Verdict Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G
The Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G does not exceed the class standard in terms of cameras, speakers, performance and casing quality. In view of the low price on the internet in some cases, you shouldn't expect much.
When it comes to runtimes, however, with 21 hours in our WLAN test, you get enough freedom to use your phone for several days without charging. On top of this, it charges quite quickly, has a precise touchscreen and a long update promise until 2031.
If you only use your smartphone for simple, standard tasks or are looking for a second phone with a large screen and long battery life, the Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G is a decent choice.
Pros
Cons
Table of Contents
- Verdict Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G
- Specifications
- Housing and features - Inexpensive plastic
- Communication and operation - Reliable WLAN
- Software and sustainability - Long update timeframe
- Cameras - Entry-level quality
- Display - Low resolution, but without PWM
- Performance, emissions and battery life - Lasts virtually forever
- Notebookcheck overall rating
- Possible alternatives in comparison
Specifications
Housing and features - Inexpensive plastic
Xiaomi wraps its affordable Redmi 15C 4G in plastic and offers different color variants: black and mint green with a plain back as well as blue and orange with a wavy pattern that is also slightly iridescent.
You shouldn't have too high expectations when it comes to stability: The phone is easy to twist and then creaks noticeably.
Compared to the predecessor Redmi 14C the design has changed, in particular the formerly round camera module has now moved to the side and become more square. At 211 grams, the Redmi 15C is not too heavy.
On the front, the low price is noticeable due to the wide chin below the screen and the waterdrop notch, but at least the screen is protected by Gorilla Glass 3.
NFC for mobile payments is on board and you can use two SIM cards at the same time, but no eSIM. There is a separate slot for a microSD card, which is written to and read by the reader reasonably quickly.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5.72 - 58.9, n=67, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 14C (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G (Angelbird V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A06 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Motorola Moto G15 (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication and operation - Reliable WLAN
WiFi 5 is available as the fastest Wi-Fi standard. The Redmi 15C achieves the usual transmission rates of between 220 and 350 MBit/s with only occasional dips below 200 MBit/s. The reception is still 50% even at a distance of 10 meters from the router and through 2 walls, and the speed is fine.
Mobile networks can be contacted via the LTE standard, for which all the necessary frequencies are available. When traveling abroad, however, you should check in advance whether the required frequencies are supported.
The touchscreen is very responsive with up to 240 Hz sampling rate and 120 Hz frame rate and can be operated reliably. A fingerprint sensor is built into the standby button on the right-hand side, which unlocks the smartphone after a short wait. Face unlocking is also possible.
| Networking | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto G15 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 14C | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A06 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
Software and sustainability - Long update timeframe
HyperOS 2 is the name of the phone's user interface, which is based on Android 15. The security patches date from August 2025 and are therefore somewhat older at the time of testing. However, Xiaomi promises updates until 2031, i.e. 6 years from launch, as well as at least two new Android versions.
The manufacturer is keeping a low profile when it comes to the sustainability of the device. In Europe you can go to Xiaomi to find out the approximate prices of spare parts and the packaging is largely plastic-free.
Cameras - Entry-level quality
While the predecessor still had four cut-outs for camera lenses on the back, this time Xiaomi has become more honest and only placed the two there that are actually being used.
However, only the main camera can shoot pictures. It has a resolution of 50 megapixels and takes rather mediocre photos overall. In view of the price range, however, the sharpness in low light is quite okay.
Videos can be recorded at a maximum of 1080p and 30 fps. The autofocus is often slow, as is the exposure compensation. However, the image sharpness is OK considering the price.
There is even a slight downgrade in the front camera compared to the Redmi 14C: the new phone only has an 8-megapixel sensor. The camera takes quite acceptable selfies, but shows a visible blue cast, which distorts faces in particular.
Display - Low resolution, but without PWM
At 1,600 x 702 pixels, the resolution of the 6.9-inch screen is at class level. However, with only 254 PPI, the display appears somewhat coarse.
The brightness of 526 cd/m² at maximum with full white is quite good. This means that the phone can also be used outdoors on cloudy days.
The colors are visibly greenish. We cannot detect PWM flickering.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 526 cd/m²
Contrast: 1315:1 (Black: 0.4 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 6.4 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.79}
calibrated: 8.86
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 2.3 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5}
98.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
CCT: 6785 K
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G IPS, 1600x720, 6.9" | Motorola Moto G15 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Redmi 14C IPS, 1640x720, 6.9" | Samsung Galaxy A06 IPS, 1600x720, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 14% | -3% | -73% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 526 | 468 -11% | 422 -20% | 505 -4% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 513 | 452 -12% | 401 -22% | 475 -7% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 95 | 86 -9% | 89 -6% | 89 -6% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | 0.4 | 0.3 25% | 0.3 25% | 0.53 -33% |
| Contrast (:1) | 1315 | 1560 19% | 1407 7% | 953 -28% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.4 | 2.07 68% | 3.21 50% | 5.94 7% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.88 | 6.38 -31% | 6.29 -29% | 21.63 -343% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 8.86 | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.3 | 0.8 65% | 2.9 -26% | 6.2 -170% |
| CCT | 6785 96% | 6607 98% | 6338 103% | 8333 78% |
| Gamma | 2.202 100% | 2.382 92% | 2.116 104% |
* ... smaller is better
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 8167 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 18.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 6.5 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. » 40 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24.7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16.1 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 40 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (31.7 ms). | ||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Lasts virtually forever
With the MediaTek Helio G81 Ultra an SoC with a maximum clock speed of 2 GHz is used. It does not always achieve smooth system operation and is also not ideal for AI calculations. Overall, however, it is on a par with similarly priced devices and is sufficiently fast for simple tasks.
There are no advantages for the Redmi 15C 4G in terms of memory: The eMMC flash ensures rather long loading times and relatively slow data transfers.
The heat build-up on the casing is never critical. Even after prolonged load, the processor remains similarly powerful, as the 3DMark stress tests show us.
The mono speaker on the bottom edge of the phone can get quite loud, but is very treble-heavy and therefore sounds quite thin. External audio devices can be connected via a 3.5mm audio jack or via Bluetooth. There are not many exotic Bluetooth audio codecs, but the most common variants are available.
The battery has grown significantly to 6,000 mAh. Great runtimes of up to 21 hours are possible in our WLAN test. The Redmi 15C 4G clearly beats other similarly priced phones. The phone can be charged with up to 33 watts, and a full charging cycle takes just over 2 hours.
| Geekbench AI | |
| Single Precision NPU 1.5 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (81 - 5210, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra (n=1) | |
| Half Precision NPU 1.5 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (80 - 36297, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra (n=1) | |
| Quantized NPU 1.5 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (133 - 49889, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra (n=1) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | Motorola Moto G15 | Xiaomi Redmi 14C | Samsung Galaxy A06 | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 0% | -5% | -7% | 499% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 298.5 | 287.7 -4% | 300.9 1% | 295.4 -1% | 300 ? 1% | 2188 ? 633% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 201.1 | 228.5 14% | 193.1 -4% | 166.3 -17% | 195.1 ? -3% | 1801 ? 796% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 87.4 | 65.2 -25% | 88.6 1% | 74 -15% | 85.9 ? -2% | 292 ? 234% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 77.5 | 87.4 13% | 78.9 2% | 86.8 12% | 58.1 ? -25% | 336 ? 334% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.3 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.5 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.7 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
3DMark Stress Tests
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Motorola Moto G15 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 14C | |
| Samsung Galaxy A06 | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G | |
| Motorola Moto G15 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 14C | |
Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 38.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A06 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.3% 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 (26.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
| Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G 6000 mAh | Motorola Moto G15 5200 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 14C 5160 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A06 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | -19% | -22% | -26% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 21 | 17 -19% | 16.3 -22% | 15.6 -26% |
| Reader / Idle (h) | 29.8 | |||
| H.264 (h) | 19.8 | |||
| Load (h) | 5.5 |
Notebookcheck overall rating
The Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G is an affordable phone with a large 120 Hz screen.
It offers long battery life for very little money, but you shouldn't expect a lot of performance.
Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G
- 10/26/2025 v8
Florian Schmitt
Total Sustainability Score: Possible alternatives in comparison
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 70.5%  | Xiaomi Redmi 15C 4G Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra ⎘ ARM Mali-G52 MP2 ⎘ 4 GB Memory, 128 GB eMMC | Amazon: $209.99 List Price: 150€ | 211 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.90" 1600x720 254 PPI IPS |
2. 72.3%  | Motorola Moto G15 Mediatek Helio G81 ⎘ ARM Mali-G52 MP2 ⎘ 4 GB Memory, 128 GB eMMC | Amazon: $135.70 List Price: 150€ | 190 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.72" 2400x1080 392 PPI IPS |
3. 70.7%  | Xiaomi Redmi 14C Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra ⎘ ARM Mali-G52 MP2 ⎘ 4 GB Memory, 128 GB eMMC | Amazon: $115.00 List Price: 150€ | 211 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.88" 1640x720 260 PPI IPS |
4. 68.2%  | Samsung Galaxy A06 Mediatek Helio G85 ⎘ ARM Mali-G52 MP2 ⎘ 4 GB Memory, 64 GB eMMC | Amazon: $104.97 List Price: 90€ | 189 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.70" 1600x720 262 PPI IPS |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
