Gigaset GX4 Review: The sustainable rugged smartphone
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78.1 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2023 | Gigaset GX4 Helio G99, Mali-G57 MP2 | 270 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.10" | 1560x720 | |
| 81.9 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2022 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 235 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2408x1080 | |
| 81.1 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2021 | Nokia XR20 SD 480, Adreno 619 | 248 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 74.3 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2023 | Blackview BV5200 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300 | 268 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 1600x720 |
Case and features: Gigaset GX4 comes with IP68 and MIL-STD-810H ratings
The Gigaset GX4 is unmistakably a rugged smartphone, but it is less bulky than many other models from China. With IP68 certification, it is dust- and waterproof. The resistance according to MIL-STD-810H seems to primarily refer to the shock resistance, but Gigaset unfortunately does not provide exact details. The smartphone is not exactly light, but it still feels good in the hand. The build quality is convincing, and the material impression is also quite good. Corning Gorilla Glass 5 is used on the front.
The polycarbonate back is removable and allows access to the 5,000 mAh battery, which can be replaced without tools. The two SIM slots and the micro-SD card slot are also located under the cover. The slot is not one of the fastest and unfortunately does not support an exFAT file system.
Not only the small status LED on the front is practical, but the ring around the camera can also light up for incoming messages. Alternatively, it can also be used for the flashlight function.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 58.9, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro (Angelbird V60) | |
| Nokia XR20 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Blackview BV5200 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Gigaset GX4 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation: Two feature updates and five years of security patches
The Gigaset GX4 supports Wi-Fi 5, which is not the most modern and fastest standard, but it performs quite stably in the test with our reference Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 router. A big compromise in terms of mobile connectivity has to be made because the GX4 does not support 5G and the frequency band coverage is also just limited to the common bands in Europe.
The voice quality of the Gigaset phone is quite good when held to the ear, but great expectations should not be placed on the noise suppression. The speaker mode does not have a particularly long microphone range and the user sounds audibly hollow when using it.
Although Android 12 is not the latest version of Google's operating system, an update to Android 13 and Android 14 will follow in the future. Gigaset also promises a security patch supply of up to five years after market launch — exemplary.
The visually striking function key, which can be assigned up to three different tasks in the settings, seems practical. This includes starting a sound recording, taking a screenshot, controlling the flashlight, dialing the emergency call, or invoking any app. The power button is found on the opposite side, where the fingerprint sensor is also integrated. This usually works reliably. Alternatively, or additionally, facial recognition can be set up via the front-facing camera.
| Networking | |
| Gigaset GX4 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Blackview BV5200 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
Cameras - 48 MPix without bells and whistles
The front-facing camera of the Gigaset GX4 offers a solid imaging performance, but likes to overdo it with the contrasts. Videos can be recorded in Full HD (30 FPS) at best.
The main camera takes decent pictures in sufficient light, only zoom shots are hardly usable. An additional ultra-wide-angle lens is available, which can also be used as a macro lens. The quality is satisfactory, but not overwhelming. At least a portrait, a night and a pro mode are available, the latter also allows saving RAW data.
Videos with the main camera are only recorded with 30 frames per second, usually in Full HD. If you need more resolution, you can also use the unusual QHD format.
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.
HauptkameraHauptkameraUltraweitwinkel5-facher ZoomLow-Light
Display: Bright 60 Hz IPS panel
The IPS panel of the Gigaset GX4 measures 6.1-inches and only offers the 720p HD resolution as well as a fixed refresh rate of 60 Hz. The brightness is identical both in a pure white display (645 cd/m²) as well as in the APL18 measurement. It also makes little difference whether the ambient light sensor is active, or the brightness is controlled manually. Thus, decent readability is ensured outdoors as long as it is not in the blazing sun.
The black value is slightly increased, but the contrasts remain appealingly crisp due to the good luminosity. The minimum brightness is also on a very good level. The color reproduction is very cool in all profiles, but this does not seem bothersome in everyday use.
The lack of pulse width modulation for brightness control is also positive.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 645 cd/m²
Contrast: 1402:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 8.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.86
ΔE Greyscale 11.2 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
94% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.08
| Gigaset GX4 IPS, 1560x720, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro PLS, 2408x1080, 6.6" | Nokia XR20 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Blackview BV5200 IPS, 1600x720, 6.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 57% | 50% | 21% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 70.38 ? | 31 ? 56% | 36 ? 49% | 45.2 ? 36% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 32.8 ? | 14 ? 57% | 16 ? 51% | 31.2 ? 5% |
| PWM Frequency | 1163 ? | |||
| Screen | -3% | 27% | 6% | |
| Brightness middle | 645 | 510 -21% | 599 -7% | 400 -38% |
| Brightness | 602 | 495 -18% | 598 -1% | 405 -33% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 92 6% | 99 14% | 80 -8% |
| Black Level * | 0.46 | 0.46 -0% | 0.33 28% | 0.28 39% |
| Contrast | 1402 | 1109 -21% | 1815 29% | 1429 2% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 8.2 | 7.41 10% | 4.52 45% | 5.8 29% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 15 | 13.26 12% | 7.6 49% | 10.77 28% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 11.2 | 10.6 5% | 4.2 62% | 7.7 31% |
| Gamma | 2.08 106% | 2.518 87% | 2.279 97% | 2.107 104% |
| CCT | 10614 61% | 10050 65% | 7309 89% | 8415 77% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 27% /
9% | 39% /
32% | 14% /
9% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 32.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11.67 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21.13 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 70.38 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 31.45 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 38.93 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 99 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.4 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| 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 8439 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life: Up to three days on a single charge
The Gigaset GX4 is powered by a MediaTek Helio G99 with 4 GB LPDDR4x working memory. Some added RAM would certainly have been better in view of the rugged smartphone's potentially long lifespan. However, the everyday performance is quite decent, and most apps run pleasantly smooth.
The surface temperatures remain low at all times. Even under constant load, the GX4 does not even get lukewarm. The SoC also has no problems with the generated heat and delivers a constant performance.
The mono speaker delivers a decent sound output, but is certainly not an entertainment performer. Media is better consumed via headphones. The most common audio codecs (SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, LDAC) are supported wirelessly via Bluetooth, and a very low-noise audio jack is available via cable (signal-to-noise ratio: 90.41 dBFS).
The large 5,000 mAh battery battery helps the Gigaset GX4 to achieve long runtimes. In the test, the smartphone also proved to be very frugal in standby, so it should be possible to go three days without recharging in moderate use.
| Gigaset GX4 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | Nokia XR20 | Blackview BV5200 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 28% | 5% | -79% | -22% | 220% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 672.59 | 841.6 25% | 485 -28% | 253.4 -62% | 696 ? 3% | 2054 ? 205% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 256.9 | 484.7 89% | 452 76% | 57.5 -78% | 224 ? -13% | 1667 ? 549% |
| Random Read 4KB | 171.26 | 170.6 0% | 174.8 2% | 22.2 -87% | 137.2 ? -20% | 286 ? 67% |
| Random Write 4KB | 207.62 | 204.2 -2% | 146.2 -30% | 21.1 -90% | 84.7 ? -59% | 327 ? 57% |
Temperature
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.5 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.8 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Gigaset GX4 | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Gigaset GX4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
Loudspeaker
Gigaset GX4 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 74.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 74.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 74.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Gigaset GX4 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (575 - 3244, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Blackview BV5200 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
Pros
Cons
Verdict: Gigaset GX4 with strong core competencies
The Gigaset GX4 is a good and particularly rugged everyday companion. High-end features or 5G are not found here, but the rugged smartphone convinces with a conclusive overall concept. This is especially true for sustainability, since the outer packaging does not contain any plastic and is made of cardboard. In addition, there is a replaceable battery and a long update supply, which is usually not obligatory in this price range. In case of a defect, Gigaset has you covered with enough number of service centers, especially in Europe.
The Gigaset GX4 is a robust everyday companion with enormous endurance.
Compromises have to be made when it comes to the display as the GX4 is a bit old-fashioned in this aspect with a 720p resolution and 60 Hz refresh rate. In addition, it does not have DRM certification, so correspondingly protected content can only be consumed in standard definition. The exFAT file system for the optional mircoSD is also not supported.
Considering its price, the Gigaset GX4 offers a good overall package. If you want a bit more of everything, you should take a look at the Gigaset GX6 but will have to pay more. The situation is similar when it comes to the Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro.
Price and availability
The Gigaset GX4 can be purchased directly from the Gigaset store, but is also available from most other retailers and Amazon.
Gigaset GX4
- 03/30/2023 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Price comparison
