The Oppo A5 and Tecno Camon 16 Pro represent compelling options in the competitive mid-range smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a solid experience without breaking the bank, they take distinctly different approaches to achieving this. The Oppo A5 leverages a newer, more efficient chipset, while the Tecno Camon 16 Pro focuses on offering a capable gaming experience at a competitive price point. This comparison will dissect their key differences to help you determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing long-term performance and battery longevity, the Oppo A5 emerges as the stronger choice. Its Mediatek Dimensity 6300 chipset, built on a 6nm process, offers a significant advantage in efficiency and sustained performance compared to the Tecno Camon 16 Pro’s older Helio G70.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - International | HSDPA 900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 - version 1 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 71, 77, 78 SA/NSA - version 1 | - |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| | - | 1, 3, 7, 8, 20, 28 |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, May 15 | 2020, September 04. Released 2020, September |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, May 15 | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Dimensions | 165.7 x 76.2 x 8 mm (6.52 x 3.00 x 0.31 in) | 170.9 x 77.2 x 9.2 mm (6.73 x 3.04 x 0.36 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 194 g (6.84 oz) | 207 g (7.30 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 7i, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1604 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~264 ppi density) | 720 x 1640 pixels (~263 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.2 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.8 inches, 109.8 cm2 (~83.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) | IPS LCD |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.7 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 6300 (6 nm) | Mediatek MT6769V/CB Helio G70 (12 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G52 2EEMC2 |
| OS | Android 15, ColorOS 15 | Android 10, HIOS 7.0 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | Unspecified |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF
2 MP, f/2.4, (wide) | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Penta-LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.7µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.3, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro)
4th unknown camera |
| Video | 1080p@30fps (6/8GB RAM models only) | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Dual | - | 16 MP, f/2.0, 27mm (wide), 1/3.0", 1.0µm
2nd unknown camera |
| Features | Panorama | Dual-LED flash, HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes, (market/region dependent) | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 45W wired, 33W PPS, 13.5W PD, 50% in 37 min | 18W wired |
| Type | 6000 mAh | 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Aurora Green, Mist White | Onyx Black, Ice Crystal Blue |
| Models | CPH2735, PKW120 | - |
| Price | $ 231.00 / £ 99.00 / € 99.99 / ₹ 15,498 | About 150 EUR |
| EU LABEL |
|---|
| Battery | 85:05h endurance, 1600 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class A | - |
| Free fall | Class A (270 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
Oppo A5
- Superior chipset performance with the Dimensity 6300
- Exceptional battery endurance (85:05h)
- Ultra-fast 45W charging with PPS and PD support
- Display specifications are unknown
- Camera details are limited
Tecno Camon 16 Pro
- Potentially lower price point
- Helio G70 offers decent gaming performance for casual users
- Historically, Tecno Camon phones have larger displays
- Older, less efficient Helio G70 chipset
- Slow 18W charging
- Likely lower battery endurance compared to Oppo A5
Display Comparison
Display specifications are not provided for either device. However, given their market positioning, it's reasonable to assume both utilize LCD panels. The lack of information prevents a detailed comparison of brightness, color accuracy, or refresh rates. The Tecno Camon 16 Pro, historically, has focused on larger screen sizes, potentially offering a more immersive viewing experience, but this is speculative without concrete data.
Camera Comparison
Camera details are absent beyond the existence of cameras on both devices. Given the Tecno Camon series’ history, it’s likely the 16 Pro prioritizes camera features, potentially offering a higher megapixel count on the main sensor. However, without sensor size, aperture, or image processing details, a meaningful comparison is impossible. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on either device is unknown, but would be a significant advantage for low-light photography.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Oppo A5’s Mediatek Dimensity 6300 (6nm) boasts a more modern architecture – Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.4GHz paired with A55 cores – compared to the Tecno Camon 16 Pro’s Helio G70 (12nm) with its Cortex-A75 and A55 configuration. The 6nm process node of the Dimensity 6300 translates to significantly improved power efficiency and thermal management, meaning the A5 will likely sustain peak performance for longer periods without throttling. The A5’s CPU clock speeds are also higher, indicating a performance advantage in demanding tasks. While both are octa-core CPUs, the architectural improvements in the Dimensity 6300 give the Oppo A5 a clear edge.
Battery Life
The Oppo A5’s battery endurance is rated at an impressive 85:05h, suggesting a large battery capacity and efficient power management. This is further bolstered by its advanced charging capabilities: 45W wired, 33W PPS, and 13.5W PD. The ability to reach 50% charge in just 37 minutes is a substantial convenience. The Tecno Camon 16 Pro, with its 18W wired charging, lags significantly behind in charging speed. While battery capacity isn’t specified, the slower charging suggests a smaller battery or less efficient charging circuitry. The A5’s charging versatility (PPS and PD) also offers broader compatibility with various chargers.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo A5 if you need a phone that will remain responsive and offer excellent battery life for years to come, and if fast charging is a priority. Its 45W charging and 85:05h endurance are key strengths. Buy the Tecno Camon 16 Pro if you primarily game casually and value a lower upfront cost, accepting trade-offs in processing power and charging speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Mediatek Dimensity 6300 in the Oppo A5 offer a noticeable performance improvement over the Helio G70 for everyday tasks like browsing and social media?
Yes, the Dimensity 6300’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds provide a smoother and more responsive experience even in everyday tasks. While the Helio G70 is capable, the Dimensity 6300 offers a more future-proofed experience and will handle multitasking more efficiently.
❓ How much faster is the 45W charging on the Oppo A5 compared to the 18W charging on the Tecno Camon 16 Pro in a real-world scenario?
The Oppo A5 can reach 50% charge in approximately 37 minutes, while the Tecno Camon 16 Pro will take considerably longer – likely over 90 minutes to reach the same level. This difference is significant for users who frequently need to quickly top up their battery.
❓ Is the lack of detailed camera specifications a major concern when choosing between these two phones?
Yes, it is. Without knowing sensor sizes, apertures, or image processing capabilities, it’s difficult to assess the camera quality. However, given Tecno’s focus on camera features, the Camon 16 Pro *might* have an edge, but this is purely speculative.
