Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 vs Echobox Finder X1

The Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 and the Echobox Finder X1 are decent Earphones at their respective price points, but don't manage to stand out from their direct competitors in any meaningful way. We suggest that you also look at some alternatives that can be found for around $85 or $35.

If you're still interested in learning a bit more about the Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 and the Echobox Finder X1, however, read on for a summary of what we could gather about them:

The Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 hasn't managed to earn a top spot in any roundups from sources that conduct trustworthy hands-on testing. Nevertheless, reviewers from sites, such as PCmag, SoundGuys, and Wirecutter (NYTimes) all gave it a spot on their list.

As for the Echobox Finder X1, 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 Headphone Review, Head-fi, and Wirecutter (NYTimes) enough to make it onto their respective shortlists.

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 Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 got its highest, 8, rating from PCmag, while the Echobox Finder X1 earned its best, 8.6, score from Headphone Review.

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 Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 and Echobox Finder X1 managed averages of 7.9 and 8.5 points, respectively.

Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct Plantronics Backbeat Fit 3200 vs. Echobox Finder X1 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.