Skullcandy Jib Wireless (2017) vs RHA T20 (2015)

The Skullcandy Jib Wireless (SCS2DUW) is a great Earphone for its $12 asking price.

The RHA T20 (2015), however, is merely passable at its $180 price point. If you're considering buying a Earphone in the $260 range, you might want to check out some of its competitors.

The Skullcandy Jib Wireless (SCS2DUW) was loved by reviewers at Rtings, a highly trusted source that performs reliable in-depth testing. It did great in its "The 3 Best Skullcandy Headphones of 2021" roundup where it was named its "Best Cheap Skullcandy Earbuds", which, in itself, makes it a product worth considering.

Moving on to the RHA T20 (2015): it was unable to reach the very top of any roundups from sources that conduct reliable and unbiased testing. Nonetheless, it still managed to impress reviewers from a number of such sites, like Head-fi, Techradar, SoundGuys, HomeTheaterReview.com, PCmag, TrustedReviews, What Hi-Fi?, Headfonics, Audioholics, and Wirecutter (NYTimes), enough for them to include them on those lists.

We examined all of the review data that we could find and first took a look at sources that reviewed both of them, like PCmag, and found that they haven't shown a preference for either product.

Then we checked which sources liked these two Earphones best and found that the Skullcandy Jib Wireless (SCS2DUW) got its highest, 8, review score from reviewers at PCmag, whereas the RHA T20 (2015) 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 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 Skullcandy Jib Wireless (SCS2DUW) and RHA T20 (2015) managed averages of 7.6 and 8.5 points, respectively.

Due to the difference in their prices, however, it's important to keep in mind that a direct Skullcandy Jib Wireless (SCS2DUW) vs. RHA T20 (2015) 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.