Honor 9A vs Tecno Camon 16 S

The Honor 9A (2020) runs on the MediaTek Helio P22, while the Tecno Camon 16 S (2020) runs on the MediaTek Helio P22. By overall MobileRank rating, the Tecno Camon 16 S leads — 29/100 vs 26/100 (a 3-point difference). Key differences: the main camera is 13 MP vs 48 MP.

The Tecno Camon 16 S edges out the Honor 9A by just 3 points — the two devices are very close in overall level.

Profile comparison

Category scores

Honor 9A

Performance 10
Display 40
Camera 12
Battery 66
Portability 57
Value for money —

Tecno Camon 16 S

Performance 10
Display 38
Camera 29
Battery 66
Portability 32
Value for money —

What makes Honor 9A better?


  • Better display (40/100 vs 38/100)
  • Better portability (57/100 vs 32/100)

What makes Tecno Camon 16 S better?

  • Better main camera: 48MP vs 13MP

  • Better camera (29/100 vs 12/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Honor 9A vs the Tecno Camon 16 S, the Tecno Camon 16 S scores 3 points higher (29/100 vs 26/100). In the "camera" category, the Tecno Camon 16 S leads (29/100 vs 12/100). In the "performance" category, both devices are on the same level — 10/100. In the "display" category, the Honor 9A and the Tecno Camon 16 S are nearly equal (40/100 vs 38/100). In the "camera" category, the Tecno Camon 16 S notably outperforms the Honor 9A (29/100 vs 12/100). In the "battery" category, both devices are on the same level — 66/100. In the "portability" category, the Honor 9A notably outperforms the Tecno Camon 16 S (57/100 vs 32/100).

Specs comparison

Specification Honor 9A Tecno Camon 16 S
Processor MediaTek Helio P22 MediaTek Helio P22
AnTuTu 177554 177554
Geekbench Single 233 233
Geekbench Multi 723 723
Display 6.3" IPS LCD 6.6" IPS LCD
Resolution 720x1600 720x1600
Refresh rate — —
Battery 5000 mAh 5000 mAh
Charging — —
Main camera 13 MP 48 MP
Ultrawide 5 MP 0 MP
Front camera 8 MP 8 MP
RAM 3GB 4GB
Storage 64GB 128GB
OS Android 10; Magic UI 3.1, no Google Play Services Android 10, HIOS 6.2
NFC no no
Dimensions 159.1×74.1×9.0 mm 164.5×76.5×9.0 mm
Weight 185 g —
Launch price — —

Camera comparison

Honor 9A

  • Main: 13MP f/1.8
  • Ultrawide: 5MP
  • Front: 8MP
12
camera

Tecno Camon 16 S

  • Main: 48MP f/1.8
  • Front: 8MP
29
camera

Display comparison

Honor 9A

  • 6.3" IPS LCD
  • Resolution: 720x1600
  • Refresh rate: —
40
display

Tecno Camon 16 S

  • 6.6" IPS LCD
  • Resolution: 720x1600
  • Refresh rate: —
38
display

Battery and charging

Honor 9A

  • 5000 mAh
  • Wireless charging: no data
66
battery

Tecno Camon 16 S

  • 5000 mAh
  • Wireless charging: no data
66
battery

Overall performance score

We compared Honor 9A and Tecno Camon 16 S, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Honor 9A MediaTek Helio P22
26/100
177554 AnTuTu
Tecno Camon 16 S MediaTek Helio P22
29/100
177554 AnTuTu

Equal performance based on benchmark results.

Benchmarks

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, both devices are on the same level — 10/100.

display

In the "display" category, the Honor 9A and the Tecno Camon 16 S are nearly equal (40/100 vs 38/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Tecno Camon 16 S notably outperforms the Honor 9A (29/100 vs 12/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, both devices are on the same level — 66/100.

portability

In the "portability" category, the Honor 9A notably outperforms the Tecno Camon 16 S (57/100 vs 32/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Honor 9A or the Tecno Camon 16 S?

The Tecno Camon 16 S edges out the Honor 9A by just 3 points — the two devices are very close in overall level.

What is the rating of the Honor 9A and the Tecno Camon 16 S?

The Honor 9A has a MobileRank rating of 26/100, the Tecno Camon 16 S — 29/100.

Which has the better camera: the Honor 9A or the Tecno Camon 16 S?

The Tecno Camon 16 S leads on camera score (29/100 vs 12/100).

Should you choose the Honor 9A over the Tecno Camon 16 S?

Neither model stands out enough to recommend it for a specific use case: the clearest difference is portability — better on the Honor 9A (57/100 vs 32/100).