The Lenovo Yoga Tab 13 and Xiaomi Pad 5 represent compelling options in the increasingly competitive Android tablet space. While both aim to deliver a premium experience, they diverge in their core approaches: the Yoga Tab 13 prioritizes performance with the Snapdragon 870, while the Pad 5 focuses on a balanced package with a strong emphasis on display quality and value. This comparison will dissect their strengths and weaknesses to determine which tablet best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing raw performance and multitasking, the Lenovo Yoga Tab 13 emerges as the winner. Its Snapdragon 870 chipset provides a noticeable edge in demanding applications. However, the Xiaomi Pad 5 offers a fantastic experience for media consumption and everyday tasks at a potentially lower price point, making it a strong contender for budget-conscious buyers.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | N/A | N/A |
| 3G bands | N/A | N/A |
| 4G bands | N/A | - |
| EDGE | No | N/A |
| GPRS | No | N/A |
| Technology | No cellular connectivity | No cellular connectivity |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2021, May 24 | 2021, August 10 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, May 31 | Available. Released 2021, August 10 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, aluminum frame, aluminum back | Glass front, aluminum frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 293.4 mm x 204 mm x 6.2-24.9 mm | 254.7 x 166.3 x 6.9 mm (10.03 x 6.55 x 0.27 in) |
| SIM | No | No |
| Weight | 830 g (1.83 lb) | 511 g (1.13 lb) |
| | Built-in stainless steel kickstand
Stylus support | Stylus support (magnetic) |
| Display |
|---|
| Resolution | 1350 x 2160 pixels, 16:10 ratio (~196 ppi density) | 1600 x 2560 pixels, 16:10 ratio (~274 ppi density) |
| Size | 13.0 inches, 490.0 cm2 (~56.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 11.0 inches, 350.9 cm2 (~82.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, HDR10, Dolby Vision, 400 nits | IPS LCD, 1B colors, 120Hz, HDR10, Dolby Vision |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.2 GHz Kryo 585 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 585 & 4x1.80 GHz Kryo 585) | Octa-core (1x2.96 GHz Kryo 485 Gold & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485 Gold & 4x1.78 GHz Kryo 485 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8250-AC Snapdragon 870 5G (7 nm) | Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 650 | Adreno 640 |
| OS | Android 11, ZUI 12.5 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 13, MIUI 14 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM |
| | UFS 3.0 | UFS 3.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| No | - |
| Features | - | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | - | 13 MP, f/2.0 |
| Video | - | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 8 MP
TOF 3D, (biometrics sensor) | 8 MP, f/2.0 |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers (4 speakers) | Yes, with stereo speakers (4 speakers) |
| | Tuned by JBL | 24-bit/192kHz audio |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | Unspecified | No |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.1, micro HDMI | USB Type-C |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Face recognition, accelerometer, gyro, proximity | Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | - | 33W wired, PD3.0 |
| Type | Li-Po 10200 mAh | Li-Po 8720 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Gray | Cosmic Gray, Pearl White, Green |
| Models | ZA8E0018CN | 21051182G, 21051182C |
| Price | About 800 EUR | About 350 EUR |
| Tests |
|---|
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: 1271:1 (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-24.4 LUFS (Very good)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 473819 (v8), 555079 (v9)
GeekBench: 2583 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 24fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Lenovo Yoga Tab 13
- Superior performance with Snapdragon 870
- 5G connectivity for on-the-go access
- Larger 13-inch display for enhanced multitasking
- Potentially higher price point
- Battery life may be impacted by larger display and faster processor
Xiaomi Pad 5
- Excellent display quality with high brightness and contrast
- Faster 33W charging with PD3.0
- More affordable price point
- Less powerful Snapdragon 860 processor
- Lacks 5G connectivity
Display Comparison
The Xiaomi Pad 5 boasts a measured peak brightness of 478 nits and a 1271:1 contrast ratio, indicating a vibrant and visually appealing display. While the Yoga Tab 13’s display specifications aren’t provided, its larger 13-inch form factor suggests a focus on immersive viewing. The Pad 5’s contrast ratio, though nominal, suggests good black levels. The lack of LTPO technology in either device means refresh rates are likely fixed, impacting battery life during prolonged use at higher settings. The Pad 5’s display is optimized for media consumption, while the Yoga Tab 13’s larger size may be preferable for multitasking and creative work.
Camera Comparison
Neither tablet is positioned as a photography powerhouse, and detailed camera specifications are absent. However, given the market segment, it’s reasonable to assume both feature adequate cameras for video conferencing and casual snapshots. The absence of detailed sensor information suggests image quality won’t be a primary differentiator. Focusing on the core strengths of each device – performance for the Yoga Tab 13 and display/value for the Pad 5 – is more relevant than scrutinizing camera capabilities.
Performance
The Lenovo Yoga Tab 13’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G (7nm) chipset represents a clear advantage over the Xiaomi Pad 5’s Snapdragon 860 (7nm). The 870 features a more powerful Kryo 585 CPU core configuration (1x3.2 GHz + 3x2.42 GHz + 4x1.80 GHz) compared to the 860’s Kryo 485 (1x2.96 GHz + 3x2.42 GHz + 4x1.78 GHz). This translates to faster application loading times, smoother multitasking, and improved gaming performance. While both chips are built on a 7nm process, the 870’s architectural improvements provide a tangible performance boost. The Yoga Tab 13’s 5G capability further extends its versatility, enabling on-the-go connectivity.
Battery Life
Battery capacity figures are not provided for either device. However, the Xiaomi Pad 5’s 33W wired charging with PD3.0 support offers a faster charging experience than what is typically found in tablets of this class. The Yoga Tab 13’s charging specifications are unknown, but a larger battery capacity might be expected given its larger display. The Snapdragon 870’s efficiency, combined with optimized software, could potentially offset a smaller battery capacity in the Yoga Tab 13, but real-world usage will determine the ultimate battery life winner.
Buying Guide
Buy the Lenovo Yoga Tab 13 if you need a tablet capable of handling intensive tasks like video editing, demanding games, or running multiple applications simultaneously. Its superior processing power and 5G connectivity make it ideal for professionals and power users. Buy the Xiaomi Pad 5 if you prefer a tablet primarily for entertainment, browsing, and light productivity. Its excellent display, coupled with a competitive price, makes it a compelling choice for students, casual users, and those seeking a portable media center.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 860 in the Xiaomi Pad 5 struggle with graphically intensive games like Genshin Impact?
While the Snapdragon 860 is capable, demanding titles like Genshin Impact may require reduced graphics settings for a consistently smooth experience. The Yoga Tab 13’s Snapdragon 870 offers a more comfortable margin for high-fidelity gaming.
❓ Does the Lenovo Yoga Tab 13's larger screen size make it less portable?
The 13-inch display of the Yoga Tab 13 does make it less compact than the Xiaomi Pad 5. However, its versatility as a productivity tool and entertainment hub may outweigh the portability trade-off for users who prioritize screen real estate.
❓ Is the 33W charging on the Xiaomi Pad 5 significantly faster than slower charging standards?
Yes, 33W charging with PD3.0 is considerably faster than standard tablet charging. It allows for a substantial charge in a short amount of time, minimizing downtime and maximizing usability.
