Airtel Rs 509 Vs Jio Rs 498 Vs Vodafone Rs 509: Quarterly prepaid plans comparison (Jan 2018)
A battle raging between the Indian telecom network operators courtesy of disruptive Jio offers continues taking new turns. Every week brings a new excitement to withstand. Every week has a new story to tell, and while that happens, Jio somehow sweeps into a winner’s list.
Keeping up with the tradition, Jio recently revised their Rs 498 plan to win over the fight against Vodafone and Airtel. So let’s see how they all compare in terms of what they have to offer in their plans with a validity of 90 days or more.
A revised Jio Rs 449 plan provides 1.5GB high-speed data per day. Since it comes with a validity of 91 days, it ends up providing 136 GB of 4G data in a specified period. Upon exceeding the FUP limit, the connectivity speed decreases to 64 kbps for the day. Other benefits like unlimited calls, daily 100 SMS, and a complimentary Jio apps subscription remain unchanged.
Airtel 509 plan, on the other hand, ends up providing 126GB data, thanks to a validity of 90 days and 1.4GB high-speed 4G data per day. This plan provides unlimited local, STD and roaming calls in addition to 100 SMS per day.
Meanwhile, Vodafone Rs 509 plan bears no changes since the last time we did a similar comparison for our readers. The plan is still stuck with 1GB data per day. However, the validity has surely been increased to 91 days from 84 days. As a result, Vodafone users end up availing a total 91GB data at the end of the plan. Other benefits like unlimited calls and a bunch of SMS remain the same.
If you are a heavy user of data and willing to spend an extra Rs 49 in a quarter (why wouldn’t you?) over the Jio Rs 449 plan, then the Jio Rs 498 plan steals the show completely. It offers 182GB high-speed data for 91 days with a 2GB per day limit. Unlimited local, STD, roaming calls along with 100 SMS per day and a complimentary Jio apps subscription comes bundled with this plan too.
Needless to say who wins the quarterly plans shootout this month.
0 comments: