{"id":23968,"date":"2026-01-18T14:48:51","date_gmt":"2026-01-18T09:18:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23968"},"modified":"2026-01-18T14:48:51","modified_gmt":"2026-01-18T09:18:51","slug":"a-statistical-comparison-of-four-electronics-brands-using-one-way-anova","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23968","title":{"rendered":"A Statistical Comparison of Four Electronics Brands Using One- Way Anova"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Statistical Comparison of Four Electronics Brands Using One- Way Anova<\/p>\n

Author: – Aniket Sujeet Mishra (021331025060)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span>1. Introduction:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>T<\/span>he global electronics market is dominated by several key players, each competing for market share through innovation, brand loyalty, and product quality. This report provides a comparative analysis of four industry leaders:\u00a0<\/span>Samsung, Sony, Apple, and LG.<\/p>\n

The primary objective of this study is to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in\u00a0<\/span>across these four brands. By utilizing a One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance), we aim to move beyond simple averages and determine if the observed performance gaps are statistically meaningful or merely the result of random sampling variation.<\/p>\n

2. Objective:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0–<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>The objective of this analysis is to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean\u00a0<\/span><\/span>among the four leading electronics brands: Samsung, Sony, Apple, and LG. By applying a One-Way ANOVA, the study aims to test the null hypothesis that all brand means are equal against the alternative hypothesis that at least one brand performs differently. Ultimately, this evaluation seeks to identify if the observed variations in data represent genuine performance gaps or are simply the result of random sampling error.<\/p>\n

3.Literature Review:-<\/b>\u00a0Brand Performance and Market Position\u00a0<\/span>Current market research indicates that while Samsung, Sony, Apple, and LG lead the electronics industry, they do so through different strengths\u2014Apple in premium ecosystems, Samsung in product variety, Sony in high-end audio-visuals, and LG in display innovation. Because these brands often overlap in product categories, a statistical comparison is necessary to determine if one brand objectively offers superior performance or if consumer perception is driven primarily by brand marketing rather than measurable data.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Data Collection:- Primary data was gathered through a structured survey distributed via\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Google Forms<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>to a sample size of\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>40 participants<\/b>. Each respondent was asked to rate\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Samsung, Sony, Apple, and LG<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>on a scale of\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>1 to 10<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>based on their overall experience and product performance. This quantitative approach ensured a standardized scoring system, resulting in 40 data points per brand for the subsequent One-Way ANOVA analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Data Analysis:-\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Anova: Single Factor<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

SUMMARY<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Samsung<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

181<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.525<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.99935897<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Sony\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

201<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.025<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.79423077<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Apple<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

233<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.825<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.14807692<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

LG<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

194<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.85<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.74615385<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

ANOVA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7668.97<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1917.2425<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

56.2721456<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.6939E-31<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.41796254<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6643.825<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

195<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34.0708974<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14312.795<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

199<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\uf0b7\u00a0\u00a0F-Statistic:\u00a0<\/span>The calculated\u00a0<\/span>F-value is 56.27, which is significantly higher than the\u00a0<\/span>F-critical value of 2.41.<\/p>\n

\uf0b7\u00a0\u00a0P-Value:\u00a0<\/span>The\u00a0<\/span>P-value is\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>(virtually zero). Since this is much lower than the standard significance level of\u00a0<\/span>0.05, we\u00a0<\/span>reject the null hypothesis.<\/p>\n

6.Conclusions:-<\/b>\u00a0The analysis confirms that there is a\u00a0<\/span><\/span>statistically significant difference\u00a0<\/span>in the ratings between the four electronics brands. The extremely low P-value suggests that the variation in scores is not due to random chance, but represents a genuine difference in how consumers perceive or value these brands, with Apple holding a clear lead in this specific dataset.<\/span><\/p>\n

7. References:-<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>American Customer Satisfaction Index [ACSI]. (2025).<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Consumer electronics study: Brand performance and loyalty trends.<\/i>\u00a0<\/span>Retrieved from\u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.theacsi.org<\/a><\/p>\n

Field, A. (2018).<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics<\/i>\u00a0<\/span>(5th ed.). Sage Publications. (Provides the theoretical foundation for One-Way ANOVA).<\/p>\n

Fisher, R. A. (1925).<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Statistical methods for research workers.<\/i>\u00a0<\/span>Oliver & Boyd. (The original source for the Analysis of Variance methodology).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Statistical Comparison of Four Electronics Brands Using One- Way Anova Author: – Aniket Sujeet Mishra (021331025060) 1. Introduction:\u00a0The global electronics market is dominated by several key players, each competing for market share through innovation, brand loyalty, and product quality. This report provides a comparative analysis of four industry leaders:\u00a0Samsung, Sony, Apple, and LG. The… Continue reading A Statistical Comparison of Four Electronics Brands Using One- Way Anova<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140069,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23968","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/140069"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23968"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23968\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23969,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23968\/revisions\/23969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}