Verdict on the Oppo Reno16 Pro
The Oppo Reno 16 Pro delivers a pleasant everyday experience, thanks in particular to its excellent haptics, very good ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, and long battery life. Photo quality is good, and the OLED panel is bright. The Oppo phone also comes in a compact form factor, which is a clear advantage for fans of smaller smartphones. At the same time, however, there is little progress over the Reno 15 Pro. The display, in particular, has not improved at all, with the Galaxy S26 and Xiaomi 17 reaching significantly higher brightness levels.
The Dimensity 8550 is efficient and delivers solid everyday performance, with enough headroom for occasional gaming. Nevertheless, the new MediaTek chipset is clearly a midrange SoC, which is hardly surprising given that it is only a minor refresh of the Dimensity 8500. The Poco X8 Pro, equipped with last year's chipset, is sometimes even faster than Oppo's upper-tier model despite costing less than half as much. The Reno 16 Pro also makes do with midrange standards such as Bluetooth 5.4, Wi-Fi 6E, and UFS 3.1. More problematic for a smartphone priced at nearly 900 euros are the significant omissions from its feature set: it lacks USB 3.1 with video output as well as wireless charging.
A notable highlight is the new Snap Key, a dedicated action button making its debut in the Reno series that expands the Oppo phone's functionality. Also welcome are the promised five years of major OS updates and six years of security patches. Other useful features include O+ Connect, which provides a convenient way to transfer files between the Reno 16 Pro and iOS or macOS devices.
Overall, the Reno 16 Pro is a strong smartphone for everyday use, but it clearly falls behind its upper-tier rivals in terms of hardware and technical features. Those who do not value the compact form factor may find the Xiaomi 17T Pro a compelling alternative, offering similar strengths with fewer weaknesses.
Pros
Cons
Price and availability of the Oppo Reno16 Pro
The Oppo Reno 16 Pro is launching in Europe with a starting MSRP of €899 for the base configuration with 8 GB of RAM and 512 GB of storage. It is available from Amazon Germany, directly from the manufacturer, and other retailers.
Translator's note: In the US, the smartphone is available on Amazon for around $1,505.
Table of Contents
- Verdict on the Oppo Reno16 Pro
- Oppo Reno16 Pro Specifications
- Design and features - Compact, slim smartphone with IP68/IP69, but only USB 2.0
- Communication and operation—Android phone without WiFi 7, but with an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
- Cameras — Oppo uses a 200 MP sensor and optical image stabilization in its upper-tier smartphone
- Display — Compact smartphone with an OLED screen and 144 Hz refresh rate
- Performance, emissions, and battery life — Android phone with a new MediaTek chipset
- Notebookcheck Overall Rating
- Comparison of Possible Alternatives
Oppo Reno16 Pro Specifications
Design and features - Compact, slim smartphone with IP68/IP69, but only USB 2.0
Oppo’s upper-tier smartphone weighs just 185 grams and is certified to IP68/IP69K. With a 6.32-inch display and a high screen-to-body ratio of nearly 90%, the phone has a relatively compact footprint. The white model is also available with a “holographic” back, which gets its distinctive look from microlenses beneath the glass cover.
Given the high MSRP, it is disappointing that Oppo equips its upper-tier phone with only an outdated USB 2.0 port.
Communication and operation—Android phone without WiFi 7, but with an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor
In our testing, the Reno 16 Pro achieved high Wi-Fi speeds with Wi-Fi 6E, although the current Wi-Fi 7 standard would allow for significantly higher bandwidth.
When on the go, the phone supports 5G with very broad frequency coverage. Those who frequently use their smartphone for navigation may be somewhat disappointed by the single-band GNSS support.
The Oppo phone makes an excellent impression when it comes to haptics and fingerprint recognition. The X-axis linear motor provides crisp haptic feedback, while the ultrasonic fingerprint sensor unlocks the phone quickly and very reliably.
| Networking | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average Wi-Fi 6E | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
Cameras — Oppo uses a 200 MP sensor and optical image stabilization in its upper-tier smartphone
Not much has changed in terms of photo quality compared with the Reno15 Pro. The Reno 16 Pro uses the Samsung ISOCELL HP5 as its main camera, the same sensor used for the telephoto camera in the Find X9 Pro.
The 200 MP camera with OIS delivers good sharpness and plenty of detail in sufficient light. However, the dynamic range in our test photos is not optimal. Aside from one outlier in the blue tones, color reproduction is very good.
We also like the telephoto camera in this compact segment, which offers 3.5x optical zoom and optical image stabilization. In daylight, the Samsung JN5's sensor cropping enables good results at up to 7x zoom.
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.
Display — Compact smartphone with an OLED screen and 144 Hz refresh rate
The display in the current generation is likely the same as the one used in the Reno 15 Pro. As is typical for OLED panels, it uses PWM for brightness control, resulting in screen flickering. The base frequency we measured is low, and the high-frequency PWM dimming rate of 960 Hz at low brightness is not particularly high either. As a result, discomfort for PWM-sensitive users cannot be ruled out. According to Oppo, the high-frequency PWM dimming should operate at 3,840 Hz. It is possible that the Reno 16 Pro uses a higher PWM frequency at higher brightness levels.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Center on Battery: 1210 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.6 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.7}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 2.5 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.95}
99.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
CCT: 6914 K
| Oppo Reno16 Pro AMOLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | Xiaomi 17T Pro AMOLED, 2772x1280, 6.8" | Samsung Galaxy S26+ LTPO-AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra AMOLED, 2608x1200, 6.9" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 132% | 89% | 137% | |
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 1221 | 3507 187% | 2751 125% | 3519 188% |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 1873 | 3295 76% | 2875 53% | 3458 85% |
| Response Times | 5% | -92% | 20% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 0.96 ? | 1.13 ? -18% | 3.79 ? -295% | 0.86 ? 10% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 1.29 ? | 1.01 ? 22% | 1.18 ? 9% | 0.87 ? 33% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 90 | 120 | 240 | 120 |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 17.14 | 15.46 10% | 15.27 11% | 14.02 18% |
| Screen | 12% | -20% | 25% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1210 | 1068 -12% | 1384 14% | 1771 46% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 1.3 19% | 2.8 -75% | 1.3 19% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.5 | 2.5 29% | 4.5 -29% | 2.8 20% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 2.2 12% | 2.2 12% | 2.1 16% |
| Gamma | 2.24 98% | 2.26 97% | 2.05 107% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 6914 94% | 6875 95% | 6514 100% | 6452 101% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1060 | 1379 | 1773 | |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 97 | 95 | 99 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 50% /
36% | -8% /
-19% | 61% /
48% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 90 Hz Amplitude: 17.14 % Secondary Frequency: 960 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 90 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 90 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7680 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Series of measurements with a fixed zoom level and varying brightness settings (Although the amplitude curve appears flat at minimum brightness, this is due to the scaling. The info box shows a magnified version of the amplitude at minimum brightness.)
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1.29 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.609 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.684 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 0.96 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.465 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.4975 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.13 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (30.8 ms). | ||
Performance, emissions, and battery life — Android phone with a new MediaTek chipset
The Dimensity 8550 is a solid midrange SoC, but in benchmarks, competitors in this price range can sometimes be more than twice as fast as the Reno 16 Pro. Storage performance is also significantly lower than on the Poco F8 Ultra.
In our stress tests, the MediaTek chipset loses around half of its performance, and some unlimited stress tests even terminate prematurely.
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | Xiaomi 17T Pro | Samsung Galaxy S26+ | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | Average 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 55% | 65% | 237% | 78% | 99% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 1709.54 | 3021.51 77% | 3574.74 109% | 4064.33 138% | 1874 ? 10% | 2253 ? 32% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1699.21 | 2770.02 63% | 2543.31 50% | 3987.65 135% | 1386 ? -18% | 1945 ? 14% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 277.65 | 414.44 49% | 419.84 51% | 575.86 107% | 289 ? 4% | 314 ? 13% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 82.64 | 108.71 32% | 122.63 48% | 551.82 568% | 342 ? 314% | 361 ? 337% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
3DMark Stress Tests
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Solar Bay Extreme Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
Oppo Reno16 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
Samsung Galaxy S26+ audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
| Off / Standby |   0.07 / 0.25 Watt |
| Idle |  0.87 / 1.36 / 1.41 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro 6000 mAh | Xiaomi 17T Pro 7000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S26+ 4900 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra 6500 mAh | Average MediaTek Dimensity 8550 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -16% | 16% | 4% | 0% | -8% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 0.87 | 0.89 -2% | 0.56 36% | 0.87 -0% | 0.87 ? -0% | 0.876 ? -1% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 1.36 | 1.67 -23% | 1.28 6% | 1.29 5% | 1.36 ? -0% | 1.459 ? -7% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 1.41 | 1.73 -23% | 1.31 7% | 1.33 6% | 1.41 ? -0% | 1.648 ? -17% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 6.27 | 12.38 | 8.84 | 6.82 ? | ||
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 8.63 | 16.9 | 9.15 | 11.1 ? |
* ... smaller is better
| Battery runtime - WiFi v1.3 | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| Xiaomi 17 | |
Notebookcheck Overall Rating
With the Reno 16 Pro, Oppo is targeting the premium compact segment, although it has some notable feature omissions compared with the Galaxy S26 and Xiaomi 17. Those who do not mind importing a device should take a look at our review of its sister model, the Find X9s Pro.
Oppo Reno16 Pro
- 08/28/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich
Total Sustainability Score: Comparison of Possible Alternatives
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 82.9%  | Oppo Reno16 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 8550 ⎘ ARM Mali-G720 MP8 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: List Price: 1099€ | 185 g | 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.32" 2640x1216 460 PPI AMOLED |
2. 85.7%  | Xiaomi 17T Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: $812.00 List Price: 1000€ | 219 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.83" 2772x1280 447 PPI AMOLED |
3. 89%  | Samsung Galaxy S26+ Samsung Exynos 2600 ⎘ Samsung Xclipse 960 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 1249€ | 190 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.70" 3120x1440 513 PPI LTPO-AMOLED |
4. 88.2%  | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 900€ | 220 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.90" 2608x1200 416 PPI AMOLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Add as a preferred source on Google
No comments for this article
