Notebookcheck

LG K30 Smartphone Review – Cheap smartphone without bells and whistles

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 11/30/2019

An old Korean. The LG K30 is an affordable entry-level phone that still has a lot to offer in terms of battery life and camera. Whether the manufacturer can do it at a price of just 129 euros, you'll find out in the test.

LG K30
LG K30 (K Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
5.45 inch 18:9, 1440 x 720 pixel 295 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, , 8.3 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Proximity sensor
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B38), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 146.9 x 71.5 ( = 0.33 x 5.78 x 2.81 in)
Battery
3000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0, Contrast AF, LED Flash, Videos @1080p/30fps
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/​2.2
Additional features
Speakers: Mono loudspeaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, cleaning cloth, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat 4 (150Mbps/50MBps); SAR values: 0.464W/kg (head), 1.466W/kg (body); MIL-STD-810G certified, fanless
Weight
148 g ( = 5.22 oz / 0.33 pounds), Power Supply: 57 g ( = 2.01 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
129 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Comparison Units

BewertungRating VersionDatumModellGewichtLaufwerkGroesseAufloesungPreis ab
70%711/2019LG K30
425, Adreno 308
148 g16 GB eMMC Flash5.45"1440x720
73%706/2019Huawei Y5 2019
Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300
146 g16 GB eMMC Flash5.71"1520x720
75%711/2019Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320
149.7 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.1"1560x720
75%708/2019Samsung Galaxy A10
7884B, Mali-G71 MP2
168 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.2"1520x720
83%608/2019Xiaomi Redmi 7A
439, Adreno 505
165 g16 GB eMMC Flash5.45"1440x720

Case, Equipment and Operation - Compact form factor

The LG K30 is not dissimilar to the Xiaomi Redmi 7A in terms of size and features and thus has a tough competitor. The case of both smartphones is still a bit old-fashioned with wide edges at the top and bottom and without notch. The LG smartphone is made of sturdy plastic and quite resistant, but it creaks audibly when twisted. According to the manufacturer it is certified according to MIL-STD810, although you should be careful here: The tests are not standardized and can be done by the manufacturer himself, so they don't say much about the resistance against humidity or impact. They should not be confused with real waterproofing. The smartphone is relatively compact and lightweight.

2 GB RAM and 16 GB mass memory are common in this class, but some devices already come with 32 GB mass memory, which is much longer than the limited memory of our test device. With microSD you can at least increase the space a bit. The smartphone also gets along with two SIM cards. Some advertising apps are pre-installed and can only be deactivated, which is a shame in view of the limited storage space. When it comes to WLAN, the speeds are average. There are only the most necessary LTE frequencies.

The touchscreen is not super-sensitive, but sufficiently sensitive for daily use, and there are occasional slight jerks. LG also offers a separate button for the Google Assistant for the cheap phones, which unfortunately can't be freely assigned. There is no fingerprint sensor and no face recognition.

LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30
LG K30

Size Comparison

155.6 mm / 6.13 inch 73.06 mm / 2.88 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 149.7 g0.33 lbs155.6 mm / 6.13 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 168 g0.3704 lbs146.3 mm / 5.76 inch 70.4 mm / 2.77 inch 9.6 mm / 0.378 inch 165 g0.3638 lbs147.1 mm / 5.79 inch 70.8 mm / 2.79 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 146 g0.3219 lbs146.9 mm / 5.78 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 148 g0.3263 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
802.11 b/g/n
68 (min: 52, max: 77) MBit/s ∼100% +23%
Huawei Y5 2019
802.11 b/g/n
63 (min: 56, max: 61) MBit/s ∼93% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
802.11 b/g/n
60 (min: 52, max: 64) MBit/s ∼88% +9%
LG K30
802.11 b/g/n
55.1 (min: 53, max: 56) MBit/s ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy A10
802.11 b/g/n
53.6 (min: 39, max: 60) MBit/s ∼79% -3%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG K30
802.11 b/g/n
55.6 (min: 52, max: 61) MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei Y5 2019
802.11 b/g/n
55.5 (min: 52, max: 59) MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
802.11 b/g/n
53.8 (min: 25, max: 57) MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A10
802.11 b/g/n
50.6 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼91% -9%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
802.11 b/g/n
46.6 (min: 36, max: 55) MBit/s ∼84% -16%
010203040506070Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø54.9 (53-56)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø55.5 (52-61)

Cameras - The essentials on board

Front camera recording
Front camera recording

Everything looks a little gloomy on the pictures of the main camera, which resolves with 8 megapixels. There's not much special equipment here, except for an LED flash. In the details, the pictures quickly appear noisy, the detail rendering is moderate and the pictures have a rather bluish hue. In dark areas there is a lack of brightening. In very low light, details are only rendered muddy. 

Videos can be recorded in 1080p at 30 fps. Here the picture quality is OK, but it sometimes takes a few seconds until the camera starts filming and the autofocus is not the fastest either. Brightness transitions occur in visible brightness levels. 

The front camera has a resolution of 5 megapixels, it is sufficient for snapshots and social media selffies, but in detail the pictures are unclean, have a blue cast and tend to color noise.

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 Photo
29 ∆E
53 ∆E
38.6 ∆E
35.9 ∆E
43.7 ∆E
62.9 ∆E
52.6 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
39.3 ∆E
27 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
63.4 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
47.4 ∆E
34.5 ∆E
70.9 ∆E
40.2 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
74.7 ∆E
67 ∆E
49.7 ∆E
35.7 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K30: 44.6 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 74.67 ∆E
ColorChecker Photo
7.4 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
6 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
7 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
2 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
0.7 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
4 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K30: 6.45 ∆E min: 0.69 - max: 10.56 ∆E
Test chart - Perfect lighting
Test chart - Perfect lighting
Test chart - 1 Lux

Display - Bright enough

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

With an average of 456 cd/m², the LG K30's IPS screen is bright enough for most environments, but there are also much brighter devices that are better suited for outdoor use, such as the Huawei Y5 2019. The black level and contrast are at a medium level for the class.

Colors have a distinct blue cast on the screen, but are surprisingly accurately displayed, so that you can at least roughly determine the printing colors of holiday photos on the display.

We do measure PWM, but with such a high frequency that nobody should notice it. The reaction times are also mediocre, at least for this price class.

450
cd/m²
456
cd/m²
477
cd/m²
435
cd/m²
460
cd/m²
476
cd/m²
439
cd/m²
449
cd/m²
465
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 477 cd/m² Average: 456.3 cd/m² Minimum: 4.87 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 460 cd/m²
Contrast: 979:1 (Black: 0.47 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.91 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.11
LG K30
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Huawei Y5 2019
IPS, 1520x720, 5.71
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
IPS, 1560x720, 6.1
Samsung Galaxy A10
IPS, 1520x720, 6.2
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Response Times
5%
-15%
-17%
-17%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
44 (23, 21)
30 (11, 19)
32%
53.6 (29.2, 24.4)
-22%
38 (19, 19)
14%
32 (15, 17)
27%
Response Time Black / White *
24 (9, 13)
14 (5, 9)
42%
26 (12.8, 13.2)
-8%
16 (5, 11)
33%
22 (11, 11)
8%
PWM Frequency
2500 (10)
1000 (10)
-60%
77 (10)
-97%
384.6 (10)
-85%
Screen
-14%
5%
-3%
-22%
Brightness middle
460
630
37%
453
-2%
451
-2%
533
16%
Brightness
456
593
30%
440
-4%
430
-6%
506
11%
Brightness Distribution
91
88
-3%
86
-5%
90
-1%
88
-3%
Black Level *
0.47
0.66
-40%
0.14
70%
0.22
53%
0.6
-28%
Contrast
979
955
-2%
3236
231%
2050
109%
888
-9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.91
5.79
-48%
7.2
-84%
5.44
-39%
5.6
-43%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.52
9.54
-46%
12.7
-95%
11.94
-83%
11.4
-75%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5
7
-40%
8.4
-68%
7.8
-56%
7.4
-48%
Gamma
2.11 104%
2.176 101%
1.95 113%
2.206 100%
2.212 99%
CCT
7565 86%
8420 77%
8296 78%
9149 71%
7974 82%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-5% / -9%
-5% / 1%
-10% / -7%
-20% / -21%

* ... smaller is better

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9 ms rise
↘ 13 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. » 34 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 21 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. » 65 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.4 ms).

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 detected 2500 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2500 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2500 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9347 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Colour accuracy
CalMAN Colour accuracy
CalMAN Greyscale
CalMAN Greyscale
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, Emissions and Battery life

The Snapdragon 425 as SoC has gotten on in years and so it's not surprising that the LG K30 can't keep up with other current smartphones in the price range in terms of performance. The difference is sometimes very big with up to 89% in Geekbench. The LG K30 can be operated somewhat smoothly, but apps start with a noticeable delay and there are also occasional jerkers. Our reference microSD Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 is read and written quite quickly, otherwise the internal memory is rather slow.

The warming under load is only slightly noticeable. The small mono loudspeaker at the lower edge doesn't offer any bass or even deep mid-range. On the other hand, it sounds quite acceptable even with music, but speech is already very high at maximum volume.

From the 3,000 mAh battery, LG gets out almost 11 hours of battery life in our WLAN test, which is a rather moderate value, but in itself is sufficient for a working day, and with economical use also for 2. Charging takes quite a long time with almost 3 hours.

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
3831 Points ∼71%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4195 Points ∼78% +10%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
5237 Points ∼98% +37%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
5136 Points ∼96% +34%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
4594 Points ∼86% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (2829 - 3831, n=18)
3299 Points ∼61% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=398)
5367 Points ∼100% +40%
Work performance score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
5253 Points ∼76%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
5616 Points ∼81% +7%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6922 Points ∼100% +32%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
6823 Points ∼99% +30%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
5880 Points ∼85% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (3681 - 5253, n=17)
4389 Points ∼63% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=565)
5831 Points ∼84% +11%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
916 Points ∼48%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
924 Points ∼49% +1%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1195 Points ∼63% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
1629 Points ∼86% +78%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
1594 Points ∼84% +74%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (375 - 916, n=17)
843 Points ∼44% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=434)
1905 Points ∼100% +108%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
301 Points ∼12%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
451 Points ∼19% +50%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
740 Points ∼31% +146%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
646 Points ∼27% +115%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
730 Points ∼30% +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (118 - 301, n=17)
244 Points ∼10% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=434)
2414 Points ∼100% +702%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
354 Points ∼17%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
509 Points ∼25% +44%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
808 Points ∼40% +128%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
746 Points ∼37% +111%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
830 Points ∼41% +134%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (145 - 354, n=17)
288 Points ∼14% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=434)
2027 Points ∼100% +473%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
944 Points ∼53%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
911 Points ∼52% -3%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1139 Points ∼65% +21%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
1674 Points ∼95% +77%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
1579 Points ∼89% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (622 - 944, n=18)
869 Points ∼49% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=526)
1765 Points ∼100% +87%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
297 Points ∼15%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
362 Points ∼18% +22%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
645 Points ∼33% +117%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
582 Points ∼30% +96%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
724 Points ∼37% +144%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (31 - 297, n=18)
69.7 Points ∼4% -77%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=525)
1967 Points ∼100% +562%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
350 Points ∼21%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
418 Points ∼25% +19%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
714 Points ∼42% +104%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
681 Points ∼40% +95%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
823 Points ∼48% +135%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (39 - 350, n=18)
86 Points ∼5% -75%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=528)
1697 Points ∼100% +385%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
11927 Points ∼79%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
15004 Points ∼100% +26%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
15069 Points ∼100% +26%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
11287 Points ∼75% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
12673 Points ∼84% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (3958 - 11927, n=18)
9933 Points ∼66% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=686)
14321 Points ∼95% +20%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
5778 Points ∼26%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7514 Points ∼33% +30%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
11349 Points ∼51% +96%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
11335 Points ∼51% +96%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
13510 Points ∼60% +134%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (2546 - 5778, n=18)
5330 Points ∼24% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=684)
22437 Points ∼100% +288%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
6526 Points ∼36%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8452 Points ∼47% +30%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
11921 Points ∼66% +83%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
11324 Points ∼63% +74%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
13315 Points ∼74% +104%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (2951 - 6526, n=18)
5908 Points ∼33% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=684)
18114 Points ∼100% +178%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
7.6 fps ∼20%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼36% +84%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
19 fps ∼49% +150%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
20 fps ∼52% +163%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
23 fps ∼60% +203%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (3.4 - 7.8, n=18)
7.42 fps ∼19% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=704)
38.4 fps ∼100% +405%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
14 fps ∼40%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
21 fps ∼60% +50%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
26 fps ∼74% +86%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
31 fps ∼89% +121%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
35 fps ∼100% +150%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (6.4 - 20, n=18)
13.4 fps ∼38% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=713)
28.3 fps ∼81% +102%
Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
1903 Points ∼40%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2436 Points ∼52% +28%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3369 Points ∼71% +77%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
3590 Points ∼76% +89%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
3068 Points ∼65% +61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (883 - 1939, n=18)
1761 Points ∼37% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=387)
4727 Points ∼100% +148%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K30
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 2048
666 Points ∼47%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
839 Points ∼59% +26%
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
780 Points ∼55% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A10
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 2048
1168 Points ∼82% +75%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
Qualcomm Snapdragon 439, Adreno 505, 2048
863 Points ∼60% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
  (541 - 692, n=18)
654 Points ∼46% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=387)
1429 Points ∼100% +115%
LG K30Huawei Y5 2019Motorola Moto E6 PlusSamsung Galaxy A10Xiaomi Redmi 7AAverage 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
0%
21%
19%
-1%
-39%
19%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
65.8 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
62.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
65.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
64.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
39.7 (6.38 - 65.8, n=131)
-40%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=436)
-25%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
85.6 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
81.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
82.54 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
78.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-8%
85.24 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
59 (8.1 - 87.7, n=131)
-31%
67.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=436)
-21%
Random Write 4KB
10.24
13.1
28%
17.41
70%
13.3
30%
9.6
-6%
7.9 (0.49 - 44.9, n=249)
-23%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
126%
Random Read 4KB
53.11
62.1
17%
61.71
16%
73.4
38%
57.8
9%
21.4 (2.49 - 62.1, n=249)
-60%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
-9%
Sequential Write 256KB
73.8
45.2
-39%
106.09
44%
101.7
38%
68.7
-7%
42.8 (8.74 - 106, n=249)
-42%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
35%
Sequential Read 256KB
261
272.1
4%
277.67
6%
296.4
14%
258
-1%
165 (9.66 - 294, n=249)
-37%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
7%

Temperature

Max. Load
 37.4 °C
99 F
36.1 °C
97 F
36.4 °C
98 F
 
 38.1 °C
101 F
36.5 °C
98 F
36.1 °C
97 F
 
 38.4 °C
101 F
36.5 °C
98 F
36.4 °C
98 F
 
Maximum: 38.4 °C = 101 F
Average: 36.9 °C = 98 F
34.2 °C
94 F
35.2 °C
95 F
36.7 °C
98 F
34.2 °C
94 F
35.5 °C
96 F
37 °C
99 F
34.5 °C
94 F
35.5 °C
96 F
38.4 °C
101 F
Maximum: 38.4 °C = 101 F
Average: 35.7 °C = 96 F
Power Supply (max.)  36.7 °C = 98 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.9 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.4 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.4 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.9 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.


Heat map of the top
Heat map of the top
Heat map of the bottom
Heat map of the bottom

Loudspeakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2043442536.837.53132.831.84033.732.45040.136.66331.332.98024.723.310025.622.812522.122.716019.921.720019.320.225017.222.631517.431.540017.140.850017.351.46301557.88001562100018.667.8125014.569.7160015.767.7200014.469.2250014.468.7315014.165.4400014.265500014.364.7630014.564.9800014.566.91000014.574.41250014.570.71600014.750SPL60.963.567.562.464.460.727.579.5N12.615.12015.51612.9141.7median 15median 64.7Delta1.514.845.347.540.340.135.640.240.339.242.740.534.333.627.226.628.529.926.332.524.440.123.441.621.446.720.554.2206019.864.918.771.118.474.423.573.717.474.117.47117.570.717.56916.962.116.96816.973.21779.91781.117.272.117.161.217.154.366.430.686.120.51.564.6median 17.5median 682.910.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseLG K30Samsung Galaxy A10
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
LG K30 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 41.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 83% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy A10 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life

LG K30
3000 mAh
Huawei Y5 2019
3020 mAh
Motorola Moto E6 Plus
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A10
3400 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 7A
4000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
659
709
8%
825
25%
753
14%
853
29%
663 (223 - 2636, n=627)
1%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 59min

Pros

+ good color representation of the screen
+ little warming
+ low weight
+ handy speaker

Cons

- slow SoC
- blue cast on screen
- pixel image details of the main camera

Verdict - A newer SoC would have helped

In review: LG K30.
In review: LG K30.

If LG had used a slightly more modern SoC as the heart of the LG K30, the small smartphone would have held its own better against the tough competition. The positive aspects are that the exterior is quite stable and the smartphone is handy and compact. The WLAN is quite fast in the transmitting direction, but loses speed when receiving, as we found in our tests with the reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12. The temperature development is within reasonable limits and the loudspeaker sounds at least passable when listening to music.

The screen is bright enough and quite true to color, even the blue tint is not as bad as on some competing devices. When it comes to cameras, there's what you need, you shouldn't expect miracles here, but rather acceptable image quality in bright light. The battery runtime is OK, but it can't inspire.

The LG K30 is cheap and compact, but its interior is outdated.

All in all, a smartphone that you can only really recommend at a lower price, for around 130 Euros, the competition offers significantly more battery life and performance.

LG K30 - 12/01/2019 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
56%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
83%
Connectivity
33 / 70 → 47%
Weight
93%
Battery
89%
Display
82%
Games Performance
5 / 64 → 7%
Application Performance
38 / 86 → 44%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
50 / 90 → 56%
Camera
40%
Average
63%
70%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > LG K30 Smartphone Review – Cheap smartphone without bells and whistles
Florian Schmitt, 2019-11-30 (Update: 2019-11-30)