Redmi A5 4G vs Vivo iQOO 13
The Redmi A5 4G (2025) runs on the Unisoc T7250, while the Vivo iQOO 13 (2024) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo iQOO 13 leads — 84/100 vs 35/100 (a 49-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo iQOO 13 has the bigger battery (6150 mAh vs 5200); the main camera is 32 MP vs 50 MP; the Vivo iQOO 13 has NFC for contactless payments, the Redmi A5 4G doesn't.
Redmi A5 4G
Vivo iQOO 13
- Overall rating 35/100
- Better Geekbench Single: 3041 vs 600
- Better Geekbench Multi: 9494 vs 1800
- Bigger battery: 6150 vs 5200 mAh
- Faster charging: 120W vs 18W
- Better main camera: 50MP vs 32MP
- Higher refresh rate: 144Hz vs 120Hz
- Higher performance (92/100 vs 32/100)
- Better camera (78/100 vs 20/100)
- Longer battery life (73/100 vs 48/100)
- Better display (99/100 vs 55/100)
Comparing the Redmi A5 4G vs the Vivo iQOO 13, the Vivo iQOO 13 scores 49 points higher (84/100 vs 35/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 leads (92/100 vs 32/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 leads (78/100 vs 20/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 leads (73/100 vs 48/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (92/100 vs 32/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (99/100 vs 55/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (78/100 vs 20/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 notably outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (73/100 vs 48/100).
| Specification | Redmi A5 4G | Vivo iQOO 13 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Unisoc T7250 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite | |
| AnTuTu | — | 3119308 | |
| Geekbench Single | 600 | 3041 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 1800 | 9494 | |
| Display | 6.9" IPS LCD | 6.8" LTPO AMOLED | |
| Resolution | 720x1640 | 1440x3168 | |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 144 Hz | |
| Battery | 5200 mAh | 6150 mAh | |
| Charging | 18W | 120W | |
| Main camera | 32 MP | 50 MP | |
| Ultrawide | 0 MP | 50 MP | |
| Telephoto | 0 MP | 50 MP | |
| Front camera | 8 MP | 32 MP | |
| RAM | 4GB / 6GB | 12GB / 16GB | |
| Storage | 64GB / 128GB | 256GB / 512GB / 1TB | |
| OS | Android 15, up to 2 major Android upgrades, HyperOS | Android 15, OriginOS 5 (China) | |
| NFC | no | yes | |
| Protection | — | IP68 | |
| Dimensions | — | 163.4×76.7×8.0 mm | |
| Weight | — | 207 g | |
| Launch price | — | $650 |
Redmi A5 4G
- Main: 32MP f/f/1.8
- Front: 8MP
Vivo iQOO 13
- Main: 50MP f/f/1.9
- Ultrawide: 50MP
- Telephoto: 50MP
- Front: 32MP
Redmi A5 4G
- 6.9" IPS LCD
- Resolution: 720x1640
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Vivo iQOO 13
- 6.8" LTPO AMOLED
- Resolution: 1440x3168
- Refresh rate: 144 Hz
Redmi A5 4G
- 5200 mAh
- Wired: 18W
- No wireless charging
Vivo iQOO 13
- 6150 mAh
- NanoReview test: web browsing 14:22 hrs, total 30:28 hrs
- Wired: 120W
- No wireless charging
Redmi A5 4G
Price unknownperformance
In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (92/100 vs 32/100).
display
In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (99/100 vs 55/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (78/100 vs 20/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 13 notably outperforms the Redmi A5 4G (73/100 vs 48/100).
Which is better: the Redmi A5 4G or the Vivo iQOO 13?
The Vivo iQOO 13 significantly outperforms the Redmi A5 4G by 49 points (84/100 vs 35/100).
What is the rating of the Redmi A5 4G and the Vivo iQOO 13?
The Redmi A5 4G has a MobileRank rating of 35/100, the Vivo iQOO 13 — 84/100.
Which has the better camera: the Redmi A5 4G or the Vivo iQOO 13?
The Vivo iQOO 13 leads on camera score (78/100 vs 20/100).
Which is more powerful: the Redmi A5 4G or the Vivo iQOO 13?
The Vivo iQOO 13 leads on performance (92/100 vs 32/100).
Should you choose the Redmi A5 4G over the Vivo iQOO 13?
The Redmi A5 4G is a better fit for everyday use. The Vivo iQOO 13 is a better fit for gamers and power users, budget-conscious buyers.