Notebookcheck Logo

Cubot Pocket Smartphone Review: Extremely handy Android phone for little money

So small and almost a designer phone. The screen of the Cubot Pocket measures just 4 inches, making it ideal for small hands and narrow pockets. Cubot's ultra-handy Android phones are not quite as cheap as they used to be, but is the Pocket still worth it?
ARM Android Smartphone
Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket (Pocket Series)
Processor
UNISOC Tiger T310 4 x 1.8 - 2 GHz
Graphics adapter
PowerVR GE8300
Memory
4 GB 
Display
4.00 inch 18:9, 1080 x 540 pixel 302 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: audio cia USB-C, Card Reader: microSD (shared, up to 128GB) , NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B19/​B20/​B40) , Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 12.5 x 119 x 58 ( = 0.49 x 4.69 x 2.28 in)
Battery
3000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/​2.0, phase comparison-AF, LED-flash, Videos @1080p
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix
Additional features
charger, USB-C cable, headset, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
128 g ( = 4.52 oz / 0.28 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
169 Euro
Links
Cubot homepage
Cubot notebook section
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
75.3 %
07/2022
Cubot Pocket
T310, PowerVR GE8300		128 g64 GB eMMC Flash4.00"1080x540
73.5 %
02/2021
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300		123 g32 GB eMMC Flash4.00"1080x540
86.1 %
04/2022
Apple iPhone SE 2022
A15, A15 GPU 5-Core		144 g64 GB SSD4.70"1334x750
77.6 %
05/2022
Realme C35
T616, Mali-G57 MP1		189 g64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.60"2408x1080

Case and features: This would-be designer phone actually looks chic

There are only a few manufacturers that still produce really handy smartphones with relatively small screens. These include Apple with its iPhone minis and iPhone SEs, and the lesser-known manufacturer Cubot from Shenzhen, China. While the phones have been known for the last few years as King Kong Mini, and have focused on robustness, the Cubot Pocket aspires to be a bit more stylish — like a lifestyle accessory next to the latest fashion magazine.

Cubot has adapted the exterior of its very compact phone to that effect. It still has a rubberized back, but now in chic colors like lime green with gold or black with red metal frames. Interestingly, the visible screws, which are actually more common in resistant ruggedized phones, also give a chic industrial touch.

The Pocket is once again significantly smaller and lighter than an iPhone SE 2022 but it is also considerably thicker: 12.1 mm is no longer what we are used to from modern phones. The phone feels good in the hand, but crunches quietly when pressure is applied to the back somewhat diminishing the quality impression.

Cubot charges €169 for its phone, which is considerably more than for the Cubot King Kong Mini 2 that retails for €119. But you still get 64 GB of storage and NFC for mobile payment services.

A microSD card reader is on board for memory expansion, and it is on par with other inexpensive smartphones in terms of speed. 

Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket
Cubot Pocket

Size comparison

❌
164.4 mm / 6.47 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs138.4 mm / 5.45 inch 67.3 mm / 2.65 inch 7.3 mm / 0.2874 inch 144 g0.3175 lbs119 mm / 4.69 inch 58 mm / 2.28 inch 12.5 mm / 0.4921 inch 128 g0.2822 lbs119 mm / 4.69 inch 58 mm / 2.28 inch 12.1 mm / 0.4764 inch 123 g0.2712 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs
SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.9 - 77, n=99, last 2 years)
28.3 MB/s +40%
Realme C35
  (Angelbird V60)
20.5 MB/s +1%
Cubot Pocket
  (Angelbird V60)
20.2 MB/s

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip
Cubot Pocket PowerVR GE8300, T310, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø31.7 (16.4-44.2)
Realme C35 Mali-G57 MP1, T616, 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø37.9 (18.7-45.1)
Cubot Pocket PowerVR GE8300, T310, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø71.8 (30.2-82.7)
Realme C35 Mali-G57 MP1, T616, 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø78.4 (34.6-83.9)

Communication, software and operation: LTE and Wi-Fi 4 only

LTE is available in the Cubot Pocket, but only a few frequencies are accessible. Although our review sample, which was designed for the European market, will probably be able to access mobile internet in Europe most of the time, things may get difficult difficult when traveling to distant countries.

WiFi 4 is the fastest WLAN standard that the Cubot Pocket can handle. It achieves typical transmission rates, but we feel higher data receive speeds could have been possible. The phone cannot compete with the likes of the iPhone SEs, which are in a completely different performance and price class.

Android 11 is on board, and the manufacturer hasn't change anything in the software, so you can easily find your way around. Buttons and the keyboard feel somewhat tiny on the small screen, but you can usually find the right spot even with big hands thanks to the accurate touchscreen. There is no fingerprint sensor for unlocking, but software-based face recognition is available via the front-facing camera.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
802.11a/b/g/n
324 (317min - 329max) MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
802.11a/b/g/n
329 (307min - 338max) MBit/s
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Apple iPhone SE 2022
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
888 (869min - 906max) MBit/s +141%
Cubot Pocket
802.11a/b/g/n
368 (355min - 378max) MBit/s
Realme C35
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
347 (309min - 366max) MBit/s -6%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Apple iPhone SE 2022
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
746 (599min - 768max) MBit/s +255%
Realme C35
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
244 (179min - 255max) MBit/s +16%
Cubot Pocket
802.11a/b/g/n
210 (204min - 215max) MBit/s
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360Tooltip
Cubot Pocket; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø209 (204-215)
Cubot Pocket; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø368 (355-378)

Cameras: For snapshots only, please

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

In contrast to the King Kong Mini 2, whose camera had a dubious use anyways, the Cubot Pocket offers a 16 MP camera, which should be sufficient for everyday use. However, the camera seems overstrained in normal daylight and burns out bright areas or takes quite dark pictures. Details are somewhat recognizable but are mostly muddy.

The Cubot Pocket's camera is not able to brighten very dark areas in low light, and the image sharpness leaves much to be desired here as well. Compared to the photos from the Cubot Pocket, the camera of the similarly priced realme C35 seems at least a class above. Our test device only offers basic imaging performance.

The front-facing 5 MP camera also needs very good light to take decent selfies. The subject can be recognized in our test picture, but many details are lost and only very coarse structures are partly shown in darker areas.

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.

Hauptkamera BlumeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low Light
click to load images
ColorChecker
17.2 ∆E
16.2 ∆E
19.7 ∆E
21.2 ∆E
19.1 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
18.5 ∆E
16.4 ∆E
17.4 ∆E
15.8 ∆E
16 ∆E
19 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
17 ∆E
19.3 ∆E
14.1 ∆E
17.5 ∆E
16.2 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
14.2 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Cubot Pocket: 14.85 ∆E min: 2.09 - max: 21.24 ∆E
ColorChecker
30 ∆E
55.5 ∆E
40.2 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
46.1 ∆E
62.8 ∆E
54.2 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
44.6 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
65.5 ∆E
64.5 ∆E
31.7 ∆E
48.1 ∆E
38.2 ∆E
77.1 ∆E
45 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
94.8 ∆E
71.7 ∆E
52.9 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Cubot Pocket: 47.61 ∆E min: 13.91 - max: 94.84 ∆E

Display: Bright IPS screen in the Cubot Pocket

Subpixel matrix
Subpixel matrix

The IPS screen with a rather low resolution only offers a quarter of the pixels of the realme C35, but this seems OK on the small screen and leads to a sufficiently accurate display. The maximum brightness of 632 cd/m² is good on average, and the screen is also quite evenly illuminated.

We did not notice any PWM. As is common for IPS screens, the response times are a bit longer. In our measurements with the spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software, we found that strong color tones and browns are displayed highly inaccurately whereas the grayscale levels are quite accurate only being a bit too bright at most.

635
cd/m²		620
cd/m²		613
cd/m²
654
cd/m²		628
cd/m²		610
cd/m²
641
cd/m²		652
cd/m²		632
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 654 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 631.7 cd/m² Minimum: 11.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 628 cd/m²
Contrast: 1102:1 (Black: 0.57 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.23 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
83.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.136
Cubot Pocket
IPS, 1080x540, 4.00		Cubot King Kong Mini 2
IPS, 1080x540, 4.00		Apple iPhone SE 2022
Retina HD, IPS, 1334x750, 4.70		Realme C35
IPS, 2408x1080, 6.60
Response Times
-18%
-28%
-28%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
34 ?(17, 17)
46 ?(23, 23)
-35%
56 ?(27, 29)
-65%
50 ?(29, 21)
-47%
Response Time Black / White *
22 ?(10, 12)
22 ?(7, 15)
-0%
20 ?(7, 13)
9%
24 ?(9, 13)
-9%
PWM Frequency
354.6 ?(15)
Screen
-31%
28%
-25%
Brightness middle
628
624
-1%
662
5%
585
-7%
Brightness
632
633
0%
647
2%
558
-12%
Brightness Distribution
93
90
-3%
92
-1%
89
-4%
Black Level *
0.57
0.87
-53%
0.4
30%
0.6
-5%
Contrast
1102
717
-35%
1655
50%
975
-12%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
4.23
5.21
-23%
1.44
66%
4.4
-4%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
8.81
10.59
-20%
4.74
46%
8.77
-0%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
2.3
4.8
-109%
1.7
26%
5.9
-157%
Gamma
2.136 103%
2.585 85%
2.179 101%
2.228 99%
CCT
6945 94%
6953 93%
6746 96%
8001 81%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-25% / -28%
0% / 17%
-27% / -26%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ
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
22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10 ms rise
↘ 12 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 42 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
   ↔    Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 40 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ
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 17903 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN color space sRGB
CalMAN color space sRGB
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions and battery life: Handy Cubot Pocket lasts long

As you would expect in this price range, the Unisoc Tiger T310 in the Cubot Pocket is an SoC for entry-level devices. It represents a significant performance leap compared to the MediaTek Helio A22 in the Cubot King Kong Mini 2, but it cannot keep up with the Tiger T616 in the realme C35. Overall, the performance is not quite up to date even for such a cheap phone.

The system runs smoothly in everyday use, but the weak performance is noticeable by way of stutters or longer wait times as soon as things gets more demanding. The eMMC flash is also very slow, and the realme C35 is more convincing in real-world storage performance due to its UFS memory.

Despite the not-so-high performance, the system heats up noticeably over the entire front under longer load. However, it does not get as hot as the Cubot King Kong Mini 2.

In the Pink noise test, the speakers cannot convince our software system. The sound values recorded by our special microphone fluctuate too far away from the optimal median. In practice, songs sound quite flat with no bass. However, the sound is not so trebly that it would seem unpleasant. There is no 3.5 mm port for audio output — users have to use the USB-C port or Bluetooth.

The 3000 mAh battery can be charged via the included charger with a maximum of 10 W. In view of the small battery, this is enough to fully charge the Cubot Pocket in about 1.5 hours. The battery lasts for 16:34 hours according to our WLAN test, so you only have to plug it in every other day during normal use.

Geekbench 5.5 | PCMark for Android | 3DMark | GFXBench
Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
376 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
134 Points -64%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
1741 Points +363%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
298 Points -21%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
376 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 2138, n=220, last 2 years)
911 Points +142%
Multi-Core (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
756 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
439 Points -42%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
4788 Points +533%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1184 Points +57%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
756 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (473 - 6681, n=220, last 2 years)
2988 Points +295%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
6866 Points
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
8066 Points +17%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
6866 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4761 - 21385, n=215, last 2 years)
11771 Points +71%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
704 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
456 Points -35%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1710 Points +143%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
704 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (704 - 23024, n=114, last 2 years)
9351 Points +1228%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
607 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
400 Points -34%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1518 Points +150%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
607 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 45492, n=113, last 2 years)
16352 Points +2594%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
1590 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
895 Points -44%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
3063 Points +93%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
1590 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1075 - 8749, n=113, last 2 years)
4426 Points +178%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
406 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
245 Points -40%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1103 Points +172%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
406 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (286 - 7890, n=106, last 2 years)
2738 Points +574%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
335 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
203 Points -39%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
935 Points +179%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
335 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (240 - 9814, n=106, last 2 years)
2733 Points +716%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
1572 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
869 Points -45%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
2959 Points +88%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
1572 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (858 - 4679, n=106, last 2 years)
3156 Points +101%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
404 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
260 Points -36%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1109 Points +175%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
404 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (317 - 20131, n=183, last 2 years)
6705 Points +1560%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
333 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
216 Points -35%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
939 Points +182%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
333 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (267 - 33376, n=182, last 2 years)
9675 Points +2805%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
1588 Points
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
899 Points -43%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
3036 Points +91%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
1588 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (938 - 8480, n=182, last 2 years)
4216 Points +165%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
9.1 fps
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
6.1 fps -33%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
60 fps +559%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
5.4 fps -41%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
9.1 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.6 - 123, n=227, last 2 years)
43.9 fps +382%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
3 fps
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2 fps -33%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
95.9 fps +3097%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
6.1 fps +103%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
3 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.3 - 229, n=227, last 2 years)
64 fps +2033%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
5.9 fps
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
3.9 fps -34%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
60 fps +917%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
3.4 fps -42%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
5.9 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.8 - 119, n=227, last 2 years)
32.7 fps +454%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Cubot Pocket
UNISOC Tiger T310, PowerVR GE8300, 4096
1.1 fps
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
0.7 fps -36%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 4096
39 fps +3445%
Realme C35
UNISOC T616, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
2.2 fps +100%
Average UNISOC Tiger T310
  ()
1.1 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.85 - 94, n=227, last 2 years)
25.5 fps +2218%
Cubot PocketCubot King Kong Mini 2Cubot Kingkong MiniRealme C35Realme C31Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-32%
-32%
215%
57%
8%
497%
Sequential Read 256KB
261.6
275.5
5%
246.9
-6%
907.1
247%
478.8
83%
273 ?(95.6 - 704, n=201)
4%
1508 ?(226 - 4512, n=218, last 2 years)
476%
Sequential Write 256KB
186.9
137.8
-26%
129.7
-31%
271.1
45%
131.9
-29%
176.8 ?(40 - 274, n=201)
-5%
1118 ?(57.5 - 3678, n=218, last 2 years)
498%
Random Read 4KB
32.7
25.5
-22%
26.9
-18%
137.8
321%
89
172%
59.1 ?(9.58 - 148.5, n=201)
81%
247 ?(22.2 - 543, n=218, last 2 years)
655%
Random Write 4KB
59.5
9.4
-84%
17
-71%
206.4
247%
61.5
3%
31.7 ?(2.34 - 146.9, n=201)
-47%
272 ?(13 - 709, n=218, last 2 years)
357%

Temperature

Max. Load
 41.1 °C
106 F		42.4 °C
108 F		42.5 °C
109 F		 
 41.4 °C
107 F		42.3 °C
108 F		42.8 °C
109 F		 
 41.8 °C
107 F		41.5 °C
107 F		42.2 °C
108 F		 
Maximum: 42.8 °C = 109 F
Average: 42 °C = 108 F
37.2 °C
99 F		38.6 °C
101 F		35.5 °C
96 F
37.2 °C
99 F		39 °C
102 F		36.2 °C
97 F
36.6 °C
98 F		39.3 °C
103 F		34.7 °C
94 F
Maximum: 39.3 °C = 103 F
Average: 37.1 °C = 99 F
Power Supply (max.)  40.6 °C = 105 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.8 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.3 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front
Heatmap back side
Heatmap back side

Loudspeaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.741.92535.737.33127.329.44033.332.25037.434.46325.224.18018.216.910020.520.112513.514.316017.329.320013.535.425013.542.331513.148.540012.951.550013.358.663015.462.880014.165.3100012.970.512509.672.9160010.671.4200010.369.525001169315012.666.6400015.265.7500016.868.3630016.463.7800016.553.91000016.650.81250015.957.21600016.654.8SPL26.380.1N0.742.7median 13.5median 58.6Delta2.412.332.827.426.227.423.322.921.9252825.819.924.419.125.519.928.616.53919.64917.549.317.54813.951.513.952.815.858.815.260.71466.31468.613.97213.473.913.874.614.375.91477.114.576.914.677.914.57614.772.615.166.51558.314.847.126.586.40.862.5median 14.6median 66.31.111.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseCubot PocketApple iPhone SE 2020
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Cubot Pocket audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (16% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 71% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 84% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 13% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Apple iPhone SE 2020 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Battery life

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Cubot King Kong Mini 2
3000 mAh
1072 min +8%
Cubot Pocket
3000 mAh
994 min
Realme C35
5000 mAh
958 min -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (424 - 2844, n=229, last 2 years)
914 min -8%
Apple iPhone SE 2022
2018 mAh
769 min -23%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
16h 34min

Pros

+ very handy
+ nicely designed
+ NFC for mobile payments
+ bright screen without blue cast

Cons

- thick screen edges
- significant heating under load
- camera quickly overtaxed
- lame memory
- moderate price-performance ratio

Verdict: Unrivaled compact size that could be cheaper

In review: Cubot Pocket.
In review: Cubot Pocket.

The Cubot Pocket is a small device with a big problem. The significant price increase compared to the King Kong Mini 2 makes it less attractive since there are much more powerful phones in its price range. However, if you are looking for a really handy phone, there are hardly any alternatives at the moment — even an iPhone SE is already considerably larger.

The camera of the Cubot Pocket is only sufficient for snapshots in terms of quality, but music via the speaker is quite alright as long as you don't have high expectations. The small battery lasts for a long time and the bright screen is also suitable for use in well-lit environments. Cubot has actually managed the design quite well, and it even exudes a certain elegance.

The Cubot Pocket is so handy that it hardly has any rivals. The design is pleasing, but the camera is only usable for very simple needs.

All in all, you should probably consider investing about €200 more in an iPhone SE 2020 if you are looking for a handy phone Apple iPhone SE 2020 Review - Small phone with a fast-beating heartthat is a lot more powerful with guaranteed software support for a few years.

Price and availability

The Cubot Pocket is available in Central Europe at the time of testing at amazon.de for the manufacturer's price of €169.99. Alternatively, you can also order it from the manufacturer's store at aliexpress.com with shipping from Europe and save a few Euros.

Cubot Pocket - 07/10/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
80%
Keyboard
64 / 75 → 85%
Pointing Device
86%
Connectivity
40 / 70 → 57%
Weight
94%
Battery
91%
Display
85%
Games Performance
5 / 64 → 7%
Application Performance
63 / 86 → 73%
Temperature
88%
Noise
100%
Audio
56 / 90 → 62%
Camera
43%
Average
69%
75%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

More articles related to this device

Cubot Pocket (Pocket Series)

Pricecompare

Read all 9 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Cubot Pocket Smartphone Review: Extremely handy Android phone for little money
Florian Schmitt, 2022-07-18 (Update: 2022-07-18)