Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarVivo Y21s smartphone review - Slim and light with fast charging
Possible competitors in comparison
Bewertung | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 76.5 % | 01/2022 | Vivo Y21s Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 182 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.51" | 1600x720 | |
| 74.9 % | 12/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1 | 205 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 78.4 % | 12/2021 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 190 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
| 77 % | 11/2021 | Oppo A16s Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320 | 190 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.52" | 1600x720 |
Case and features - Vivo Y21s with the NFC
The price of Vivo Y21s is low - buyers do not even have to pay 200 Euros for this model. The Chinese manufacturer offers a plastic casing that is available in a subtle dark blue or a dazzling light blue with pink reflections.
The chassis is quite slim with just 8 millimeters, but the camera module sticks out quite a bit. The weight of just 182 grams is also very low, especially since the Vivo Y21s also has a fairly large screen with 6.51 inches. The build quality is good and the case hardly yields under pressure.
The inexpensive Vivo phone offers 128 GB of mass storage, which is more than many other smartphones in the price range can provide. 4 GB of RAM on the other hand are on par with the class, although an additional 1 GB of the mass storage can be used as RAM thanks to Extended RAM feature.
There is also NFC and a dedicated microSD card slot, which allows to use 2 SIM cards at the same time. The reader is quite slow in data transfer in our tests with the reference microSD Angelbird V60. It only achieves decent speeds in sequential reading.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F (Angelbird V60) | |
| Oppo A16s (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10.9 - 77, n=98, last 2 years) | |
| Vivo Y21s (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 (Toshiba Exceria Pro) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation - Fast and up-to-date
Our tets unit supports WiFi 5, and the speeds achieved in our tests with the Netgear Nighthawk AX12 router are fast. the smartphone does not support 5G, but the most necessary 4G frequencies are available. Users who often travel abroad should check which LTE frequencies are important in the host country. For example, the European version of the Vivo Y21s lacks some important LTE bands for the US or Japan.
Vivo calls its software interface Funtouch OS, it is based on Android 11. The security patches are from December 2021 on our test unit and are thus quite up-to-date at the time of this review, which is unusual for such a cheap smartphone. There are some preloaded ad apps, but they can be uninstalled easily.
A fingerprint sensor is installed on the right and integrated in the slightly recessed standby button - it responds very quickly and reliably. Face recognition can also be used to unlock the smartphone. The touchscreen works reliably.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
Cameras - No wide-angle in the Vivo Phone
Three camera lenses are located on the smartphone's back, but only two of them can really be used for taking pictures: The main camera with 50 megapixels and a macro lens with 2 megapixels. The third camera is only used to support bokeh effects. However, the lack of a wide-angle camera is a significant cut for the flexibility of the camera system even for under 200 Euros.
The camera equipment is, at least on the back, identical with the more expensive Vivo Y33s and the image quality of the main camera also reminds us of the sister phone: An overall decent image sharpness and very solid image quality in good light, which only has a bit of dynamic range issues in very bright areas. In low light and high contrasts, the image sharpness is also decent for this price range and brightness is acceptable. Videos can be recorded in 1080p with 30 fps at most.
In the lab, the smartphone shows somewhat flat colors and slight sharpness deficits in good lighting, and there are still details that remain recognizable in low light.
The front-facing camera has a resolution of 8 megapixels and takes decent selfies that can be enlarged a bit.
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.
Hauptkamera PflanzeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low Light
Display - Only 720p and not very bright
The Vivo Y21s only offers a 720p screen, and the screen's brightness is rather mediocre. This is not so bad outdoors on dark days, but owners will probably have problems with reflections and barely recognizable screen content when it is very sunny.
At least the black value is on a decent level, so the contrast and thus the color reproduction are decent. The accuracy of the colors on the display is also on the usual level. For those who care about color accuracy, the deviations in bright blues and oranges in particular are probably too high.
We did not notice PWM, so people who are sensitive to it can also use this smartphone.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 407 cd/m²
Contrast: 1100:1 (Black: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.87 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
94% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.103
| Vivo Y21s IPS, 1600x720, 6.51 | Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F IPS LCD, 1600x720, 6.50 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.30 | Oppo A16s LCD, 1600x720, 6.52 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -32% | -14% | -2% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 42 ? | 58 ? -38% | 52 ? -24% | 48 ? -14% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 27 ? | 34 ? -26% | 28 ? -4% | 24 ? 11% |
| PWM Frequency | 178.6 ? | 352.1 ? | ||
| Screen | 12% | 26% | 25% | |
| Brightness middle | 407 | 446 10% | 496 22% | 607 49% |
| Brightness | 386 | 423 10% | 491 27% | 586 52% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 88 4% | 91 7% | 90 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.29 22% | 0.19 49% | 0.52 -41% |
| Contrast | 1100 | 1538 40% | 2611 137% | 1167 6% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.87 | 4.94 -1% | 5.5 -13% | 3.1 36% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.28 | 8.81 5% | 8.88 4% | 6.7 28% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.4 | 5.1 6% | 6.6 -22% | 2 63% |
| Gamma | 2.103 105% | 2.145 103% | 2.36 93% | 2.17 101% |
| CCT | 7511 87% | 7890 82% | 8432 77% | 6806 96% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -10% /
3% | 6% /
18% | 12% /
20% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 27 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 63 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 23 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 63 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Great fast charging technology
The Helio G80 from MediaTek is used as the SoC. This chip offers eight cores and a maximum clock of 2 GHz. Thus, the Vivo Y21s can definitely convince in terms of performance for its price range. Owners will have to reckon with noticeable performance losses and stutters in more complex tasks or several apps that run simultaneously, but there are enough power for basic tasks like messenger services.
The eMMC storage in the smartphone is not exactly fast, but values in our tests is quite good for the price range. Vivo's Y21s is also on the usual level in terms of heat dissipation. It could only get uncomfortable in very hot environments
The small mono speaker is rather moderately loud and shows sound characteristics that deviate significantly from the median. Trebles are very strongly overemphasized even at lower volumes, while there are hardly anything on the lower frequencies. It sounds better when you connect a speaker or headphones via Bluetooth or 3.5 mm jack. Pleasing: all current aptX codecs for higher audio quality via Bluetooth are supported.
You can surf the Internet via WLAN for over 16 hours with the Vivo Y21s before the battery runs out of power. That is a good, but not outstanding value for the class. Thanks to the fast charging with up to 18 watts and the included charger, owners will quickly have enough power for a few hours of use, and the battery can also be completely charged in 90 minutes.
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G80 (7.5 - 18, n=11) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G80 (8.2 - 9.2, n=11) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 229, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G80 (4.8 - 11, n=11) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.8 - 119, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Y21s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | |
| Oppo A16s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G80 (3.1 - 3.3, n=11) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 94, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| Vivo Y21s | Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 | Oppo A16s | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -47% | -33% | -48% | -36% | 213% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 316.1 | 302.3 -4% | 309.4 -2% | 289.2 -9% | 283 ? -10% | 1508 ? 377% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 260.6 | 74.5 -71% | 159.7 -39% | 168.4 -35% | 193 ? -26% | 1118 ? 329% |
| Random Read 4KB | 139.7 | 77.8 -44% | 73.6 -47% | 45.32 -68% | 82.4 ? -41% | 247 ? 77% |
| Random Write 4KB | 159.9 | 47.21 -70% | 88.9 -44% | 35.23 -78% | 54 ? -66% | 272 ? 70% |
Temperature
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.6 °C / 109 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 40.6 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.3 °C / 72 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Loudspeaker
Vivo Y21s audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 69% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 83% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than 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
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Vivo Y21s 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 4000 mAh | Oppo A16s 5000 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 973 | 879 -10% | 748 -23% | 1053 8% | 914 ? -6% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Good, affordable and lightweight overall package
The Vivo Y21s is a cheaper variant of the Y33s and this price difference puts the aspects that both smartphones have in common in an even better light: in terms of memory configuration, the Vivo Y21s is a role model, plus there is a very light chassis with a large battery that offers good runtimes. NFC is not yet installed on all smartphones with price less than 200 Euros (~$200), so the Vivo Y21s can score here as well.
Sure, a wide-angle camera would have been a nice addition, but the smartphone's main camera takes decent pictures. Users who want a Full HD screen will have to look elsewhere. In return, the Vivo Y21s offers fast charging with 18 watts, so it is quickly ready for use again when the battery is empty.
Users looking for an inexpensive, lightweight and enduring smartphone should definitely consider the Vivo Y21s
Overall, the smartphone offers good features for a low price and can convince in many areas. With a Vivo Y33s buyers paying a considerable surcharge, but they also get a Full HD display and more working memory. The Redmi Note 8 2021 comes without NFC, but also have a higher-resolution screen and a wide-angle camera.
Price and availability
At the time of testing, the Vivo Y21s is available from around 180 Euros (~$180), among others at our loaner and partner cyberport.de.
Vivo Y21s
-
01/05/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
