ZTE Axon 20 5G
Specifications

Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.0
Pricecompare
Average of 10 scores (from 24 reviews)
Reviews for the ZTE Axon 20 5G
Source: TechTablets

Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 03/09/2021
Source: DxOMark

Crucially for those looking for all the bells and whistles of a quad-cam smartphone, the Axon 20 5G is disappointing for bokeh, telephoto zoom, and night photos. While 4K at 60 fps capture with effective stabilization is a nice draw for video enthusiasts, slow autofocus and exposure instabilities make the device difficult to recommend highly for video. More casual shooters, happy with a consistent and stable device that shoots reasonable quality standard or ultra-wide stills in good lighting, will be more at ease with the ZTE Axon 20 5G’s performance.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 03/03/2021
Source: DxOMark

ZTE’s ambitious under-display design for the front camera of the Axon 20 5G is esthetically impressive, but anyone who cares about selfie performance enough to read a review like this should probably look elsewhere. The performance compromises required to realize this design lead to seriously sub-par imaging when measured by nearly any metric. However, users who don’t care about the front camera at all should still consider this phone, as it appears to be a solid offering in other respects, and the hidden selfie cam is a neat trick for people who might use it only rarely.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/18/2021
Source: Yugatech

Hands-On, online available, Short, Date: 02/07/2021
Source: Neowin

Before I got to try this phone, and with no prior experience with ZTE, I kind of expected this to be a phone that focuses exclusively on doing one thing and fails at everything else. That isn't really the case, though. I was really happy with the performance, battery life, and the overall quality of the display and sound. ZTE gets a lot of the basics right, and on top of that, it adds the unique proposition of an under-display camera, and all of that costs about as much as you'd expect a phone with these specs to cost. You're not charged a ludicrous amount of money for a poorly implemented innovation.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/30/2021
Rating: Total score: 65%
Source: Neowin

We go hands-on with the world's first smartphone with an under-display camera, the ZTE Axon 20 5G. It has a Snapdragon 765G, 8GB of RAM, 128GB of storage, and it costs $449.
Hands-On, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/16/2021
Source: Tech Advisor

Early adopters will probably enjoy the novelty of the ZTE Axon 20 5G, but the compromises to the selfie camera, face unlock, and display quality make this hard to recommend to most – though if you really never take selfies, you may find the large screen and solid spec sheet enough to win you over.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 01/15/2021
Rating: Total score: 70%
Source: CNet

ZTE raced to be first to release a mass-produced phone, the Axon 20 5G, with an under-display camera. But being first doesn't equate to stellar camera performance.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/23/2020
Source: GSM Arena

Someone has to be the first, and in this case, it's the Axon 20 5G. A phone with a first-gen tech that makes it really cool and also disappointing at the same time. The issue is that the under-display selfie cam is too blurry and not up to the standards in 2020. There's also a visible square where the camera is located, but we can let that one pass as it's barely visible.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 12/22/2020
Rating: Total score: 70%
Source: Pocket Lint

It might be an outlier, as a little-known brand in the West, but this ZTE is a nod to the future, showing off a convincing under-screen camera, while delivering a long-lasting and ample performance in a fairly affordable package. It's in the details - autobrightness adjustment, frame-like screen bezel, and so-so cameras overall - where it sometimes misses the mark.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/21/2020
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Tom's Guide

Overall, we prefer the Google Pixel 4a 5G because of its better cameras. And spending a little more money will net you the excellent OnePlus Nord, which is a pretty big step-up in UX and photography quality from the Axon 20 5G. Despite ZTE's impressive party trick, there are a few too many caveats to make this Android phone a top pick.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 12/21/2020
Rating: Total score: 70%
Foreign Reviews
Source: Computerhoy

Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 03/21/2021
Rating: Total score: 75% features: 90% display: 70% mobility: 70% workmanship: 90%
Source: Xataka

Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 12/21/2020
Rating: Total score: 79% performance: 88% display: 83% mobility: 83% workmanship: 88%
Source: AndroidWorld.it

Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 01/26/2021
Rating: Total score: 78% price: 80% features: 80% display: 80% mobility: 75% workmanship: 85% ergonomy: 85%
Source: Andrea Galeazzi

Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 12/21/2020
Rating: Total score: 77% price: 80% display: 81% mobility: 72% workmanship: 70%
Source: Frandroid

Positive: Good price; nice design; support 5G.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 02/01/2021
Source: Top for Phone

Positive: Support 5G; good price; beautiful display; great built quality; high performance; nice cameras; long battery life.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 12/04/2020
Source: Smartmania.cz

Positive: Impressive cameras; support 5G. Negative: Poor cameras.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 03/01/2021
Source: Cell Phones

Positive: Impressive hidden selfie camera; support 5G; nice display. Negative: Mediocre design; heavy and bulky; relatively high price.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 09/21/2020
Source: Genk

Positive: Impressive hidden selfie camera. Negative: Weak hardware; poor display.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 09/20/2020
Source: Nghenhin Vietnam

Positive: Impressive hidden selfie camera; support 5G; beautiful design; support 5G.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/19/2020
Source: VNReview

Positive: Support 5G; impressive design. Negative: Poor display; inflexible selfie hidden camera; high price.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 09/19/2020
Source: Unlimited Tech

Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 03/20/2021
Rating: Total score: 85%
Comment
Qualcomm Adreno 620: Integrated (in the Snapdragon 765 and 765G) graphics card based on the Adreno 600 architecture. Supports DirectX11_1, Vulkan 1.0, OpenCL 2.0, OpenGL ES 3.2. The 765G variant is 10% faster than the one integrated in the 765 and 20% faster than the Adreno 618 predecessor.
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.
SD 765G: Fast mid-range ARM SoC with 8 CPU Kryo 475 cores (one fast ARM Cortex-A76 prime core at up to 2.4 GHz, one A76 gold core at 2.2 GHz and 6 small ARM Cortex-A55 cores at up to 1.8 GHz). As one of the first SoCs it also integrates a 5G modem (Snapdragon X52 up to 3,7 / 1,6 Mbps down- and upload, mmWave and Sub-6 support). The processor is manufactured in the modern and energy efficient 7nm EUV process at Samsung. » Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
6.92":
Only a few smartphones have larger screens.
Large display-sizes allow higher resolutions. So, details like letters are bigger. On the other hand, the power consumption is lower with small screen diagonals and the devices are smaller, more lightweight and cheaper.
0.198 kg:
Only few smartphones are more lightweight than this.
ZTE:
ZTE is short for Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company Limited, which was founded in China in 1985. The product range includes, for example, USB sticks, routers, smartphones and tablets.
The ratings of the relatively many reviews have a wide range from below-average to very good (as of 2016).
74.9%: This rating is bad. Most notebooks are better rated. This is not a recommendation for purchase.
» Further information can be found in our Notebook Purchase Guide.