Wiko View 3 Pro
Specifications
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix f/2.0
Pricecompare
Average of 14 scores (from 24 reviews)
Reviews for the Wiko View 3 Pro
Wiko is trying to significantly lower the price limit for smartphones with a triple-camera setup. At the same time, it is relying on many AI functions, a large amount of storage and an attractive design. In our review we will reveal what else the Wiko View 3 Pro offers for around 300 Euros (~$338).
Source: DxOMark Archive.org version
The Wiko View 3 Pro offers an impressive-looking spec sheet at a budget price point, but unfortunately, at least for the camera, this does not translate into an impressive performance, thus the View 3 Pro achieves one of the lowest camera scores among all the devices we have tested so far. It’s capable of recording acceptable photos and videos in ideal conditions, but in more challenging situations the camera struggles. Overall, there is quite a bit of room for improvement in all areas, making the Wiko hard to recommend to anyone who values camera performance on their smartphone—and that’s true even considering the attractive price point.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 10/31/2019
Foreign Reviews
Source: Chip.de DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/09/2019
Rating: Total score: 79% performance: 82% features: 74% display: 80% mobility: 92%
Source: Connect - 8/19
Single Review, , Medium, Date: 07/01/2019
Rating: Total score: 77% features: 70% mobility: 98% ergonomy: 69%
Source: Android Pit DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 06/02/2019
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Tech Stage DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 05/06/2019
Source: Teltarif DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 05/05/2019
Rating: Total score: 90% display: 70% mobility: 90% workmanship: 90%
Source: WinFuture DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 02/28/2019
Source: Inside Handy DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/27/2019
Source: Curved DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/26/2019
Source: MuyComputer ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/03/2019
Rating: Total score: 81% performance: 85% display: 80% mobility: 90% workmanship: 75%
Source: Computerhoy ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 06/06/2019
Rating: Total score: 80% features: 80% display: 70% mobility: 80% workmanship: 80%
Source: Andro 4 All ES→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 05/22/2019
Rating: Total score: 71%
Source: Zona Movilidad ES→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Attractive design; powerful hardware; high performance; good price.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 10/11/2019
Source: El Androide Libre ES→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Decent hardware; nice design; great built quality.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 05/22/2019
Source: PC Guia PT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/11/2019
Rating: Total score: 71% price: 80%
Source: Android Geek PT→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Great autonomy; nice design; high performance. Negative: Poor cameras; high price; bulky.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 09/07/2019
Source: AndroidWorld.it IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 08/19/2019
Rating: Total score: 74% price: 75% features: 75% display: 80% mobility: 75% workmanship: 80% ergonomy: 80%
Source: HDblog.it IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 08/01/2019
Rating: price: 59% features: 79%
Source: AndroidPit.it IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 05/26/2019
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: CNet France FR→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 08/19/2019
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Frandroid FR→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 06/29/2019
Rating: Total score: 70% performance: 70% display: 70% mobility: 70% workmanship: 80%
Source: AndroidPit.fr FR→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 05/30/2019
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: Top for Phone FR→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Beautiful design; nice cameras; long battery life.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 07/10/2019
Source: Phonandroid FR→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Good price; nice design; great display; long battery life.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/26/2019
Comment
ARM Mali-G72 MP3: Integrated graphics card from ARM with 3 cores based on the 2nd generation of the Bifrost architecture.
Non demanding games should be playable with these graphics cards.
» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Graphics Cards and the corresponding Benchmark List.
Helio P60: ARM based octa-core SoC with 4x big ARM Cortex-A73 cores and 4x small and power efficient ARM Cortex-A53 cores. All clocked up to 2 GHz. Integrates a Cat-7 (DL) / Cat-13 (UL) LTE Modem (4G), ARM Mali-G72 MP3 GPU and a dedicated AI processing unit.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
6.30":
It is a small display format for smartphones. You shouldn't be severely defective in vision, and you won't see much detail on the screen and only have a small resolution available. For that, the device should be small and handy, easy to transport.
» To find out how fine a display is, see our DPI List.Wiko:
Wiko SAS was founded as a French smartphone manufacturer in 2011. Since 2014, the Chinese technology group Tinno Mobile has owned a majority of Wiko. They produce in China. The company has already reached a considerable market share in the French market in early years and expanded to Europe and Africa later on. Nevertheless, the world market share is low.
Reviews are only available since 2014, that is since the first international expansion. Recently, the number of reviews has increased. The ratings are average (as of 2016).
72.66%: 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.