A recent study comparing the 5G performance of the iPhone 16e and several Android smartphones has drawn attention, but the findings require careful scrutiny beyond headline figures. Cellular Insights, in a report commissioned by Qualcomm Technologies, concluded that Android phones using Snapdragon X75 and X80 modems noticeably outperformed Apple’s iPhone 16e, which uses Apple’s first-generation C1 modem. While the analysis appears thorough, several contextual factors affect how the results should be interpreted.
The study’s key claims
The May 2025 Cellular Insights report tested devices on T‑Mobile’s standalone 5G network in New York City and reported sizable performance differences. On average, Android devices posted 34.3% to 35.2% faster download speeds and 81.4% to 91.0% faster upload speeds than the iPhone 16e across three test locations. The gaps widened in weaker signal conditions, with the largest disparities observed for uploads in far‑cell scenarios.
At one test site, Android devices recorded up to 108% higher download throughput and 100% higher upload throughput than the iPhone 16e. The report attributes much of this advantage to carrier aggregation support: Android devices reportedly used 4CC downlink and 2CC uplink carrier aggregation, while the iPhone 16e appeared limited to 3CC downlink and lacked uplink carrier aggregation.
Technical method and limitations
Testing took place over several weeks and generated more than 3 TB of traffic across three devices. The methodology included sustained high‑bandwidth UDP tests with target transfers of up to 4,000 Mbps downlink and 600 Mbps uplink during two‑minute intervals. For chipset‑level insight on Android phones, testers used AirScreen software; however, iOS restrictions meant analysis of the iPhone 16e was limited to application‑layer throughput measurements.
This asymmetry in diagnostic access is an important limitation. Cellular Insights acknowledges that “due to the lack of chipset‑level information on iOS, we were limited to analysing application‑layer throughput for the iPhone, whereas Android allowed full chipset‑level access.” Because of this imbalance, it is difficult to attribute observed differences definitively to modem hardware, firmware and software optimizations, or measurement methodology.
Testers also reported subjective thermal behavior with the iPhone 16e during outdoor trials—devices “frequently became noticeably hot to the touch and exhibited aggressive screen dimming in just 2‑minute test intervals.” The team could not quantify how much thermal throttling affected performance due to diagnostic restrictions on iOS.
The sponsorship factor
The fact that Qualcomm commissioned the study introduces potential bias. Cellular Insights states it stands by its methods and conclusions, but a commercial relationship with Qualcomm represents a conflict of interest that should temper interpretation. The choice of devices also merits consideration: the report compared a $599 iPhone 16e with Android models priced at $619 and $799—the latter featuring Qualcomm’s X80 modem. Price and component differences mean the comparison may favor Qualcomm’s narrative; consumers typically expect higher‑priced devices to offer stronger performance.
Real-world implications
Despite potential biases, the findings highlight real differences in modem capability that can affect user experience, especially in challenging radio environments. If the iPhone 16e indeed lacks uplink carrier aggregation, activities that depend on strong uplink capacity—video calls, live streaming, and large cloud uploads—could suffer in weak‑signal areas. The report documents upload speeds for the iPhone 16e as low as about 5 Mbps in far‑cell conditions versus substantially higher uplink rates on the Android devices tested.
However, readers should weigh whether the test scenarios reflect their typical usage. The study focused on dense urban spots with particular network configurations that may not mirror all carriers, regions, or everyday conditions. For routine activities such as web browsing, social media, or standard video streaming, most users may notice little difference in day‑to‑day performance.
Network constraints and fair testing
The study also found a network‑imposed throughput ceiling of roughly 2.5 Gbps at all locations, indicating that carrier network limits—not device potential alone—can cap real‑world speeds. Testers suggested that without this network cap, Android devices might have shown even higher peak downlink figures. That observation underlines that performance comparisons on commercial networks depend not only on device capabilities but also on temporary network conditions and operator configurations.
The broader context
Apple’s C1 modem is the company’s first in‑house cellular modem after years of relying on third‑party modems from Qualcomm and Intel. As a first‑generation design, some performance trade‑offs relative to mature Qualcomm X75 and X80 platforms are not unexpected. The central question for buyers is whether those technical differences matter for their real use cases.
For most consumers, differences in 5G modem performance will be subtle during everyday tasks. The gaps become more relevant for users who push bandwidth limits, regularly work in areas with poor coverage, or rely heavily on high‑quality upstream connections.
Conclusion
The study documents measurable performance gaps between the iPhone 16e and certain Android devices, particularly under difficult RF conditions. However, Qualcomm’s sponsorship, the asymmetry of diagnostic access, testing choices, and the limited geographic scope mean this should be treated as one data point among many rather than a definitive guide for all buyers.
When choosing a smartphone, consumers should weigh multiple factors beyond raw 5G benchmarks—ecosystem, software experience, camera quality, battery life, price, and overall value—and consider how reported differences map to their typical usage patterns before making decisions based solely on modem performance.
Photo by James Yarema