iPhone 17e vs. iPhone 16 Buyer's Guide: Which Low-Cost iPhone Should You Choose?

[MacRumors]

The iPhone 17e just joined the iPhone lineup. Apple continues to sell the iPhone 16 as an alternative low-cost option, and while the two devices share many core features, there are still more than 25 differences between them to be aware of.

Following the launch of the iPhone 17 lineup and the iPhone Air, Apple discontinued the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus, and reduced the price of the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus by $100.

The iPhone 17e and iPhone 16 now represent the two least expensive iPhone models available directly from Apple, with just $100 between them. To justify this price gap, the iPhone 17e misses out on features such as the Dynamic Island, an Ultra Wide camera, and several newer connectivity technologies. However, it still offers strong performance thanks to the newer A19 chip, the same main rear camera, and long battery life. Here's everything that's different:

iPhone 17e (2026)	iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus (2024)
"Notch"	Dynamic Island
6.1-inch display	6.1- or 6.7-inch display
800 nits max brightness (typical)	1,000 nits max brightness (typical)
1,200 nits peak brightness (HDR)	1,600 nits peak brightness (HDR)
	2,000 nits peak brightness (outdoor)
	1 nit minimum brightness
Glass back	Color-infused glass back
Available in White, Black, and Soft Pink	Available in White, Black, Ultramarine, Teal, and Pink
	Camera Control
	12-megapixel Ultra Wide camera
1x or 2x optical zoom options	0.5x, 1x, or 2x optical zoom options
Optical image stabilization	Sensor-shift optical image stabilization
Photographic Styles	Latest-generation Photographic Styles
	Macro photography
	Spatial photos and videos
	Cinematic mode for recording videos with shallow depth of field (up to 4K Dolby Vision at 30 fps)
	Action mode
A19 chip (N3P)	A18 chip (N3E)
4.26 GHz CPU clock speed	4.04 GHz CPU clock speed
68.2 GB/s memory bandwidth	60 GB/s memory bandwidth
4-core GPU with Neural Accelerators	4-core GPU
Apple C1X modem	Qualcomm Snapdragon X75 modem
	mmWave 5G connectivity
Wi‑Fi 6 connectivity	Wi-Fi 7 connectivity
	Thread connectivity
	Ultra Wideband chip for Precision Finding
26-hour battery life	22 or 27-hour battery life
256GB or 512GB storage	iPhone 16: 128GB iPhone 16 Plus: 128GB or 256GB
Starts at $599	Starts at $699

At a markedly more accessible price point, the iPhone 17e will likely be the go-to iPhone for many customers, particularly those buying on a budget. Like its predecessor, it makes relatively few compromises compared to the standard model and still delivers most of the features that matter for everyday use. In fact, the iPhone 17e now offers noticeably better performance than the iPhone 16 thanks to its newer A19 chip, as well as strong battery life aided by Apple's efficient C1X modem.

For many customers, the absence of an Ultra Wide camera, Camera Control, additional color options, and newer connectivity technologies such as Wi-Fi 7, Thread, and Ultra Wideband may not matter. The iPhone 17e also starts with more storage and costs $100 less than the iPhone 16, making it a compelling option for buyers who primarily care about performance, battery life, and overall value.

However, the iPhone 16 still offers several advantages. Features like the Dynamic Island, a brighter display with higher peak brightness outdoors, an Ultra Wide camera with macro photography, Spatial photo and video capture, and a wider range of video features give it a significantly more capable camera system. Additional hardware such as the Ultra Wideband chip, Thread connectivity, mmWave 5G, and Wi-Fi 7 may also be important for users who want the most complete feature set.

As a result, the decision between the two models is now less straightforward. Customers who want the best overall feature set, particularly when it comes to the camera and display, should consider the iPhone 16. On the other hand, those who prioritize performance, storage, battery life, and price will likely find the iPhone 17e to be the better value.

Article Link: iPhone 17e vs. iPhone 16 Buyer's Guide: Which Low-Cost iPhone Should You Choose?

 

[Populus]

My take: unless you REALLY hate the notch, or you need the ultrawide angle camera, in that price range you should definitely pick the iPhone 17e. Better device overall

 

[WarmWinterHat]

My take: unless you REALLY hate the notch, or you need the ultrawide angle camera, in that price range you should definitely pick the iPhone 17e. Better device overall

I prefer the notch over the Island. Less wasted space, and Apple could have done the exact same thing with the notch that they did with the dynamic island.

 

[sw1tcher]

If you can afford to spend $100 more to buy an iPhone 16, then chances are good you can afford to spend another $100 to get the much better iPhone 17. And considering over half of iPhone buyers use a monthly installment plan, the monthly price difference between the iPhone 16 and 17 is minor.

$24.95/mo for base iPhone 17e
$29.12/mo for base iPhone 16
$33.29/mo for base iPhone 17

 

[turbineseaplane]

After using both in the store, I'd pick a 17 over the 17e, and certainly over the 16e.

The width is a really important spec for me and since that's the same, I'd suck up the price difference as the 17 is a WAY better device that will be functionally in service a lot longer.

Device comparison link from above

 

[jforsander]

You should pick neither. The iPhone 17 is a way way way better value than either the 17e or the 16.

 

[JPack]

Only the 16 Plus in the 16 family is worthy of consideration. Narrow your choices to 17, 17e, and 16 Plus.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You should pick neither. The iPhone 17 is a way way way better value than either the 17e or the 16.

Agreed.

Two camera lenses, ProMotion screen that is 6.3" vs 6.1" and brighter, more battery life, faster MagSafe charging and normal charging ... all being only very slightly taller and heavier.

The 17 is an all timer on value, especially with a very usable 256GB at the base price.

 

[Astuces iOS]

Buying the 16 from the Apple Store is dumb… The only case I could agree is if you get a deal from a carrier.

 

[villagehiker]

iPhone 17e works great—replaces a second generation SE. Quick. Easy to use. Bright enough in sun at 32-ish north latitude. Camera is fine. Face ID is cool.

 

[Viridian5]

I got a 17e for my work phone and I like it a lot. Feels great in hand

 

[Ctrlos]

I'd still pick the 16 over the 17e. The extra features are well worth the outlay, especially as the 17 is basically just the 16S in all but name.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You should pick neither. The iPhone 17 is a way way way better value than either the 17e or the 16.

If you're paying full Apple prices, sure.

If you're buying the 17e outright for $249ish on a cheapo pre-paid plan, then go with that.

 

[vegetassj4]

Is anything Apple "low cost"? or just lower cost.

 

[zarmanto]

... At a markedly more accessible price point, the iPhone 17e will likely be the go-to iPhone for many customers, particularly those buying on a budget. ...

This -- plus, carriers really like to take whatever is newest and shiniest, and offer subsidies, incentives and discounts on it right out of the gate... especially for new lines.

(My wife just talked me into buying our youngest son a 17e as his first cellphone, for his birthday. Sigh.)

 

[turbineseaplane]

One thing that is for sure..

The 17e > 16e all day long.
It's nice they quickly eliminated the obvious gimps on the 16e.

I suspect the Neo 2 will be like this also.

 

[nymphe]

A good friend of mine is using iphone 7 and finally I was able to persuade him to buy 17e. I told him that just buy 17 for the following 10 years of usage, but he doesn't want the extra camera or any other stuff. I believe with 16e he would have been also happy, but with the processor he will be using it definitely until it brakes.

What I (actually my mother) needs is the largest possible iphone but there is no way we can buy iphone 17 pro max. I wish they didn't kill the Plus version, the iphone 17 with plus size would have been perfect for us...

So, we will choose 16 plus with 60 Hz display 🙁

 

[sw1tcher]

I'd still pick the 16 over the 17e. The extra features are well worth the outlay, especially as the 17 is basically just the 16S in all but name.

Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe "s" iPhones were usually just iPhones with updated/faster A chips.

Meanwhile, the iPhone 17 got a bigger display (6.3" vs 6.1" on iPhone 16), ProMotion and higher peak nits brightness, a better camera, increase in (double) base storage.... I don't recall "s" iPhones getting all these upgrades.

 

[Godspeed8230]

What Apple did with the Neo was a success but phasing out the iPhone SE was a mistake. An SE version would be a great budget option, their iPhone line up is too complicated. Personally, I don’t think the 16e/17e strategy is particularly smart.

Give me a decent iPhone without the bells and whistles at a great price (i.e. considerably lower than the more expensive iPhone)

 

[Ctrlos]

Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe "s" iPhones were usually just iPhones with updated/faster A chips.

Meanwhile, the iPhone 17 got a bigger display (6.3" vs 6.1" on iPhone 16), ProMotion and higher peak nits brightness, a better camera, increase in (double) base storage.... I don't recall "s" iPhones getting all these upgrades.

It was for all intents and purposes still just a stat bump across the board. The very definition of an S. Like how the 13 was just a 12S (and by extension the barely-changed 14 as well)

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'd still pick the 16 over the 17e. The extra features are well worth the outlay, especially as the 17 is basically just the 16S in all but name.

Have to disagree here

The 17 has a larger screen and got upgraded to ProMotion and has AOD.

It also has 8 more hours of battery life (on Apple metrics at least), a way better front facing camera and 2x the storage on base model.

This all adds up to more than one would have expected in an S model year.

 

[bodonnell202]

The (regular) 16 makes no sense in the lineup. If you're willing to spend an extra $100 for better cameras, you are best to spend another $100 on top of the 16 to get even better cameras, a much better screen, double the storage and the latest chip with the 17.

The 16 Plus makes sense for those that want a bigger screen but don't care about the Pro features and/or don't want to spend that kind of money on a phone.

 

[Siliconguy]

Low cost? Low cost is less than $200.

Apple doesn't have an entry there. The Motorola I bought last summer was $129 and has 128 GB storage, a 120 Hz display, Touch ID and a microSD card slot. Samsung also had a comparable phone for $199.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Low cost? Low cost is less than $200.

Apple doesn't have an entry there. The Motorola I bought last summer was $129 and has 128 GB storage, a 120 Hz display, Touch ID and a microSD card slot. Samsung also had a comparable phone for $199.

A ProMotion screen phone for $130 ... incredible.

 

[bodonnell202]

I'd still pick the 16 over the 17e. The extra features are well worth the outlay, especially as the 17 is basically just the 16S in all but name.

While they look physically the same the 17 feels like a bigger bump over the 16 than a typical S cycle for the display alone (ProMotion, bigger, brighter & slimmer bezels). The S cycle traditionally was using the exact same display and enclosure with internal upgrades (mostly chip and and camera module upgrades). The 15 and 16 had more in common than the 16 and 17 do.