- dotrising.com
- Compare
- 200 4G vs KX-TU260
Nokia 200 4G vs Panasonic KX-TU260
What 200 4G does better (6) and where KX-TU260 wins (1) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
200 4GKX-TU260
| 200 4G | KX-TU260 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 126.1 mm | 133 mm | −6.9 mm |
| Width | 50.5 mm | 55 mm | −4.5 mm |
| Thickness | 14 mm | 15 mm | −1 mm |
| Weight | 92 g | 119 g | −27 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is 200 4G better than KX-TU260?
- Main camera2 MP vs 1 MP+67%
- Weight92 g vs 119 g+29%
- Dual SIMYes · KX-TU260: No
- 3.5 mm headphone jackYes · KX-TU260: No
- Screen-to-body ratio28% vs 24.5%+14%
- Thickness14 mm vs 15 mm+7%
Why is KX-TU260 better than 200 4G?
- Battery capacity1,450 mAh vs 1,500 mAh+3%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design | ||
| Weight | 92 g | 119 g |
| Thickness | 14 mm | 15 mm |
| Height | 126.1 mm | 133 mm |
| Width | 50.5 mm | 55 mm |
| Colours | Black, Blue, Yellow | Black |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 2.4″ | 2.4″ |
| Panel | TFT LCD | Farb-Display |
| OLED panel | No | No |
| Resolution (width) | 240 px | 240 px |
| Resolution (height) | 320 px | 320 px |
| Pixel density | 167 ppi | 167 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | — |
| Peak brightness | — | 250 nits |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 28% | 24.5% |
| Memory | ||
| Memory card slot | Yes | Yes |
| Camera | ||
| Main camera | 2 MP | 1 MP |
| Rear cameras | 1 | 1 |
| Optical stabilisation | No | No |
| Ultra-wide camera | No | No |
| Telephoto camera | No | No |
| Selfie camera | 0.3 MP | — |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 1,450 mAh | 1,500 mAh |
| Battery type | Li-Ion | — |
| Wireless charging | No | No |
| Connectivity | ||
| 5G | No | No |
| eSIM | No | — |
| Dual SIM | Yes | No |
| Bluetooth | 5 | 5 |
| NFC | No | — |
| USB | USB Type-C | USB Type-C |
| Features | ||
| Stereo speakers | No | — |
| 3.5 mm headphone jack | Yes | No |
| Sensors | No | — |
| Software | ||
| OS at launch | Nokia OS | — |
| Platform | Other | — |
