Notebookcheck

Oukitel C15 Pro Smartphone Review: A weak budget handset with a bright display

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Alex Alderson), 06/21/2019

Bargain basement The sub-€100 (~$112) Oukitel C15 Pro surprised with its bright IPS display. Read on to find out whether this budget smartphone has more to offer than its nice-looking screen.

Oukitel C15 Pro

Oukitel aims its C-series smartphones at price-conscious buyers who are after a modern looking handset. We have already subjected the C13 Pro to our tests, and now it is the turn of the C15 Pro, a sub-€100 (~$112) smartphone that has comparatively thin bezels and a teardrop-shaped notch. On the shape of it, the 6.08-inch display should be one of the C15 Pro’s highlights. It is to a certain extent, which we shall cover in the Display section of this review. Inexplicably, Oukitel has equipped the device with a 600p panel, which looks woefully low resolution compared to most modern smartphones.

The Chinese manufacturer has also included a MediaTek Helio A22 MT6761 SoC, 2 GB of RAM and 16 GB of eMMC flash storage. Oukitel advertises the C15 Pro as the world's first Helio A22 smartphone, but the reasons why this is nothing to shout about we shall explain in the Performance section of this review. The company has included dual 8 MP and 2 MP rear-facing cameras along with a 5 MP front-facing sensor.

The C15 Pro currently retails for around €90 (~$100), which puts it in contention with the likes of the Huawei Y6 (2019), Nokia 2.1, TP-Link Neffos C9A, Xiaomi Redmi 6A and the Xiaomi Redmi Go. We shall also compare our review unit against its stablemates, the Oukitel C13 Pro and the Oukitel U25 Pro.

Oukitel C15 Pro (C Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
6.09 inch 19.2:9, 1280 x 600 pixel 232 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS LCD, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, , 10.6 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm headphone jack, Card Reader: Up to 128 GB microSD cards, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Proximity sensor, OTG, FM radio
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G/GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz; B5, B8, B3, B2. 3G/WCDMA: 900, 2,100 MHz; B1, B8. 4G/FDD-LTE: 800, 900, 1,800, 2,100, 2,600 MHz; B1, B3, B7, B8, B20., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.9 x 155.6 x 73.3 ( = 0.35 x 6.13 x 2.89 in)
Battery
3200 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 8 MPix + 2 MPix, Camera2 API: Limited
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker, Keyboard: Onscreen, Screen protector, charger, microUSB cable, silicone case, quick start guide, Oukitel UI, 12 Months Warranty, LTE Cat. 4 (150 Mbps/51 Mbps), DRM Widevine: L3., fanless
Weight
174 g ( = 6.14 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 51 g ( = 1.8 oz / 0.11 pounds)
Price
90 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

Oukitel sells the C15 Pro in four colours
Oukitel sells the C15 Pro in four colours

The C15 Pro is a plastic and glass sandwich, the front of which Oukitel has covered in Asahi scratch-resistant glass. The glass tapers slightly into the plastic frame, giving the display an 81% screen-to-body ratio.

The quality of workmanship and choice of materials are decent for a budget handset, although the plastic back looks cheap. We expect as much from sub-€100 (~$112) smartphones, so the C15 Pro does not lose any points here. Behind the back case sit the two nano-SIM card slots and a microSD card reader, the placement of which feels a bit old school in 2019. The battery is not removable though.

Oukitel has placed the power and volume buttons on the right-hand side of the C15 Pro, both of which sit firmly in their frames. The buttons are easy to reach, but they are a bit spongy for our tastes.

Oukitel C15 Pro
Oukitel C15 Pro

Size Comparison

155.6 mm / 6.13 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 174 g0.3836 lbs156.28 mm / 6.15 inch 73.5 mm / 2.89 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 150 g0.3307 lbs155.5 mm / 6.12 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 177 g0.3902 lbs153.8 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 lbs147.5 mm / 5.81 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 145 g0.3197 lbs146.5 mm / 5.77 inch 70.9 mm / 2.79 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 145 g0.3197 lbs140.4 mm / 5.53 inch 70.1 mm / 2.76 inch 8.35 mm / 0.3287 inch 137 g0.302 lbs

Connectivity

The C15 Pro includes an FM radio, a fingerprint sensor and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. There is also a 3,200 mAh battery, which is charged by the USB 2.0 micro USB port on the underside of the device. The port also supports USB On-The-Go (OTG), which allows you to connect peripherals such as a keyboard and mouse should you wish to do so. The C15 Pro cannot wirelessly stream video to external monitors though.

Oukitel has included a paltry 16 GB of eMMC flash storage, of which around 10 GB is available upon first booting the C15 Pro. Thankfully, the device supports up to 128 GB microSD cards, which it can format as additional internal storage. This allows the C15 Pro to save apps and data to microSD cards, although it cannot read the exFAT file system, so it is limited to reading files smaller than 4 GB. The device also supports dual nano-SIM cards and has dedicated slots for all three cards.

Software

The C15 Pro ships with Android 9.0 Pie, something of a rarity for a budget smartphone. Our review unit had up to date security patches installed at the time of our tests too.

Oukitel sprinkles a few in-house flourishes atop of Android 9.0 Pie, but it is a mostly stock experience. Nonetheless, the software on our review unit would not install any third-party applications for some reason, save for the preinstalled Google suite of apps and services.

Moreover, Oukitel has only certified the C15 Pro to DRM Widevine L3, which restricts it to only streaming DRM protected content from streaming services such as Amazon Prime Video and Netflix in standard definition. The device only has a 600p screen, so it could not display HD content even if it had L1 certification.

Quick Settings
Quick Settings
Default home screen
Default home screen
Settings
Settings

Communication & GPS

The C15 Pro supports Bluetooth 5.0, which is another surprise for this budget smartphone. The device lacks an NFC chip though. The latter is a shame as it means that the C15 Pro cannot be used with services such as Google Pay.

The smartphone supports all modern Wi-Fi standards up to IEEE 802.11 n, which means that it can connect to 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz networks. Our review unit maintained stable Wi-Fi reception throughout our tests and achieved a -41 dBm Wi-Fi attenuation when placed near our Telekom Speedport W921V router.

Our review unit only averaged around 70 MBit/s in our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests though, which is well below average. The C15 Pro still finished in the top three of our comparison tables though.

The smartphone also supports LTE Cat.4 on both SIM cards for up to 150 MBit/s download speeds. Unfortunately, the C15 Pro only supports 5 LTE bands, which is rather limited. The device supports Band 20 at least, which carriers are increasingly using in Europe.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=459)
230 MBit/s ∼100% +203%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
91.2 (min: 44, max: 108) MBit/s ∼40% +20%
Oukitel C13 Pro
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
84 (min: 7, max: 105) MBit/s ∼37% +11%
Oukitel C15 Pro
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 16 GB eMMC Flash
76 (min: 52, max: 101) MBit/s ∼33%
Huawei Y6 2019
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
69 (min: 61, max: 66) MBit/s ∼30% -9%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio A22 MT6762M, 32 GB eMMC Flash
59.6 (min: 56, max: 61) MBit/s ∼26% -22%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
55.5 (min: 48, max: 55) MBit/s ∼24% -27%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
55.4 (min: 46, max: 58) MBit/s ∼24% -27%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 (min: 29, max: 54) MBit/s ∼21% -36%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=459)
219 MBit/s ∼100% +217%
Oukitel C13 Pro
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
94 (min: 34, max: 102) MBit/s ∼43% +36%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
85.6 (min: 42, max: 106) MBit/s ∼39% +24%
Oukitel C15 Pro
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 16 GB eMMC Flash
69 (min: 31, max: 77) MBit/s ∼32%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
56.6 (min: 48, max: 61) MBit/s ∼26% -18%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
PowerVR GE8320, Helio A22 MT6762M, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.7 (min: 52, max: 59) MBit/s ∼25% -19%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼24% -24%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
PowerVR GE8100, MT6739, 16 GB eMMC Flash
52.3 (min: 48, max: 55) MBit/s ∼24% -24%
Huawei Y6 2019
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
37.8 (min: 29, max: 46) MBit/s ∼17% -45%
0102030405060708090100110Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø72.2 (52-101)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø68.9 (31-77)
GPS test: Indoors
GPS test: Indoors
GPS test: Outdoors
GPS test: Outdoors

The C15 Pro uses GLONASS and GPS for location services, which allows it to achieve a satellite fix with up to 2 metres (~6.6 ft) accuracy outdoors and 4 metres (~13 ft) indoors. We usually take our review units on a bike ride to compare their location accuracy against our reference bike computer. However, we were unable to with the C15 Pro as it kept crashing.

Telephone Features & Call Quality

Dialer
Dialer
Contacts list
Contacts list

The call quality of our review unit is surprisingly decent. Its microphones pick out our voice well, while the earpiece relays our call partner’s voice clearly. The C15 Pro even supports voice over (VoLTE) and Wi-Fi calling (VoWiFi). Your must carrier must provision the C15 Pro for either technology to work though.

Cameras

Taking a selfie with the Oukitel C15 Pro
Taking a selfie with the Oukitel C15 Pro

The C15 Pro has an 8 MP main rear-facing camera, which Oukitel complements with a 2 MP secondary sensor. The main camera can shoot in up to 3,264x2,448 pixels in a 4:3 aspect ratio and can shoot videos in up to 1080p at 30 FPS. The manufacturer has not disclosed any information about the sensors that it has used though.

The photos taken with our review unit cannot convince in daylight or in low-light. Our test shots have poor dynamic range and generally look blurry. The secondary sensor has no influence on depth of field photos either, with the C15 Pro relying on software to create bokeh effects instead. Compared with flagship smartphones such as the Pixel series, the results are hardly usable.

Oukitel has also included a 5-MP front-facing sensor, the quality of which is underwhelming. The C15 Pro is no selfie specialist, with our test photos lacking detail and overblowing bright areas of scenes.

Standard photo
Standard photo
Portrait mode
Portrait mode
Monochrome mode
Monochrome mode
Camera settings
Camera settings
Camera settings
Camera settings
Viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pro mode
Pro mode

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
ColorChecker 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
A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart in low-light
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

Accessories & Warranty

Oukitel includes a modular 5-W charger in the box, along with a USB cable and a silicone cover. The company does not sell any C15 Pro specific accessories though.

The C15 Pro comes with 12 months limited manufacturer’s warranty. Oukitel is based in China, so returning the device for a warranty repair may involve having to send it to China. You should have no issues if you buy through a reputable third-party though that includes a separate warranty.

Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

Oukitel has equipped the C15 Pro with a 5-point multitouch touchscreen, which it protects with a glass top layer. The glass has an anti-fingerprint finish that is pleasant to use and conceals grease marks well. The C15 Pro has onscreen navigation buttons like most modern Android smartphones do, while Oukitel has included several gestures such as flipping the phone to mute it, for example.

The company has included a fingerprint scanner too, which it has placed on the back of the C15 Pro. However, the one in our review unit is woeful, with a detection rate of around 30%. The 2D facial authentication works better, but it is less secure and cannot be used for banking apps or password managers, for example. We would recommend using a password, pattern or PIN instead for a better experience.

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

Oukitel has equipped the C15 Pro with a 6.0-inch LCD panel that operates natively at 1,280x600 with a 19.2:9 aspect ratio. This gives the screen a pixel density of less than 300 PPI, which will look blurry compared to most modern displays. Individual pixels are noticeable, which may frustrate some potential buyers.

The panel in our review unit does get surprisingly bright though at an average maximum of 654 cd/m². Switching on the ambient light sensor boosts the maximum luminosity to 672 cd/m² too, which is exceptionally bright for a budget smartphone. The same applies to the more realistic APL50 test, which measures an average maximum luminosity of 657 cd/m². The minimum luminance is rather high at 25 cd/m² though.

693
cd/m²
640
cd/m²
596
cd/m²
684
cd/m²
674
cd/m²
624
cd/m²
676
cd/m²
655
cd/m²
641
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 693 cd/m² Average: 653.7 cd/m² Minimum: 24.8 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 674 cd/m²
Contrast: 1204:1 (Black: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
89.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.28
Oukitel C15 Pro
IPS LCD, 1280x600, 6.09
Oukitel C13 Pro
IPS LCD, 996x480, 6.18
Oukitel U25 Pro
IPS LCD, 1920x1080, 5.5
TP-Link Neffos C9A
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Nokia 2.1
IPS, 1280x720, 5.5
Xiaomi Redmi Go
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Huawei Y6 2019
IPS LCD, 1560x720, 6.09
Screen
-43%
-24%
9%
-12%
-15%
3%
2%
Brightness middle
674
388
-42%
649
-4%
535
-21%
338
-50%
340
-50%
404
-40%
487
-28%
Brightness
654
402
-39%
623
-5%
528
-19%
327
-50%
309
-53%
400
-39%
485
-26%
Brightness Distribution
86
88
2%
90
5%
96
12%
82
-5%
77
-10%
82
-5%
89
3%
Black Level *
0.56
0.26
54%
0.56
-0%
0.42
25%
0.27
52%
0.28
50%
0.26
54%
0.35
37%
Contrast
1204
1492
24%
1159
-4%
1274
6%
1252
4%
1214
1%
1554
29%
1391
16%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.3
9.2
-74%
7.1
-34%
4.18
21%
5.36
-1%
5.53
-4%
4.28
19%
4.3
19%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.2
18.4
-124%
12.6
-54%
9.62
-17%
9.77
-19%
9.87
-20%
9.97
-22%
10.1
-23%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.8
11.7
-144%
9.4
-96%
1.7
65%
6.2
-29%
6.4
-33%
3.5
27%
4.1
15%
Gamma
2.28 96%
2.58 85%
2.1 105%
2.345 94%
2.275 97%
2.213 99%
2.09 105%
CCT
7475 87%
11121 58%
8629 75%
6502 100%
8460 77%
8198 79%
6899 94%
7312 89%

* ... 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 9338 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The high maximum brightness allows the panel to achieve a respectable 1,204:1 contrast ratio despite its comparatively poor 0.56 cd/m² black value. APL50 records similar figures, with a 0.58 cd/m² black value and a 1,128:1 contrast ratio.

The display also covers most of the sRGB colour space, but its average DeltaE deviations are well above the ideal value of 3, as is its colour temperature. We measured the latter at 7,475 K, a colour temperature of almost 1,000 K above the ideal value of 6,500, which gives colours a blueish tint.

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↗ 6.8 ms rise
↘ 17.2 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
51.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15.6 ms rise
↘ 35.6 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. » 86 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.4 ms).

The C15 Pro is easy to use outdoors too, thanks to its bright IPS panel. The display will look washed out in bright direct sunlight, but we had no problems reading it most of the time.

Likewise, the panel has stable viewing angles. Brightness levels drop off at acute viewing angles, but this does not impede readability.

Using the Oukitel C15 Pro outdoors
Using the Oukitel C15 Pro outdoors
Using the Oukitel C15 Pro outdoors
Using the Oukitel C15 Pro outdoors
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

Oukitel has equipped the C15 Pro with a Helio A22 MT6761 SoC, a quad-core chip that MediaTek unveiled last year. The SoC integrates four ARM Cortex-A53 cores that can reach up to 2 GHz and a PowerVR GE8300 GPU that has a lowly 660 MHz clock speed among components.

Subjectively, our review unit runs slowly. Multitasking is a chore with frequent and prolonged delays opening or switching apps. The system frequently crashes too, as do many apps. This meant that many of the benchmark apps we use stopped prematurely. Accordingly, we have reduced the performance rating for our review unit by 50%.

Despite this, the C15 Pro does not finish bottom in our benchmark comparison tables. By contrast, our review unit often ranks higher than most of our comparison devices, and trades blows with the Y6 (2019). It consistently scores well below what the Mi 9 achieves, but this is to be expected considering the gulf in processing power between the two devices.

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
5054 Points ∼56%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
5377 Points ∼60% +6%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
3850 Points ∼43% -24%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3126 Points ∼35% -38%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
3146 Points ∼35% -38%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
3192 Points ∼35% -37%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
5511 Points ∼61% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9035 Points ∼100% +79%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (4195 - 5511, n=7)
4856 Points ∼54% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=398)
5367 Points ∼59% +6%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7216 Points ∼66%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3742 Points ∼34% -48%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
5154 Points ∼47% -29%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
Points ∼0% -100%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
4050 Points ∼37% -44%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6194 Points ∼56% -14%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4229 Points ∼38% -41%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10985 Points ∼100% +52%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (4229 - 7216, n=6)
6205 Points ∼56% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=565)
5831 Points ∼53% -19%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
954 Points ∼25%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
698 Points ∼18% -27%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
904 Points ∼24% -5%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
627 Points ∼17% -34%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
885 Points ∼23% -7%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
853 Points ∼23% -11%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
807 Points ∼21% -15%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
889 Points ∼23% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3788 Points ∼100% +297%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (775 - 954, n=7)
864 Points ∼23% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=434)
1905 Points ∼50% +100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
461 Points ∼4%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
189 Points ∼2% -59%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
496 Points ∼5% +8%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
169 Points ∼2% -63%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
250 Points ∼2% -46%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
248 Points ∼2% -46%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
445 Points ∼4% -3%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
450 Points ∼4% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10291 Points ∼100% +2132%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (450 - 461, n=7)
456 Points ∼4% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=434)
2414 Points ∼23% +424%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
521 Points ∼7%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
225 Points ∼3% -57%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
551 Points ∼7% +6%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
202 Points ∼3% -61%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
297 Points ∼4% -43%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
294 Points ∼4% -44%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
494 Points ∼7% -5%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
505 Points ∼7% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7449 Points ∼100% +1330%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (504 - 521, n=7)
509 Points ∼7% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=434)
2027 Points ∼27% +289%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
923 Points ∼26%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
690 Points ∼19% -25%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1006 Points ∼28% +9%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
641 Points ∼18% -31%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
892 Points ∼25% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
878 Points ∼24% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
840 Points ∼23% -9%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
869 Points ∼24% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3614 Points ∼100% +292%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (755 - 923, n=7)
844 Points ∼23% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=526)
1765 Points ∼49% +91%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
434 Points ∼4%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
185 Points ∼2% -57%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
109 Points ∼1% -75%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
145 Points ∼1% -67%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
46 Points ∼0% -89%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
43 Points ∼0% -90%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
403 Points ∼4% -7%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
357 Points ∼4% -18%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9963 Points ∼100% +2196%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (357 - 434, n=7)
404 Points ∼4% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=525)
1967 Points ∼20% +353%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
492 Points ∼7%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
211 Points ∼3% -57%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
136 Points ∼2% -72%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
175 Points ∼2% -64%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
58 Points ∼1% -88%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
55 Points ∼1% -89%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
456 Points ∼6% -7%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
411 Points ∼6% -16%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7166 Points ∼100% +1357%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (411 - 492, n=7)
456 Points ∼6% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=528)
1697 Points ∼24% +245%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
15348 Points ∼61%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
10981 Points ∼43% -28%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
9979 Points ∼39% -35%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
9513 Points ∼38% -38%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
10427 Points ∼41% -32%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
10188 Points ∼40% -34%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
14128 Points ∼56% -8%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14037 Points ∼55% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25339 Points ∼100% +65%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (12725 - 15348, n=7)
14431 Points ∼57% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=686)
14321 Points ∼57% -7%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7695 Points ∼7%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3700 Points ∼3% -52%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
8856 Points ∼8% +15%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3588 Points ∼3% -53%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
5487 Points ∼5% -29%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
5391 Points ∼5% -30%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6785 Points ∼6% -12%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7567 Points ∼7% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
106534 Points ∼100% +1284%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (7514 - 7695, n=7)
7599 Points ∼7% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=684)
22437 Points ∼21% +192%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8657 Points ∼14%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
4339 Points ∼7% -50%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
9085 Points ∼15% +5%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
4164 Points ∼7% -52%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6133 Points ∼10% -29%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6021 Points ∼10% -30%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
7671 Points ∼12% -11%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8431 Points ∼14% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
62225 Points ∼100% +619%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (8316 - 8657, n=7)
8489 Points ∼14% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=684)
18114 Points ∼29% +109%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼8%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
6.1 fps ∼4% -56%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼10% +14%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
6 fps ∼4% -57%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
7.6 fps ∼5% -46%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
7.6 fps ∼5% -46%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
13 fps ∼8% -7%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼8% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼100% +1093%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (14 - 14, n=6)
14 fps ∼8% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=704)
38.4 fps ∼23% +174%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
22 fps ∼37%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
15 fps ∼25% -32%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼27% -27%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
9.9 fps ∼17% -55%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
14 fps ∼23% -36%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
13 fps ∼22% -41%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
19 fps ∼32% -14%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
20 fps ∼33% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +173%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (20 - 23, n=6)
21 fps ∼35% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=713)
28.3 fps ∼47% +29%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
6.6 fps ∼7%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.7 fps ∼3% -59%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
7.1 fps ∼7% +8%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.7 fps ∼3% -59%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
2.7 fps ∼3% -59%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
6.3 fps ∼6% -5%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
6.5 fps ∼7% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
100 fps ∼100% +1415%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (6.5 - 6.7, n=6)
6.57 fps ∼7% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=609)
22.2 fps ∼22% +236%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
15 fps ∼25%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
10 fps ∼17% -33%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
7.5 fps ∼13% -50%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
5.4 fps ∼9% -64%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
6.1 fps ∼10% -59%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
5.6 fps ∼9% -63%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
12 fps ∼20% -20%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
11 fps ∼18% -27%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +300%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (11 - 15, n=6)
12.8 fps ∼21% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=618)
19.6 fps ∼33% +31%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.5 fps ∼4%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.7 fps ∼2% -32%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
4.7 fps ∼7% +88%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.6 fps ∼2% -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 fps ∼6% +60%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.2 fps ∼6% +68%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100% +2660%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.5 - 4.3, n=6)
3.98 fps ∼6% +59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=474)
18.1 fps ∼26% +624%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
11 fps ∼19%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
6.7 fps ∼12% -39%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
5 fps ∼9% -55%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
3.4 fps ∼6% -69%
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 ∼13% -32%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7.6 fps ∼13% -31%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +427%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (7.6 - 11, n=6)
8.78 fps ∼15% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=476)
16.9 fps ∼29% +54%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.7 fps ∼15%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2 fps ∼8% -46%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1.5 fps ∼6% -59%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.64 fps ∼3% -83%
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 ∼11% -27%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.7 fps ∼11% -27%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼100% +549%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.7 - 3.7, n=7)
3.03 fps ∼13% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=197)
10.1 fps ∼42% +173%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
0.8 fps ∼5%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.4 fps ∼3% -50%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
0.9 fps ∼6% +13%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
fps ∼0% -100%
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 ∼5% +6%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
0.8 fps ∼5% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼100% +1900%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (0.8 - 0.85, n=7)
0.827 fps ∼5% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=196)
7.03 fps ∼44% +779%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
5.8 fps ∼16%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.5 fps ∼7% -57%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.2 fps ∼6% -62%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.8 fps ∼5% -69%
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 ∼12% -26%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.3 fps ∼6% -60%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼100% +538%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.3 - 5.8, n=7)
4.47 fps ∼12% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=201)
14.9 fps ∼40% +157%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.4 fps ∼8%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.6 fps ∼1% -82%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.3 fps ∼6% -32%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.95 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
2.3 (min: 4.3) fps ∼6% -32%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.2 fps ∼10% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼100% +1106%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.3 - 4.2, n=7)
2.73 fps ∼7% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=201)
16.7 fps ∼41% +391%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2 fps ∼5%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.6 fps ∼1% -70%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.5 fps ∼6% +25%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
0.88 fps ∼2% -56%
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% -5%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2 fps ∼5% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +2000%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (1.9 - 2, n=6)
1.983 fps ∼5% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=399)
12.3 fps ∼29% +515%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.1 fps ∼11%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
2.6 fps ∼7% -37%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
2.8 fps ∼7% -32%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1.5 fps ∼4% -63%
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 ∼8% -22%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.1 fps ∼8% -24%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼100% +827%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (1.5 - 4.1, n=6)
3.23 fps ∼9% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=403)
11 fps ∼29% +168%
Basemark GPU
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.09 (min: 1.56, max: 7.87) fps ∼4%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
fps ∼0% -100%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
fps ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37.41 fps ∼44% +1111%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
 
3.09 fps ∼4% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.24 - 4528, n=66)
85.4 fps ∼100% +2664%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
32.2 fps ∼51%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.57 - 2850, n=59)
62.8 fps ∼100%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
35.63 fps ∼37%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.88 - 4462, n=56)
97.3 fps ∼100%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
64782 Points ∼17%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
46951 Points ∼13% -28%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
54871 Points ∼15% -15%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
36768 Points ∼10% -43%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
61753 Points ∼16% -5%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
64157 Points ∼17% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
374820 Points ∼100% +479%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (63421 - 65996, n=5)
64636 Points ∼17% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=296)
143005 Points ∼38% +121%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
857 Points ∼62%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
624 Points ∼45% -27%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
10 Points ∼1% -99%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
649 Points ∼47% -24%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
733 Points ∼53% -14%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
785 Points ∼57% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1378 Points ∼100% +61%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (715 - 1037, n=5)
834 Points ∼61% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=642)
764 Points ∼55% -11%
Graphics (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
475 Points ∼5%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
190 Points ∼2% -60%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
641 Points ∼7% +35%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
186 Points ∼2% -61%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
428 Points ∼5% -10%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
426 Points ∼5% -10%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
482 Points ∼5% +1%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
470 Points ∼5% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9270 Points ∼100% +1852%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (470 - 483, n=5)
476 Points ∼5% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=642)
2105 Points ∼23% +343%
Memory (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
531 Points ∼13%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
818 Points ∼20% +54%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
983 Points ∼24% +85%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1039 Points ∼26% +96%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
502 Points ∼12% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
363 Points ∼9% -32%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
607 Points ∼15% +14%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1458 Points ∼36% +175%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4031 Points ∼100% +659%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (531 - 1458, n=5)
1104 Points ∼27% +108%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=642)
1552 Points ∼39% +192%
System (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1419 Points ∼17%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1338 Points ∼16% -6%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
1931 Points ∼23% +36%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
1425 Points ∼17% 0%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1228 Points ∼15% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
1210 Points ∼14% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
1434 Points ∼17% +1%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1755 Points ∼21% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8441 Points ∼100% +495%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (1419 - 1798, n=5)
1583 Points ∼19% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=642)
3030 Points ∼36% +114%
Overall (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
744 Points ∼16%
Oukitel C13 Pro
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
600 Points ∼13% -19%
Oukitel U25 Pro
Mediatek MT6750T, Mali-T860 MP2, 4096
330 Points ∼7% -56%
TP-Link Neffos C9A
Mediatek MT6739, PowerVR GE8100, 2048
227 Points ∼5% -69%
Nokia 2.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
643 Points ∼14% -14%
Xiaomi Redmi Go
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Adreno 308, 1024
207 Points ∼5% -72%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
745 Points ∼16% 0%
Huawei Y6 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
986 Points ∼21% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4595 Points ∼100% +518%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (744 - 986, n=5)
901 Points ∼20% +21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=642)
1521 Points ∼33% +104%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Oukitel C15 Pro
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
102 Points ∼7%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6762M, PowerVR GE8320, 2048
93 Points ∼7% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1415 Points ∼100% +1287%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (102 - 104, n=2)
103 Points ∼7% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (35 - 2754, n=106)
746 Points ∼53% +631%

Again, browsing the internet is often a pain, with websites loading slowly. The C15 Pro is fast enough for short bursts of web browsing though.

Our review unit performs reasonably well in browser benchmarks too, which we conducted with Chrome 74. The device generally outperforms all but the Mi 9 of our comparison devices.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73)
57.207 Points ∼100% +270%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=114)
36.1 Points ∼63% +133%
Oukitel C15 Pro (Chrome 74)
15.467 Points ∼27%
Huawei Y6 2019
15.326 Points ∼27% -1%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (13.4 - 15.7, n=5)
14.9 Points ∼26% -4%
Oukitel C13 Pro (Chrome 73)
10.876 Points ∼19% -30%
TP-Link Neffos C9A (Chrome 73)
10.39 Points ∼18% -33%
Xiaomi Redmi Go (Chrome 74)
Points ∼0% -100%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
65.7 runs/min ∼100% +321%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=102)
40 runs/min ∼61% +156%
Huawei Y6 2019 (Chrome)
15.69 runs/min ∼24% +1%
Oukitel C15 Pro (Chrome 74)
15.6 runs/min ∼24%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (12.5 - 15.7, n=4)
14.6 runs/min ∼22% -6%
Xiaomi Redmi Go (Chrome 74)
11.57 runs/min ∼18% -26%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
108 Points ∼100% +227%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=172)
67.2 Points ∼62% +104%
Huawei Y6 2019
35 Points ∼32% +6%
Oukitel C15 Pro (Chrome 74)
33 Points ∼31%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (30 - 35, n=5)
33 Points ∼31% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
30 Points ∼28% -9%
Xiaomi Redmi Go (Chrome 72)
24 Points ∼22% -27%
TP-Link Neffos C9A (Chrome 73)
23 Points ∼21% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
24534 Points ∼100% +448%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=700)
6885 Points ∼28% +54%
Oukitel C15 Pro (Chrome 74)
4474 Points ∼18%
Huawei Y6 2019 (Chrome)
4437 Points ∼18% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
4332 Points ∼18% -3%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (3920 - 4603, n=5)
4326 Points ∼18% -3%
Oukitel U25 Pro (Chrome Version 72)
3303 Points ∼13% -26%
TP-Link Neffos C9A (Chrome 73)
3167 Points ∼13% -29%
Oukitel C13 Pro (Chrome 73)
3126 Points ∼13% -30%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
2503 Points ∼10% -44%
Xiaomi Redmi Go (Chrome 72)
2411 Points ∼10% -46%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
TP-Link Neffos C9A (Chrome 73)
15556.6 ms * ∼100% -48%
Oukitel C13 Pro (Chrome 73)
15334.7 ms * ∼99% -46%
Oukitel U25 Pro (Chrome Version 72)
14543.1 ms * ∼93% -38%
Xiaomi Redmi Go (Chrome 72)
13899 ms * ∼89% -32%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
13821 ms * ∼89% -31%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (10198 - 12215, n=5)
10886 ms * ∼70% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi 6A (Chrome 70)
10739.7 ms * ∼69% -2%
Oukitel C15 Pro (Chrome 74)
10531.3 ms * ∼68%
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=725)
10463 ms * ∼67% +1%
Huawei Y6 2019
10198 ms * ∼66% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
1873.2 ms * ∼12% +82%

* ... smaller is better

One of the reasons behind the OS’ long loading times is the slow access speeds of the C15 Pro’s internal storage. While our review unit is generally on par with our comparably priced comparison devices, its write speeds are woefully slow, even for a budget handset.

By contrast, Oukitel has equipped the C15 Pro with an acceptably fast microSD card reader. Our review unit cannot live up to our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card’s theoretical maximum transfer speeds, it is as fast as our comparison devices.

Oukitel C15 ProOukitel C13 ProOukitel U25 ProTP-Link Neffos C9ANokia 2.1Xiaomi Redmi GoXiaomi Redmi 6AHuawei Y6 2019Xiaomi Mi 9Average 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
34%
140%
41%
51%
46%
223%
98%
1259%
-6%
104%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.12 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.05
0%
54.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
62.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
61.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
63.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
65.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
64.45 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
39.7 (6.38 - 65.8, n=131)
-36%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=436)
-20%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.46 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
81.25
-3%
71.93 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-14%
82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
79.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
84.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
83.16 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
59 (8.1 - 87.7, n=131)
-29%
67.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=436)
-19%
Random Write 4KB
4.78
9.99
109%
16.76
251%
12.2
155%
13.45
181%
11.9
149%
52.23
993%
15
214%
165.32
3359%
7.9 (0.49 - 44.9, n=249)
65%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
383%
Random Read 4KB
32.77
22.98
-30%
55.95
71%
43.11
32%
50.46
54%
45.4
39%
33.94
4%
69
111%
149.36
356%
21.4 (2.49 - 62.1, n=249)
-35%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
48%
Sequential Write 256KB
30.55
69.7
128%
195.1
539%
49.64
62%
51.18
68%
54.8
79%
131.67
331%
107.78
253%
388.27
1171%
42.8 (8.74 - 106, n=249)
40%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
226%
Sequential Read 256KB
267.24
264.76
-1%
284.34
6%
259.86
-3%
288.26
8%
289.3
8%
277.54
4%
279.26
4%
666.06
149%
165 (9.66 - 294, n=249)
-38%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
5%

Games

Let us get this out of the way quickly, the PowerVR GE8300 will not run modern and challenging games well. Even the GameBench app, which we used to record in-game framerates, regularly crashed or was killed by the system to reclaim some RAM. The C15 Pro manages its RAM so aggressively that we could not run GameBench and "PUBG Mobile" simultaneously without the former crashing. The touchscreen and associated sensors worked perfectly throughout our gaming tests though.

As we alluded to above, only older games such as "Dead Trigger 2" will run at beyond 30 FPS. Our review unit only averaged 7 FPS in "Asphalt 9: Legends" and just under 17 FPS in "Asphalt 8: Airborne", neither of which are playable. In short, do not buy the C15 Pro for its gaming capabilities.

Dead Trigger 2
Dead Trigger 2
Asphalt 8: Airborne
Asphalt 8: Airborne
Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 8 Airborne
0102030Tooltip
: Ø16.9 (10-22)
Asphalt 9 Legends
010Tooltip
: Ø7.41 (3-10)
Dead Trigger 2
010203040Tooltip
: Ø30 (25-31)

Emissions

Temperature

The back of our review unit hardly heats up even under sustained load. We recorded peak surface temperatures on the back case at 32 °C (~90 °F), which is 4.4 °C (~7.5 lower than the hottest area of the front of the device. In short, the C15 Pro should never get too hot to hold in daily use.

We also tested our review unit °F) with the GFXBench app to analyse its SoC core temperatures under continuous load. We left each test running on a loop for 30 times to see how and if the device thermal throttled, measuring any changes in framerates and battery percentage.

The C15 Pro throttled by less than 10% in the demanding Manhattan benchmark, which GFXBench bases on OpenGL ES 3.1. This is acceptable if not ideal, but you should not experience this behaviour unless you push the system hard.

Oukitel C15 Pro
Oukitel C15 Pro
Oukitel C15 Pro
Oukitel C15 Pro
Max. Load
 32.5 °C
91 F
32.6 °C
91 F
36.4 °C
98 F
 
 32.1 °C
90 F
32.4 °C
90 F
36.3 °C
97 F
 
 30.5 °C
87 F
31.5 °C
89 F
34.7 °C
94 F
 
Maximum: 36.4 °C = 98 F
Average: 33.2 °C = 92 F
29.7 °C
85 F
29.9 °C
86 F
31.6 °C
89 F
29.5 °C
85 F
30.8 °C
87 F
32 °C
90 F
29.6 °C
85 F
29.9 °C
86 F
31.8 °C
89 F
Maximum: 32 °C = 90 F
Average: 30.5 °C = 87 F
Power Supply (max.)  32.4 °C = 90 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.2 °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 36.4 °C / 98 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 29.9 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap of the top of the device under load
Heatmap of the top of the device under load
Heatmap of the bottom of the device under load
Heatmap of the bottom of the device under load

Speakers

Pink noise speaker test
Pink noise speaker test

The C15 Pro has a mono speaker on the underside of its frame, which we recorded reaching a maximum of 81 dB(A). While the speaker gets loud, the audio it produces always sounds distorted and tinny. Our pink noise speaker test underlines this, with audio dominated by medium and high frequencies. These do not increase linearly either, which compounds the tinny and distorted sound, as does the lack of bass.

Hence, we would recommend using external audio equipment where possible, which you can connect using Bluetooth or the headphone jack. Both provide much cleaner sounding audio than the speaker can.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.837.72525.531.93127.526.34022.321.55028.5346318.924.78020.223.810021.623.112518.719.416020.220.520017.118.525014.629.531515.939.340015.444.550016.552.263014.257.680014.563.9100013.369.2125013.469.6160013.669.6200014.268.2250014.669315013.671.8400014.474.5500014.571.7630014.266.5800014.661.51000014.858.41250014.952.71600015.242.6SPL26.581.4N0.844.6median 14.6median 58.4Delta0.81645.346.149.352.937.839.237.539.542.143.235.336.428.72925.930.529.128.826.830.823.438.522.745.822.151.920.756.620.965.319.270.918.67219.970.318.371.318.674.617.975.817.975.517.572.217.561.817.463.117.368.917.569.817.567.717.659.417.65268.830.883.722.41.554.9median 18.6median 65.32.410.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOukitel C15 ProXiaomi Redmi Go
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oukitel C15 Pro audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (35.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 95% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Redmi Go audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

Our review unit consumes less power overall than all but the Redmi 6A of our comparison devices. The C15 Pro falls just short of the average of MediaTek Helio A22 MT6761 powered devices that we have tested too. The device does consume quite a lot when idling though.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.14 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.66 / 2.42 / 2.44 Watt
Load midlight 3.43 / 4.76 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oukitel C15 Pro
3200 mAh
Oukitel C13 Pro
3000 mAh
Oukitel U25 Pro
3200 mAh
TP-Link Neffos C9A
3020 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Go
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-19%
-45%
-19%
14%
-22%
16%
-2%
8%
-7%
Idle Minimum *
0.66
1.33
-102%
1.47
-123%
1.4
-112%
0.7
-6%
1.2
-82%
0.7
-6%
0.67
-2%
0.787 (0.57 - 1.2, n=6)
-19%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=789)
-34%
Idle Average *
2.42
2.53
-5%
2.88
-19%
1.6
34%
1.2
50%
1.9
21%
1.2
50%
1.26
48%
1.88 (1.52 - 2.42, n=6)
22%
1.739 (0.6 - 6.2, n=788)
28%
Idle Maximum *
2.44
2.58
-6%
2.96
-21%
2.2
10%
1.9
22%
2.5
-2%
2
18%
1.29
47%
2.14 (1.66 - 2.44, n=6)
12%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=789)
17%
Load Average *
3.43
3.18
7%
4.74
-38%
4.2
-22%
3.2
7%
4.5
-31%
3.4
1%
3.71
-8%
3 (2.34 - 3.43, n=6)
13%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=783)
-19%
Load Maximum *
4.76
4.15
13%
5.99
-26%
4.9
-3%
4.8
-1%
5.5
-16%
4
16%
9.3
-95%
4.07 (3.16 - 4.76, n=6)
14%
5.93 (1.2 - 14.2, n=783)
-25%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Oukitel has equipped the C15 Pro with a 3,200 mAh, which lasted around 10 hours in our practical Wi-Fi test, which puts it in the middle of the pack among our comparison devices. We conduct this test by running a script that simulates the load required to render websites and adjust the display to approximately 150 cd/m², for reference. The C15 Pro has significantly better battery life than the C13 Pro and U25 Pro, at least.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 05min
Oukitel C15 Pro
3200 mAh
Oukitel C13 Pro
3000 mAh
Oukitel U25 Pro
3200 mAh
TP-Link Neffos C9A
3020 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Go
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6A
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
605
429
-29%
491
-19%
370
-39%
809
34%
749
24%
761
26%
546
-10%

Pros

+ stylish design
+ Bluetooth 5.0
+ dual-SIM
+ microSD card expansion
+ good battery life
+ bright display

Cons

- low resolution panel
- underwhelming performance
- poor cameras
- bad fingerprint sensor
- tinny speakers
- buggy software

Verdict

The Oukitel C15 Pro smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Oukitel.
The Oukitel C15 Pro smartphone review. Test device courtesy of Oukitel.

The Oukitel C15 Pro has a few things going for it, but it suffers from too many weaknesses for us to be able to recommend it. Its low-resolution display is now unacceptable even for sub-€100 (~$112) smartphones, as is its poor speaker and its practically unusable fingerprint sensor. Likewise, Oukitel has equipped the device with lacklustre cameras and an outdated MediaTek SoC. Even the combination of 16 GB of storage and 2 GB of RAM seems paltry in 2019.

The Oukitel C15 Pro looks the part, but we would recommend looking elsewhere if you are in the market for a budget smartphone. The C15 Pro simply has too many drawbacks to be taken seriously.

All these shortcomings bring us to a curious question. How can Oukitel get the U25 Pro, also a budget smartphone, so right, but get the C13 Pro and C15 Pro so badly wrong? In short, the C15 Pro is a poorly executed smartphone that you would be best to avoid.

Oukitel C15 Pro - 06/18/2019 v6(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
77%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
75%
Connectivity
37 / 60 → 62%
Weight
90%
Battery
93%
Display
84%
Games Performance
16 / 63 → 25%
Application Performance
22 / 70 → 31%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
47 / 91 → 52%
Camera
36%
Average
64%
74%
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 C15 Pro Smartphone Review: A weak budget handset with a bright display
Marcus Herbrich, 2019-06-21 (Update: 2019-06-21)
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.