Xiaomi Redmi A2 review - Compromises in the cheap phone
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73.8 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2023 | Xiaomi Redmi A2 Helio G36, PowerVR GE8320 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.52" | 1600x720 | |
| 75.1 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2022 | Motorola Moto E32s Helio G37, PowerVR GE8320 | 185 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 74.6 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2023 | Honor X7a Helio G37, PowerVR GE8320 | 196 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.74" | 1600x720 | |
| 70.2 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2023 | Blackview A52 SC9863A, GE8322 / IMG8322 | 183.6 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 |
Case and features - Sturdy plastic chassis
The Xiaomi Redmi A2 comes with a simple plastic casing that imitates a leather texture on the back. You do not have to fear fingerprints or grease smudges due to the matte surface. The phone is available in light blue, light green or black. Thanks to rounded edges, the Redmi A2 fits well in the hand and has an average weight of 192 grams.
The phone is sturdily built and cannot be twisted. Creaks are also not audible when pressure is applied to the chassis.
The Redmi A2 is currently only available with 32 GB of storage and just under 2 GB of RAM. Officially, Xiaomi charges 110 Euros for it but even offers the device for considerably less than 100 Euros on its website. We find it annoying that the Redmi A2 comes with a microUSB port instead of the widely used USB-C. NFC is unfortunately not available but the microSD reader is independent so that it can be used in addition to two inserted SIM cards.
In our tests with the reference microSD card Angelbird V60, the reader is not overly fast, but not slower than other phones in the price range.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 77, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Honor X7a (Angelbird V60) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Blackview A52 (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation - Only WiFi 4 on board
For less than 100 Euros (~$100), you have to accept that the Redmi A2 only offers Wi-Fi 4, which is clearly reflected in the transfer rates that are only around 50 Mbps. Thus, the Wi-Fi module is fast enough for Internet browsing, but you have to wait longer for larger downloads.
The Xiaomi Redmi A2 is a 4G phone that only has the most necessary frequencies, so you will have to check whether you can connect to the LTE network on further trips abroad. During our test, we repeatedly take random samples of the reception quality: You usually have a connection in the 4G network in urban environments, but it is much shakier than in high-end phones and also briefly drops out twice in the test.
At least Xiaomi pre-installs the latest Android 13 Go on its very affordable phone. The manufacturer also includes a few advertising apps, which is particularly worrying in view of the tight memory. In return, Xiaomi promises regular security updates for 2 years, which is a good promise for such a cheap phone. At the time of testing, the patches are from May 2023 and thus are still fairly up-to-date.
Annoying: Since the phone is not Widevine-L1 certified, videos from the major streaming platforms can only be viewed in SD.
The Helio G36, which is used as SoC in the Redmi A2, can actually also utilize 90 Hz screens but Xiaomi only installs a display with a maximum frame rate of 60 Hz. Together with the quite low performance of the SoC and the quite lame memory, you have to be prepared for stutters and waiting times even during normal navigation through the system. A fingerprint sensor for unlocking the phone is not available, nor is face recognition.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
Cameras - Lack of details and low contrast
The rear-facing main camera has a resolution of just 8 megapixels, and the second lens is only used for blur effects. However, decent pictures can still be taken in good light. It becomes visible that details are lost and contrast is partly lacking in the enlarged picture. Videos can be recorded in 1080p with 30 fps at most and also look a bit lacking in details. The autofocus in particular has problems providing sharp pictures.
In very low brightness, light sources are over-radiated, while there is hardly any drawing in dark areas. The camera reproduces colors a bit too dark in studio lighting, but the overall result is decent.
A 5-megapixel selfie camera is found on the front and takes quite decent pictures in good light. However, you should not enlarge it too much or hope for detailed reproduction of dark areas.
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.
Main cameraMain cameraLowLight
Display - Quite good color reproduction
The 6.52-inch IPS screen has a 720p resolution, which is appropriate for the price range. In terms of brightness, the Redmi A2 performs moderately and achieves an average of 379 cd/m². A low black value also ensures acceptable contrasts.
Fortunately, there is only a slight blue cast with the factory settings. Thus, colors are reproduced quite naturally, apart from some blue tones.
The screen manages without PWM flickering even at low brightness, so it is also recommended for sensitive users.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 391 cd/m²
Contrast: 1303:1 (Black: 0.3 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.31 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.307
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Motorola Moto E32s IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Honor X7a IPS, 1600x720, 6.7" | Blackview A52 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 10% | 20% | -20% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 36.8 ? | 30 ? 18% | 33.8 ? 8% | 45.2 ? -23% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 23.2 ? | 23 ? 1% | 16 ? 31% | 27 ? -16% |
| PWM Frequency | ||||
| Screen | -33% | 12% | -23% | |
| Brightness middle | 391 | 346 -12% | 586 50% | 432 10% |
| Brightness | 379 | 330 -13% | 562 48% | 400 6% |
| Brightness Distribution | 94 | 90 -4% | 91 -3% | 88 -6% |
| Black Level * | 0.3 | 0.47 -57% | 0.26 13% | 0.26 13% |
| Contrast | 1303 | 736 -44% | 2254 73% | 1662 28% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.31 | 5.4 -63% | 4.24 -28% | 6.97 -111% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.67 | 9 -17% | 8.44 -10% | 10.36 -35% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.6 | 5.5 -53% | 5.3 -47% | 6.7 -86% |
| Gamma | 2.307 95% | 2.874 77% | 2.226 99% | 2.618 84% |
| CCT | 7427 88% | 5971 109% | 6955 93% | 7976 81% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -12% /
-24% | 16% /
14% | -22% /
-22% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 23.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11.2 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. » 49 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 36.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.1 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16.7 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. » 49 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Cheap phone with little performance
With the Helio G36 Xiaomi opts for a fairly new, but not very powerful SoC. The actual power can still keep up with somewhat more expensive phones, but it is problematic that many benchmarks do not want to start or are not even available for the phone in the Google Play Store. Thus, it is quite possible that some demanding apps do not run on the phone.
In everyday use, you also have to deal with stutters and long loading times, which is also due to the lame eMMC flash, but it is probably unavoidable in this price range.
At least you do not have to deal with high temperatures: Even after a long and very high load, we measured a maximum of 39.5 °C on the case. Since the 3DMark Wild Life stress test does not start, we use GFXBench to see whether the SoC's performance remains the same after a long load. In fact, this is not the case; the performance fluctuates strongly and is a good 20% below the initial value after 30 runs of the benchmark.
The small speaker on the upper edge is a bit unusual but by no means placed wrong. It sounds very treble-heavy and does not provide much pleasure when listening to music. We like the sound better, which is cleanly transmitted to external speakers or headphones via the 3.5 mm port or Bluetooth. The most necessary codecs are available for wireless sound transmission, and you can even transmit hi-fi sound with LDAC and aptX HD.
You can charge the Xiaomi Redmi A2 with a maximum of 10 watts. That means you have to be patient for up to 3 hours until 100% appears on the display again in view of the large 5,000 mAh battery. Our WLAN test empties the full battery in just under 15 hours. That is a good rate, so you should easily get through the day if you are not constantly gaming.
| PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4609 - 27169, n=197, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (4609 - 4761, n=2) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 247, n=208, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (7.7 - 7.8, n=2) | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 321, n=208, last 2 years) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (4.2 - 4.3, n=2) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=208, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (4.8 - 5, n=2) | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 129, n=208, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (1.5 - 1.5, n=2) | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| 3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.38 - 53, n=208, last 2 years) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 () | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G36 (4398 - 5207, n=2) | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | Motorola Moto E32s | Honor X7a | Blackview A52 | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 11% | 11% | -13% | -22% | 712% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 268.9 | 248.6 -8% | 280 4% | 226.4 -16% | 242 ? -10% | 1883 ? 600% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 116.1 | 184.3 59% | 223 92% | 119.4 3% | 100.5 ? -13% | 1469 ? 1165% |
| Random Read 4KB | 53.6 | 49.1 -8% | 59.1 10% | 40.5 -24% | 43.2 ? -19% | 278 ? 419% |
| Random Write 4KB | 40.5 | 40 -1% | 14.7 -64% | 35 -14% | 22.4 ? -45% | 310 ? 665% |
Temperature
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.8 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.2 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
Xiaomi Redmi A2 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Blackview A52 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 37.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 78% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Average of class Smartphone (476 - 3244, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E32s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi A2 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Long updates for the very small budget
The Xiaomi Redmi A2 is a phone that is easy on the wallet, but you also need good nerves: The system is quite slow, and more complex apps often do not run at all. You cannot stream videos in HD, the Wi-Fi connection is not the fastest, and the old microUSB port is already very annoying.
Nevertheless, there are also positive points, especially in view of the very low price: The chassis is well-made and stable, the manufacturer promises regular updates for two years, and the phone hardly heats up even under long load.
If you do not have a large budget or are simply looking for a cheap second phone, you can take a look at the Redmi A2: It can do everything you need on a daily basis. However, you should not expect a smooth or even fast system.
If you can invest a few more Euros, you might want to consider the Motorola Moto E32s since it has a 90 Hz screen and a much faster WLAN module. If you are looking for an inexpensive 5G phone, you should look at the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G.
Price and availability
Directly from the manufacturer the Redmi A2 is available in all three color variants for just under 80 Euros (~$80) at the time of testing, and our rental provider notebooksbilliger.de also charges the same price.
In the US, users can order the device via Amazon for around $80.
Xiaomi Redmi A2
- 07/14/2023 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
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. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. 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.
Price comparison
