Notebookcheck

Wiko View 4 Smartphone Review – Chic Long Distance Runner for Little Money

Very chic. With an unusual appearance, Wiko View 4 tries to convince its buyers, but the inner values remain rather modest. Whether the smartphone with a French design can still convince, you can find out in the review.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy),
Wiko View 4
Wiko View 4 (View Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio A25 8 x 1.8 GHz, Cortex-A53
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
6.52 inch 20:9, 1600 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 55 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Proximity sensor, Compass
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.85 x 165.7 x 75.8 ( = 0.35 x 6.52 x 2.98 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix Contrast AF, LED flash, video @1080p/30fps (camera 1); 5.0MP, wide angle lens (camera 2); 2.0MP, depth of field (camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, headset, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.377W/kg (head), 1.686W/kg (body); LTE Cat 4 (150Mbps/50Mbps); FM radio, fanless
Weight
180 g ( = 6.35 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 47 g ( = 1.66 oz / 0.1 pounds)
Price
169 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
75 %7
03/2020
Wiko View 4
Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320
180 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.52"1600x720
81 %6
07/2019
Wiko View 3
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320
178 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.26"1520x720
78 %7
09/2019
Xiaomi Mi A3
SD 665, Adreno 610
173.8 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.09"1560x720
76 %7
07/2019
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2
141 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.80"1560x720

Case, Equipment and Operation - Less Creaking, Please!

Wiko offers three color variants for the View 4: Blue with rose gold accents and an iridescent back that creates rainbow-colored light reflections. A color variation called Cosmic Gold, with pink as the main color. Cosmic Green, on the other hand, is a very dark green that is a little more reserved and is therefore probably intended for those who find the other two color variants too fancy.

The back is made of plastic and the smartphone tends to crack under pressure, which reduces the impression of quality. Pressure on the front in turn becomes visible in the liquid crystal of the screen. The device can hardly be twisted. Wiko View 4 is a fairly large smartphone, and its weight of 180 grams is reasonable.

64 GB eMMC flash and 4 GB RAM are quite alright in this price range, and there is a bit more RAM in comparison to the predecessor Wiko View 3. The smartphone supports two SIM cards and has a dedicated slot for one microSD.

In our WLAN test with the Linksys Nighthawk AX12, the Wiko View 4 cuts a rather moderate figure, here it is one of the slowest smartphones. There is also a maximum WiFi 4 and the offered maximum LTE speed is also quite low.

On the left side of the case, there is a separate Google Assistant button, which cannot be freely assigned. On the right, there is the standby button and the volume rocker, which can be easily felt and reliably operated. The touchscreen reacts quickly and precisely to input. You have to do without a fingerprint sensor in Wiko View 4.

Size Comparison

165.7 mm / 6.52 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.85 mm / 0.3484 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs159 mm / 6.26 inch 76.5 mm / 3.01 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 178 g0.3924 lbs153.5 mm / 6.04 inch 71.9 mm / 2.83 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 173.8 g0.3832 lbs147.4 mm / 5.8 inch 69.7 mm / 2.74 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 141 g0.3109 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi A3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
158 (18min - 227max) MBit/s ∼100% +243%
Wiko View 3
802.11 b/g/n
70 (57min - 83max) MBit/s ∼44% +52%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
60 (47min - 67max) MBit/s ∼38% +30%
Wiko View 4
802.11 b/g/n
46.1 (29min - 62max) MBit/s ∼29%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi A3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
172 (2min - 282max) MBit/s ∼100% +344%
Wiko View 3
802.11 b/g/n
55 (47min - 62max) MBit/s ∼32% +42%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
39.7 (23min - 50max) MBit/s ∼23% +3%
Wiko View 4
802.11 b/g/n
38.7 (15min - 64max) MBit/s ∼23%
010203040506070Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø45.7 (29-62)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø38.7 (15-64)

Cameras - True Dual Camera with Third Lens

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

Wiko talks about 3 cameras at the back. However, it should be noted that one of the lenses is a depth-of-field camera with only 2 megapixels, which cannot be used for independent photos and whose usefulness cannot be proven. So what remains is a main camera with 13 megapixels and a wide angle lens with 5 megapixels.

The main camera basically takes sharp pictures, but if you take a closer look, it hides some details. Moreover, the image looks a little cool, which causes a white balance that tends to be more blue. The pictures could also be a little brighter. Despite all the complaining, one has to say that the main camera of Wiko View 4 does a decent job and produces quite good pictures for its price range. Even with very little light and high contrasts the result is still OK.

Videos can be recorded at a maximum of 1080p and 30 fps, which is already the lowest acceptable standard, even in this price range: the Xiaomi Mi A3 can even record 4K videos.

The front camera with 8 megapixels also takes decent pictures.

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
28.7 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
38.3 ∆E
37.3 ∆E
43.9 ∆E
59.9 ∆E
48.7 ∆E
33.8 ∆E
34.6 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
62 ∆E
61.7 ∆E
31.1 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
30.9 ∆E
69.4 ∆E
39.1 ∆E
44.8 ∆E
57 ∆E
63 ∆E
48.5 ∆E
35.9 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
13.7 ∆E
ColorChecker Wiko View 4: 42.87 ∆E min: 13.67 - max: 69.35 ∆E
ColorChecker
3.5 ∆E
0.7 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
1.3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Wiko View 4: 5.59 ∆E min: 0.75 - max: 10.46 ∆E

Display - Color-true Screen in View 4

Sub-pixel Array
Sub-pixel Array

In terms of resolution and brightness, Wiko View 4 does not have to hide from similarly expensive smartphones. The black level is also at a fairly low level, so that good contrasts are achieved and the smartphone can display good black. It is also pleasing that we can't detect any PWM flickering, even at very low screen brightness.

In addition, the results from our test with the CalMAN software and the spectrophotometer are also good: Here, there is at best a very slight blue cast to be seen and the deviations of colours and greyscales are relatively small, so that one has a good picture impression and colours are displayed quite lifelike on the screen.

496
cd/m²
542
cd/m²
496
cd/m²
508
cd/m²
546
cd/m²
458
cd/m²
509
cd/m²
506
cd/m²
476
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 546 cd/m² Average: 504.1 cd/m² Minimum: 10.1 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 546 cd/m²
Contrast: 2730:1 (Black: 0.2 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.19 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 2.3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
92.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
Wiko View 4
IPS, 1600x720, 6.52
Wiko View 3
IPS, 1520x720, 6.26
Xiaomi Mi A3
AMOLED, 1560x720, 6.09
Samsung Galaxy A20e
IPS, 1560x720, 5.80
Response Times
31%
84%
29%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
60 (31, 29)
49.2 (31.2, 18)
18%
8 (5, 3)
87%
44.4 (20, 24.4)
26%
Response Time Black / White *
30 (13, 17)
16.8 (6, 10.8)
44%
6 (3, 3)
80%
20.8 (7.6, 13.2)
31%
PWM Frequency
219
349.7 (50)
Screen
-14%
-37%
-65%
Brightness middle
546
574
5%
348
-36%
475
-13%
Brightness
504
552
10%
355
-30%
473
-6%
Brightness Distribution
84
91
8%
91
8%
93
11%
Black Level *
0.2
0.19
5%
0.35
-75%
Contrast
2730
3021
11%
1357
-50%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.19
5.5
-31%
5.86
-40%
6.8
-62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.21
9.5
-3%
15.6
-69%
13.4
-45%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.3
5
-117%
3.6
-57%
8.7
-278%
Gamma
2.24 98%
2.1 105%
2.232 99%
2.33 94%
CCT
6922 94%
7610 85%
7051 92%
9385 69%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
9% / -5%
24% / -7%
-18% / -46%

* ... smaller is better

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
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 73 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
60 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 31 ms rise
↘ 29 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.6 ms).

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 9604 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, Emissions and Battery - 3 Days Runtime Possible

The MediaTek Helio A25 is an entry-level SoC that can deliver reasonable performance for a smartphone in the Wiko phone's price range. It may not be as fast as the Xiaomi Mi A3, but it is still a little faster than other smartphones in this price range. However, this does not necessarily apply to the graphics unit, which is lagging behind.

A warming is hardly noticeable on the Wiko smartphone, even under a longer load. Moreover, it is limited to the upper area of the smartphone. The small mono loudspeaker on the lower edge is not very loud, but high-frequency and therefore doesn't really bring good sound to the ears.

Due to the huge battery with 5,000 mAh, Wiko View 4 has the best battery life among the comparable devices, but the advantage is not as big as one might expect. 18:44 hours makes the manufacturer's advertising promise of "3 days without power outlet" seem realistic, at least if you assume average usage. Since the charger can only provide 10 watts of charging power, one should be prepared for charging times around 3 hours.

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5364 Points ∼84%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5135 Points ∼80% -4%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6396 Points ∼100% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5305 Points ∼83% -1%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (4302 - 5364, n=4)
4938 Points ∼77% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=544)
6033 Points ∼94% +12%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
7655 Points ∼96%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6912 Points ∼87% -10%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7984 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6902 Points ∼86% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (6032 - 7655, n=3)
6704 Points ∼84% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=700)
6633 Points ∼83% -13%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1160 Points ∼49%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2387 Points ∼100% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1628 Points ∼68% +40%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (825 - 1160, n=4)
994 Points ∼42% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=550)
2262 Points ∼95% +95%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
427 Points ∼19%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
987 Points ∼44% +131%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
440 Points ∼20% +3%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (377 - 427, n=4)
397 Points ∼18% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=550)
2242 Points ∼100% +425%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
497 Points ∼24%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1135 Points ∼55% +128%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
525 Points ∼25% +6%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (429 - 497, n=4)
455 Points ∼22% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=551)
2078 Points ∼100% +318%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1165 Points ∼50%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
975 Points ∼42% -16%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2343 Points ∼100% +101%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1624 Points ∼69% +39%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (878 - 1165, n=4)
1014 Points ∼43% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=582)
2177 Points ∼93% +87%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
825 Points ∼27%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
452 Points ∼15% -45%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1674 Points ∼55% +103%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
659 Points ∼22% -20%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (712 - 825, n=4)
756 Points ∼25% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 21465, n=582)
3047 Points ∼100% +269%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
882 Points ∼35%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
513 Points ∼20% -42%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1787 Points ∼71% +103%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
759 Points ∼30% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (747 - 882, n=4)
801 Points ∼32% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=582)
2523 Points ∼100% +186%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1138 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2477 Points ∼100% +118%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1630 Points ∼66% +43%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (1016 - 1138, n=4)
1071 Points ∼43% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5262, n=631)
2138 Points ∼86% +88%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
376 Points ∼20%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
931 Points ∼49% +148%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
443 Points ∼24% +18%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (320 - 376, n=4)
341 Points ∼18% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=631)
1883 Points ∼100% +401%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
442 Points ∼25%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1081 Points ∼61% +145%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
526 Points ∼29% +19%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (377 - 442, n=4)
402 Points ∼23% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=632)
1784 Points ∼100% +304%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1146 Points ∼46%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
943 Points ∼38% -18%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2471 Points ∼100% +116%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1646 Points ∼67% +44%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (1033 - 1146, n=4)
1080 Points ∼44% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=673)
2008 Points ∼81% +75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
752 Points ∼30%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
370 Points ∼15% -51%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1651 Points ∼66% +120%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
637 Points ∼26% -15%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (656 - 752, n=4)
690 Points ∼28% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=672)
2494 Points ∼100% +232%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
814 Points ∼38%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
428 Points ∼20% -47%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1782 Points ∼84% +119%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
737 Points ∼35% -9%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (712 - 814, n=4)
749 Points ∼35% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=675)
2130 Points ∼100% +162%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
14036 Points ∼72%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19552 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12075 Points ∼62%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (11236 - 14306, n=2)
12771 Points ∼65%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=817)
15777 Points ∼81%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10689 Points ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
25219 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11427 Points ∼41%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (12401 - 13006, n=2)
12704 Points ∼45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 221179, n=815)
28199 Points ∼100%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
11287 Points ∼48%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23693 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11565 Points ∼49%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (12047 - 13274, n=2)
12661 Points ∼53%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=815)
21747 Points ∼92%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.5 fps ∼39%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.3 fps ∼37% -4%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
9.1 fps ∼78% +102%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.8 fps ∼41% +7%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (4.2 - 4.5, n=4)
4.33 fps ∼37% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=342)
11.6 fps ∼100% +158%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.4 fps ∼17%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.6 fps ∼20% +14%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼34% +100%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.4 fps ∼17% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (1.2 - 1.4, n=4)
1.3 fps ∼16% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=340)
8.2 fps ∼100% +486%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
7.2 fps ∼41%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6.8 fps ∼39% -6%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
15 fps ∼86% +108%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
7.8 fps ∼45% +8%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (6.7 - 7.2, n=4)
6.9 fps ∼40% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=346)
17.4 fps ∼100% +142%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Wiko View 4
Mediatek Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4 fps ∼20%
Wiko View 3
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.7 fps ∼24% +18%
Xiaomi Mi A3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.4 fps ∼42% +110%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4 fps ∼20% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio A25
  (3.5 - 4, n=4)
3.73 fps ∼19% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=345)
20 fps ∼100% +400%
Wiko View 4Wiko View 3Xiaomi Mi A3Samsung Galaxy A20eAverage 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-1%
138%
9%
19%
27%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.57 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
50.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-17%
64.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
58 (11.2 - 74.7, n=131)
-4%
51.4 (1.7 - 87.1, n=549)
-15%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
81.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
81.74 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
67.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-17%
79.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
77.1 (21.1 - 87.2, n=131)
-6%
69.4 (8.1 - 96.5, n=549)
-15%
Random Write 4KB
18.5
8.98
-51%
117.4
535%
13.18
-29%
28.1 (3.4 - 147, n=150)
52%
38.5 (0.14 - 319, n=912)
108%
Random Read 4KB
46.2
55.23
20%
126.9
175%
79.76
73%
56.5 (11.4 - 149, n=150)
22%
61.6 (1.59 - 325, n=912)
33%
Sequential Write 256KB
133.5
132.39
-1%
184
38%
103.57
-22%
176 (40 - 254, n=150)
32%
135 (2.99 - 1321, n=912)
1%
Sequential Read 256KB
235.7
287.32
22%
502.2
113%
300.36
27%
273 (95.6 - 704, n=150)
16%
355 (12.1 - 2037, n=912)
51%
Asphalt 9: Legends
 SettingsValue
 High Quality24 fps
 Standard / low27 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Arena of Valor
 SettingsValue
 min30 fps
 high HD30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!

Temperature

Max. Load
 36.3 °C
97 F
31.2 °C
88 F
31 °C
88 F
 
 35.7 °C
96 F
31.3 °C
88 F
32.2 °C
90 F
 
 34.7 °C
94 F
31.1 °C
88 F
31.3 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 36.3 °C = 97 F
Average: 32.8 °C = 91 F
31 °C
88 F
33.4 °C
92 F
36.7 °C
98 F
31.4 °C
89 F
33.1 °C
92 F
35.7 °C
96 F
30.7 °C
87 F
32.8 °C
91 F
35 °C
95 F
Maximum: 36.7 °C = 98 F
Average: 33.3 °C = 92 F
Power Supply (max.)  39.6 °C = 103 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated); Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.7 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap top
Heatmap top
Heatmap bottom
Heatmap bottom

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.134.42541.940.33132.937.54031.734.35035.740.46330.529.48025.324.710024.226.812522.222.816021.522.820018.430.725017.544.731516.950.840016.753.450016.358.263014.567.78001470.3100017.171.7125013.872.1160014.168.920001467.5250014.564.8315013.559.5400013.566.350001464.9630014.264.5800014.460.21000014.756.71250015.160.81600015.557.2SPL26.979.2N0.942.1median 14.7median 60.2Delta1.910.342.235.331.230.927.227.323.729.63139.622.728.122.830.924.42120.923.220.337.519.141.516.4471650.717.658.815.26014.661.915.471.314.875.215.276.115.675.914.878.214.678.614.379.614.678.314.770.915.373.815.369.814.966.115.354.915.63927.387.80.967.3median 15.3median 66.11.215.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseWiko View 4Wiko View 3
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Wiko View 4 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 55% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Wiko View 3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life

Wiko View 4
5000 mAh
Wiko View 3
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi A3
4030 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A20e
3000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
1074
995
-7%
985
-8%
715
-33%
704 (223 - 2636, n=778)
-34%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
17h 54min

Pros

+ bright screen...
+ ...with good color
+ crisp camera pictures
+ chic case design
+ no PWM flicker
+ long battery life
+ dedicated microSD slot

Cons

- low graphics performance
- creaky case
- mediocre speaker
- slow WLAN and LTE
- Videos only possible in 1080p and 30 fps

Verdict - Recommendable with Restrictions

In review: Wiko View 4.
In review: Wiko View 4.

The Wiko View 4 is a cheap smartphone, well under 200 Euros, which immediately catches the eye due to its unusual appearance. You also get quite competitive specs if you choose the Wiko phone, a fairly bright screen with good color reproduction and a large battery that ensures long battery life.

However, you also have to accept some limitations: For example, the case creaks audibly and therefore doesn't seem very valuable, charging the device takes quite a long time and the loudspeaker is hardly a pleasure. The graphics performance is low, which is a pity because the application performance is again quite decent. There is also no fingerprint sensor.

The camera, on the other hand, takes decent pictures for its price range, which look quite sharp. The additional wide-angle lens also gives more flexibility than single cameras.

Wiko View 4 comes with good cameras, a bright screen and long battery life. There are some limitations, but it does well for its price range.

Our test device is therefore quite interesting if you are looking for a good camera, a colour-true screen and long battery life, but can do without graphics performance. Also, if you shouldn't expect too high internet speed, the View 4 can definitely give you pleasure.

Wiko View 4 - 03/12/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
74%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
34 / 70 → 48%
Weight
90%
Battery
92%
Display
86%
Games Performance
5 / 64 → 8%
Application Performance
48 / 86 → 55%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
56 / 90 → 62%
Camera
55%
Average
69%
75%
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 > Wiko View 4 Smartphone Review – Chic Long Distance Runner for Little Money
Florian Schmitt, 2020-03-16 (Update: 2020-03-16)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.