Xiaomi Mi5s
Specifications

Price comparison
Average of 36 scores (from 66 reviews)
Reviews for the Xiaomi Mi5s
Source: Android Central
Archive.org versionAs the Mi 5s has been in the market for a few months now, it has picked up a price cut that brings the cost of the phone down to under $300. As you can't buy it directly from Xiaomi, you'll have to rely on resellers. GearBest is selling it for $289 after entering code Mi5GSB. If you're in a market where LTE connectivity is available, the Mi 5s is a no-brainer for the cost.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 02/13/2017
Source: Fudzilla
Archive.org versionThe Mi5s is an evolution of the Mi5, and it’s better than its predecessor in almost every respect. However, it’s not that much better, because it’s almost the same phone, updated with a new SoC and camera module. In other words, nobody who owns a Mi5 or a different Snapdragon 820 device will be interested in the Mi5s.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/21/2017
Source: Mobile Choice
Archive.org versionXiaomi's revised Mi 5 adds in some key areas, like camera quality, while leaving us wanting more in others. Built quality is suspect, and that much-hyped fingerprint scanner truly is one of the worst we've used - it only worked about 60% of the time.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/10/2017
Rating: Total score: 70% performance: 100% mobility: 80%
Source: Tech Advisor
Archive.org versionWe cannot recommend the Xiaomi Mi5s enough. This is the smartphone every 2016 flagship wanted to be, and it comes with a price tag half that of theirs. Fantastic build quality, fantastic performance, fantastic storage, battery and connectivity options - the Xiaomi Mi5s gets a big thumbs-up from us.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/29/2016
Rating: Total score: 90% price: 100% performance: 90%
Source: Androidbeat
Archive.org versionThe Mi 5s is the perfect ‘s’ upgrade to the Mi 5. It improves in all key areas — build quality, camera, and performance — to deliver a vastly improved experience than its predecessor. Ideally, the Mi 5s is what the Mi 5 should have originally been. Nonetheless, if you have been holding out on buying the Mi 5 for some reason, go ahead and just buy the Mi 5s. It can hold its own against many other newer flagships and is a great phone for the price it commands. It truly is a shame that Xiaomi will not be bringing the Mi 5s to India where it could have been a formidable competitor to the likes of OnePlus 3 and Moto Z Play.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/12/2016
Source: GSM Arena
Archive.org versionXiaomi Mi 5s is a great flagship with excellent build quality, performance, battery life, and imaging skills. It makes a few notable upgrades over the Mi 5 predecessor - a metal unibody, a bigger battery, a more power-efficient chipset, and a capable main camera.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/24/2016
Source: Yugatech
Archive.org versionNubia Z11 Mini S and Xiaomi MI5S can have nice similarity in camera, design, and battery, but in terms of hardware, Xiaomi MI5S can win over Nubia Z11 Mini not only in terms of antutu. But considering the price, Nubia Z11 Mini S RAM 4GB ROM 64GB version sells at 1499 yuan, $250, RAM 4GB ROM 128GB black golden advanced version at 1899 yuan, $316, but Xiaomi MI5S RAM 3GB ROM 64GB at 1999 yuan, $330, and RAM 4GB ROM 128GB version at 2299 yuan, $383. Therefore, if you don’t pursue too high-end performance, Nubia Z11 Mini S is enough to use, but you are a game lover, we highly recommend choosing Xiaomi MI5S.
Comparison, online available, Long, Date: 10/19/2016
Source: Igeekphone
Archive.org versionIn all, Xiaomi MI5S can compare with Galaxy S7 with the good performance to prove Xiaomi has entered into the International market to compete with Samsung and Apple. Personally, we think we don’t have to spend much money on a smartphone.
Comparison, online available, Very Short, Date: 10/11/2016
Source: Igeekphone
Archive.org versionAlthough Xiaomi MI5S and ZUK Z2 Pro has different processor, according to real test, they have no large gap in hardware, however, in design and camera, ZUK Z2 Pro can win over Xiaomi MI5S. Therefore, we still think ZUK Z2 Pro is more beautiful, especially back design. Just share more with us.
User Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/08/2016
Source: Igeekphone
Archive.org versionAccording to teardown, Xiaomi MI5S internal design has nice layout, the back metal cover has used Injection molding with exquisite processing for better cooling, such as the graphite stickers, in order to keep the phone’s thickness, it uses shield to ditch the OIS and Infrared function. The overall tear down is not so difficult, but about the maintenance, if the ultrasonic fingerprint scanner is broken, it is a little difficult to repair or change.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/29/2016
Foreign Reviews
Source: Chip.de
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 12/21/2016
Rating: Total score: 82% performance: 94% features: 58% display: 90% mobility: 90%
Source: Android Pit
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/05/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: MobiFlip
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/04/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: PC Welt
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/11/2016
Rating: Total score: 94% performance: 96% features: 93% display: 97% mobility: 98%
Source: WinFuture
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/26/2016
Source: Curved
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/24/2016
Rating: Total score: 92% performance: 93% display: 92% mobility: 88%
Source: Chinahandys.net
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/17/2016
Rating: Total score: 93% performance: 100% display: 100% mobility: 80% workmanship: 100%
Source: Andro Asia
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 02/01/2017
Rating: Total score: 91% performance: 95% display: 90% mobility: 85%
Source: Xataka
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 12/12/2016
Rating: Total score: 83% performance: 90% display: 85% mobility: 90% workmanship: 80%
Source: Profesional Review
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/18/2016
Rating: Total score: 90% price: 90% performance: 90% mobility: 90% workmanship: 100%
Source: El Androide Libre
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/10/2016
Rating: Total score: 85%
Source: El Androide Libre
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/10/2016
Rating: Total score: 85%
Source: Andro 4 All
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/26/2016
Rating: Total score: 90%
Source: FAQsAndroid
ES→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/17/2016
Rating: Total score: 83% price: 80% display: 85% mobility: 80% workmanship: 75%
Source: Mi Mundo Gadget
ES→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Metal case; stylish design; fast fingerprint sensor; good connectivity. Negative: Weak hardware; mediocre speakers; poor display; poor cameras.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 05/19/2017
Source: Profesional Review
ES→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good display; nice cameras; fast charge.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 12/21/2016
Source: El Sabio Informatico
ES→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good hardware; elegant design; lightweight. Negative: No extended memory.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/10/2016
Source: El Confidencial
ES→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good price; decent hardware; good cameras; flexible fingerprint sensor.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/27/2016
Source: Pplware
PT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/18/2016
Rating: Total score: 90% performance: 90% display: 100% mobility: 90% workmanship: 95%
Source: Mais Tecnologia
PT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Nice design; high performance; good price; impressive fingerprint sensor. Negative: Lack of LTE 800 band.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/19/2016
Source: 4G News
PT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: High autonomy; quick charge; good performance. Negative: Poor cameras; average speakers.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/09/2016
Source: Pplware
PT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Metal case; decent hardware; good cameras; long battery life.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/19/2016
Source: AndroidPit.it
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/14/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Smartphone e tablet android
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Short, Date: 11/10/2016
Rating: performance: 80% display: 80% mobility: 90% workmanship: 80%
Source: Andrea Galeazzi
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 11/06/2016
Rating: Total score: 83% price: 80% display: 84% mobility: 84% workmanship: 80%
Source: Andrea Galeazzi
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 11/06/2016
Rating: Total score: 83% price: 80% display: 84% mobility: 84% workmanship: 80%
Source: Pianeta Cellulare
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/04/2016
Rating: Total score: 82% features: 85% mobility: 80% workmanship: 85%
Source: Chimera Revo
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/31/2016
Rating: Total score: 85% price: 80% features: 90% mobility: 85% workmanship: 85% ergonomy: 85%
Source: Chimera Revo
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/31/2016
Rating: Total score: 85% price: 80% features: 90% mobility: 85% workmanship: 85% ergonomy: 85%
Source: AndroidWorld.it
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 10/28/2016
Rating: Total score: 84% price: 80% features: 85% display: 90% mobility: 80% ergonomy: 80%
Source: Quotidiano Hardware Upgrade
IT→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/19/2016
Rating: Total score: 89% price: 90% features: 93% display: 93% mobility: 90% ergonomy: 86%
Source: Androidiani
IT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Impressive design; decent performance; good cameras; good price. Negative: Inflexible fingerprint sensor.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/15/2016
Source: Pianeta Cellulare
IT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good price; decent display; support fast charge.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 10/13/2016
Source: Panorama
IT→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good price; decent cameras; nice design; support quick charge. Negative: No extended microSD; average sound.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 09/29/2016
Source: AndroidWorld.nl
NL→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Solid workmanship; premium design; nice display; excellent cameras; good hardware; fast system; long battery life; quick charge. Negative: No microSD slot; weak connectivity.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 06/27/2017
Source: 01Net
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/06/2017
Rating: Total score: 90% performance: 100% mobility: 90%
Source: AndroidPit.fr
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/22/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Clubic
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/17/2016
Rating: Total score: 90% mobility: 100% ergonomy: 80%
Source: Tablette-tactile.net
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/16/2016
Rating: Total score: 90%
Source: Frandroid
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/04/2016
Rating: Total score: 80% performance: 90% mobility: 80% workmanship: 80%
Source: Frandroid
FR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/04/2016
Rating: Total score: 80% performance: 90% display: 90% mobility: 80% workmanship: 80%
Source: Top for Phone
FR→EN Archive.org versionPositive: High autonomy; good performance; decent speakers. Negative: No microSD slot.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 11/19/2016
Source: One Tech
PL→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Long battery life; fast charge; great display; flexible fingerprint sensor; compact size. Negative: Average speakers; uncomfortable buttons.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/25/2017
Source: Spiders Web
PL→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good price; decent hardware.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/27/2016
Source: Tekno Seyir
TR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 07/16/2017
Rating: Total score: 90%
Source: Tekno Seyir
TR→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/08/2017
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Product Test
RU→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 03/10/2017
Rating: Total score: 86% performance: 100% display: 88% mobility: 78%
Source: Ferra.ru
RU→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 02/06/2017
Rating: Total score: 85%
Source: AndroidInsider.ru
RU→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Good autonomy; decent hardware; fast system. Negative: Average speakers.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/30/2016
Source: Hi-Tech Mail
RU→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Low price; high performance; nice screen; decent main camera; quick charge. Negative: Slippery; unstable fingerprint.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/17/2016
Source: Product Test
RU→EN Archive.org versionPositive: High quality screen; 3D Touch; decent performance; flexible fingerprint sensor. Negative: No headphone jack; imperfect design.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/01/2016
Source: The Gioididong
VN→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Metal case; flexible fingerprint sensor; good display; decent hardware; good price.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 10/24/2016
Source: The Gioididong
VN→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Excellent fingerprint sensor; decent cameras; good hardware; good price.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 09/27/2016
Source: Tek.no
NO→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Medium, Date: 11/03/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Android Portal
SK→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/06/2017
Rating: Total score: 81% display: 80% workmanship: 80%
Comment
Qualcomm Adreno 530: Integrated graphics card in the Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 that is clocked at up to 624 MHz. Early 2016 it is a high end graphics card for Android based smartphones and tablets that should be able to coop with very demanding games.
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.
820 MSM8996: High-end ARM SoC with 4 CPU cores (two fast 2.15 GHz cores in a cluster and two power saving 1.6 GHz cores) and an Adreno 530 GPU. Manufactured in a 14 nm HPM process.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.