First off, I think the triumph is far better than the optimus V i owned. The battery life is longer, i can go a full day of use with one charge and end a day at 20% or more. The signal is the same, and the 3G is actually faster. I have my phones side by side, the LG optimus V and Motorola Triumph in my room (basement) and the Optimus V is -100 signal, my triumph is -101 signal. I have tested both phones side by side in many places, and my triumph is never more than -8 off. However. My optomus V had horrible battery life until i did the #*#*4635*#*# and set it to CDMA auto PRL. then my optimus V went from 70% without signal, to 0% without signal. I noticed my trumph, was 60% without signal. I tryed the same thing on the triumph, and it still, at this time, 71% without signal. my optimus V did this before that CDMA auto change. Whats the deal here? I'm happy with the battery life, its just if its possible to fix that 71%, i could go longer use on my phone. Other than that...I love the triumph. I was sketchy at first reading how people said 'Oh the triumph sucks because you cant use the 3G as well because the antenna is smaller and it drops" My triumph loasd pages faster tham the optimus V, and it actually has 3G inside my work, unlike my triumph. So, happy i ignored it, if anything 3G wise, the connection is better. but phone wise, its only -8 at most off. guess it depends where you live. The GPS is the only flaw i found of the triumph. In my room, where i get -100 signal on both phones, my optimus V will connect to GPS and pinpoint my location very well while IN my room, within 5 seconds of clicking "locate me" My triumph, i tried 5 times, Nothing. Even on the road, nothing. optimus V, gets it really quick even with low signal. So, the triumph in my case, only lacks performance in GPS. but it beats the optimus in 3G and battery life.