Deciding between the Cornet ED85EXS and Cornet ED88T.

I am currently deciding between these two meters. My prime concern are a couple of cell-phone towers that are metres away from my house. I've discovered that the towers in my country of residence have frequency bands between 800 to 2300 MHz. I am trying to get a meter that can hopefully help me monitor my exposure on an active basis.

Which of the two meters would best suit my purpose? The ED88T is new and 'apparently' takes better stock of the digital bursts (still not completely sure what that means.) Meanwhile the ED85EXS is more expensive, which makes me assume that it's better and/or more sensitive. It's also singularly meant to measure RF radiation. However, I read an Amazon review that said the antenna that comes with the ED85EXS isn't particularly good for measuring cell tower emissions and that I would have to purchase a separate antenna. Again, I can't verify the claim since I am not as well-versed with the topic as some of you are. Hopefully, someone who has actually bought the product and tested it out in full can chime in.

If I understand correctly, with both these meters I don't have to make any long-drawn calculations and the RF readings will be calculated from all four cardinal directions by the device itself, rather than me having to sum them up on my own. Please correct me if I am wrong here. Also, I had a government-official come to my building and take a test of the readings. It was between 3 milliwatts/metre-square and 3.4 milliwatts/metre-square. Do these readings sound particularly worthy of conern to you? They are well below the government guidelines from what I understand.  

From what I've read, these just aren't all that accurate. The one that gets the best reviews for RFs is the Acoustimeter RF Meter. The 100XE EMF Meter is good for LFs if you adjust the fact it reads around 2x the actual reading.

3 or 3.4 milliwatts per square meter is pretty low in my estimation.

Overview of some RF meters from least sensitive to most sensitive:

130$ Heliognosis EM2 - 50Hz to 18Ghz (LED's 10μW/m²)
295€ Esmog Spion - 1Hz - 80kHz - 3?MHz - 3 Ghz (LED's 10μW/m²)
305£ Acoustimeter - 200MHz to 8GHz (1 µW/m²)
269€ Gigahertz HF 32D - 800 MHz to 2,5 Ghz (1 µW/m²)
140$ CORNET ED78S - 100MHz to 8GHz (0.5µW/m²)
169$ CORNET ED88T - 100MHz to 8GHz (0.5µW/m²)
150£ Acousticom 2 - 200 MHz to 8Ghz (LED's 0.26 µW/m²)
186$ CORNET ED85EX - 1MHz to 8GHz (??? -65dB ??? unclear)
360$ TES 593 RF - 10 MHz to 8Ghz (0.1 μW/m²)
350€ Gigahertz HF35C - 800 MHz to 2,7 Ghz (0.1 µW/m²)
500€ Gigahertz HF38B - 800 MHz to 2,7 Ghz (0.01 µW/m²)
600€ SPECTRAN HF-4040 V3 - 100MHz to 4GHz (??? -90dBm  ??? unclear)

Be warned, there are other important factors for meters not included in this overview, like sampling rate, etc...
double check for errors, don't blame me.
correct me if i'm wrong. i just took data from websites.

in order to convert dBm into W/m2 ( or indirectly to mW/cm2 ) and V/m , and vice versa, i usually use this datasheet :
https://aaronia.de/grundlagen/frequenzbaender-und-einheiten-umrechnung/#c120
Look under : "Einheiten-Umrechnung: dBm in V/m, W/m², A/m"
The conversion of these data depends on variables, however that is an issue for technicians, we of course prefer simplicity above accuracy here, in fact do not have another choice ;) .
According to Aaronia ( the makers of Spectran meters ) thus : - 65 dBm ~ 0.038 µW/m² , if i recall it correct the other two Cornets measure up to - 60 dBm ~ 0.12 µW/m²
The latter differs a bit from 0.5 µW/m² given by http://www.electrosmog.org/, which is likely a result of diffferences between the ways technicians at Aaronia and Cornet are doing the calculations.
Anyway, every 10 dBm difference is 10 times in W/m2, so -90 dBm is 1000 times less in W/m2 than - 60 dBm ( and 30 times in V/m ), and 5dBm corresponds to about 3 times in W/m2 ( 1.8 times in V/m ).

Heliognosis is working on an EM3 , it's canadian dollars, the EM2 is useful for monitors, computers, switching mode power supplies , mobile phones, but useless for DECT , wifi , 50 Hz.
The Accoustimeter is as sensitive as the Accousticom 2 as far as the sound output is concerned, and the sound is better.
With the standard antenna the Cornet ED85EX will not pick up much under 700 MHz, but i guess above 1000 MHz it will be much better than the Cornets with an internal antenna.
I heard the Tes meters are really total crap.
The Spectrans produce quite some emfs themselves and are also user unfriendly in the sense of difficult to operate.
Probably the Cornet ED88T is for most people the best meter to start with, and even gives some frequency-analysis and LF measurement as well.
What matters a tremendous lot is wether a meter adds up all the exposure that it measures ( Accousti-meter/-com, probably Trifield ) or displays the strongest signal only ( e.g. Spectran, RF Explorer, probably Cornet ).
And then of course also, but this is normally more clear, wether average or peak results are given, or both.
No meter i know is anywhere near reliable, and even if a few were, it would not help to determine to which frequencies ( and combinations thereof ) one is particularly sensitive in the sense of being able to sense effects and in the sense of actually suffering a serious health impact ( which may not be the same or just in part ).