My point is that Android is so inefficient currently. If I don't use my phone at all I bet it would last a week. It lasts nearly two days with moderate usage. My last Android device could sit on my desk at work, not used at all and would drain the battery to 30% in just 8 hours.
There are lots of confounding factors though. What're the battery sizes (mAh) between the two phones? Processor strength? Screen size? Screen resolution?
People praised the iPhone 4 so much because of its unparalleled battery life, despite it having a small battery. Yet, it only had a 640 resolution iirc and a tiny screen, and lacked anything beyond 3G radios
It's not fair to compare and contrast without noting these differences
Note: See iPhone 5S and iPhone 6, 6 has a bigger battery, but larger screen and higher resolution
Therefore, I'm sure the battery life will actually be the same, despite a bigger battery. But I'll wait for GSMarena to perform their endurance tests
Search Ars Technica for the HTC One (M8) for Windows review. It kind of demonstrates that Windows Phone just makes a phone live much longer under normal circumstances. It is funny how even a software swap is enough to squeeze in several extra hours' worth of battery life with everything on full throttle while browsing the Internet. "Power saver" on Android does go ahead of WP, but at a huge cost - really slow phone, anyone?
This was known before the M8 Windows Phone, or a least it should have been
Take two phone with identical resolutions, screen sizes, and batteries (or make proportions to even them out) and you have yourself a fair comparison
Windows Phone has been the best for battery life since Windows Phone 8 came out
I compared a bunch of phones by their listed 3G battery lives on GSM networks, and divided the standby hours by the mAh battery size, making sure that I compared phones with the same clock speed and sscreen size (and resolution), and kept getting the best numbers from Windows Phone