Notebookcheck

Nokia 3.2 Smartphone Review: An Android One smartphone without Android One

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Alex Alderson), 06/26/2019

Big plans. The Nokia 3.2 brings a large IPS display, a modern design and Google Assistant integration to the party to outdo other budget smartphones. Android One makes the device an attractive option, but will its lack of a fingerprint sensor prove to be a deal breaker? Read on in this detailed review to find out.

Nokia 3.2

The Nokia 3 series has graced our offices before. First, we tested the eponymous Nokia 3, then the Nokia 3.1 and finally the Nokia 3.1 Plus. The latter showed that HMD Global had decided to take the series in a different direction, bringing large display phones to what had initially been a small phone series.

Now we have the Nokia 3.2, which is even larger than the Nokia 3.1 Plus. HMD Global has not released a Plus version this time, but perhaps it saw no reason to with the Nokia 3.2 already having a 6.26-inch display. The device starts at 149 Euros (~US$170) for the 16 GB version, rising by 10 Euros (~US$11) for the 32 GB model. This makes the Nokia 3.2 slightly cheaper than its direct predecessors, although you can pick up the Nokia 3.1 and Nokia 3.1 Plus for closer to 120 Euros (~US$137) and 130 Euros (~US$148), respectively.

We will compare the Nokia 3.2 against other comparably priced budget handsets, including its predecessors. Our comparison devices will include the Honor 8A, Huawei Y6 (2019) and Xiaomi Redmi 7.

Nokia 3.2 (3 Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
6.26 inch 19:9, 1520 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 8.9 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm headphone jack, Card Reader: up to 400 GB microSD cards, dedicated card slot, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, proximity sensor
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G: 850, 900, 1,800, 1900 MHz. 3G: B1, B5, B8. 4G: B1, B3, B5, B7, B8, B20, B28, B38, B40., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.6 x 159.4 x 76.2 ( = 0.34 x 6.28 x 3 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix , f/2.2, 1/3", 1.12 μm, Phase detection autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash, Videos at 1080p/30 FPS
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix , f/2.2, 27 mm, 1.12 μm
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the bottom edge of the device, Keyboard: virtual, Power adapter, USB cable, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat 4, 150 Mbps/50 Mbps. SAR values: 1.63 W/kg – Body, 0.24 W/kg – Head. FM radio, notification LED, fanless
Weight
181 g ( = 6.38 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 59 g ( = 2.08 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
159 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

Case

The Nokia 3.2 is much wider and longer than its predecessor. It is not much thicker though, but it is over 40 g heavier. Incidentally, the Nokia 3.2 is heavier than all our comparison devices too.

HMD Global currently sells the Nokia 3.2 in grey or black, both of which have plastic back cases. Its design is much simpler than the Nokia 3.1 too, which came in more daring colours and with a colour-accented frame. By contrast, the Nokia 3.2 has a much higher screen-to-body ratio thanks to its waterdrop notch, giving it a more contemporary look than its predecessor.

Overall, the Nokia 3.2 looks cheaper than the Nokia 3.1 Plus too, which is compounded by the omission of a fingerprint sensor and the single rear-facing camera. The former’s 500-mAh larger battery brings the two to within 1 g of each other though.

The Nokia 3.2 is surprisingly well-made despite the materials from which it is made. While we can temporarily deform the display by applying pressure to it, the back case does not twist or bend regardless of how hard we try to do so. A last point on the plastic back: Its shiny finish is a fingerprint magnet.

Nokia 3.2
Nokia 3.2
Nokia 3.2
Nokia 3.2
Nokia 3.2
Nokia 3.2

Size Comparison

159.4 mm / 6.28 inch 76.2 mm / 3 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 181 g0.399 lbs158.7 mm / 6.25 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs156.9 mm / 6.18 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs156.28 mm / 6.15 inch 73.5 mm / 2.89 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 150 g0.3307 lbs156.28 mm / 6.15 inch 73.5 mm / 2.89 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 150 g0.3307 lbs146.25 mm / 5.76 inch 68.65 mm / 2.7 inch 8.7 mm / 0.3425 inch 138 g0.3042 lbs

Connectivity

HMD Global currently sells the Nokia 3.2 in three variants. The cheaper of the two available here costs 159 Euros (~US$181) and comes with 32 GB of flash storage. There is also a 16 GB version that costs 10 Euros (~US$11) less. Both come with 2 GB of RAM. HMD Global sells a 3 GB of RAM version with 32 GB of storage and a fingerprint scanner too, but this is not available in Central Europe at the time of writing.

All variants have two nano-SIM slots and a dedicated microSD slot, meaning that you need not choose between dual-SIM functionality and microSD card expansion. Incidentally, the Nokia 3.2 supports the ExFAT file system, allowing it to read files larger than 4 GB.

The Nokia 3.2 supports Bluetooth 4.2 too, although it would have been nice to see Bluetooth 5.0 instead. The inclusion of an FM radio transmitter and a notification LED is useful at least.

Sadly, HMD Global has opted for a micro USB port rather than the reversible and more future-proofed USB Type-C. Worse still, the port does not hold cables tightly, so we occasionally found ourselves having to reconnect the charging cable during our tests.

Software

The Nokia 3.2 is an Android One-certified smartphone, meaning that Google rather than HMD Global supplies it with system and security updates. The former guarantees that it will roll out two major system updates and three years of security patch updates.

This is impressive stuff, especially considering that the Nokia 3.2 ships with Android 9 Pie. Hence, the device should receive Android 11, or whatever Google eventually calls it. Inexplicably, the company had only pushed February 1, 2019, security patches to our review unit when we tested it earlier this month, making them over four months outdated.

The OS contains no bloatware besides the usual set of Google apps, which is rare among budget smartphones. Oddly, HMD Global claims that it has optimised the display for streaming but has not certified it for streaming content in HD. Correspondingly, you can only stream DRM-protected content from services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix in standard definition (SD).

Software information
Software information
Default app drawer
Default app drawer
Default home screen
Default home screen

Communication & GPS

The Nokia 3.2 supports all modern Wi-Fi standards up to IEEE 802.11n. Our review unit averaged just 44.7 Mb/s in our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests with our Linksys EA8500 router though, putting it at the bottom of our comparison table. Overall, it finished on par with the Nokia 3.1 Plus and a way off the Nokia 3.1.

HMD Global has included the bare minimum LTE coverage for using the Nokia 3.2 in Europe. Correspondingly, you may find it difficult to connect to an LTE network outside that region, so the Nokia 3.2 may not be for you if you regularly make intercontinental trips.

The device supports LTE Cat.4 for up to 150 Mb/s download and 50 Mb/s upload speeds. Our review unit maintained decent network reception on the German D2 network during our tests in built-up areas.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=449)
228 MBit/s ∼100% +410%
Nokia 3.1
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750N, 16 GB eMMC Flash
112 MBit/s ∼49% +151%
Huawei Y6 2019
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
69 (min: 61, max: 66) MBit/s ∼30% +54%
Honor 8A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 32 GB eMMC Flash
66 (min: 58, max: 65) MBit/s ∼29% +48%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 16 GB eMMC Flash
55.9 (min: 28, max: 64) MBit/s ∼25% +25%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Adreno 506, 632, 32 GB eMMC Flash
51.4 (min: 49, max: 54) MBit/s ∼23% +15%
Nokia 3.2
Adreno 504, 429, 16 GB eMMC Flash
44.7 (min: 32, max: 51) MBit/s ∼20%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=449)
217 MBit/s ∼100% +325%
Nokia 3.1
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750N, 16 GB eMMC Flash
100 MBit/s ∼46% +96%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Adreno 506, 632, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.4 (min: 52, max: 61) MBit/s ∼26% +8%
Nokia 3.2
Adreno 504, 429, 16 GB eMMC Flash
51.1 (min: 46, max: 55) MBit/s ∼24%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 16 GB eMMC Flash
47.6 (min: 15, max: 59) MBit/s ∼22% -7%
Huawei Y6 2019
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
37.8 (min: 29, max: 46) MBit/s ∼17% -26%
Honor 8A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 32 GB eMMC Flash
36.9 (min: 22, max: 52) MBit/s ∼17% -28%
0102030405060Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø44.6 (32-51)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø51 (46-55)
GPS Test: Inside
GPS Test: Inside
GPS Test: Outside
GPS Test: Outside

The Nokia 3.2 can locate us with up to four metres accuracy outside, which is impressive for a device at this price. It cannot do so indoors though.

We also took our review unit on a bike ride to compare its location accuracy against our Garmin Edge 520 reference bike computer. The Nokia 3.2 deviated by 190 m over the 3.8 km route that the Garmin recorded, which represents a 95% accuracy. The smartphone did occasionally cut corners to keep up with us, but it did not make any huge errors. Overall, the Nokia 3.2 is accurate enough for general navigation tasks and has a surprisingly good GPS module considering its price.

GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Overview
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Overview
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Loop
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Loop
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Bridge
GPS test: Nokia 3.2 - Bridge

Telephone Features & Call Quality

The Nokia 3.2 uses the standard suite of Google telephony apps for handling calls and messages. The apps are clearly laid out and intuitive to use, in our opinion.

Our review unit has decent call quality using its earpiece or speaker. Calls sound loud without being distorted, and our call partner always remained intelligible. The built-in microphone picked our voice out well too.

Cameras

Photographed with the front-facing camera
Photographed with the front-facing camera

The cameras in the Nokia 3.2 are a bit of a let-down. The device has a 5 MP front-facing sensor, which is 3 MP small than the corresponding sensor in the Nokia 3.1 and Nokia 3.1 Plus. Likewise, while it shares its 13 MP rear-facing sensor with its predecessors, HMD Global has omitted the secondary sensor that is in the Nokia 3.1 Plus. Confused? So are we.

The 13 MP rear-facing sensor in our review unit takes underexposed and noisy photos in low light, but we expected as much from a smartphone at this price. Photos shot in cloudy environments look overly dark too, with clouds and dark areas of the scene dominating the resulting photo. Photos taken in good lighting look pleasing though, with the flowers in scene 1 contrasting well against the leaves and large brown areas of the photo.

Video recordings also look mediocre and suffer from the same issues that photos do. The 13 MP sensor also graduates exposure levels in changing light conditions. It does so comparatively quickly, but the changes are noticeable

The 5 MP front-facing sensor has its deficiencies too. Our test photos look overly warm for some reason. They are comparatively detailed though.

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

The rear-facing sensor cannot convince us under controlled lighting conditions either. The camera oversaturates most colours compared to the ColorChecker Passport reference colours, while it struggles to reproduce dark fonts against coloured backgrounds. Our test chart looks rather dark too, although this does help mask any contrast inconsistencies.

A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail
Our test chart in detail
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

Accessories & Warranty

The Nokia 3.2 comes with a 10 W fast charger, the charging speed of which we shall cover in the Power Management section of this review. The device also comes with a matching USB cable and a SIM tool.

The Nokia 3.2 has a 24-month limited manufacturer’s warranty too. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ more country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

The touchscreen in our review unit is accurate even into the corners of the display, while the glass has a pleasantly resistive finish. You should have no issues with performing swiping or multi-finger gestures.

The Nokia 3.2 comes with Google GBoard preinstalled as its default keyboard. The keyboard worked just as well as it has in other devices that we have tested. Google GBoard has numerous customisation and language options, but you can install another keyboard app like those downloadable from the Google Play Store.

HMD Global may advertise the Nokia 3.2 as having a fingerprint sensor, but that is not always the case. The European variant lacks one, with the only biometric identification being the 2D facial recognition. The device uses its front-facing camera to recognise your registered face, which is not as accurate as a fingerprint would be. Moreover, you must first press the power button before the device authenticates your face, making it less practical than a fingerprint sensor would have been too. The detection is relatively accurate, but keep in mind that similar-looking people could unlock your device. They could also just use a picture of you too.

The power button also serves as a notification LED, which is novel. HMD Global has included a dedicated Google Assistant button as well.

Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

The Nokia 3.2 has a 6.26-inch IPS display that has over an 80% screen-to-body ratio thanks to its waterdrop notch. The panel operates natively at 1520x720 in a 19:9 aspect ratio, a resolution that puts it on par with our comparison devices.

Unfortunately, our review unit has a comparatively dim display, with X-Rite i1Pro 2 recording its average maximum brightness at just 391 cd/m². The displays in our comparison devices get from 13% to 39% brighter, by contrast. The display in the Nokia 3.2 is also just 86% evenly lit, which is markedly worse than our comparison devices.

We should also point out that our test device suffers from a brightness control issue. Initially, everything worked fine. Inexplicably, the brightness stopped changing and got stuck at a certain level. The problem kept cropping up throughout our tests before disappearing again. Restarting the device did not rectify things, nor did switching auto-brightness off and on. We do not know whether this is a localised issue or something more widespread, either.

395
cd/m²
410
cd/m²
379
cd/m²
403
cd/m²
415
cd/m²
372
cd/m²
399
cd/m²
391
cd/m²
357
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 415 cd/m² Average: 391.2 cd/m² Minimum: 6.2 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 415 cd/m²
Contrast: 755:1 (Black: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.8 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 5.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
92.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255
Nokia 3.2
IPS, 1520x720, 6.26
Nokia 3.1
IPS, 1440x720, 5.2
Honor 8A
IPS, 1520x720, 6.09
Huawei Y6 2019
IPS LCD, 1560x720, 6.09
Xiaomi Redmi 7
IPS, 1520x720, 6.26
Nokia 3.1 Plus
IPS, 1440x720, 6
Screen
26%
17%
25%
17%
49%
Brightness middle
415
506
22%
522
26%
487
17%
444
7%
526
27%
Brightness
391
490
25%
542
39%
485
24%
441
13%
510
30%
Brightness Distribution
86
93
8%
94
9%
89
3%
90
5%
94
9%
Black Level *
0.55
0.24
56%
0.47
15%
0.35
36%
0.45
18%
0.17
69%
Contrast
755
2108
179%
1111
47%
1391
84%
987
31%
3094
310%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.8
6.4
-33%
4
17%
4.3
10%
3.94
18%
6.64
-38%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.51
11.1
-17%
9.5
-0%
10.1
-6%
6.72
29%
10.02
-5%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.7
7.5
-32%
6.6
-16%
4.1
28%
4.8
16%
6.4
-12%
Gamma
2.255 98%
2.2 100%
2.28 96%
2.09 105%
2.294 96%
2.344 94%
CCT
7824 83%
8643 75%
7258 90%
7312 89%
7445 87%
7989 81%

* ... 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 detected 1866 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 1866 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 1866 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 9266 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Disappointingly, the display uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate brightness. PWM can cause health issues like eye strain and headaches, although the flicker of the Nokia 3.2’s display should affect only a limited number of people. We recorded the panel flickering at 1,866 Hz at 10% brightness and below, which should be beyond most people’s perceivable range.

Our review unit also has a comparatively high black value, which we measure at 0.55 cd/m². This gives dark areas a grey tint and limits the contrast ratio to 755:1. Subjectively, colours look duller than they do on the displays of our comparison devices.

Worse still, the display suffers from a blue tint. DeltaE colour deviations are a bit high too, even if they are on par with our comparison devices. In short, the Nokia 3.2 has a distinctly colour-inaccurate display.

CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour space
CalMAN: Colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation
CalMAN: Colour Saturation

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
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15 ms rise
↘ 11 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 47 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 45 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.6 ms).

All these deficiencies combine to make the Nokia 3.2 difficult to read outside on sunny days. Our photo below demonstrates this, but you should have no readability issues on most days. The panel has stable viewing angles though and gives no cause for concern.

Using the Nokia 3.2 outdoors
Using the Nokia 3.2 outdoors
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

The Nokia 3.2 is the first Qualcomm Snapdragon 429-powered smartphone to grace our offices. The SoC integrates a quad-core processor and a Qualcomm Adreno 504 GPU. It hardly stands out from the SoCs in its two predecessors though and generally scores marginally less than the MediaTek MT6750N in the Nokia 3.1. The gap is larger between the Snapdragon 429 and the MediaTek Helio P22 MT6762 powering the Nokia 3.1 Plus, with the latter scoring 20% more in AnTuTu v7. Overall, the Nokia 3.2 finishes towards the bottom of our comparison tables and has below-average performance for a device at this price. We noticed slowdowns and lags during heavy multitasking too.

Things look even worse in synthetic 3D benchmarks, with the Adreno 504 consistently scoring a few frames less than comparable GPUs. The ARM Mali-T860 MP2 and PowerVR GE8320 have more grunt, and that is not saying much.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1904 Points ∼41%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1908 Points ∼41% 0%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2893 Points ∼62% +52%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1607 Points ∼34% -16%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
3850 Points ∼82% +102%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1904 Points ∼41% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=325)
4691 Points ∼100% +146%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
2485 Points ∼53%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
2645 Points ∼56% +6%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3834 Points ∼81% +54%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2354 Points ∼50% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
4301 Points ∼91% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
2485 Points ∼53% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=384)
4726 Points ∼100% +90%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
860 Points ∼60%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
665 Points ∼47% -23%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
855 Points ∼60% -1%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
832 Points ∼58% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
1227 Points ∼86% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
860 Points ∼60% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=384)
1426 Points ∼100% +66%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
4631 Points ∼78%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
3138 Points ∼53% -32%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
4886 Points ∼83% +6%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
5511 Points ∼93% +19%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
5912 Points ∼100% +28%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
4838 Points ∼82% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
4631 Points ∼78% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=387)
5331 Points ∼90% +15%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
6227 Points ∼87%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
3885 Points ∼55% -38%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
4045 Points ∼57% -35%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4229 Points ∼59% -32%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
7117 Points ∼100% +14%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6238 Points ∼88% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
6227 Points ∼87% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14946, n=555)
5782 Points ∼81% -7%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1849 Points ∼12%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2079 Points ∼13% +12%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1740 Points ∼11% -6%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
15735 Points ∼100% +751%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1849 Points ∼12% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=67)
2678 Points ∼17% +45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
209 Points ∼1%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
355 Points ∼2% +70%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
203 Points ∼1% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
14536 Points ∼100% +6855%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
209 Points ∼1% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=67)
2745 Points ∼19% +1213%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
260 Points ∼2%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
435 Points ∼3% +67%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
253 Points ∼2% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
14786 Points ∼100% +5587%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
260 Points ∼2% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=67)
2496 Points ∼17% +860%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1233 Points ∼58%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1031 Points ∼48% -16%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1021 Points ∼48% -17%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
876 Points ∼41% -29%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
2133 Points ∼100% +73%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1025 Points ∼48% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1233 Points ∼58% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4683, n=395)
1979 Points ∼93% +61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
210 Points ∼12%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
266 Points ∼15% +27%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
432 Points ∼24% +106%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
197 Points ∼11% -6%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
469 Points ∼26% +123%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
415 Points ∼23% +98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
210 Points ∼12% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=395)
1788 Points ∼100% +751%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
257 Points ∼15%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
319 Points ∼19% +24%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
496 Points ∼30% +93%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
238 Points ∼14% -7%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
567 Points ∼34% +121%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
478 Points ∼29% +86%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
257 Points ∼15% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=396)
1659 Points ∼100% +546%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1195 Points ∼56%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1013 Points ∼47% -15%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
961 Points ∼45% -20%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
889 Points ∼41% -26%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
2147 Points ∼100% +80%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1015 Points ∼47% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1195 Points ∼56% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=423)
1891 Points ∼88% +58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
393 Points ∼16%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
397 Points ∼17% +1%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
695 Points ∼29% +77%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
450 Points ∼19% +15%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
813 Points ∼34% +107%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
687 Points ∼29% +75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
393 Points ∼16% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=423)
2388 Points ∼100% +508%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
462 Points ∼23%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
459 Points ∼23% -1%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
741 Points ∼37% +60%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
505 Points ∼25% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
943 Points ∼47% +104%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
740 Points ∼37% +60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
462 Points ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=423)
2004 Points ∼100% +334%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1207 Points ∼57%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1144 Points ∼54% -5%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
998 Points ∼47% -17%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
898 Points ∼42% -26%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
2119 Points ∼100% +76%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1026 Points ∼48% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1207 Points ∼57% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4519, n=475)
1887 Points ∼89% +56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
152 Points ∼10%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
150 Points ∼10% -1%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
223 Points ∼15% +47%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
250 Points ∼17% +64%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
424 Points ∼29% +179%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
363 Points ∼25% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
152 Points ∼10% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=475)
1479 Points ∼100% +873%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
189 Points ∼13%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
186 Points ∼13% -2%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
270 Points ∼19% +43%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
298 Points ∼21% +58%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
516 Points ∼36% +173%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
424 Points ∼30% +124%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
189 Points ∼13% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=476)
1423 Points ∼100% +653%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1235 Points ∼58%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1099 Points ∼52% -11%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
997 Points ∼47% -19%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
869 Points ∼41% -30%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
2132 Points ∼100% +73%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1021 Points ∼48% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1235 Points ∼58% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4540, n=515)
1752 Points ∼82% +42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
399 Points ∼21%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
103 Points ∼5% -74%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
429 Points ∼22% +8%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
357 Points ∼18% -11%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
807 Points ∼42% +102%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
575 Points ∼30% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
399 Points ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=514)
1937 Points ∼100% +385%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
470 Points ∼28%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
129 Points ∼8% -73%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
491 Points ∼29% +4%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
411 Points ∼25% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
936 Points ∼56% +99%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
637 Points ∼38% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
470 Points ∼28% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8165, n=517)
1673 Points ∼100% +256%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
16518 Points ∼100%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
10044 Points ∼61% -39%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
10689 Points ∼65% -35%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14037 Points ∼85% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
15735 Points ∼95% -5%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
11590 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
16518 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=675)
14216 Points ∼86% -14%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
6895 Points ∼31%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
8163 Points ∼37% +18%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
7061 Points ∼32% +2%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7567 Points ∼34% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
14536 Points ∼66% +111%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
10412 Points ∼47% +51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
6895 Points ∼31% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=673)
22187 Points ∼100% +222%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
7920 Points ∼44%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
8517 Points ∼48% +8%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
7637 Points ∼43% -4%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8431 Points ∼47% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
14786 Points ∼82% +87%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
10653 Points ∼59% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
7920 Points ∼44% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=673)
17924 Points ∼100% +126%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
11 fps ∼29%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
13 fps ∼34% +18%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
19 fps ∼50% +73%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼37% +27%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
25 fps ∼66% +127%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
20 fps ∼52% +82%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
11 fps ∼29% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=694)
38.1 fps ∼100% +246%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
17 fps ∼46%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
20 fps ∼54% +18%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
26 fps ∼70% +53%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
20 fps ∼54% +18%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
37 fps ∼100% +118%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
27 fps ∼73% +59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
17 fps ∼46% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=703)
28.1 fps ∼76% +65%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
4.7 fps ∼21%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
5.5 fps ∼25% +17%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
9.8 fps ∼45% +109%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
6.5 fps ∼30% +38%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
11 fps ∼50% +134%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
9.7 fps ∼44% +106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
4.7 fps ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=600)
21.9 fps ∼100% +366%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
8.9 fps ∼46%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
10 fps ∼52% +12%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
16 fps ∼82% +80%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
11 fps ∼57% +24%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
19 fps ∼98% +113%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
17 fps ∼88% +91%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
8.9 fps ∼46% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=609)
19.4 fps ∼100% +118%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
3.1 fps ∼17%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
3.6 fps ∼20% +16%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
5.8 fps ∼32% +87%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.2 fps ∼23% +35%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
7 fps ∼39% +126%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6 fps ∼34% +94%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
3.1 fps ∼17% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=466)
17.9 fps ∼100% +477%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
6.7 fps ∼40%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
7.8 fps ∼47% +16%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
9.6 fps ∼57% +43%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7.6 fps ∼46% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
14 fps ∼84% +109%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
11 fps ∼66% +64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
6.7 fps ∼40% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=468)
16.7 fps ∼100% +149%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
2 fps ∼14%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6.8 fps ∼46% +240%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.3 fps ∼16% +15%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
7 fps ∼48% +250%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6.8 fps ∼46% +240%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
2 fps ∼14% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=192)
14.7 fps ∼100% +635%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1.8 fps ∼11%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3.8 fps ∼23% +111%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.2 fps ∼25% +133%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
3.9 fps ∼24% +117%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3.6 fps ∼22% +100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1.8 fps ∼11% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=192)
16.5 fps ∼100% +817%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1.8 fps ∼15%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
2 fps ∼16% +11%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2.6 fps ∼21% +44%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2 fps ∼16% +11%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
3.9 fps ∼32% +117%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2.7 fps ∼22% +50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1.8 fps ∼15% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=391)
12.2 fps ∼100% +578%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
3.6 fps ∼33%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
4.1 fps ∼38% +14%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3.8 fps ∼35% +6%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.1 fps ∼28% -14%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
7.8 fps ∼72% +117%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
5.1 fps ∼47% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
3.6 fps ∼33% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=395)
10.9 fps ∼100% +203%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
63459 Points ∼44%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
64157 Points ∼45% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
102781 Points ∼72% +62%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
76153 Points ∼53% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
63459 Points ∼44% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=297)
143675 Points ∼100% +126%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
790 Points ∼74%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
671 Points ∼63% -15%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
816 Points ∼76% +3%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
785 Points ∼73% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
1071 Points ∼100% +36%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
784 Points ∼73% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
790 Points ∼74% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 9387, n=635)
773 Points ∼72% -2%
Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
481 Points ∼23%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
499 Points ∼24% +4%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
792 Points ∼38% +65%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
470 Points ∼23% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
1072 Points ∼52% +123%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
754 Points ∼36% +57%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
481 Points ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=635)
2070 Points ∼100% +330%
Memory (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1285 Points ∼73%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
1033 Points ∼59% -20%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1366 Points ∼78% +6%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1458 Points ∼83% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
1758 Points ∼100% +37%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1231 Points ∼70% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
1285 Points ∼73% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=635)
1530 Points ∼87% +19%
System (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
2020 Points ∼49%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
2097 Points ∼51% +4%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2533 Points ∼62% +25%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1755 Points ∼43% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
4090 Points ∼100% +102%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2423 Points ∼59% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
2020 Points ∼49% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=635)
2994 Points ∼73% +48%
Overall (sort by value)
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
997 Points ∼59%
Nokia 3.1
Mediatek MT6750N, Mali-T860 MP2, 2048
923 Points ∼54% -7%
Honor 8A
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1223 Points ∼72% +23%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
986 Points ∼58% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632, Adreno 506, 3072
1695 Points ∼100% +70%
Nokia 3.1 Plus
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1152 Points ∼68% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
997 Points ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=635)
1501 Points ∼89% +51%

Moreover, the Nokia 3.2 falls short of the Nokia 3.1 Plus in browser benchmarks, as it does with the Nokia 3.1 too. In daily use, we found ourselves waiting for media content to appear. Websites load quickly, but the fluidity of scrolling animations is rather mediocre and can become choppy.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=106)
35.7 Points ∼100% +145%
Xiaomi Redmi 7 (Chrome 73)
26.9 Points ∼75% +85%
Huawei Y6 2019
15.326 Points ∼43% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
14.6 Points ∼41% 0%
Nokia 3.2 (Chrome 75)
14.566 Points ∼41%
Honor 8A
13.6 Points ∼38% -7%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=94)
40 runs/min ∼100% +157%
Xiaomi Redmi 7 (Chome 73)
27.44 runs/min ∼69% +76%
Huawei Y6 2019 (Chrome)
15.69 runs/min ∼39% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
15.6 runs/min ∼39% 0%
Nokia 3.2 (Chome 75)
15.57 runs/min ∼39%
Honor 8A (Chrome)
14.8 runs/min ∼37% -5%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=164)
66.6 Points ∼100% +85%
Xiaomi Redmi 7 (Chrome 73)
58 Points ∼87% +61%
Nokia 3.2 (Chrome 75)
36 Points ∼54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
36 Points ∼54% 0%
Huawei Y6 2019
35 Points ∼53% -3%
Honor 8A (Chrome)
29 Points ∼44% -19%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi 7 (Chrome 73)
8258 Points ∼100% +88%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=692)
6775 Points ∼82% +54%
Nokia 3.1 Plus (Chrome 71)
4508 Points ∼55% +3%
Huawei Y6 2019 (Chrome)
4437 Points ∼54% +1%
Nokia 3.2 (Chrome 75)
4392 Points ∼53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
4392 Points ∼53% 0%
Honor 8A (Chrome)
4347 Points ∼53% -1%
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
3274 Points ∼40% -25%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
14115.5 ms * ∼100% -35%
Honor 8A (Chrome)
11323 ms * ∼80% -9%
Nokia 3.1 Plus (Chrome 71)
10887.7 ms * ∼77% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=716)
10543 ms * ∼75% -1%
Nokia 3.2 (Chrome 75)
10433 ms * ∼74%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
10433 ms * ∼74% -0%
Huawei Y6 2019
10198 ms * ∼72% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 7 (Chrome 73)
4856.4 ms * ∼34% +53%

* ... smaller is better

We can praise the Nokia 3.2 for the speed of its internal storage though. It generally outperforms our comparison devices, while its microSD card reader has comparatively fast transfer speeds too.

Nokia 3.2Nokia 3.1Honor 8AHuawei Y6 2019Xiaomi Redmi 7Nokia 3.1 PlusAverage 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-16%
7%
13%
12%
-16%
-45%
1%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
65.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.84 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-9%
61.83
-6%
64.45 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
63.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
55.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-16%
39.4 (6.38 - 65.7, n=129)
-40%
49.2 (1.7 - 87.1, n=428)
-25%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
87.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.17 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-12%
81.92
-6%
83.16 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
85.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
81.32 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-7%
58.7 (8.1 - 87.7, n=129)
-33%
67.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=428)
-23%
Random Write 4KB
17.5
9.2
-47%
15
-14%
15
-14%
14.4
-18%
8.33
-52%
7.89 (0.49 - 44.9, n=247)
-55%
22.3 (0.14 - 250, n=751)
27%
Random Read 4KB
35
48.62
39%
61
74%
69
97%
73.6
110%
52.37
50%
21.3 (2.49 - 62.1, n=247)
-39%
47.6 (1.59 - 196, n=751)
36%
Sequential Write 256KB
106.3
35.26
-67%
104
-2%
107.78
1%
84.7
-20%
35.72
-66%
42.5 (8.74 - 106, n=247)
-60%
97.4 (2.99 - 590, n=751)
-8%
Sequential Read 256KB
282.4
281.54
0%
265
-6%
279.26
-1%
298
6%
272.51
-4%
165 (9.66 - 294, n=247)
-42%
275 (12.1 - 1504, n=751)
-3%

Games

The Adreno 504 is powerful enough to play simple or older titles like Angry Birds 2 smoothly, but you will need to look elsewhere if you want to play more complex games. The Redmi 7 is one such alternative, although some games will look rather choppy.

We experienced no issues with the touchscreen and associated sensors during our gaming tests. Fast-paced titles like Temple Run 2 worked perfectly, with the touchscreen reacting promptly to our swipes.

Angry Birds 2
Angry Birds 2
Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2

Emissions

Temperature

The Nokia 3.2 runs hot even when idling. Our review unit never feels cool to the touch when we are using it, with two areas exceeding 35 °C. This is unacceptably hot, as are the surface temperatures under load.

The front of the device averaged 39.1 °C when we pushed the system hard, with one area peaking at 41.3 °C. In short, the Nokia 3.2 will feel uncomfortable to hold if you are gaming.

Max. Load
 39.9 °C
104 F
37.7 °C
100 F
40 °C
104 F
 
 39.9 °C
104 F
37.4 °C
99 F
41.3 °C
106 F
 
 38.8 °C
102 F
37.5 °C
100 F
39 °C
102 F
 
Maximum: 41.3 °C = 106 F
Average: 39.1 °C = 102 F
33.9 °C
93 F
35.7 °C
96 F
39.7 °C
103 F
34.1 °C
93 F
36.8 °C
98 F
38 °C
100 F
35.7 °C
96 F
37.9 °C
100 F
38.4 °C
101 F
Maximum: 39.7 °C = 103 F
Average: 36.7 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.2 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.1 °C / 102 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 41.3 °C / 106 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 39.7 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.2 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °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 speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The Nokia 3.2 has a mono speaker at the bottom edge of its frame. Oddly, the speaker in our review unit is about 3 dB(A) quieter than the one in the Nokia 3.1. Positively, the speaker does not distort when playing music at maximum volume, nor does it over-emphasise high-pitched frequencies. Bass tones are all but absent, but this is the case with almost all modern laptops and smartphones.

Overall, the speaker in the Nokia 3.2 is good enough for occasionally listening to music or watching YouTube videos. We would still recommend using external audio equipment where possible though, as headphones or speakers will deliver a better listening experience than the speaker can. Both Bluetooth and the headphone jack worked perfectly during our tests.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.651.12540.1453131.236.64036.435.65040.337.46332.232.5802526.110027.726.512523.225.516021.828.220020.733.32501940.131519.546.840018.65350019.658.563020.162.780020.267.4100021.373.7125016.273.6160018.670.2200017.667.2250016.466.6315016.862.8400016.266.4500016.875.2630016.974.8800016.671.1100001860.81250017.958160001744.7SPL64.130.843.269.830.382.5N16.11.43.421.11.450.8median 18.6median 62.7Delta212.333.930.528.436.636.133.230.930.330.629.922.23224.92524.427.923.52720.326.719.83118.237.317.447.516.657.117.159.415.963.815.970.515.969.716.773.21673.815.971.216.275.416.477.21776.816.573.516.472.716.675.81775.616.565.916.950.628.685.91.162.6median 16.6median 69.71.613.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseNokia 3.2Nokia 3.1
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 3.2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 78% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Nokia 3.1 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 36.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 63% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 78% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The Nokia 3.2 consumes about as much power as the Nokia 3.1 Plus, which is to say that it is less efficient than most of our comparison devices. By contrast, the Huawei Y6 (2019) and Nokia 3.1 both average at least 20% lower power draws than our review unit.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1 / 1.9 / 2.8 Watt
Load midlight 4 / 5.8 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Nokia 3.2
4000 mAh
Nokia 3.1
2990 mAh
Honor 8A
3020 mAh
Huawei Y6 2019
3020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 7
4000 mAh
Nokia 3.1 Plus
3500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 429
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
22%
6%
27%
11%
-4%
0%
9%
Idle Minimum *
1
0.68
32%
0.73
27%
0.59
41%
1
-0%
1
-0%
1
-0%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=781)
12%
Idle Average *
1.9
1.33
30%
2.07
-9%
1.94
-2%
1.7
11%
2.4
-26%
1.9
-0%
1.74 (0.6 - 6.2, n=780)
8%
Idle Maximum *
2.8
1.37
51%
2.14
24%
1.96
30%
2.1
25%
2.9
-4%
2.8
-0%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=781)
27%
Load Average *
4
4.02
-1%
4.3
-8%
2.82
29%
3.3
17%
3.7
7%
4
-0%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=775)
-2%
Load Maximum *
5.8
5.89
-2%
5.96
-3%
3.57
38%
5.6
3%
5.5
5%
5.8
-0%
5.92 (1.2 - 14.2, n=775)
-2%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Nokia 3.2 has a 4,000 mAh battery, which lasted 15:58 hours in our practical Wi-Fi test. We conduct this test by running a script that simulates the load required to render websites. We also adjust the display the approximately 150 cd/m². We do this for all the devices that we test. Our review unit lasts longer between charges than our comparison devices, although only by 4% compared to the Nokia 3.1 Plus despite having a 500-mAh larger battery.

Nokia includes a 10 W quick charger in the box, as we mentioned earlier. The charger recharges our review unit in under 2 hours.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
15h 58min
Nokia 3.2
4000 mAh
Nokia 3.1
2990 mAh
Honor 8A
3020 mAh
Huawei Y6 2019
3020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 7
4000 mAh
Nokia 3.1 Plus
3500 mAh
Battery Runtime
-41%
-13%
-24%
-11%
-4%
Reader / Idle
1489
WiFi v1.3
958
562
-41%
828.8
-13%
732.1
-24%
848
-11%
920
-4%
Load
301
249
268
H.264
917
805
902

Pros

+ accurate GPS
+ modern design
+ good battery life

Cons

- mediocre performance by class standards
- no fingerprint sensor in European variant
- comparatively dark screen
- screen brightness issues
- outdated security patches installed despite running Android One

Verdict

The Nokia 3.2 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Nokia Germany.
The Nokia 3.2 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Nokia Germany.

The Nokia 3.2 costs the same as the Nokia 3.1, but it offers a larger display and a few more features than its predecessor. While this is praiseworthy, the Nokia 3.2 does not stack up as well against the Nokia 3.1 Plus, which has better cameras than our current review unit. All variants come with fingerprint scanners too unlike the Nokia 3.2. Additionally, and much to our dismay, the latter has a darker display than its predecessors.

We like that the Nokia 3.2 has a 4,000 mAh battery as well, although it only lasted marginally longer than the 500-mAh smaller battery in the Nokia 3.1 Plus during our Wi-Fi battery life test. There are no caveats about the GPS module though, which is impressively accurate for a smartphone at this price. The dedicated Google Assistant button will probably prove useful for some people too.

Our review unit suffers from an annoying screen brightness bug though, which reoccurred throughout our tests. We were dismayed to see the Nokia 3.2 running outdated security patches despite being an Android One-certified device.

The Nokia 3.2 does a lot differently to its predecessors but simultaneously without doing much better either.

The main selling point of the Nokia 3.2 compared to its predecessors is design. The Nokia 3.2 has sharper looks than the Nokia 3.1 and Nokia 3.1 Plus, although we would recommend the latter of the three if you are not swayed by looks. The Nokia 3.1 Plus has more features than the Nokia 3.2 and almost the same performance, while costing considerably less. This does not make the Nokia 3.2 a bad smartphone, but it has done little to convince us of its merits compared to its predecessors.

Nokia 3.2 - 06/25/2019 v6(old)
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
70%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
85%
Connectivity
32 / 60 → 53%
Weight
90%
Battery
99%
Display
83%
Games Performance
14 / 63 → 22%
Application Performance
51 / 70 → 73%
Temperature
87%
Noise
100%
Audio
55 / 91 → 60%
Camera
56%
Average
68%
79%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 4 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 > Nokia 3.2 Smartphone Review: An Android One smartphone without Android One
Florian Schmitt, 2019-06-26 (Update: 2019-06-29)
Alex Alderson
Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj
Prior to writing and translating for Notebookcheck, I worked for various companies including Apple and Neowin. I have a BA in International History and Politics from the University of Leeds, which I have since converted to a Law Degree. Happy to chat on Twitter or Notebookchat.