Sharp Aquos Wish vs. Google Pixel 6a: A Deep Dive into Performance and Value
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing camera quality, software support, and overall performance, the Google Pixel 6a is the clear winner. However, the Sharp Aquos Wish offers a compelling 5G experience for budget-conscious buyers who don't demand flagship-level processing power.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Sharp Aquos wish | Google Pixel 6a |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 66, 71 - GX7AS, GB62Z (USA/Canada) |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 7, 28, 38, 41, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 25, 28, 30, 38, 40, 41, 48, 66, 71, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 - GX7AS (USA/Canada) |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 25, 28, 30, 40, 48, 66, 71, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 - G1AZG (International) | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, January 19 | 2022, May 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, January 21 | Available. Released 2022, July 21 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Plastic body, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), aluminum frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 147 x 71 x 8.9 mm (5.79 x 2.80 x 0.35 in) | 152.2 x 71.8 x 8.9 mm (5.99 x 2.83 x 0.35 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM |
| Weight | 162 g (5.71 oz) | 178 g (6.28 oz) |
| IPX5/IP6X/IPX7 water/dust resistant (up to 1.5m for 30 min) MIL-STD-810G compliant | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1520 pixels, 19:9 ratio (~295 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~429 ppi density) |
| Size | 5.7 inches, 81.1 cm2 (~77.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.1 inches, 90.7 cm2 (~83.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | OLED, HDR |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Kryo 460 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 460) | Octa-core (2x2.80 GHz Cortex-X1 & 2x2.25 GHz Cortex-A76 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4350 Snapdragon 480 5G (8 nm) | Google Tensor (5 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Mali-G78 MP20 |
| OS | Android 11 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 15, up to 5 major Android upgrades |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | No |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 12.2 MP, f/1.7, 27mm, (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 17mm, 114˚ (ultrawide), 1.25µm |
| Features | LED flash | Dual-LED flash, Pixel Shift, Auto-HDR, panorama |
| Single | 13 MP, (wide), AF | 8 MP, f/2.0, 24mm (wide), 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps; gyro-EIS, OIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR, panorama |
| Single | 8 MP | 8 MP, f/2.0, 24mm (wide), 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, QZSS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C | USB Type-C 3.1 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | - | 18W wired, PD3.0 |
| Type | Li-Ion 3730 mAh | Li-Po 4410 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Spring Bud Green, Foggy Black | Chalk, Charcoal, Sage |
| Models | - | GX7AS, GB62Z, G1AZG, GB17L |
| Price | About 230 EUR | $ 138.99 / C$ 228.74 / ₹ 23,999 |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 94h |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
Sharp Aquos wish
- Affordable 5G connectivity
- Potentially longer battery life due to less powerful processor
- Lightweight and compact design (assumed based on market positioning)
- Significantly weaker processor performance
- Likely inferior camera quality
- Limited software update support
Google Pixel 6a
- Superior performance with Google Tensor chip
- Excellent camera quality and image processing
- Guaranteed software updates and long-term support
- Higher price point
- May experience some thermal throttling under heavy load
- Slightly larger and heavier than some competitors
Display Comparison
The Google Pixel 6a boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching 876 nits measured, compared to the unstated brightness of the Aquos Wish. This translates to better visibility outdoors. While the Pixel 6a’s contrast ratio is listed as infinite (nominal), the Aquos Wish’s display specifications are not provided, suggesting a potentially lower contrast ratio. The Pixel 6a’s display is likely to offer a more vibrant and engaging viewing experience, particularly for media consumption.
Camera Comparison
The Pixel 6a’s camera system is a major strength, leveraging Google’s renowned computational photography. While specific sensor details for the Aquos Wish are unavailable, the Pixel 6a’s image processing capabilities, powered by the Tensor chip, consistently produce high-quality photos with excellent dynamic range and detail. The absence of detailed camera specs for the Aquos Wish suggests a more basic camera experience, likely lacking the advanced features and image quality of the Pixel 6a. The Pixel 6a’s focus on software optimization will likely yield superior results in various lighting conditions.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the Aquos Wish utilizes the Qualcomm SM4350 Snapdragon 480 5G (8nm), while the Pixel 6a is powered by Google’s Tensor (5nm). The 5nm fabrication process of the Tensor chip provides a significant advantage in power efficiency and thermal management compared to the 8nm Snapdragon 480. The Pixel 6a’s CPU, with its Cortex-X1 and Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.80 GHz and 2.25 GHz respectively, delivers substantially higher performance than the Aquos Wish’s 2.0 GHz Kryo 460 cores. This difference is particularly noticeable in demanding tasks like gaming and video editing. The Tensor chip also benefits from Google’s AI and machine learning optimizations, enhancing overall responsiveness.
Battery Life
Both devices achieve an endurance rating of 94 hours, indicating comparable battery life under similar usage scenarios. However, the Pixel 6a supports 18W wired charging with PD3.0, offering faster and more versatile charging options compared to the Aquos Wish, whose charging specifications are not provided. While both phones offer all-day battery life, the Pixel 6a’s faster charging capability provides greater convenience.
Buying Guide
Buy the Sharp Aquos Wish if you need a reliable 5G connection on a tight budget and prioritize affordability over premium features. It’s ideal for users who primarily use their phone for basic communication and light social media. Buy the Google Pixel 6a if you prefer a superior camera system, smoother performance thanks to the Google Tensor chip, and guaranteed software updates, even if it means spending a bit more.