Find the best product and price, effortlessly.
Discover deals on the best products
AKG K72 (2016) vs Mixcder E7
The AKG K72 (2016) is a relatively good Closed-Back Headphone for people that are willing to spend around $55. The Mixcder E7, 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 AKG K72 (2016) and Mixcder E7, however, we wrote a summary of what we know about them:
The AKG K72 (2016) was loved by reviewers at What Hi-Fi?, a trustworthy source that performs objective hands-on testing. It did great in their "Best over-ear headphones 2020" roundup - in fact, they named it their "The best budget over-ear headphones". That, by itself, points toward it being a noteworthy Closed-Back Headphone.
Taking a look at the Mixcder E7, it got featured in roundups from two reliable sources that conduct their own testing - Head-fi and TrustedReviews - but it fell short of earning a top spot in either.
We examined all of the review data that we could find and first took a look at sources that reviewed both of them, like TrustedReviews, and found that they haven't shown a preference for either product.
Then we checked which sources liked these two Closed-Back Headphones best and found that the AKG K72 (2016) got its highest, 10, review score from reviewers at What Hi-Fi?, whereas the Mixcder E7 earned its best score of 10 from Head-fi.
Lastly, we averaged out all of the reviews scores that we could find on these two products and compared them to other Closed-Back Headphones on the market. We learned that both of them performed far better than most of their competitors - the overall review average earned by Closed-Back Headphones being 7.4 out of 10, whereas the AKG K72 (2016) and Mixcder E7 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 AKG K72 (2016) vs. Mixcder E7 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.