Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarSony Xperia XA2 Ultra Smartphone Review
Ever since the Xperia XA the “Ultra” suffix has been reserved for Sony’s biggest and most expensive mid-range model in its particular series. Consequently, the Xperia XA2 Ultra is yet another 6-inch mid-range smartphone. What sets it apart from its competitors and the standard XA2 model is its front-facing dual-camera. Officially, Sony's phablet is $50 more expensive than its predecessor (MSRP: $449). However, some retailers are willing to part with it for a little bit under $430 already.
Smartphones as big as the XA2 Ultra are few and far between. Some examples include the Xiaomi Mi Mix 2, the Maze Alpha X, and the Honor View 10. The Samsung Galaxy A8 is a little bit smaller, and for roughly $50 more you can get a OnePlus 5T, the entry into the high-end smartphone market.
Case
The rather uncommon case has already been discussed in depth in our Sony Xperia XA and Sony Xperia XA2 reviews. Sony smartphones as of late feature a wide display with very wide bezels at the top and bottom. Given the current trend of narrow and borderless smartphones the fact that Sony decided to reuse the at this point almost stale case design for the XA2 caused quite a stir, yet Sony has remained true to its plans: the Xperia XA2 Ultra features the exact same bezels as its siblings. Due to its wide and large 16:9 6-inch display the phone thus feels incredibly bulky and larger than most other smartphones.
Let’s take the Honor View 10 for example. Despite its 6-inch display this phone is 0.5 centimeters narrower and shorter, 1.5 mm thinner, and almost 50 g lighter. It’s important to note though that the Honor View 10 features a 2:1 display and will thus not be able to utilize the entire screen area when showing 16:9 content such as for example movies.
Traditional and conservative users who prefer 16:9 displays will find a rather unique design in the XA2 Ultra - a smartphone that sets itself apart from the dozens of iPhone lookalikes on the market. The XA2 Ultra is instantly recognizable thanks to its square-edged design. Build quality is very high, and there are no visible gaps between the metal case and the glass front. The only thing we have noticed is that the top and bottom edge feel slightly rough to the touch.
Applying pressure to the front has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the device; applying pressure to the back has a minor effect on the screen contents. Despite its size, we found the incredibly sturdy phone to be virtually impossible to twist and warp.
Connectivity
Just 32 GB of storage space are on the low side. While the XA2 Ultra supports microSD cards up to 256 GB they cannot be formatted as internal storage and thus not be used to offload apps. 4 GB of RAM are at this point fairly common at the phone’s price point, and the predecessor featured the exact same amount.
What is rather uncommon is the XA2 Ultra’s support for Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC. Unfortunately, the USB-C port with support for USB-OTG is only connected via USB 2.0.
Software
As soon as we powered up our review unit for the first time it presented us with an update notification for latest version of Android, 8.0 as well as up-to-date security patches. Sony has opted to tweak and modify the user interface slightly, e.g. by rearranging the settings. The phone also includes a theme store as well as some other Sony in-house applications, such as Movie Creator or a sketch-pad.
Communication and GPS
Wi-Fi performance and configuration were pretty decent for a mid-range smartphone. It supports the usual 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac wireless networking standards and when connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router only had to throw in the towel when compared with upper-class high-end smartphones. Standing close to the router signal strength was perfect and websites loaded quickly. At a distance of 10 m with three walls in between signal strength was at around 50 % but we have failed to notice any increases in website loading times.
The device supports LTE download speeds of up to 600 Mbps thanks to support for LTE Cat. 12. That said the amount of supported LTE frequencies is fairly low and might cause trouble due to lack of LTE support overseas. Connected to the German D2 network in mostly urban and downtown environments reception and data speeds were very decent.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (42.9 - 884, n=36, last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (50.4 - 938, n=37, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
The built-in GPS module was capable to locate us indoors at an accuracy of 13 m, albeit it took quite a while to lock in on us. Standing at the window and outside accuracy quickly improved to 3 m - a very commendable result.
As always, we have conducted our real-world test comparing the device to a professional Garmin Edge 500 on a bicycle tour using the Runtastic app to record our track. By and large, the XA2 Ultra turned out to be very accurate with only minor deviations. The device is thus more than usable as everyday satnav.
Telephony and Call Quality
The earphone offered a very decent call quality. Voices were clear, although at higher volumes we have noticed a troublesome amount of static. The microphone, however, turned out to be subpar and our own voice was very muffled. Talking on speakerphone produced similar results, with loud and clear voices and a microphone, that was once again pretty disappointing. Only that this time, it failed us completely and only managed to record and transmit snippets of what we were trying to say. Repeating the phone call did result in a slightly better microphone performance, but it was still poor and occasionally dropped out completely again.
Cameras
Compared to the Xperia XA1, the rear-facing camera has remained largely unmodified save for a higher maximum ISO for improved low-light performance. Otherwise, it still features the same 23 MP sensor and a dual-tone LED flash. The front-facing camera, however, is where it gets really interesting. The XA2 Ultra features a dual-camera at the front with two separate lenses and sensors: a regular 16 MP sensor and an 8 MP sensor behind a wide-angle lens. Besides the larger screen, this front-facing camera is the main difference between the XA2 Ultra and the regular XA2.
The main camera’s performance is very similar to the OnePlus 5T’s with slightly brighter photos for the latter due to its dual-camera at the back. Overall image quality was very good, photos turned out crisp and rich in detail but too dark in low-light environments.
Selfies taken with either of the two front-facing cameras were fairly decent and crisp. As expected, the wide-angle lens offered a significantly wider viewing angle at the price of noticeable lens distortions around the edges. Faces in these areas might thus turn out unintentionally yet comically warped. Unlike many other dual-cameras this one does not combine the two photos into a single image but allows you to chose which lens to shoot with.
A separate app is required to record 4K video with the rear-facing camera. Oddly enough, the smartphone continues to issue a warning when launching the app saying that the device might overheat. This warning message can be traced all the way back to the first Sony smartphone with support for 4K video recording, the 2014 Sony Xperia Z2, which did overheat as a matter of fact. Nowadays, this shouldn’t be the case anymore and video quality was fair: crisp image, accurate colors, and a fast response to changes in lighting conditions.
We test every camera in our lab under normalized conditions, and the XA2 Ultra produced slightly underexposed but very crisp images rich in detail. It did not struggle with text in front of colored backgrounds, color representation was decent, and photos were in focus up to their very edges.
Overall the XA2 Ultra’s main camera was similar to the XA1’s camera: very crisp but low in dynamics and slightly underexposed. Still, camera quality was more than decent for a mid-range device and even capable of keeping up with the big boys.
Accessories and Warranty
In addition to a headset the box also contains a USB-C cable and a charger. Unfortunately, the compact charger does not support support for Quick Charge 3.0 while the phone does. Sony’s premium for a Quick Charge 3.0 compatible charger is $50. However, given that Quick Charge 3.0 is a widely adopted standard we suggest looking elsewhere in order to find a better deal. A SIM tool is not required as the SIM tray can be opened without one.
Once again, European customers get 24 months of warranty while US customers are disadvantaged and limited to a single year. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.
Input Devices and Handling
Swiftkey is Sony’s virtual keyboard of choice, and Google’s GBoard can be retroactively installed from the Play Store. Besides Swiftkey we found no preloaded apps on the device. The highly customizable keyboard app worked very well by and large, and it can be themed with either preconfigured themes or custom designs.
The touchscreen was responsive and sensitive up to its very edges, and it was very smooth overall. Despite the massive bezel at the bottom the Android menu buttons are located on-screen. A one-handed mode can be enabled in the menu. The comparatively small standby button, the volume rocker, and the dedicated camera button are all located on the right-hand side. All buttons are easy to locate and very clicky.
The fingerprint reader at the rear protrudes lightly from the case and is thus easily located. It was reliable and fast even with the phone in standby.
Display
At first glance, the Xperia XA2 Ultra had the lowest resolution of all candidates in our test group. However, considering that all other devices feature 2:1 aspect ratio displays the resolution turns out to be identical as the other candidates merely offer more vertical pixels due to their narrow elongated displays. Accordingly, while the competition features a higher pixel density on paper there is virtually no difference between all the devices in our test group.
Overall, the XA2 Ultra’s display was very crisp and rich in detail. Its exceptionally high average brightness of 680 nits trumped all of its competitors. At 88 %, brightness distribution was fairly high, and we found only minor and negligible shifts in the brightness levels of large uniformly colored areas.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 659 cd/m²
Contrast: 1177:1 (Black: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.8 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.1
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
Gamma: 2.18
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra IPS, 1920x1080, 6.00 | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 IPS, 2160x1080, 6.00 | Honor View 10 IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99 | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 5.60 | OnePlus 5T AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6.01 | Maze Alpha X IPS, 2160x1080, 6.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -2% | 10% | -25% | 4% | -125% | |
| Brightness middle | 659 | 472 -28% | 530 -20% | 541 -18% | 425 -36% | 497 -25% |
| Brightness | 680 | 430 -37% | 523 -23% | 538 -21% | 423 -38% | 478 -30% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 87 -1% | 88 0% | 96 9% | 92 5% | 87 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.56 | 0.27 52% | 0.35 37% | 0.6 -7% | ||
| Contrast | 1177 | 1748 49% | 1514 29% | 828 -30% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 3.5 -25% | 2.4 14% | 5.8 -107% | 2.1 25% | 11.6 -314% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.5 | 5.9 9% | 5.5 15% | 3.4 48% | 22.1 -240% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 4 -33% | 2.2 27% | 2.7 10% | 2.5 17% | 13.5 -350% |
| Gamma | 2.18 101% | 2.29 96% | 2.25 98% | 2.07 106% | 2.32 95% | 2.93 75% |
| CCT | 6938 94% | 7048 92% | 6598 99% | 6570 99% | 6455 101% | 9955 65% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 1479 Hz | ≤ 5 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 1479 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 5 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 1479 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19019 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Since the device features an IPS display it requires a backlight. Accordingly, blacks turn out to be rather dark gray instead at maximum brightness while AMOLED displays manage to display true blacks. At 0.56 nits, our review unit’s black level was comparatively high. Nevertheless, the display featured a commendable contrast ratio of 1,177:1 thanks to its high maximum brightness.
Out of the box, colors are on the cool side. The phone allows both manual white balance adjustments as well as choosing from two different presets named Standard and Vivid. We ran our usual CalMAN spectrophotometer tests in both modes.
By default, sRGB color accuracy was mediocre. Through manual white balance adjustments we were able to optimize color representation, minimize deviations, and rid the display of its blue tint that was most visible in gray scales.
We have discovered PWM flickering for brightness levels of 5 % and below, albeit at a very high frequency. It should thus not be of any concern.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 21.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15.6 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 39 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 30 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 61 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (34.6 ms). | ||
Short of direct sunlight the Xperia XA2 Ultra’s incredibly bright display remained readable and usable outdoors even in bright indirect sunlight. Viewing angles were less than ideal, though. We have noticed shifts in brightness when viewed from the sides which were less visible to the naked eye than the camera.
Performance
The smartphone is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 SoC with 8 cores and a clock speed of up to 2.2 GHz. As expected, high-end smartphones at only slightly higher prices offered more performance, and Samsung’s Galaxy A8 was slightly faster as well.
Our review unit’s GPU is an Adreno 508, and once again both high-end smartphones and the Galaxy A8 were faster. All things considered, the Xperia XA2 Ultra’s level of performance was adequate for its price and class.
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (44128 - 73617, n=12) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4948 - 6264, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10619 - 19297, n=3, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4636 - 5987, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7100 - 12871, n=15, last 2 years) | |
| Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (710 - 885, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (800 - 8424, n=86, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (2246 - 4234, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 21505, n=86, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (2910 - 3956, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2053 - 14785, n=66, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (25 - 31, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=192, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (29 - 30, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=192, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (11 - 15, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=192, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (13 - 14, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.3 - 11, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.2 - 10, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4.3 - 6, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5 - 110, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
| Honor View 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Maze Alpha X | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.3 - 5.6, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.9 - 166, n=193, last 2 years) | |
Web browsing performance was certainly not one of the Ultra’s strengths, and it was only fast enough for second to last place in our synthetic benchmarks. The only phone even slower was the Maze Alpha X. That said HTML5 websites such as Google's Interland loaded acceptably fast and were rendered without major stuttering.
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (31.3 - 414, n=52, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Honor View 10 (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (27.4 - 30.8, n=12) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (Chrome 65) | |
| Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Honor View 10 (Chrome 63) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (Chrome 65) | |
| Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4398 - 5202, n=13) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (Chrome 65) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (8396 - 10257, n=13) | |
| Honor View 10 (Chrome 63) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 9999, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Honor View 10 (Chrome 63) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (Chrome 65) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (86 - 117, n=10) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) | |
* ... smaller is better
Given the rather slow eMMC storage chips the phone was unable to keep up with the much faster UFS 2.1 storage most commonly found in high-end smartphones. Overall, storage performance was acceptable and average for its price bracket.
MicroSD performance is measured using our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card, and it, too, was neither particularly fast nor particularly slow. In other words: it was average by and large.
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | Honor View 10 | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | OnePlus 5T | Maze Alpha X | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 90% | 301% | 5% | 96% | 4% | 1% | 787% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 273.7 | 704 157% | 810 196% | 299.9 10% | 699 155% | 247.4 -10% | 242 ? -12% | 1228 ? 349% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 138.8 | 208.6 50% | 194.3 40% | 104.2 -25% | 203.4 47% | 162.2 17% | 100.5 ? -28% | 815 ? 487% |
| Random Read 4KB | 76 | 148.5 95% | 144.3 90% | 82.6 9% | 138.1 82% | 70.3 -7% | 43.1 ? -43% | 215 ? 183% |
| Random Write 4KB | 10.1 | 15.75 56% | 160 1484% | 14.69 45% | 20 98% | 11.61 15% | 22.1 ? 119% | 225 ? 2128% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 85.9 ? | 81 ? -6% | 77.9 ? -9% | 81 ? -6% | 71.8 ? -16% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.3 ? | 65.1 ? 3% | 62.3 ? -2% | 74 ? 17% | 52.9 ? -16% |
Gaming
We ran into minor limitations when running games. For example, we were unable to activate the high frame rate mode in Arena of Valor and were thus limited to just 30 FPS with occasional drops to even less. Battle Bay ran at a maximum of 60 FPS and also presented us with occasional dips, although they were not as drastic as the ones experienced in Arena of Valor. Battle Bay should thus run smoothly; the most massive drops occurred at maximum resolution immediately following a match. Shadow Fight 3’s frame rates were fluctuating wildly, particularly so after we enabled high details.
Thus, the XA2 Ultra is not a gaming smartphone per se. However, casual gamers should find it suiting given that the fluctuating frame rates were barely noticeable while actually playing the games in question. Competitive gamers and those seeking utmost performance should however steer clear of this device.
Game controls via orientation sensor and touchscreen worked very reliably.
| Arena of Valor | |
| min | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| high HD | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Shadow Fight 3 | |
| minimal | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| high | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Battle Bay | |
| full resolution | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| half resolution | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra | |
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Settings | Value | ||
| min | 31 fps | ||
| high HD | 30 fps | ||
| Shadow Fight 3 | |||
| Settings | Value | ||
| high | 58 fps | ||
| minimal | 30 fps | ||
| Battle Bay | |||
| Settings | Value | ||
| half resolution | 61 fps | ||
| full resolution | 61 fps | ||
Emissions
Temperature
The smartphone only warmed up slightly, and maximum temperature measured was 36.4 °C. When idle, we have failed to notice any warmth whatsoever.
Whether or not a smartphone throttles its maximum CPU performance under sustained load is determined by running GFXBench’s battery test, and the XA2 Ultra did not throttle at all.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.4 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.1 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.3 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
The XA2 Ultra’s speaker is located at the bottom of the phone, and with a maximum of 87.7 dB(A) it can get quite loud. The sound scape it produced was fairly balanced - sound quality was decent and highs were not overemphasized due to a presence of low mids making for a quite warm acoustic pattern. A manual equalizer is available in the phone’s audio settings, and the device also supports automatic adjustment via Clear Audio +.
Headphones and external speakers can be connected either via the 3.5-mm headphone jack at the top of the device or Bluetooth 5.0. Unfortunately, this latest Bluetooth standard is not supported by too many speakers and headphones just yet. Both ways worked reliably and very well. The included headset’s sound quality and microphone were decent.
Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Honor View 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Frequency diagram (checkboxes selectable/deselectable!)
Battery Life
Power Consumption
The Xperia XA2 Ultra consumed less energy than the Honor View 10, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Overall power consumption was comparatively high, especially in contrast with the Samsung Galaxy A8 or the OnePlus 5T.
| Off / Standby |   0.02 / 0.42 Watt |
| Idle |  0.77 / 2.12 / 2.17 Watt |
| Load |
4.3 / 6.73 Watt |
    
| |
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra 3580 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 3771 mAh | Honor View 10 3750 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | Maze Alpha X 3900 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 3% | -21% | 27% | 17% | 1% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.77 | 0.69 10% | 1.05 -36% | 0.67 13% | 0.58 25% | 0.9 -17% |
| Idle Average * | 2.12 | 2.03 4% | 2.36 -11% | 1.02 52% | 1.44 32% | 2.14 -1% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.17 | 2.1 3% | 2.41 -11% | 1.1 49% | 1.53 29% | 2.18 -0% |
| Load Average * | 4.3 | 3.18 26% | 4.93 -15% | 3.86 10% | 3.17 26% | 3.96 8% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.73 | 8.73 -30% | 9.04 -34% | 5.97 11% | 8.54 -27% | 5.81 14% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
Despite its comparatively high power consumption and average-sized battery (3,580 mAh / 14.63 Wh according to Sony’s official specifications) the XA2 Ultra’s battery life was pretty decent. It even managed to beat the Samsung Galaxy A8, although it should be noted that the latter is powered by a much smaller battery.
In our Wi-Fi test, the XA2 Ultra lasted for 14:09 hours and thus around 30 minutes shorter than the Samsung Galaxy A8. In return, the XA2 Ultra’s idle runtime was longer. Translated into real-world experience this means that the device should last for two full days of moderate to regular use. A battery charge level of 30 % should be enough for leaving the house for a couple of hours without fear of losing power halfway through the night. Unless of course one tends to game while out and about, in which case the battery is going to drain very quickly.
Charging the device from near empty to 100 % with the included power supply takes slightly over 2 hours. While the smartphone supports Quick Charge 3.0 a compatible charger must be purchased separately.
| Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra 3580 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 3771 mAh | Honor View 10 3750 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | Maze Alpha X 3900 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -29% | -2% | -6% | -5% | -12% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1788 | 1671 -7% | 1546 -14% | 1754 -2% | 1624 -9% | |
| H.264 | 876 | 819 -7% | 908 4% | 799 -9% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 849 | 600 -29% | 679 -20% | 646 -24% | 718 -15% | 603 -29% |
| Load | 238 | 305 28% | 260 9% | 257 8% | 240 1% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
“It has always been a bit more expensive to have a special taste.” This slogan held true back in the days when Sony smartphones were still known as Sony Ericsson Xperia, and it still does so for today’s review unit with a street price of a bit under $430. For just $50-$100 more you can get an Honor View 10 or OnePlus 5T with much more processing oomph and better screen-to-body ratios to boot. However, the Sony’s ginormous and exceptionally bright 16:9 customizable display is most certainly a unique selling point.
The two selfie cameras at the front allow for more artistic freedom when taking photos by letting one choose between a regular and a wide angle shot, albeit the latter comes with distracting distortions around the edges. The main camera is still incredible and living proof that even a single lens can produce amazing photos. The device’s poor microphone performance was a major letdown, though, especially considering that we used to praise Sony smartphones for their superior voice quality in the past. The speaker, on the other hand, was fairly decent and the remarkably accurate GPS was a positive surprise. The overall experience is accompanied by the device’s up-to-date software and very decent handling capabilities.
The Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra may not be the most fashionable device out there and it certainly isn’t the most affordable one either, but its total package turned out to be quite impressive.
Purchased through your network operator the Xperia XA2 Ultra can be the ideal companion for those who like to take selfies and don’t need high-end performance. Its large screen and long battery life are commendable, however we would suggest waiting a bit longer for the price to drop to more acceptable levels.
Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra
-
03/31/2018 v6(old)
Florian Wimmer
More articles related to this device
Sony Xperia XA2 Ultra (Xperia Series)Related Articles
Pricecompare
