The sub-$200 smartphone market is fiercely competitive. The Cubot X20 and Nokia 7.2 represent two distinct approaches to delivering value. The X20 prioritizes a newer chipset, while the Nokia 7.2 leverages Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 660 and a focus on display quality. This comparison dissects their strengths and weaknesses to help you choose the right phone for your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Nokia 7.2 emerges as the better choice. While the Cubot X20 boasts a newer Helio P23 chip, the Snapdragon 660’s superior architecture and efficiency translate to a smoother overall experience, particularly in multitasking and sustained workloads. The Nokia 7.2’s brighter display further enhances usability.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 - ROW |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 - ROW |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 300/50 Mbps or LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| | - | 1, 3, 5, 8, 40, 41 - IN |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020. Released 2020 | 2019, September 05. Released 2019, September 23 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic frame, glass back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), glass back (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 157.1 x 74.6 x 8.1 mm (6.19 x 2.94 x 0.32 in) | 159.9 x 75.2 x 8.3 mm (6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 240 g (8.47 oz) | 180 g (6.35 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2280 pixels, 19:9 ratio (~400 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.3 inches, 97.4 cm2 (~83.1% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.3 inches, 99.1 cm2 (~82.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | IPS LCD, HDR10 |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core 2.5 GHz Cortex-A53 | Octa-core (4x2.2 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6763 Helio P23 (16 nm) | Qualcomm SDM660 Snapdragon 660 (14 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G71 MP2 | Adreno 512 |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie) | Android 9.0 (Pie), upgradable to Android 11, Android One |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 64GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM |
| | - | eMMC 5.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash | Zeiss optics, LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | 12 MP, (wide), 1/2.9", AF
8 MP, 125˚ (ultrawide)
20 MP, (depth), 1/2.78" | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
Auxiliary lens |
| Video | Yes | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps (gyro-EIS) |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | - | Zeiss optics, HDR |
| Single | 13 MP, (wide), 1/3.06" | 20 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/3", 0.9µm |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Unspecified | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 4.2, A2DP | 5.0, A2DP, EDR, LE, aptX |
| NFC | No | Yes (excl. India) |
| Positioning | GPS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | - | 10W wired |
| Type | 4000 mAh | Li-Po 3500 mAh, non-removable |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Blue, Gold, Black | Cyan Green, Charcoal, Ice |
| Models | - | TA-1193, TA-1178, TA-1196, TA-1181 |
| Price | - | About 240 EUR |
| SAR | - | 1.15 W/kg (head) 0.90 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.99 W/kg (head) 1.44 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Audio quality | - |
Noise -93.0dB / Crosstalk -93.4dB |
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 69h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: 1342:1 (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-29.6 LUFS (Average)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 139495 (v7), 164484 (v8)
GeekBench: 5440 (v4.4), 1398 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 8.1fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Cubot X20
- Potentially lower price point
- Newer chipset (Helio P23)
- May offer more storage for the price
- Less efficient processor
- Likely inferior display quality
- Potentially less reliable software support
Nokia 7.2
- More powerful and efficient Snapdragon 660
- Brighter and higher contrast display
- Established brand with better software support
- Older chipset
- Slower 10W charging
- May be slightly more expensive
Display Comparison
The Nokia 7.2 boasts a significantly more refined display experience. Its measured peak brightness of 585 nits, coupled with a 1342:1 contrast ratio, ensures excellent visibility even in outdoor conditions. While the Cubot X20’s display specifications are not provided, it’s reasonable to assume it falls short of the Nokia 7.2’s performance given its lower price point. The Nokia 7.2’s contrast ratio suggests a well-tuned panel, offering deeper blacks and more vibrant colors, enhancing media consumption.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed as having Photo/Video capabilities, but lack specific details. However, the Nokia 7.2, being a more established mid-range device, likely benefits from Qualcomm’s image signal processor (ISP) which offers superior image processing capabilities. Without sensor size or aperture information for either device, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment, but the Nokia 7.2’s overall hardware and software integration likely result in better image quality, particularly in challenging lighting conditions. The inclusion of OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) on the Nokia 7.2, if present, would further enhance its photographic capabilities.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Nokia 7.2’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (14nm) utilizes a Kryo CPU architecture – a combination of performance (Gold) and efficiency (Silver) cores – designed for balanced performance. This contrasts with the Cubot X20’s MediaTek Helio P23 (16nm), which relies solely on Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.5 GHz. While the clock speed is higher, the older architecture and larger manufacturing process of the Helio P23 result in lower per-clock performance and reduced power efficiency. The Snapdragon 660 will handle multitasking and demanding apps more smoothly, and is more likely to maintain performance under sustained load.
Battery Life
Both phones share an endurance rating of 69 hours, suggesting similar battery life in typical usage scenarios. However, the Snapdragon 660’s superior power efficiency means the Nokia 7.2 is likely to achieve this endurance with less strain on the battery. Both devices are limited to 10W wired charging, indicating relatively slow charging speeds. A full charge will likely take over two hours for both devices.
Buying Guide
Buy the Cubot X20 if you prioritize having the latest chipset on paper and are primarily focused on basic tasks like calling, texting, and light social media use. Buy the Nokia 7.2 if you value a more responsive user experience, a brighter and more vibrant display, and a more established brand reputation for software updates and build quality.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Cubot X20 struggle with demanding games like PUBG Mobile?
The Helio P23 chipset in the Cubot X20 is likely to struggle with graphically intensive games like PUBG Mobile, even at lower settings. Expect frame drops and potential lag, especially during prolonged gaming sessions. The Snapdragon 660 in the Nokia 7.2 offers a significantly smoother gaming experience.
❓ How does the software experience differ between the Cubot X20 and Nokia 7.2?
The Nokia 7.2 benefits from Nokia’s commitment to Android One, offering a clean, bloatware-free Android experience with guaranteed software updates. Cubot, as a smaller manufacturer, typically provides less frequent and less consistent software updates, and their software may include pre-installed bloatware.
❓ Is the 10W charging speed on either phone a significant drawback?
Yes, 10W charging is quite slow by modern standards. Expect a full charge to take over two hours on both devices. This is a significant inconvenience if you frequently need to top up your battery quickly.
