ISSN 2310-5283 e-ISSN 3041-1432 UDC 67; 68; 33
en

https://doi.org/10.62763/cb/1.2026.17

Vol. 19, No. 1, 2026

17-28

  • Read article

    • Comparative commodity evaluation of smartphones across different price segments

    Fisnik Brovina*

    fisnikbrovina0@gmail.com

    Received 29.12.2025, Revised 30.03.2026, Accepted 28.05.2026 Published 29.05.2026

    Abstract

    The aim of the study was to make a comparative evaluation of smartphones of different price segments – in terms of their technical, operational, economic and informational characteristics. The research methodology was based upon a type of comparative commodity analysis, establishing evaluation criteria and employing both a weighted scoring approach and verification of correspondence between official specifications and manufacturer technical details. Four smartphone models representing the budget, mid-range, premium, and flagship price segments were selected for the analysis. The comparative assessment showed that the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra achieved the highest integrated quality score (4.80 points), whereas the Xiaomi Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G demonstrated the most favourable balance between technical performance and market price (4.55 points). The Apple iPhone 16 confirmed the importance of software optimisation, ecosystem integration, and long-term software support for the consumer value of premium devices, while the Samsung Galaxy A26 5G provided adequate functionality for everyday use as the most cost-effective model. The analysis indicates that higher prices for smartphones are not necessarily accompanied by improvements in the technical characteristics of those devices. The differences between phones within each price segment relate most directly to the processor performance of the devices, the imaging capabilities of the cameras, the design and construction of the devices, and the software that is available to support those smartphones. Each of the technical specifications for each of the smartphones was verified to be consistent with those published by the device manufacturers. The practical significance of the study lies in the applicability of the proposed evaluation criteria and integrated assessment methodology for commodity examination of smartphones, the development of consumer recommendations, and the selection of smartphone models according to price segment and user requirements

    Keywords:

    consumer properties; integrated quality index; technical specifications; software support; consumer value

    Suggested citation
    Brovina, F. (2026). Comparative commodity evaluation of smartphones across different price segments. Commodity Bulletin, 19(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.62763/cb/1.2026.17
    5 Views

    References

    1. Akiba, E.A.G., & Jonsson, R. (2022). Consumer value perception of smartphones: A comparative study of Swedish and Japanese millennials. (Master thesis, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden).
    2. Apple. (n.d.). iPhone 16. Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/iphone-16/specs/.
    3. Blanco-Encomienda, F.J., Chen, S., & Molina-Muñoz, D. (2024). The influence of country-of-origin on consumers’ purchase intention: a study of the Chinese smartphone market. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 36(7), 1616-1633. doi: 10.1108/APJML-05-2023-0462.
    4. Breus, S., & Tsymbalenko, O. (2024). Conceptual foundations of the problem of information technology development in the context of the integration of digital solutions and business processes. Economy and Society, 69. doi: 10.32782/2524-0072/2024-69-45.
    5. Cai, J. (2025). A multidimensional analysis of the impact of smartphone technical specifications on sales performance: An analysis based on consumer purchasing behavior. Theoretical and Natural Science, 105, 113-120. doi: 10.54254/2753-8818/2025.22965.
    6. Coccia, M. (2026). Theory of subsystems driving technological coevolution in modular architecture of complex innovations. Technologies, 14(3), article number 156. doi: 10.3390/technologies14030156.
    7. Cui, J., Wang, X., & Zheng, Y. (2025). Analysis of factors influencing smartphone prices. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on innovations in applied mathematics, physics, and astronomy (pp. 65-69). Singapore: SciTePress. doi: 10.5220/0013814100004708.
    8. Flores-Martin, D., Laso, S., & Herrera, J.L. (2024). Enhancing smartphone battery life: A deep learning model based on user-specific application and network behavior. Electronics, 13(24), article number 4897. doi: 10.3390/electronics13244897.
    9. Guo, P., Li, H., & Mo, X. (2025). Quantifying post-purchase service satisfaction: A topic-emotion fusion approach with smartphone data. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 9(5), article number 125. doi: 10.3390/bdcc9050125.
    10. Haba, H., Hassan, Z., & Dastane, D.O. (2017). Factors leading to consumer perceived value of smartphones and its impact on purchase intention. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 9(1), 42-71.
    11. Hailat, K.Q., Alsmadi, S., Al-Abdi, Y.F., & Galib, M.H. (2025). Assessment of consumer preferences for mobile phones among university students. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(3), article number e05898. doi: 10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n03.pe05898.
    12. Hoffmann, S., & Akbar, P. (2023). Consumer behavior: Understanding consumers-designing marketing activities. Wiesbaden: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-39476-9.
    13. Horani, L.F., & Dong, L. (2023). Understanding sustainable purchase intention of smartphone users interface: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, article number 1122801. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1122801.
    14. Huang, C.-H., & Wu, J.-L. (2020). Multi-task deep CNN model for no-reference image quality assessment on smartphone camera photos. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.11961.
    15. Kayakuş, M., Açikgöz, F.Y., Dinca, M.N., & Kabas, O. (2024). Sustainable brand reputation: Evaluation of iPhone customer reviews with machine learning and sentiment analysis. Sustainability, 16(14), article number 6121. doi: 10.3390/su16146121.
    16. Marchuk, N., Osiievska, V., & Mykhailova, H. (2021). Classification of wearable electronic devices. International Scientific-Practical Journal Commodities and Markets, 4, 68-78. doi: 10.31617/tr.knute.2021(40)07.
    17. Moutinho, L., Bigné, E., & Manrai, A.K. (2014). The Routledge companion to the future of marketing. Oxon: Routledge.
    18. Nasirinejad, M., & Sampalli, S. (2023). Evaluating consumer behavior, decision making, risks, and challenges for buying an IoT product. IoT, 4(2), 78-94. doi: 10.3390/iot4020005.
    19. Pellegrino, A. (2024). Decoding digital consumer behavior: Bridging theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3454-2.
    20. Petrov, K., & Kobzev, I. (2022). Method for determining the preference of consumer characteristics of a product based on information about its choice by the buyer. Control, Navigation, and Communication Systems, 2(68), 68-74. doi: 10.26906/SUNZ.2022.2.068.
    21. Phillips, J.B., & Eliasson, H. (2017). Camera image quality benchmarking. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781119054504.
    22. Rai, B., Dahal, R.K., & Ghimire, B. (2023). Factors affecting consumer behavior in smartphone purchases in Nepal. Innovative Marketing, 19(3), 74-84. doi: 10.21511/im.19(3).2023.07.
    23. Romaniuk, N.V. (2026). Digital tools for marketing compliance in the system for identifying and preventing the counterfeiting of goods and services. Current Issues in Economic Sciences. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19685529.
    24. Samsung. (n.d.a). Galaxy A26 5G. Retrieved from https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a26-5g/.
    25. Samsung. (n.d.b). Galaxy S25 Ultra. Retrieved from https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-s25-ultra/.
    26. Shin, D.-H., & Choo, H. (2012). Exploring cross-cultural value structures with smartphones. Journal of Global Information Management, 20(2), 67-93. doi: 10.4018/jgim.2012040104.
    27. Soudachanh, S., & Salhofer, S. (2025). Unveiling environmental potential in smartphone repair practices in Vientiane Capital, Laos. Sustainability, 17(2), article number 711. doi: 10.3390/su17020711.
    28. Tsyhanenko, O., Zubko, K., & Vesperis, S. (2023). The impact of the consequences of transformation of consumer behavior in the conditions of economic instability on internet trade. Problems of Modern Transformations. Series: Economics and Management, 7. doi: 10.54929/2786-5738-2023-7-03-01.
    29. Vasiuta, V., Puzak, V., & Lashko, I. (2022). Main trends in the development of modern commodity science. Galician Economic Journal, 74(1), 152-157. doi: 10.33108/galicianvisnyk_tntu2022.01.152.
    30. Voloshyn, R., & Muravka, P. (2025). Commodity science foundations of online trade. The Institute of Accounting, Control and Analysis in the Globalization Circumstances, 3-4, 32-41. doi: 10.35774/ibo2024.03-04.032.
    31. Xiaomi. (n.d.). Redmi Note 14 Pro 5G. Retrieved from https://www.mi.com/global/product/redmi-note-14-pro-5g/.
    32. Zaitseva, O., Shuklina, V., & Karmazinova, V. (2024). Development of digital trading platforms in B2C and C2C markets. Commodity science. Technologies. Engineering, 51(3), 24-39. doi: 10.31617/2.2024(51)02.
    33. Zhu, W., Zhai, G., Han, Z., Min, X., Wang, T., Zhang, Z., & Yangand, X. (2020). A multiple attributes image quality database for smartphone camera photo quality assessment. In 2020 IEEE international conference on image processing (pp. 2990-2994). Abu Dhabi: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICIP40778.2020.9191104.