Sony Xperia XA
Specifications
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix (autofocus f/2.0, 1080p video @ 30 fps)
Pricecompare
Average of 39 scores (from 65 reviews)
Reviews for the Sony Xperia XA
Golden times? With its Xperia XA, Sony sends a new designer piece into the smartphone mid-range ring. Esthetes in particular should notice the slim lateral display bezel and the plain build right away. But are the inner values enough to keep the rivals at a distance?
Source: Techradar Archive.org version
The Sony Xperia XA is slim and pocketable, but problems with performance and battery life mean there are better choices out there.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 08/28/2017
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Tech Girl Archive.org version
Yes, the Sony Xperia XA does everything it is supposed to. It has the things you need but you won’t want it. We’re in a boom of mid level phones. All the major names are dropping mid range smartphones monthly. This phone is already out of date and over priced compared to the likes of Xiaomi offering cheaper phones that are so incredibly impressive in what they offer. I always try to find one positive and when it comes to the XA, other than the display that spans across the screen that’s really about it. Its a pity because there was a time where I’d lament the Xperia range as one of the best but this is not what we’ve come to expect from Sony.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 05/04/2017
Source: Techradar Archive.org version
A cute little phone with a big battery life problem and no other chart-topping features to make you forget that, the Sony Xperia XA is ultimately disappointing.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 05/03/2017
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Techradar Archive.org version
The Sony Xperia XA is slim and pocketable, but problems with performance and battery life mean there are better choices out there.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 04/10/2017
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: T Break Archive.org version
I really wanted to like the Xperia XA, solely based on its looks. But once you look deeper you find a phone that while on the more affordable side of the spectrum, doesn’t offer up much in terms of performance. I’d much rather throw in a little bit more money and pick up one of Sony’s flagship phones, just so that I get better performance for what I’m paying for.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/28/2016
Rating: Total score: 70% price: 70% performance: 65% features: 80% workmanship: 85%
Source: Androidcommunity.com Archive.org version
The Sony Xperia XA is an ‘OK’ phone that looks great but is simply priced too high for me to recommend it over the alternatives mentioned in this review. Listed at $249.99, it’s outperformed by devices checking in at least $50 cheaper that provide double the storage, a more robust design, and a longer list of features.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/22/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Unbox Archive.org version
Our main pain point with Sony Xperia devices of the past has always been its price and with the Sony Xperia XA, you can really see how the Japanese brand tries to take the fight to the mid-ranged segment. It is a beautiful phone and the price is closer to other offerings in the market in the same range at Php 13,990. However, the dips in performance and other flaws are a little hard to ignore. A solid effort that dared to be different from previous Xperia smartphones, but it would pain us to fully recommend the XA without exploring other options.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/15/2016
Source: G Style Magazine Archive.org version
The Xperia XA is a really good budget phone. If you want to spend less than $300 and get a really good phone then I wouldn’t be mad at you if this phone was your choice. It has a lot going for it. Sturdy design, sleek, curved glass, bezel-less edges, great camera, lightweight. The XA also has some negatives. A screen only at 720p is a letdown, no remote play and shitty speakers. What do you really want for $279 dollars? Maybe you can get a little more from another phone. Maybe, but what that phone may do better than the XA it’ll be lacking in something else.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/12/2016
Source: PC Mag Archive.org version
For $280, the Sony Xperia XA just doesn't bring enough to the table to justify its price. Despite a high-quality build it suffers from sluggish performance, mediocre battery life, and a relatively low-resolution display. The Blu R1 HD gets you better performance and battery life for a fraction of the price.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/08/2016
Rating: Total score: 50%
Source: Techradar Archive.org version
A cute little phone with a big battery life problem and no other chart-topping features to make you forget that, the Sony Xperia XA is ultimately disappointing. There's now a lot of competition in this affordable mid-range area, and the Motorola Moto G4 really shows it up, with better performance in most areas and a much lower price.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 08/02/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Laptop Media Archive.org version
Sony Xperia XA is one of the most stylish smartphones on the market, and this is due to its ultra thin side bezels. It also has a 5-inch HD display, and even though you can find such screens in phones that are 50% cheaper, we can’t say that it is a drawback because it offers a good image detail, colors and viewing angles. Nonetheless, if we compare it to Xperia X, you will certainly notice a difference in this respect. What’s more, the battery life on this device is quite poor, but the quick charging and power saving modes seem to compensate for this to a certain extent.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 07/30/2016
Source: V3.co.uk Archive.org version
We can say this: the XA comes off a lot better than the horribly disappointing Xperia X. Had Sony taken the best parts from each we might be in a different place today, but as it stands (and despite a few high points) the Xperia XA feels a little insignificant.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/25/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Trusted Reviews Archive.org version
Unless you can get a particularly tasty offer, there are so many better options out there than the run-of-the-mill Sony Xperia XA. The screen is low-res, and the camera is slow and unreliable. Sony has kitted the XA out with only the minimum required spec in each area – something you simply cannot do any more.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 07/22/2016
Rating: Total score: 60% price: 70% performance: 70% display: 60% mobility: 70% workmanship: 70%
Source: It Pro Archive.org version
The Sony Xperia XA is a surprisingly bad phone with short battery life, disappointing performance and a questionable appearance. It’s not completely without merit - it has a respectably responsive touchscreen and a competent camera, but that’s not enough to make the XA worth buying.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/15/2016
Rating: Total score: 40%
Source: Expert Reviews Archive.org version
Ultimately, the Xperia XA's mediocre screen and diabolical battery life just aren't good enough to recommend it. Had Sony mashed the Xperia X and Xperia XA together, marrying the XA's edge-to-edge screen design and camera sensor with the X's more accurate display, faster processor and longer-lasting battery, it might have created a great smartphone. On their own, though, they both have too many flaws to make them good value.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/12/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Phone Arena Archive.org version
When you draw the line, the Sony Xperia XA appears to be nothing more than a good-looking affordable phone with little extraordinary above that. Apart from its looks and decent performance for most daily tasks, it’s really all downhill: the display has bluish, oversaturated colors and is not sharp enough, heavier tasks make the phone stutter, camera quality is uninspiring and battery life is below average. Lack of proper 4G LTE bands for the United States is also a downer.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 07/11/2016
Rating: Total score: 55%
Source: PC Perspective Archive.org version
In the end, you have to look at the opposition to set the Xperia XA in context, and right now it’s just too strong for this handset to stand out in any meaningful way. The Motorola Moto G4, king of the budget smartphones, is slicker, longer-lasting and costs much less. The OnePlus 2 is only £10 more expensive and is a much faster, more competent smartphone. By all means take your pick, but don't choose the Sony Xperia XA.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Recombu Archive.org version
The Xperia XA is a cheap but not-so-cheerful cousin to the Xperia X, and while the gorgeous design promises a slick and affordable smartphone, the Xperia XA sadly loses out to similarly-priced rivals. It can certainly beat them for looks, but when it comes to smarts, as well as longevity, we would rather get our hands on the Moto G4 Plus instead.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 06/29/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: GSM Arena Archive.org version
Of Sony's 2016 offerings, the Xperia XA is the one that managed to get under our skin. It reminds us of the Xperia T, which sold us on a curved back, solely on the basis of aesthetics and ergonomics. The Xperia P too, which tried to prove that metal phones do belong in the midrange (back in 2012, long before it became commonplace). The XA is the narrowest phone with a 5" screen and even without calipers you can feel it when you handle the phone. Its proportions - width, thickness, weight - are just right and we're especially fond of the way the front and back neatly curve into the sides. This is the phone that makes all others feel chunky.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 06/22/2016
Foreign Reviews
Source: Android Mag DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 12/31/2016
Rating: Total score: 80% price: 88% performance: 60% features: 60% display: 80% mobility: 40% workmanship: 100% ergonomy: 100%
Source: Chip.de DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/30/2016
Rating: Total score: 74% price: 83% performance: 86% features: 56% display: 89% mobility: 66%
Source: Area DVD DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/22/2016
Source: eTest DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 08/17/2016
Source: WinFuture DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 08/03/2016
Source: PC Welt DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/26/2016
Rating: Total score: 88% performance: 91% features: 94% display: 87% mobility: 80%
Source: Verivox DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/25/2016
Rating: Total score: 64% features: 65%
Source: A1 Blog DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/21/2016
Source: WinFuture DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/21/2016
Source: WinFuture DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/17/2016
Source: Computerbild - Heft 15/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/15/2016
Rating: Total score: 85%
Source: Teltarif DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/10/2016
Rating: Total score: 88% features: 80% workmanship: 92% ergonomy: 80%
Source: Inside Handy DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/07/2016
Rating: Total score: 70%
Source: Blick DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/07/2016
Source: Basic Tutorials - Heft 8/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 68%
Source: Connect - Heft 8/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 100%
Source: e-media - Heft 08/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Android Pit DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 50%
Source: Android Mag DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 07/01/2016
Source: Connect - Heft 08/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 82%
Source: Curved DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 06/20/2016
Rating: Total score: 74% performance: 73% display: 68% mobility: 68%
Source: n-tv DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 06/16/2016
Source: Android Magazin - Heft 3/2016
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 05/01/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: FAQsAndroid ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/13/2016
Rating: Total score: 70% price: 60% display: 75% mobility: 55% workmanship: 85%
Source: Computerhoy ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 09/04/2016
Rating: Total score: 75%
Source: Andro 4 All ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 07/17/2016
Rating: Total score: 82%
Source: Zona Movilidad ES→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good price due to high performance; light weight; decent cameras. Negative: Plastic case; mediocre hardware; average battery life.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/27/2016
Source: 4G News PT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/19/2016
Rating: Total score: 73% price: 65% performance: 75% display: 60% mobility: 65% workmanship: 85%
Source: Android Geek PT→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good display and cameras; solid workmanship; decent speakers. Negative: Mediocre performance.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 09/14/2016
Source: Canaltech PT→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Decent cameras. Negative: Mediocre hardware; average display; weak performance.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/22/2016
Source: Key for web IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/17/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: AndroidPit.it IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 07/28/2016
Rating: Total score: 50%
Source: Esperienza Mobile IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 07/11/2016
Rating: Total score: 65% price: 60% performance: 65% display: 60% mobility: 60% workmanship: 75%
Source: Tech Different IT→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Excellent speakers; good connectivity; decent cameras; good price.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/24/2016
Source: All About Phones NL→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good performance; nice design. Negative: Unsupport waterproof; mediocre screen; short battery life.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 09/25/2016
Source: Consumentenbond NL→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Solid workmanship; high resolution screen; quick launch camera. Negative: Overheat while using camera.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 07/06/2016
Source: CNet France FR→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 09/05/2016
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Top for Phone FR→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Elegant and stylish design; good built quality; good screen. Negative: Short battery life.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/15/2016
Source: Komputerswiat PL→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/30/2016
Rating: Total score: 76% features: 74%
Source: One Tech PL→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good design; high quality cameras; good display. Negative: Weak performance; unsupport waterproof.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 09/05/2016
Source: Log.com.tr TR→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Frameless screen design; hybrid autofocus. Negative: Average display; short battery life.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/12/2016
Source: Mobileimho.ru RU→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good price; slim size and lightweight; beautiful design. Negative: No fingerprint sensor; mediocre battery life.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 08/20/2016
Source: The Gioididong VN→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Low price; elegant design; compact size; decent hardware; nice cameras. Negative: Plastic case; short battery life.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 02/23/2017
Source: Techbox SK→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/19/2016
Rating: Total score: 82%
Source: Fony.sk SK→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Elegant workmanship; good looking design; decent cameras; quick response. Negative: No fingerprint sensor; short battery life; relatively high price.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/16/2016
Comment
ARM Mali-T860 MP2: Dual-Core version of the Mali-T860 graphics card from ARM for mostly Android based smartphones and tablets. E.g. in the Mediatek Helio P10 clocked at 700 MHz and produced in 28nm.
Only some 3D games with very low demands are playable with these cards.
» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Graphics Cards and the corresponding Benchmark List.
Helio P10 MT6755: ARM-based octa core SoC (8x Cortex-A53) with 64 Bit support and a clock rate of up to 2 GHz per core.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
5.00":
This display is tiny. You will probably see very little on the screen and be able to use mini-resolutions.
» To find out how fine a display is, see our DPI List.Sony: Sony Corporation is one of the largest Japanese electronics companies. The company was founded in 1946 under a different name and initially produced rice stoves. The company launched the first transistor radio. In 1958, the company was renamed Sony. Sony is a combination of the Latin word sonus (sound) and the English word sonny (little boy). Today, its core business is consumer electronics. The company is engaged in the development, design, manufacture and sale of electronic equipment, instruments, devices, game consoles and software. Sony operates in the following segments: Gaming and Network Services, Music, Images, Home Entertainment and Sound, Imaging Products and Solutions, Mobile Communications, Semiconductors, Financial Services and Others.
69.02%: This rating is poor. More than three quarters of the models are rated better. That is rather not a purchase recommendation. Even if verbal ratings in this area do not sound that bad ("sufficient" or "satisfactory"), they are usually euphemisms that disguise a classification as a below-average laptop.
» Further information can be found in our Notebook Purchase Guide.