Notebookcheck

OUKITEL U25 Pro Smartphone Review

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Alex Alderson), 02/18/2019

Smart and stylish for less than €100 (~$113)? The OUKITEL U25 Pro is an affordable entry-level smartphone, which should appeal to those who are looking for a stylish device on a budget. The U25 Pro has more up its sleeve than its looks though, especially with its 1080p display. Read on to find out how the device performs in our tests and how it fares against its competitors.

OUKITEL U25 Pro

Introduced in December last year, the U25 Pro is OUKITEL’s latest entry-level and features a 5.5-inch IPS display, which is 1080p despite the device’s low asking price of between €80 to €100 (~$90/113). OUKITEL also equips the U25 Pro with 4 GB RAM and a MediaTek MT6750T SoC, which is broadly the same chip as the MT6750. Both SOCs integrate an ARM Mali-T860 GPU and eight ARM-A53 cores.

Other features include a 3,200 mAh battery, a fingerprint sensor and 64 GB of internal storage, which can be expanded with up to 128 GB microSD cards. There is also space for a second nano SIM for dual-SIM functionality, but at the expense of using a microSD card.

We have chosen to compare the U25 Pro against other budget smartphones. Our comparison devices include the Nokia 2.1, the Wiko Harry 2 and the Xiaomi Redmi 6A.

Oukitel U25 Pro (U Series)
Processor
Mediatek MT6750T
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
5.5 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 401 PPI, Capacitive multi-touch, IPS LCD, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, , 53 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB Type-C, Card Reader: up to 128 GB microSD cards, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Proximity sensor, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 4.0, 2G: 850, 900, 1,800, 1900 MHz. 3G: 900, 2,100 MHz. 4G: B1, B3, B7, B8, B20, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.8 x 153.8 x 76 ( = 0.39 x 6.06 x 2.99 in)
Battery
3200 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix + 2 MPix (Sony IMX135), Camera2 API Level: Legacy
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix , Camera2 API Level: Legacy
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker, Keyboard: Virtual, USB cable, charger, USB Type-C to 3.5 mm adapter, Protective cover, Oukitel UI, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
180 g ( = 6.35 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 52 g ( = 1.83 oz / 0.11 pounds)
Price
100 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 OUKITEL U25 Pro comes in two colours, Twilight or Gray
The OUKITEL U25 Pro comes in two colours, Twilight or Gray

The U25 Pro has a plastic case, which is available in two colours. There is a grey version and a purple model that OUKITEL calls Twilight. The latter has a gradient finish, which gradually changes from purple to dark blue and then to black.

Our review unit is well-built and does not feel cheap despite its price. The power and volume buttons feel solid and have distinct pressure points. Moreover, the case is sturdy and does not bend when we apply pressure to it.

The U25 Pro has thick top and bottom bezels though, which result in a 72% screen-to-body ratio. This is reasonable for a budget smartphone, but it makes the front of the U25 Pro look outdated.

OUKITEL U25 Pro
OUKITEL U25 Pro

Size Comparison

153.8 mm / 6.06 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 9.8 mm / 0.3858 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs153.6 mm / 6.05 inch 77.6 mm / 3.06 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 174 g0.3836 lbs147.6 mm / 5.81 inch 71.3 mm / 2.81 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 150 g0.3307 lbs147.5 mm / 5.81 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 145 g0.3197 lbs

Connectivity

OUKITEL has equipped the U25 Pro with 64 GB of eMMC flash storage, of which approximately 53 GB is available. You could add up to a 128 GB microSD card should you need more space. The device does not support exFAT, which means that it cannot read files that are larger than 4 GB. However, the U25 Pro can format microSD cards as internal storage, so you can store apps and data on it, rather than just media files.

The U25 Pro also has a USB 2.0 Type-C port, which is still impressive for such a cheap device. The port supports USB On-The-Go (OTG), so you can connect peripherals such as USB sticks or external keyboards, which could prove useful. You can connect to external monitors wirelessly too, but keep in mind that the U25 Pro cannot play DRM-protected content in HD as it only has Widevine L3 certification; most applications require Widevine L1 compliance to stream HD content. We suspect OUKITEL will not update the U25 Pro to support Widevine L1, as Sony did with the Xperia XZ2.

Software

The U25 Pro ships with Android 8.1 Oreo, which OUKITEL has added to with its UI. Our review unit had up-to-date security patches installed at the time of our tests in December 2018, which is good. OUKITEL has not stated whether it will update the U25 Pro to Android 9.0 Pie, but we suspect not as most budget smartphones only receive security updates and not system updates.

The OUKITEL UI is largely unchanged from stock Android, except for minor differences such as the onscreen home button, which is two concentric circles rather than the single circle used on most Android smartphones. Likewise, our review unit arrived with few third-party apps preinstalled save for the standard suite of Google apps.

Default home screen
Default home screen
Default app drawer
Default app drawer
Quick Settings
Quick Settings
Settings
Settings

Communication & GPS

The U25 Pro supports Bluetooth 4.0, which is now outdated. Moreover, there is no NFC chip, so you cannot use the U25 Pro with services such as Google Pay.

The U25 Pro is a dual-SIM device, but its second SIM nano slot also doubles as a microSD card reader, which means that you must choose between dual-SIM functionality or microSD card expansion.

The device supports most GSM and 3G frequencies along with LTE Cat.6 for up to 300 Mbps download and 50 Mbps upload speeds. The U25 Pro supports most LTE bands too, although it does not work with Band 28, which carriers are increasingly using, so the device may come unstuck in some regions in a few years.

The U25 Pro supports most Wi-Fi standards up to IEEE 802.11 n and can only connect to 2.4 GHz networks. Our review unit achieved a -35 dBm attenuation when placed next to our Telekom Speedport W921V router, which is decent.

Our test device averaged around 90 MBit/s in both iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests that we conducted. These transfer speeds put the U25 Pro above our comparison devices, but they are over 50% slower than the class average and 87% slower than what the Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 achieved in the same tests. However, Wi-Fi performance fluctuated wildly during our tests with the U25 Pro sometimes dropping to just 44 MBit/s for some reason.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
685 (min: 657, max: 705) MBit/s ∼100% +651%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=462)
230 MBit/s ∼34% +152%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
91.2 (min: 44, max: 108) MBit/s ∼13%
Wiko Harry 2
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
61 (min: 50, max: 63) MBit/s ∼9% -33%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio A22 MT6762M, 32 GB eMMC Flash
59.6 (min: 56, max: 61) MBit/s ∼9% -35%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 (min: 29, max: 54) MBit/s ∼7% -47%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 507, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100% +675%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=462)
219 MBit/s ∼33% +156%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
85.6 (min: 42, max: 106) MBit/s ∼13%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio A22 MT6762M, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.7 (min: 52, max: 59) MBit/s ∼8% -35%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼8% -38%
Wiko Harry 2
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 57) MBit/s ∼8% -38%
0102030405060708090100110Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø86.8 (44-108)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø85.6 (42-106)
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Outdoors
GPS test: Outdoors

The U25 Pro uses BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS, GPS and SBAS for location services. Our test device achieved a satellite fix with up to 2 metres (~6.5 ft) outside, which dropped to 5 metres (~16.4 ft) when we tested it indoors. In short, the U25 Pro is surprisingly accurate and does a much better job than many of its competitors.

We also subjected our test device to a bike ride to test its location accuracy against the Garmin Edge 500, a professional navigation system. The U25 Pro deviated by around 110 m (~328 ft) compared to the route that the Garmin plotted over our 9 km (~5.6 mi) bike ride, which is impressively accurate. The U25 Pro struggled to keep up with us in certain sections as demonstrated by our screenshots below, but overall it is accurate enough for general navigation tasks.

GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Overview
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Overview
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Lake
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Lake
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Loop
GPS test: OUKITEL U25 Pro - Loop

Telephone Functions & Call Quality

The Google Phone app
The Google Phone app
Dialler
Dialler

The U25 Pro has good call quality, which we tested over the Vodafone network in Germany. The device supports Wi-Fi calls too, but it must be provisioned by your carrier for the functionality to work. The microphone is decent too with our call partner always able to hear us clearly.

Cameras

Photo taken with the front-facing camera
Photo taken with the front-facing camera

The U25 Pro has dual rear-facing cameras, the main one of which is a 13 MP Sony IMX135 sensor that is supported by a secondary 2 MP sensor. The latter should provide the device with depth of field data to create bokeh effect photos, but it does nothing just like other OUKITEL smartphones that we have reviewed. The second sensor appears to be there just for show as our review unit uses software algorithms to create bokeh effect pictures.

The 13 MP takes surprisingly good photos in ideal lighting conditions. Photos taken in bright ambient light have decent dynamics and are detailed, although the focus is sometimes off while shutter speeds are slow. The Sony IMX135 sensor is now nearly 6 years old, but it takes passable pictures in cloudy conditions too, albeit there is some minor image noise present. We also noticed that most pictures have a slight reddish tint to them regardless of the lighting, which is worth keeping in mind.

The 13 MP sensor has an f/2.0 aperture and is supported by a dual tone LED flash in poor lighting. However, its performance in low-light is awful, as demonstrated below in Scene 2. The image is dominated by image noise and is woefully underexposed. The only positive is that the electric candle does not look blown out, but the whole image lacks detail, and the face of our toy rabbit is hardly recognisable.

The U25 Pro also has a 5 MP front-facing camera with an f/2.8 aperture. The Samsung Galaxycore GC5025 sensor takes passable selfies, but most photos are blurry and washed out. Low-light performance is predictably terrible too.

The front-facing camera only records video in up to 720p at up 30 FPS, which is underwhelming. The 13 MP rear-facing camera does a better job and can shoot in up to 1080p at 30 FPS.

Bokeh effect
Bokeh effect
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera with HDR mode enabled
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera with HDR mode enabled
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera
Photo taken with the rear-facing camera
Default camera app – filters
Default camera app – filters
Default camera app – Settings
Default camera app – Settings
Default camera app – Viewfinder
Default camera app – Viewfinder
Default camera app – Camera settings
Default camera app – Camera settings
Default camera app – Video settings
Default camera app – Video settings

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

Accessories & Warranty

The U25 Pro comes with a quick start guide, a modular 5-W charger (1A, 5V) and a USB cable. OUKITEL includes a silicone case and a screen protector too, while there is also a headphone jack to Type-C adapter.

OUKITEL provides 12 months manufacturer’s warranty, but you may have to return the device to China for a warranty repair. Hence, we would recommend purchasing the U25 Pro from a reputable third-party retailer where possible for better warranty coverage in your region.

Please see our Guarantees, Return policies and Warranties article for more country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

The U25 Pro uses the standard three on-screen navigation buttons and Google GBoard as its default keyboard. The device also has a 10-point multitouch touchscreen, which worked well and precisely during our tests. It is also protected by glass that has a smooth finish.

OUKITEL has equipped the U25 Pro with a fingerprint reader that is located on the back of the device. The sensor worked reliably during our tests, but our review unit is slow to unlock. You can also use a code, pattern or PIN for authentication should you prefer.

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

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

The U25 Pro has a 5.5-inch IPS panel that operates natively at 1080p in a 16:9 aspect ratio. The display has a pixel density of more than 400 PPI, which means that you should not notice any individual pixels even if you look closely. 1080p panels may be common for most smartphones, but our comparison devices all have 720p displays, except for the considerably more expensive Mi Mix 3. In short, the U25 Pro stands out in this regard with its high-resolution display.

Our review unit also impressed us with its high average maximum brightness, which X-Rite i1Pro 2 measures at 649 cd/m². This is brighter than even the Mi Mix 3 of our comparison devices, which is outstanding. The more realistic APL50 test also determined a maximum luminosity of 668 cd/m², which dropped to 648 cd/m² with the ambient light sensor activated. Overall, the U25 Pro has an incredibly bright display, but its minimum brightness is too high for our liking at 26 cd/m².

640
cd/m²
667
cd/m²
610
cd/m²
622
cd/m²
649
cd/m²
606
cd/m²
603
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
605
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 667 cd/m² Average: 623.2 cd/m² Minimum: 26.36 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 649 cd/m²
Contrast: 1159:1 (Black: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.1 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 9.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
99.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.1
Oukitel U25 Pro
IPS LCD, 1920x1080, 5.5
Wiko Harry 2
1440x720, 5.45
Nokia 2.1
IPS, 1280x720, 5.5
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Screen
21%
5%
16%
38%
Brightness middle
649
479
-26%
338
-48%
404
-38%
599
-8%
Brightness
623
491
-21%
327
-48%
400
-36%
593
-5%
Brightness Distribution
90
87
-3%
82
-9%
82
-9%
96
7%
Black Level *
0.56
0.2
64%
0.27
52%
0.26
54%
Contrast
1159
2395
107%
1252
8%
1554
34%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7.1
6.17
13%
5.36
25%
4.28
40%
1.4
80%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
12.6
11.46
9%
9.77
22%
9.97
21%
3.2
75%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
9.4
7.1
24%
6.2
34%
3.5
63%
2
79%
Gamma
2.1 105%
2.066 106%
2.345 94%
2.213 99%
2.25 98%
CCT
8629 75%
8441 77%
8460 77%
6899 94%
6496 100%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
98.2

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9331 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Moreover, our review unit has a comparatively high black value, which X-Rite i1Pro 2 and APL50 measure at 0.56 cd/ m² and 0.57 cd/m² respectively. The high black value results in a disappointingly low 1,159:1 contrast ratio, which is well beaten by our comparison devices.

We also subjected our review unit to additional display tests with a spectrophotometer and CalMAN analysis software. These tests determined that the U25 Pro has high DeltaE deviations and a higher than ideal colour temperature, but these are on par with our budget comparison devices. The display also has a slight turquoise tint to it too.

CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour space – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour space – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Greyscale – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Greyscale – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour saturation – sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour saturation – sRGB target colour space

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9 ms rise
↘ 15 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
56 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 27 ms rise
↘ 29 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. » 91 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.5 ms).

The U25 Pro has a glossy display, which can induce reflections. However, its maximum brightness is so high that you should have no trouble reading the display even in direct sunlight, although it may look rather dim as demonstrated by our photo below.

Our test device has stable viewing angles too, thanks to its IPS panel. We noticed a slight drop in brightness at acute viewing angles, but there are no colour distortions, so the U25 Pro should remain readable from practically any angle.

Using the OUKITEL U25 Pro outside in the shade
Using the OUKITEL U25 Pro outside in the shade
Using the OUKITEL U25 Pro outside in direct sunlight
Using the OUKITEL U25 Pro outside in direct sunlight
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

OUKITEL has equipped the U25 Pro with a MediaTek MT6750T SoC, which integrates 8 ARM Cortex-A53 cores across two clusters. The primary cluster has 4 cores that operate at up to 1.5 GHz, which is supported by 4 power-saving cores that can clock up to 1 GHz. The SoC also integrates an ARM Mali-T860 MP2 GPU.

Our review unit generally operates smoothly in daily use, but we noticed some minor lags when cycling through the UI and more prolonged delays while multitasking. Apps can take a while to load too, but this should be expected from budget smartphones.

The MT6750T SoC performed comparatively well in synthetic benchmarks and typically had the edge of the Helio A22 MT6762M that powers the Xiaomi Redmi 6A. The U25 Pro outperformed our budget comparison devices in GPU benchmarks too, but it is blown away by the Mi Mix 3 with its much more powerful SoC.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2115 Points ∼16%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1131 Points ∼8% -47%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1405 Points ∼11% -34%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1699 Points ∼13% -20%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
13374 Points ∼100% +532%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (1759 - 2115, n=2)
1937 Points ∼14% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=328)
4681 Points ∼35% +121%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2727 Points ∼32%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1652 Points ∼19% -39%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1602 Points ∼19% -41%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2471 Points ∼29% -9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8634 Points ∼100% +217%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (2633 - 2727, n=2)
2680 Points ∼31% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=387)
4727 Points ∼55% +73%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
674 Points ∼29%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
590 Points ∼25% -12%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
636 Points ∼27% -6%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
825 Points ∼35% +22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2333 Points ∼100% +246%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (643 - 674, n=2)
659 Points ∼28% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=387)
1429 Points ∼61% +112%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
3850 Points ∼46%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2828 Points ∼34% -27%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
3146 Points ∼38% -18%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8326 Points ∼100% +116%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (3042 - 3850, n=2)
3446 Points ∼41% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=399)
5379 Points ∼65% +40%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
5154 Points ∼51%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3977 Points ∼40% -23%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6194 Points ∼62% +20%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
10052 Points ∼100% +95%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (4012 - 5154, n=2)
4583 Points ∼46% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=566)
5844 Points ∼58% +13%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
915 Points ∼33%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
585 Points ∼21% -36%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
763 Points ∼27% -17%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2802 Points ∼100% +206%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (915 - 920, n=2)
918 Points ∼33% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=406)
2002 Points ∼71% +119%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
325 Points ∼7%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
76 Points ∼2% -77%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
260 Points ∼6% -20%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4480 Points ∼100% +1278%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (325 - 343, n=2)
334 Points ∼7% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=406)
1824 Points ∼41% +461%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
397 Points ∼10%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
94 Points ∼2% -76%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
305 Points ∼8% -23%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3846 Points ∼100% +869%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (397 - 399, n=2)
398 Points ∼10% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=407)
1693 Points ∼44% +326%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
904 Points ∼30%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
584 Points ∼19% -35%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
885 Points ∼29% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
807 Points ∼26% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3060 Points ∼100% +238%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (904 - 1072, n=2)
988 Points ∼32% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=435)
1910 Points ∼62% +111%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
496 Points ∼6%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
134 Points ∼2% -73%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
250 Points ∼3% -50%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
445 Points ∼5% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8245 Points ∼100% +1562%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (491 - 496, n=2)
494 Points ∼6% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=435)
2432 Points ∼29% +390%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
551 Points ∼9%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
162 Points ∼3% -71%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
297 Points ∼5% -46%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
494 Points ∼8% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
6054 Points ∼100% +999%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (551 - 558, n=2)
555 Points ∼9% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=435)
2040 Points ∼34% +270%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
932 Points ∼35%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
503 Points ∼19% -46%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
828 Points ∼31% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2653 Points ∼100% +185%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (932 - 1054, n=2)
993 Points ∼37% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4909, n=486)
1907 Points ∼72% +105%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
82 Points ∼2%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
65 Points ∼2% -21%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
225 Points ∼5% +174%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4223 Points ∼100% +5050%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (82 - 149, n=2)
116 Points ∼3% +41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=486)
1510 Points ∼36% +1741%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
103 Points ∼3%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
81 Points ∼2% -21%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
268 Points ∼7% +160%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3677 Points ∼100% +3470%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (103 - 184, n=2)
144 Points ∼4% +40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=487)
1453 Points ∼40% +1311%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1006 Points ∼31%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
512 Points ∼16% -49%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
892 Points ∼28% -11%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
840 Points ∼26% -17%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3221 Points ∼100% +220%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (1006 - 1126, n=2)
1066 Points ∼33% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=527)
1770 Points ∼55% +76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
109 Points ∼1%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
104 Points ∼1% -5%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
46 Points ∼1% -58%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
403 Points ∼5% +270%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8236 Points ∼100% +7456%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (98 - 109, n=2)
104 Points ∼1% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=526)
1982 Points ∼24% +1718%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
136 Points ∼2%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
126 Points ∼2% -7%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
58 Points ∼1% -57%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
456 Points ∼7% +235%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
6118 Points ∼100% +4399%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (123 - 136, n=2)
130 Points ∼2% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=529)
1708 Points ∼28% +1156%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
9979 Points ∼28%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
9182 Points ∼26% -8%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
10427 Points ∼29% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
14128 Points ∼39% +42%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
35987 Points ∼100% +261%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (8284 - 9979, n=2)
9132 Points ∼25% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=687)
14357 Points ∼40% +44%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
8856 Points ∼11%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2886 Points ∼3% -67%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
5487 Points ∼7% -38%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6785 Points ∼8% -23%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
83976 Points ∼100% +848%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (8830 - 8856, n=2)
8843 Points ∼11% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=685)
22559 Points ∼27% +155%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
9085 Points ∼14%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3405 Points ∼5% -63%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6133 Points ∼9% -32%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
7671 Points ∼12% -16%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
64627 Points ∼100% +611%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (8703 - 9085, n=2)
8894 Points ∼14% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=685)
18200 Points ∼28% +100%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼11%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
5 fps ∼3% -69%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
7.6 fps ∼5% -52%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
13 fps ∼9% -19%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
152 fps ∼100% +850%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (16 - 17, n=2)
16.5 fps ∼11% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=705)
38.5 fps ∼25% +141%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼27%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
8.2 fps ∼14% -49%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
14 fps ∼23% -12%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
19 fps ∼32% +19%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +275%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (15 - 16, n=2)
15.5 fps ∼26% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=714)
28.3 fps ∼47% +77%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
7.1 fps ∼9%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.2 fps ∼3% -69%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
2.7 fps ∼3% -62%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6.3 fps ∼8% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
81 fps ∼100% +1041%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (7.1 - 7.1, n=2)
7.1 fps ∼9% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=610)
22.3 fps ∼28% +214%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
7.5 fps ∼13%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
4.4 fps ∼8% -41%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6.1 fps ∼11% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
12 fps ∼21% +60%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
56 fps ∼100% +647%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (6.7 - 7.5, n=2)
7.1 fps ∼13% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=619)
19.6 fps ∼35% +161%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
4.7 fps ∼8%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.3 fps ∼2% -72%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
4 fps ∼7% -15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
59 fps ∼100% +1155%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
 
4.7 fps ∼8% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=475)
18.2 fps ∼31% +287%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
5 fps ∼10%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.7 fps ∼5% -46%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
7.5 fps ∼15% +50%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
50 fps ∼100% +900%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (4.5 - 5, n=2)
4.75 fps ∼10% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=477)
17 fps ∼34% +240%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1.5 fps ∼8%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.61 fps ∼3% -59%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2.7 fps ∼14% +80%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +1233%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (1.3 - 1.5, n=2)
1.4 fps ∼7% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=198)
10.2 fps ∼51% +580%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
0.9 fps ∼3%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.21 fps ∼1% -77%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
0.85 fps ∼3% -6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
31 fps ∼100% +3344%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (0.86 - 0.9, n=2)
0.88 fps ∼3% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=197)
7.08 fps ∼23% +687%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.2 fps ∼11%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.4 fps ∼7% -36%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
4.3 fps ∼22% +95%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +809%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (2 - 2.2, n=2)
2.1 fps ∼11% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=202)
15 fps ∼75% +582%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.3 fps ∼8%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.77 fps ∼3% -67%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
2.3 (min: 4.3) fps ∼8% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
30 fps ∼100% +1204%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (2.3 - 2.3, n=2)
2.3 fps ∼8% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=202)
16.8 fps ∼56% +630%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.5 fps ∼7%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.7 fps ∼2% -72%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1.9 fps ∼5% -24%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
35 fps ∼100% +1300%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (2.5 - 2.5, n=2)
2.5 fps ∼7% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=400)
12.4 fps ∼35% +396%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.8 fps ∼9%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.2 fps ∼4% -57%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
3.2 fps ∼11% +14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
30 fps ∼100% +971%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (2.4 - 2.8, n=2)
2.6 fps ∼9% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=404)
11.1 fps ∼37% +296%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
54871 Points ∼19%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
39276 Points ∼13% -28%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
61753 Points ∼21% +13%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
292798 Points ∼100% +434%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (51621 - 54871, n=2)
53246 Points ∼18% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=296)
143005 Points ∼49% +161%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
10 Points ∼1%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
563 Points ∼41% +5530%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
649 Points ∼47% +6390%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
733 Points ∼53% +7230%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
1386 Points ∼100% +13760%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (10 - 10, n=2)
10 Points ∼1% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=643)
765 Points ∼55% +7550%
Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
641 Points ∼8%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
149 Points ∼2% -77%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
428 Points ∼5% -33%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
482 Points ∼6% -25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
7891 Points ∼100% +1131%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (641 - 642, n=2)
642 Points ∼8% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=643)
2116 Points ∼27% +230%
Memory (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
983 Points ∼26%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
420 Points ∼11% -57%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
502 Points ∼13% -49%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
607 Points ∼16% -38%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3791 Points ∼100% +286%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (926 - 983, n=2)
955 Points ∼25% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=643)
1558 Points ∼41% +58%
System (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1931 Points ∼24%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1140 Points ∼14% -41%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1228 Points ∼15% -36%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1434 Points ∼18% -26%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8146 Points ∼100% +322%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (1330 - 1931, n=2)
1631 Points ∼20% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=643)
3039 Points ∼37% +57%
Overall (sort by value)
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
330 Points ∼8%
Wiko Harry 2
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
447 Points ∼10% +35%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
643 Points ∼15% +95%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
745 Points ∼17% +126%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4287 Points ∼100% +1199%
Average Mediatek MT6750T
  (295 - 330, n=2)
313 Points ∼7% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=643)
1526 Points ∼36% +362%

Likewise, the U25 Pro performed well in browser benchmarks when running Chrome. Web pages and media content loaded quickly and without errors during our tests, and our test device generally finished in the midfield of our benchmark comparison tables.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
85.976 Points ∼100% +361%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=540)
42.5 Points ∼49% +128%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
23.546 Points ∼27% +26%
Oukitel U25 Pro (Chrome Version 72)
18.67 Points ∼22%
Average Mediatek MT6750T (15.7 - 18.7, n=2)
17.2 Points ∼20% -8%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
15.853 Points ∼18% -15%
Wiko Harry 2 (Chrome 71)
15.603 Points ∼18% -16%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
16489 Points ∼100% +399%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=701)
6908 Points ∼42% +109%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
4332 Points ∼26% +31%
Oukitel U25 Pro (Chrome Version 72)
3303 Points ∼20%
Average Mediatek MT6750T (3082 - 3303, n=2)
3193 Points ∼19% -3%
Wiko Harry 2 (Chrome 71)
2775 Points ∼17% -16%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
2503 Points ∼15% -24%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Wiko Harry 2 (Chrome 71)
17145 ms * ∼100% -18%
Oukitel U25 Pro (Chrome Version 72)
14543.1 ms * ∼85%
Average Mediatek MT6750T (13903 - 14543, n=3)
14116 ms * ∼82% +3%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
13821 ms * ∼81% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
10739.7 ms * ∼63% +26%
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=726)
10451 ms * ∼61% +28%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
2299.9 ms * ∼13% +84%

* ... smaller is better

OUKITEL has equipped the U25 Pro with comparably fast eMMC flash storage that resoundingly beats our budget comparison devices in Androbench 3-5. Our review unit achieved good random 4KB transfer speeds that were only beaten by our Xiaomi comparison devices.

However, the U25 Pro has a relatively slow microSD card reader. Our review unit achieved between 10% and 21% slower transfer speeds in our tests with a Toshiba Exceria Pro M401 than our comparison devices and is similarly slower than the class average too.

Oukitel U25 ProWiko Harry 2Nokia 2.1Xiaomi Redmi 6AXiaomi Mi Mix 3Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-22%
-13%
29%
75%
7%
-7%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
54.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
63.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
17%
61.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
14%
65.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
21%
57.6 (11.2 - 74.7, n=106)
6%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=438)
-9%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
71.93 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
80.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
12%
79.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
15%
76.6 (21.1 - 87.2, n=106)
6%
67.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=438)
-6%
Random Write 4KB
16.76
11.6
-31%
13.45
-20%
52.23
212%
19.54
17%
24.8 (3.4 - 125, n=118)
48%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
38%
Random Read 4KB
55.95
35.47
-37%
50.46
-10%
33.94
-39%
133.24
138%
55 (11.4 - 149, n=118)
-2%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
-13%
Sequential Write 256KB
195.1
59.13
-70%
51.18
-74%
131.67
-33%
206.76
6%
171 (40 - 246, n=118)
-12%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
-49%
Sequential Read 256KB
284.34
227.26
-20%
288.26
1%
277.54
-2%
674.98
137%
273 (95.6 - 704, n=118)
-4%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
-2%

Games

The ARM Mali-T860 MP2 can play most modern games at reduced graphics, but the experience is not always smooth. Our review unit averaged around 23 FPS in complex games such as "Asphalt 9: Legends" and "PUBG Mobile", which is too low for a comfortable gaming experience in our opinion. By contrast, games such as "Dead Trigger 2" run much smoother and are playable.

We should also point out that the touchscreen and sensors worked reliably during our gaming tests.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

Emissions

Temperature

The U25 Pro operates coolly during daily use, with its case reaching a maximum of 32 °C (~90 °F) at idle. The device should never feel hot too as it only reaches 35.7 °C (~96 °F) under sustained load, so the U25 Pro should remain comfortable to hold even when it is pushed hard.

Max. Load
 35.7 °C
96 F
35.2 °C
95 F
32.3 °C
90 F
 
 35.1 °C
95 F
34.6 °C
94 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
 33.8 °C
93 F
32.6 °C
91 F
30.2 °C
86 F
 
Maximum: 35.7 °C = 96 F
Average: 33.6 °C = 92 F
28.6 °C
83 F
30.9 °C
88 F
32 °C
90 F
26.2 °C
79 F
31.1 °C
88 F
31.9 °C
89 F
24.3 °C
76 F
29 °C
84 F
31.5 °C
89 F
Maximum: 32 °C = 90 F
Average: 29.5 °C = 85 F
Power Supply (max.)  32.2 °C = 90 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.6 °C / 92 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 35.7 °C / 96 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 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.6 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the back of the device under load
Heatmap of the back of the device under load

Speakers

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The U25 Pro has a mono speaker that sits on the back of the device. In short, the speaker is terrible. The speaker reached a maximum of 85 dB(A) in our tests, but the audio sounds distorted at low volumes. The frequency range is dominated by mid and high-pitched tones too. Predictably, bass tones are all but absent, but this is a problem even with laptops, so this a minor criticism.

We would recommend connecting an external speaker or headphones for a better listening experience. The U25 Pro can also output audio over Bluetooth or USB Type-C. OUKITEL includes a headphone jack adapter in the box should you want to connect traditional headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2019.929.62520.223.73121.4264022.925.65026.933.46318.220.78022.820.810019.121.312515.817.516016.52020014.217.725013.326.331515.334.340014.64250014.748.463014.555.780013.765100014.472.7125013.973.8160013.971.1200013.867.3250013.869.3315014.268.9400014.370500014.671.4630014.674.2800014.379.3100001579.7125001573.31600014.759.9SPL26.384.7N0.855median 14.5median 67.3Delta0.716.727.644.427.238.630.434.228.43528.137.42529.217.723.41823.718.323.615.124.91629.115.73513.738.913.346.713.653.312.461.813.167.713.87111.572.611.769.510.867.611.162.810.660.21154.311.849.81259.81165.9116510.754.911.152.960.524.978.512.10.537.2median 12median 54.91.912.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOukitel U25 ProWiko Harry 2
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oukitel U25 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 44.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 9.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (32.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 91% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 93% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 4% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Wiko Harry 2 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 11.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (29.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 81% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 13% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The U25 Pro is a relatively inefficient device that consumes more than our comparison devices. Our review unit consumes a minimum of 1.47 W at idle, which rises to a maximum of 5.99 W under sustained load. The U25 Pro finished bottom of all categories in our comparison table apart from maximum consumption under load, where it finishes second bottom to the Mi Mix 3. This is no success though as the Mi Mix 3 is equipped with a much more powerful SoC. Overall, the U25 Pro has above-average power consumption for a budget device.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.72 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.47 / 2.88 / 2.96 Watt
Load midlight 4.74 / 5.99 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oukitel U25 Pro
3200 mAh
Wiko Harry 2
2900 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Average Mediatek MT6750T
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
16%
40%
41%
37%
11%
25%
Idle Minimum *
1.47
1.2
18%
0.7
52%
0.7
52%
0.49
67%
1.305 (1.14 - 1.47, n=2)
11%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=792)
40%
Idle Average *
2.88
2
31%
1.2
58%
1.2
58%
0.67
77%
2.44 (1.99 - 2.88, n=2)
15%
1.741 (0.6 - 6.2, n=791)
40%
Idle Maximum *
2.96
2.7
9%
1.9
36%
2
32%
0.87
71%
2.5 (2.03 - 2.96, n=2)
16%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=792)
31%
Load Average *
4.74
4.2
11%
3.2
32%
3.4
28%
3.64
23%
4.23 (3.72 - 4.74, n=2)
11%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=786)
14%
Load Maximum *
5.99
5.2
13%
4.8
20%
4
33%
9.04
-51%
5.98 (5.96 - 5.99, n=2)
-0%
5.94 (1.2 - 14.2, n=786)
1%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

OUKITEL has equipped the U25 Pro with a 3,200 mAh battery, which is about as large as those in our comparison devices, except for the Nokia 2.1. However, our review unit achieved an underwhelming runtime in our Wi-Fi battery life test and needed recharging between 2 and 4:30 hours sooner than our comparison devices. We conduct this test by setting the display to approximately 150 cd/m² and running a script that simulates the load required to render websites.

In short, the U25 Pro should last a full working day of moderate use. Many other comparably priced smartphones offer much better battery life though.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
8h 11min
Oukitel U25 Pro
3200 mAh
Wiko Harry 2
2900 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
491
613
25%
809
65%
761
55%
719
46%

Pros

+ bright IPS panel
+ 1080p
+ stylish
+ well-built
+ solid main camera
+ good value for money

Cons

- slow Wi-Fi
- no dual rear-facing camera
- only Bluetooth 4.0
- poor speaker
- slow SoC

Verdict

The OUKITEL U25 Pro smartphone review. Test device courtesy of OUKITEL.
The OUKITEL U25 Pro smartphone review. Test device courtesy of OUKITEL.

The OUKITEL U25 Pro is a solid budget smartphone that embodies how paradoxical the smartphone market is currently. While manufacturers are charging more for their flagship smartphones without adding many new features, their budget counterparts are starting to bridge the performance and quality gap while remaining affordable. The U25 Pro has its downsides such as its poor battery life and the pointless second rear-facing camera, but it does many things well.

The 1080p display is surprisingly bright with good viewing angles, which is rare for a sub-€100 (~$113) smartphone, as is its fingerprint reader. Moreover, the U25 Pro looks and feels well made, while it delivered decent performance in our benchmarks. 

The OUKITEL U25 Pro is a competent, affordable smartphone that is worth considering if you are on a budget.

The speaker is disappointing though, and the exclusion of a headphone jack seems as gimmicky as including a secondary rear-facing camera. However, few smartphones offer as much as the U25 Pro does for less than €100 (~$113).

Oukitel U25 Pro - 02/16/2019 v6(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
81%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
87%
Connectivity
38 / 60 → 64%
Weight
90%
Battery
91%
Display
82%
Games Performance
14 / 63 → 23%
Application Performance
41 / 70 → 58%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
57 / 91 → 63%
Camera
56%
Average
69%
79%
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 > OUKITEL U25 Pro Smartphone Review
Marcus Herbrich, 2019-02-18 (Update: 2019-02-23)
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.