Notebookcheck

Apple iPhone XR Smartphone Review

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Alex Alderson), 10/28/2018

Great again – Apple positions the iPhone XR between the two XS models’ size-wise but equips the device with a lower resolution LCD display and only a single rear-facing camera. There are a few other minor drawbacks too, but does the XR do enough to be crowned the best overall iPhone? Read on to find out.
Update: Review completed.

The iPhone XR is Apple’s new “cheap” iPhone, with its choice of six colours being reminiscent of the maligned iPhone 5C. The XR is based on the X-series design though, albeit with lesser hardware to befit its more budget status. The XR is not cheap though, starting at $749 (£749 in the UK) for 64 GB of storage, which rises to $799 (£799) for the 128 GB version and to $899 (£899) for the 256 GB model.

The XR’s spec sheet is a list of compromises. The device has a 6.1-inch IPS display, but its resolution is not even 1080p, which is unheard of for a $750-smartphone released in 2018. The resolution results in a 324 PPI pixel density too, which is lower than other X-series devices. Moreover, the device has 3 GB of RAM compared to the 4 GB with which both the iPhone XS and XS Max are equipped. The device is IP67 dust and water-resistant too, but again this is a step down from the IP68 rating that both the iPhone XS and XS Max ascertained. Positively, the XR has the same Apple A12 Bionic SoC and rear-facing camera that Apple uses in its more premium siblings, although the XR lacks those devices' secondary telephoto sensor. The device has stereo speakers too, while it also supports both fast charging and Qi wireless charging.

Throughout this review, we will be examining whether the XR’s compromises pose any drawbacks in daily use and whether it is the most rounded iPhone of Apple’s current offerings.

We have chosen to compare the iPhone XR against the older iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone XS, while also considering it against Android competitors like the Huawei Mate 20 Pro, the Pocophone F1 and the Samsung Galaxy S9.

Changelog:

  • 10.26.2018: First impressions and initial benchmark scores added.
  • 10.30.2018: Speakers and Temperature sections added, Display and Communication sections updated, Performance section completed.
  • 11.5.2018: Camera sections completed, Telephony and Battery sections added.
  • 11.5.2018: Review completed.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Apple iPhone XR (iPhone Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
, LPDDR4x
Display
6.1 inch 19.5:9, 1792 x 828 pixel 324 PPI, Capacitive touchscreen, ten-point multitouch, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB NVMe, 128 GB 
, 116.93 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: Lightning, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: 3-axis Gyroscope, Accelerometer, Barometer, Digital Compass, Face ID, Proximity sensor, Lightning-Port, eSIM, Galileo, QZSS
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM/GPRS/EDGE: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS/HSPA+: 850, 900, 1,700/2,100, 1,900, 2,100 MHz. LTE: FDD Bands – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 66; TDD Bands – 34, 38, 39, 40, 41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.3 x 150.9 x 75.7 ( = 0.33 x 5.94 x 2.98 in)
Battery
11.16 Wh, 2942 mAh Lithium-Ion, 3.79 V, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 25 h
Operating System
Apple iOS 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Wide angle: f/1.8, 1.4 μm, Focus Pixel, 6 lens elements, OIS, True Tone Flash, UHD Video at up to 60 FPS
Secondary Camera: 7 MPix f/2.2, Full HD at up to 60 FPS
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo speakers, Keyboard: Virtual keyboard, Charger, Lighting cable, Headphones, Quick start guide, Apple sticker, SIM tool, 12 Months Warranty, Head SAR value: 0.99 W/kg, IP67 certified, Qi wireless charging, fanless
Weight
194 g ( = 6.84 oz / 0.43 pounds), Power Supply: 46 g ( = 1.62 oz / 0.1 pounds)
Price
909 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The iPhone XR’s colour options
The iPhone XR’s colour options

The XR feels bulkier and thicker than the iPhone XS despite being only 6 mm thicker. Our test device has a larger footprint overall and is around 9% heavier. Moreover, the XR’s single rear-facing camera protrudes 1.55 mm (0.05-inches) from the case, the housing for which looks like the one that Apple used on the iPhone 8. Our test device is the (PRODUCT)RED version, but Apple also manufacturers the device in black, blue, coral, white and yellow. All XR devices have a matte aluminium alloy frame, which is sandwiched between two pieces of scratch-resistant glass. The glass is prone to picking up fingerprints, but our test device is easy to wipe clean.

Apple has not compromised on build quality, with the gaps between materials on our test device being even and tight. We could not twist the device, nor did it creak when we tried to do so, although we could make the display distort when we pressed strongly against it. The aluminium SIM-card slot sits flush with the frame and matches our test device’s bright red finish.

The XR is IP67 rated too, which makes the device dust-tight and water-resistant when submerged in up to one metre of water for 30 minutes. The iPhone XS and XS Max are IP68-certified, which should mean that these devices would last longer when submerged in water and other liquids. However, Apple does not provide a time limit for how long the more expensive devices would last in water, so strictly speaking they are only IPX8 rated. Regardless, the XR should withstand the rigours of daily use, even if it is dropped in a sink or a toilet.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

The XR only has a Lightning port for connecting the device to accessories or to a computer. Apple makes no mention of its speed in its documentation, but it is stated that both the iPhone XS and XS Max have a USB 3.0 port. Hence, we suspect that Apple has equipped the XR with a slower USB 2.0 Lightning port.

Everything remains the same with short-range communication though. The XR supports Bluetooth 5.0, Face ID and NFC, although the latter is limited to just read mode like the iPhone XS and XS Max. Additionally, the eSIM function is not yet active and will be activated in a forthcoming update.

The iPhone XR is a dual-SIM device, which has a traditional nano-SIM slot and an integrated eSIM for dual-SIM functionality. 

Top side
Top side
Left-hand side: volume rocker, mute switch
Left-hand side: volume rocker, mute switch
Right-hand side: power button, SIM-card tray
Right-hand side: power button, SIM-card tray
Under side: speaker, Lightning port, microphone
Under side: speaker, Lightning port, microphone

Software

The XR ships with iOS 12, which functions just like it does on the iPhone XS and XS Max. Our test device was running iOS 12.0.1 at the time of testing. Please see our iPhone XS and XS Max reviews for a more detailed look at the changes that Apple has introduced with iOS 12.

Addendum: Apple released iOS 12.0.1 during testing, which added 70 new emojis and enabled eSIM functionality.

The iOS 12 lock screen
The iOS 12 lock screen
A look at some of the iPhone XR’s preinstalled apps
A look at some of the iPhone XR’s preinstalled apps
The Control Center in iOS 12
The Control Center in iOS 12
Apple released iOS 12.0.1 during our test
Apple released iOS 12.0.1 during our test

Communication & GPS

The XR also supports all modern mobile network standards. The device supports the same number of 2G and 3G frequency bands as its more expensive siblings. However, the XR supports one LTE band fewer and lacks Gigabit LTE, which is probably another way for Apple to distinguish the iPhone XS and XS Max from its cheaper counterpart. The company state that the XR supports “LTE Advanced”, a term that we last saw Apple use with the iPhone 7 to refer to its LTE Cat. 9 modem.

Apple has equipped the XR with slower Wi-Fi capabilities, which may explain why the device also has worse LTE performance. The XR has a 2x2 MIMO Wi-Fi modem, while the iPhone XS and XS Max support 4x4 MIMO Wi-Fi. Our test device has good transfer speeds with our Linksys EA8500 reference router, but the connection is not always stable, and speeds fluctuate regularly. Wi-Fi performance is so hit and miss that we had to repeat our Wi-Fi tests several times to get usable results. The XR has good Wi-Fi range though.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
675 (min: 630, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼97% +26%
Apple iPhone XS
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, Apple 512 GB (iPhone Xs)
650 MBit/s ∼96% +26%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 (min: 532, max: 642) MBit/s ∼91% +19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 100, max: 534) MBit/s ∼73% -5%
Apple iPhone XR
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 128 GB NVMe
517 (min: 477, max: 528) MBit/s ∼77%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=307)
211 MBit/s ∼31% -59%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
696 (min: 647, max: 714) MBit/s ∼100% +8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 289, max: 805) MBit/s ∼95% +3%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
647 (min: 598, max: 665) MBit/s ∼93% 0%
Apple iPhone XR
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 128 GB NVMe
644 (min: 578, max: 672) MBit/s ∼93%
Apple iPhone XS
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, Apple 512 GB (iPhone Xs)
587 MBit/s ∼84% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼75% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=307)
207 MBit/s ∼30% -68%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø516 (477-528)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø644 (578-672)

The XR uses GPS including A-GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and QZSS for location services. The device does not use the Chinese BeiDou though. Our test device found a satellite fix quickly and accurately even within buildings.

We also took the XR on a bike ride to test its location accuracy against the Garmin Edge 500, a professional navigation system. Our test device recorded us having cycled 250 metres further than the Garmin over almost a 10 km bike ride, which is on par with comparable devices. Taking a closer look at the routes plotted reveals that the XR regularly recorded us next to the road or track on which we were cycling. Overall, the XR is accurate enough for general navigation tasks, but we would recommend using a dedicated navigation device if you need more precise location accuracy. 

GPS test: Apple iPhone XR - Overview
GPS test: Apple iPhone XR - Overview
GPS test: Apple iPhone XR – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Apple iPhone XR – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Apple iPhone XR - Loop
GPS test: Apple iPhone XR - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop

Telephone Features & Call Quality

The iOS 12 dialler
The iOS 12 dialler

The phone app remains unchanged even in iOS 12.1. Apple has arranged the app clearly with several tabs at the bottom of the display for starred contacts and call history among others. The eSIM integration is new though, which can be activated by scanning a provider code.

Overall, our test device has decent call quality. The earpiece transmits sound clearly and dynamically while being in no way inferior to the iPhone XS. Calls sound good over 3G too, with the microphone capturing our voice without background noise. Our voice tends to reverberate more over speakerphone though, and we could not sit too far away from our test device without sounding quiet to our call partner. In short, call quality is noticeably better over the earpiece than it is over speakerphone.

The XR supports Wi-Fi calling (VoWiFi) and voice over LTE (VoLTE).

Cameras

Selfie taken with the iPhone XR
Selfie taken with the iPhone XR

The XR has almost identical cameras to those that Apple uses in its flagship devices. The XR has a 7 MP front-facing camera, which supports electronic image stabilisation (EIS), Smart HDR and Retina flash. The front-facing camera generally takes impressive photos in both day- and low-light, while the TrueDepth camera creates good bokeh effect shots in portrait mode. Unlike the rear-facing camera, the front sensor also supports Stage Light in portrait mode.

The rear-facing camera is a 12 MP sensor with an f/1.8 aperture and 1.4-micron pixels for high light sensitivity. 

Photos taken with the rear-facing camera look identical to those shot with the iPhone XS, except that the XR does not support the latter’s 2x optical zoom. Apple has limited the XR to three portrait modes, while the Stage Light modes have also been omitted. Overall, the rear-facing camera takes decent-looking photos, but they lack the same degree of detail and exposure in low-light conditions compared to more expensive devices like the P20 Pro or the Pixel 3. What is more, colours seem more saturated than in photos shot with either the iPhone XS or XS Max.

Videos look good too. The optical image stabilisation (OIS) helps to create clean tracking shots and compensates well against minor camera shakes. We would recommend avoiding shooting at 60 FPS in low-light though as videos are more poorly exposed than those that are shot at lower frame rates.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
ColorChecker: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

We also subjected the XR to camera tests under controlled lighting conditions. Overall, photos taken in these conditions look more saturated than those shot with the other new iPhones, but not excessively so.

The XR does a good job at correctly exposing our test chart, while the rear-facing camera also manages to capture the centre of the chart sharply and in detail. Colour gradients and blocks of colour are reproduced cleanly too, while our test device also has no problems with accurately capturing dark fonts against dark backgrounds. We noticed that the chart looks blurrier towards the lower edges of the photo, but this is subtle and only a minor criticism.

A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail

Accessories & Warranty

The XR comes with a charger, a USB Type-A to Lightning cable, a pair of Lightning headphones, a SIM tool, a quick-start guide and an Apple sticker. Apple has dispensed with the 3.5 mm jack to Lightning adapter that was included with the iPhone X. Moreover, the included charger does not support fast charging, of which the XR is capable, and it only supports 5 V/1 A. Helpfully, Apple sells more powerful chargers and Qi charging pads on its website and in its stores should you wish to charge your device faster.

The XR comes with 12 months of manufacturer’s warranty, which is separate from any supplier warranty. Apple continues to offer AppleCare +, which costs $149 (£149) for the XR and covers two accidental damage repairs. Even with AppleCare+, Apple charges a $29 (£25) service fee for a display replacement and $99 (£79) to repair any other damage to the device. In theory, the latter should also cover a total loss of the device too. AppleCare+ is valid for two years from the date of purchase and can be bought up to 60 days after purchase.

Input Devices & Operation

The XR feels just as premium as its more expensive siblings despite being several hundred dollars cheaper. The touchscreen reproduced our inputs quickly and precisely even into the corners of the display throughout testing, while the physical buttons sit firmly within the aluminium frame and have clear pressure points. The only issues that we faced in daily use were with some apps that have not been updated for use with a notched display. However, this would be an issue with any iPhone with a notched display.

The device supports a one-handed mode too, which generally works well although people with smaller hands may still struggle to comfortably reach the other side of the condensed display. Sadly, Apple has not included 3D Touch on the XR.

Apple continues to preinstall its keyboard, which works equally well as it does on other models. You can change the default keyboard by downloading a third-party keyboard from the App Store like Google GBoard or SwiftKey.

The XR supports Face ID too, which worked perfectly throughout testing. We believe that it remains the best facial recognition system of any current smartphone, having now tested it on four iPhones; it even works well in the dark.

Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
The iPhone XR's one-handed mode
The iPhone XR's one-handed mode

Display

RGB sub-pixel array
RGB sub-pixel array

The XR has a 6.1-inch IPS display that runs at a 1792x828 native resolution and has a pixel density of 324 PPI. The iPhone XS and XS Max both have 463 PPI, but strictly speaking, the XR has a sharper display. The more expensive iPhones have a PenTile OLED matrix display with two sub-pixels per pixel compared to the XR’s three. Hence, the iPhone XS and XS Max effectively have a pixel density of 302 PPI because of their fewer sub-pixels.

The display does not use pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate its brightness, which is pleasing. Apple leaves its True Tone technology on by default, which adjusts the display’s white balance to changing light conditions; this can be turned off though.

Our test device’s average maximum display luminosity is brighter than Apple promises in its documentation. Moreover, the display is 92% evenly lit, which is on par with our comparison devices. We did not notice any backlight bleed either. Our test device has an average maximum brightness of 641 cd/m² with the ambient brightness sensor activated in X-Rite i1Pro 2, which dropped to 524 cd/m² when we switched it off. The display achieved a similar value in the more practical APL50 test too, which measures luminosity by evenly distributing light and dark areas across the display.

X-Rite i1Pro 2 reports a 0.35 cd/m² black value, which is in line with the black values of our comparison devices with IPS displays; AMOLED and OLED displays, unlike their IPS counterparts, can switch off individual pixels for a theoretically infinitely low black value. Our test device also achieved a 1,920:1 contrast ratio in our tests, which is considerably higher than the iPhone 8 Plus or the Pocophone F1. The higher contrast ratio should mean that colours look more vivid on the XR than on those two comparison devices; AMOLED and OLED displays also have theoretically infinite contrast ratios, so the XR cannot compete against our other comparison devices in this regard.

629
cd/m²
661
cd/m²
632
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
672
cd/m²
644
cd/m²
622
cd/m²
662
cd/m²
632
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 672 cd/m² Average: 641.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.08 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 672 cd/m²
Contrast: 1920:1 (Black: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.3 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
Apple iPhone XR
IPS, 1792x828, 6.1
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3
Apple iPhone XS
OLED, 2436x1125, 5.8
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
-11%
-66%
-5%
6%
-6%
Brightness middle
672
529
-21%
489
-27%
576
-14%
639
-5%
559
-17%
Brightness
641
527
-18%
486
-24%
582
-9%
637
-1%
538
-16%
Brightness Distribution
92
96
4%
93
1%
90
-2%
94
2%
90
-2%
Black Level *
0.35
0.34
3%
0.38
-9%
Contrast
1920
1438
-25%
1471
-23%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.3
1.4
-8%
3.8
-192%
1.3
-0%
1
23%
1.3
-0%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
2.7
4
-48%
7.1
-163%
3.5
-30%
2.2
19%
2.7
-0%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.2
1.6
27%
4.4
-100%
1.6
27%
2.2
-0%
1.8
18%
Gamma
2.3 96%
2.16 102%
2.22 99%
2.18 101%
1.9 116%
2.25 98%
CCT
6868 95%
6358 102%
7213 90%
6561 99%
6364 102%
6797 96%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8933 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The display in our test device is not as well-calibrated as the iPhone XS, but it does a better job than many of its Android competitors. Colours look natural, while its DeltaE deviations are not visible to the naked eye as they are better than the ideal value of 3, below which the human eye cannot perceive differences in colour accuracy. 

CalMAN: Greyscale – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Greyscale – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Mixed Colours – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Mixed Colours – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation – sRGB target colour space

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6.8 ms rise
↘ 13.2 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 19 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
45.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21.2 ms rise
↘ 24.4 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 71 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

The XR is easy to use outdoors, despite the display’s high reflective finish. The display gets bright enough to overcome any reflections that may occur in direct sunlight on a sunny day, while the ambient light sensor quickly adjusts display brightness in changing light conditions. We only struggled to use our test device outside when looking at it from acute viewing angles, at which point reflections tended to obscure what was being displayed onscreen.

Using the iPhone XR outside on a sunny day
Using the iPhone XR outside on a sunny day
Using the iPhone XR outside on a sunny day
Using the iPhone XR outside on a sunny day

The XR has great viewing angles thanks to its IPS display. We noticed no colour distortions, IPS-related glowing, or ghosting even at acute viewing angles. We observed small losses in luminosity at tight viewing angles though, although this is a minor gripe. 

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

The XR is powered by the Apple A12 Bionic SoC, a six-core processor that has two Vortex power cores that clock up to 2.49 GHz and four power-saving units called Tempest. The A12 Bionic SoC incorporates an A12 Bionic GPU and is complemented by 3 GB of LPDDR4x RAM.

The XR’s performance is on par with the XS series devices as we initially expected. The device’s lower RAM capacity does not compromise performance either. We suspect that performance boost associated with having a lower resolution display counteracts the 1 GB less RAM. The XR is even faster than its more expensive siblings in on-screen benchmarks.

Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
21070 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6219 Points ∼30% -70%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14369 Points ∼68% -32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8938 Points ∼42% -58%
Average Apple A12 Bionic
21070 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼21% -79%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
11276 Points ∼97%
Apple iPhone XS
11598 Points ∼100% +3%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
10558 Points ∼91% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
8786 Points ∼76% -22%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9182 Points ∼79% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
10024 Points ∼86% -11%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (11244 - 11598, n=3)
11373 Points ∼98% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼37% -62%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
4750 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone XS
4824 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
4263 Points ∼88% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3688 Points ∼76% -22%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2468 Points ∼51% -48%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
3378 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (4750 - 4824, n=3)
4783 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼26% -73%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5291 Points ∼57%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8101 Points ∼88%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
9225 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=256)
4551 Points ∼49%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5736 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9664 Points ∼77%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
12535 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼40%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
3030 Points ∼69%
Apple iPhone XS
2998 Points ∼69% -1%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2187 Points ∼50% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2590 Points ∼59% -15%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2257 Points ∼52% -26%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4364 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2723 - 3030, n=3)
2917 Points ∼67% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼39% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
5061 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone XS
5139 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
3325 Points ∼65% -34%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3697 Points ∼72% -27%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4468 Points ∼87% -12%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4250 Points ∼83% -16%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (4828 - 5139, n=3)
5009 Points ∼97% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
4405 Points ∼99%
Apple iPhone XS
4436 Points ∼100% +1%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2981 Points ∼67% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3376 Points ∼76% -23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3669 Points ∼83% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4275 Points ∼96% -3%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (4121 - 4436, n=3)
4321 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼31% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
2880 Points ∼65%
Apple iPhone XS
2952 Points ∼67% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2650 Points ∼60% -8%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2832 Points ∼64% -2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4407 Points ∼100% +53%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2880 - 2961, n=3)
2931 Points ∼67% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼38% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
14085 Points ∼94%
Apple iPhone XS
14951 Points ∼100% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4843 Points ∼32% -66%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6898 Points ∼46% -51%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5854 Points ∼39% -58%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (10374 - 14951, n=3)
13137 Points ∼88% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼14% -85%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
7555 Points ∼96%
Apple iPhone XS
7856 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4091 Points ∼52% -46%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5230 Points ∼67% -31%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5456 Points ∼69% -28%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (6667 - 7856, n=3)
7359 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼22% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
3121 Points ∼75%
Apple iPhone XS
2960 Points ∼71% -5%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2109 Points ∼50% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2486 Points ∼59% -20%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2528 Points ∼60% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4183 Points ∼100% +34%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2960 - 3121, n=3)
3036 Points ∼73% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼39% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
3806 Points ∼80%
Apple iPhone XS
3712 Points ∼78% -2%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
3069 Points ∼65% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3553 Points ∼75% -7%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4746 Points ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4206 Points ∼89% +11%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (3712 - 3806, n=3)
3748 Points ∼79% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼25% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
3629 Points ∼86%
Apple iPhone XS
3514 Points ∼84% -3%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2781 Points ∼66% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3244 Points ∼77% -11%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3972 Points ∼95% +9%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4201 Points ∼100% +16%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (3514 - 3629, n=3)
3562 Points ∼85% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼27% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
2960 Points ∼71%
Apple iPhone XS
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2600 Points ∼63% -12%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2720 Points ∼66% -8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4150 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2713 - 2960, n=3)
1891 Points ∼46% -36%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼37% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
7806 Points ∼94%
Apple iPhone XS
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4569 Points ∼55% -41%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8261 Points ∼100% +6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5305 Points ∼64% -32%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (7055 - 7806, n=3)
4954 Points ∼60% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
5724 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3911 Points ∼68% -32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5687 Points ∼99% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4996 Points ∼87% -13%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (5205 - 5724, n=3)
3643 Points ∼64% -36%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼24% -76%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
27413 Points ∼75%
Apple iPhone XS
27400 Points ∼75% 0%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
25641 Points ∼70% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
26851 Points ∼73% -2%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
34928 Points ∼95% +27%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
36755 Points ∼100% +34%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (27400 - 27717, n=3)
27510 Points ∼75% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼35% -53%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
162695 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
160199 Points ∼98% -2%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
113380 Points ∼70% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9
48433 Points ∼30% -70%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
82125 Points ∼50% -50%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
67730 Points ∼42% -58%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (159735 - 162695, n=3)
160876 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼11% -89%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
77597 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
77128 Points ∼99% -1%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
64405 Points ∼83% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9
41093 Points ∼53% -47%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
63159 Points ∼81% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
57047 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (77128 - 77599, n=3)
77441 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼19% -81%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
232 fps ∼92%
Apple iPhone XS
251 fps ∼100% +8%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
166.9 fps ∼66% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9
144 fps ∼57% -38%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
150 fps ∼60% -35%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
120 fps ∼48% -48%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (226 - 251, n=3)
236 fps ∼94% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼13% -86%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
60 fps ∼50%
Apple iPhone XS
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
119.4 fps ∼100% +99%
Samsung Galaxy S9
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
61 fps ∼51% +2%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (60 - 60, n=3)
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼21% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
132 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
115 fps ∼87% -13%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
71 fps ∼54% -46%
Samsung Galaxy S9
73 fps ∼55% -45%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
71 fps ∼54% -46%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
73 fps ∼55% -45%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (107 - 132, n=3)
118 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼13% -87%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
60 fps ∼76%
Apple iPhone XS
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
79.2 fps ∼100% +32%
Samsung Galaxy S9
45 fps ∼57% -25%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
58 fps ∼73% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
42 fps ∼53% -30%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (59 - 60, n=3)
59.7 fps ∼75% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼20% -73%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
88 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
62 fps ∼70% -30%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
49 fps ∼56% -44%
Samsung Galaxy S9
46 fps ∼52% -48%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼40% -60%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
29 fps ∼33% -67%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (62 - 88, n=3)
73.1 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼16% -84%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
60 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
48 fps ∼80% -20%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
56.4 fps ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
24 fps ∼40% -60%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
54 fps ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
26 fps ∼43% -57%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (48 - 60, n=3)
55.6 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼23% -77%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
59 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
35 fps ∼59% -41%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
22 fps ∼37% -63%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
19 fps ∼32% -68%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (32.1 - 59, n=3)
42 fps ∼71% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼17% -83%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
20 fps ∼91%
Apple iPhone XS
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14 fps ∼64% -30%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
13 fps ∼59% -35%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (16.3 - 22, n=3)
19.4 fps ∼88% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼30% -68%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
59 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
41 fps ∼69% -31%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
31 fps ∼53% -47%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
18 fps ∼31% -69%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (41 - 59, n=3)
49 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼24% -76%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
63 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
48 fps ∼76% -24%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
32 fps ∼51% -49%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
33 fps ∼52% -48%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (36.8 - 63, n=3)
49.3 fps ∼78% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼25% -75%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
54 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
38 fps ∼70% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9
28 fps ∼52% -48%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼65% -35%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
31 fps ∼57% -43%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (38 - 54, n=3)
44 fps ∼81% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼18% -82%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
58 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
31 fps ∼53% -47%
Samsung Galaxy S9
14 fps ∼24% -76%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
33 fps ∼57% -43%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
16 fps ∼28% -72%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (31 - 58, n=3)
40 fps ∼69% -31%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼15% -85%
Basemark GPU
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
24.51 (min: 11.54, max: 48.55) fps ∼76%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
29.12 (min: 9.74, max: 74.17) fps ∼90%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 651, n=36)
32.4 fps ∼100%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
15.8 (min: 10.44, max: 44.6) fps ∼55%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
16.92 (min: 6.06, max: 28.78) fps ∼59%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 606, n=34)
28.8 fps ∼100%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
21.26 (min: 11.26, max: 61.24) fps ∼59%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
25.57 (min: 7.38, max: 46.96) fps ∼71%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 739, n=32)
36.1 fps ∼100%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XS
348178 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9
243861 Points ∼70%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
263165 Points ∼76%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
300617 Points ∼86%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (302955 - 348178, n=2)
325567 Points ∼94%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼34%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
218158 Points ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy S9
217950 Points ∼87%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
227026 Points ∼91%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
250848 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=390)
76481 Points ∼30%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4731 Score ∼94%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5025 Score ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 5025, n=39)
1773 Score ∼35%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
1722 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
1711 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
1099 Points ∼64% -36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
1296 Points ∼75% -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
1424 Points ∼83% -17%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (1711 - 1731, n=3)
1721 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼41% -59%
Graphics (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
15969 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
15875 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6373 Points ∼40% -60%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
7945 Points ∼50% -50%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6273 Points ∼39% -61%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (15659 - 15969, n=3)
15834 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼11% -89%
Memory (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
3263 Points ∼52%
Apple iPhone XS
4169 Points ∼66% +28%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2669 Points ∼42% -18%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3239 Points ∼52% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6283 Points ∼100% +93%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (1815 - 4169, n=3)
3082 Points ∼49% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼20% -62%
System (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
11946 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone XS
12202 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6234 Points ∼51% -48%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6506 Points ∼53% -46%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8604 Points ∼71% -28%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (11675 - 12202, n=3)
11941 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼21% -79%
Overall (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
5721 Points ∼94%
Apple iPhone XS
6097 Points ∼100% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3285 Points ∼54% -43%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3838 Points ∼63% -33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4687 Points ∼77% -18%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (4895 - 6097, n=3)
5571 Points ∼91% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼21% -78%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Apple iPhone XR
2754 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS
2606 Points ∼95% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9
1436 Points ∼52% -48%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
1571 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2407 - 2754, n=3)
2589 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (36.3 - 2754, n=76)
693 Points ∼25% -75%

Legend

 
Apple iPhone XR Apple A12 Bionic, Apple A12 Bionic GPU, 128 GB NVMe
 
Apple iPhone XS Apple A12 Bionic, Apple A12 Bionic GPU, Apple 512 GB (iPhone Xs)
 
Apple iPhone 8 Plus Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, ARM Mali-G76 MP10, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

The XR has fantastic browser performance that ranks just behind the iPhone XS in our comparison table. Websites and media content loads quickly and is rendered correctly in daily use.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0)
272.3 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (268 - 273, n=3)
271 Points ∼100% +1%
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0)
267.84 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
223.5 Points ∼82% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
109.18 Points ∼40% -59%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
75.959 Points ∼28% -72%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼25% -75%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼13% -86%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0)
43280 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (42897 - 43280, n=3)
43097 Points ∼100% 0%
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0)
42897 Points ∼99%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
35209 Points ∼81% -18%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
23285 Points ∼54% -46%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼35% -64%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
14514 Points ∼34% -66%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=558)
5562 Points ∼13% -87%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -1780%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
2713.6 ms * ∼24% -345%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18% -240%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
1951.9 ms * ∼17% -220%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
719.7 ms * ∼6% -18%
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0)
610.3 ms * ∼5%
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0)
609.1 ms * ∼5% -0%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (603 - 610, n=3)
608 ms * ∼5% -0%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0)
161 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0)
159 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (155 - 161, n=3)
158 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
124 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼40% -60%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼39% -61%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
362 Points ∼100% +6%
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0)
345 Points ∼95% +1%
Average Apple A12 Bionic (343 - 347, n=3)
345 Points ∼95% +1%
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0)
343 Points ∼95%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
334 Points ∼92% -3%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
223 Points ∼62% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼45% -52%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼31% -68%

* ... smaller is better

Games

The Apple A12 Bionic GPU is powerful enough to play any modern game smoothly. The GPU, large display and powerful stereo speakers combine to create a great gaming experience. The effectively 720p display did not look low resolution either, but we appreciate that some people may see its limitation as a noticeable drawback. However, the XR’s lower resolution display allows the device to achieve better onscreen performance in benchmarks and games. Potentially then, the XR may become a better smartphone for gaming than the iPhone XS or XS Max as developers release more complex and graphically intensive games. 

Our test device achieved consistently high frame rates in PUBG Mobile and World of Tanks Blitz when played at the highest graphics settings, as measured by GameBench. In short, the XR is a great smartphone on which to play the latest triple-A mobile games. 

World of Tanks Blitz
World of Tanks Blitz
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile (HD)
0102030405060Tooltip
; 0.9.0: Ø40.5 (32-59)
World of Tanks Blitz (High)
0102030405060Tooltip
; 5.4.0: Ø59.4 (58-60)

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench Battery Test: T-Rex (OpenGL ES 2.0)
GFXBench Battery Test: T-Rex (OpenGL ES 2.0)
GFXBench Battery Test: Manhattan (OpenGL ES 3.1)
GFXBench Battery Test: Manhattan (OpenGL ES 3.1)

The XR remains mostly cool at idle, although there are some hot spots. Surface temperatures average 30.1 °C on our test device, which is on par with other devices. However, the bottom third of the display averages a noticeably hotter 34.8 °C and reaches a maximum of 35.9 °C, which is more than some devices reach when they are subjected to a sustained load.

Our test device is better at managing its heat under load than it does at idle though. Surface temperatures rise to a maximum of 40.3 °C but average out at an acceptable 36 °C. Overall, the XR should never feel uncomfortable to the touch, but it may get hotter than other devices at idle.

We also examined how well the XR performs under sustained load by running GFXBench battery tests for 30 times on a loop. We recorded our test device’s battery level and the frame rates for each benchmark loop to determine how well the XR can maintain its performance when subjected to a sustained load.

Most flagship-level devices handle the GFXBench T-Rex benchmark without issue but cannot maintain initial performance in the more complex Manhattan benchmark, which uses the OpenGL ES 3.1 API. Surprisingly, the XR succeeded where the iPhone XS failed and did not thermal throttle in either benchmark.

Max. Load
 37.5 °C
100 F
38.2 °C
101 F
35.9 °C
97 F
 
 35.5 °C
96 F
35.2 °C
95 F
35.8 °C
96 F
 
 34.2 °C
94 F
34.3 °C
94 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
Maximum: 38.2 °C = 101 F
Average: 35.6 °C = 96 F
34.9 °C
95 F
38.4 °C
101 F
40.3 °C
105 F
34.1 °C
93 F
36.9 °C
98 F
38.6 °C
101 F
33.2 °C
92 F
35.4 °C
96 F
35.5 °C
96 F
Maximum: 40.3 °C = 105 F
Average: 36.4 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  36.8 °C = 98 F | Room Temperature 21.1 °C = 70 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
Heat map of the front of the device under load
Heat map of the front of the device under load
Heat map of the back of the device under load
Heat map of the back of the device under load

Speakers

Pink Noise Curves
Pink Noise Curves

The XR has stereo speakers, with one on its underside and the other being its earpiece. Subjectively, the sound quality is listenable although the speakers start sounding rather shrill at high volumes. Incidentally, the XR’s speakers reach 87.3 dB(A), which is as loud as the iPhone XS’ speakers. Both devices have similar frequency ranges too, although the XS’ speakers drop off more sharply above 8 KHz than the XR’s. The XR reproduces these high frequencies at a lower volume than the iPhone XS, but its speakers sound shriller because its frequency curve is shallower.

Audio over Bluetooth and the included headphones are viable options too. Our test device maintained stable and interference-free Bluetooth audio connections with headphones and speakers throughout testing even when we moved the device away from its paired audio equipment.

Apple’s included headphones also worked well and will sound good enough for most people. Frustratingly, Apple no longer includes a Lightning to 3.5 mm jack adapter in the box, so those of you who have higher-quality headphones must buy an additional adapter if you do not have one already. We noticed no digital interference or other such issues when using Apple’s adapter and non-Apple headphones with our test device.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2027.429.82521.623.5312523.94031.230.35047.446.56331.329.28023.432.410030.736.512520.941.916019.254.92001652.725016.45731516.458.540015.658.850014.860.463014.862.680015.862.1100014.365.9125014.271.9160014.475.6200014.576.6250014.677.7315014.679.2400014.578.9500014.776.4630014.575.3800014.669.21000014.758.21250014.953.51600015.449.4SPL27.487.3N0.964.8median 14.8median 62.1Delta1.49.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseApple iPhone XR
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Apple iPhone XR audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 16% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life

Power Consumption

Overall, the XR has comparatively low power consumption. However, increasing our test device’s brightness to maximum increases power consumption beyond those of many of our comparison devices.

Frustratingly, Apple does not include a fast charger in the box even though the XR supports fast charging. By contrast, all our non-Apple comparison devices have quick chargers in the box. Apple and third-party suppliers sell more powerful chargers should you wish to charge your device faster. In our opinion, Apple should be including a quick charger in the box and not forcing people to pay $19 (£19) for a feature that is enabled on the device for which they have already paid at least $749 (£749).

The included charger takes around two-and-a-half hours to recharge our test device fully. The XR supports Qi wireless charging too and should charge on any Qi-compatible charger.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.09 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.61 / 2.67 / 2.69 Watt
Load midlight 4.34 / 5.66 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Apple iPhone XR
2942 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Apple iPhone XS
2658 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
Average Apple A12 Bionic
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
26%
-3%
-7%
11%
-10%
3%
5%
Idle Minimum *
0.61
0.65
-7%
0.65
-7%
0.95
-56%
0.95
-56%
0.72
-18%
0.853 (0.61 - 1, n=3)
-40%
0.88 (0.2 - 3.4, n=637)
-44%
Idle Average *
2.67
0.81
70%
1.97
26%
2.17
19%
1.34
50%
2.45
8%
1.803 (1.34 - 2.67, n=3)
32%
1.719 (0.6 - 6.2, n=636)
36%
Idle Maximum *
2.69
0.92
66%
2.01
25%
2.25
16%
1.48
45%
2.52
6%
1.957 (1.48 - 2.69, n=3)
27%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=637)
26%
Load Average *
4.34
4.76
-10%
4.29
1%
4.47
-3%
4
8%
3.84
12%
4.31 (4 - 4.6, n=3)
1%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=631)
7%
Load Maximum *
5.66
5.16
9%
9.05
-60%
6.15
-9%
5.13
9%
9.02
-59%
5.83 (5.13 - 6.7, n=3)
-3%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=631)
-2%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

We had expected that the XR would have good battery life and better battery life than the iPhone XS because of its larger battery and lower resolution display. However, our test device exceeded our expectations. The XR sits atop our comparison table, which is outstanding considering its battery capacity in relation to some of our comparison devices.

The most useful of our battery tests for comparing battery runtimes between devices are our H.264 video loop and Wi-Fi battery life tests, because we set the display brightness at 150 cd/m² for all our test devices. The Galaxy S9iPhone XS and iPhone 8 Plus cannot get close to the runtimes that the XR achieves in these tests despite having similar battery capacities. Moreover, the Huawei Mate 20 Pro and the Xiaomi Pocophone F1 fall short of our test device too, despite having 1,058 mAh and 1,258 mAh larger batteries respectively.

Overall, the XR has class-leading battery life and only finished second to the Mate 20 Pro in our battery life under load test. The Mate 20 Pro lasted 12 minutes longer in this test with its 1,258 mAh larger battery, which demonstrates just how efficient the XR is at conserving its battery even when it is subjected to a sustained load. 

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
49h 29min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Safari Mobile 12)
15h 10min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 51min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 30min
Apple iPhone XR
2942 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Apple iPhone XS
2658 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
Battery Runtime
-47%
-17%
-17%
-31%
-27%
Reader / Idle
2969
1182
-60%
2088
-30%
1747
-41%
1442
-51%
2085
-30%
H.264
1011
609
-40%
936
-7%
854
-16%
745
-26%
733
-27%
WiFi v1.3
910
474
-48%
808
-11%
767
-16%
570
-37%
657
-28%
Load
270
164
-39%
220
-19%
282
4%
245
-9%
211
-22%

Pros

+ bright and colour accurate display
+ powerful SoC
+ IP67-certified
+ dual-SIM (eSIM)
+ decent rear-facing camera
+ wireless charging
+ good mobile frequency coverage
+ excellent battery life

Cons

- location accuracy could be more precise
- only 12 months warranty
- non-expandable memory
- limited NFC functionality
- no fast charger included in the box
- no headphone jack

Verdict

The Apple iPhone XR review.
The Apple iPhone XR review.

The Apple iPhone XR shares many of its components with the more expensive iPhone XS series, including the same SoC, main camera, Face ID system, dual-SIM functionality and wireless charging among other things. Apple has compromised in some areas though like the lower IP rating, the lesser modem and a lower resolution LCD display. The main camera also lacks the XS-series optical zoom and is missing some of their portrait mode features too.

The iPhone XR is a cheaper and more colourful version of the XS-series. The XR shares much of its hardware with its more expensive siblings without having to compromise in key areas to save on price.

The lower resolution LCD panel is a red herring in our opinion. It does not use PWM to regulate display brightness like the XS-series do, which may cause some people to suffer from eye strain and headaches. Moreover, its lower resolution improves battery life massively while not sacrificing image quality.

The price difference between the XR and the iPhone XS is huge. We also see no tangible disadvantages that would prevent us from recommending it over its more expensive siblings. Its larger size may make it less appealing than the XS for some people, but that is a matter of taste. Overall, the iPhone XR is better value for money than either the iPhone XS or the XS Max.

Apple iPhone XR - 11/05/2018 v6
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
92%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
96%
Connectivity
46 / 60 → 77%
Weight
89%
Battery
98%
Display
92%
Games Performance
73 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
87 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 91 → 79%
Camera
86%
Average
84%
90%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 7 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Apple iPhone XR Smartphone Review
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-10-28 (Update: 2018-11- 8)