make it to any of the top spots.
We couldn't find any sources that tested both of these Earphones, so we only analyzed how they performed in reviews from different sites.
We first examined which sources rated each of these best and found that the KZ ZS3 got its highest, 9, rating from Head-fi, while the Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) earned its best, 8.8, score from Runnerclick.
Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Earphones on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Earphones being 7.3 out of 10, whereas the KZ ZS3 and Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) managed averages of 9.0 and 8.0 points, respectively.
Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct KZ ZS3 vs. Plantronics BackBeat FIT 300 (2017) 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.