- Florian Wimmer , Notebookcheck
The stylish casing and overall decent test outcomes in many areas bestow the Nokia 3 with a good market start in the entry-level sector.
- Andrew Hoyle , Cnet
The Nokia 3 sacrifices too much processing power to achieve its low price.
- Solid, attractive design
- All-day battery life
- microSD support
- Inaccurate display
- Weak cameras
- Sluggish performance
- Video recording limited to 720p
Once a contender for the top of the mobile phone charts, the age of smartphones hasn’t been too kind to Nokia. With their latest release, they’re targeting the entry-level market. But even that market is ultra-competitive today…
Does the Nokia 3 offer a compelling experience?
Reviewers are weighing in... let's see what they have to say!
Reviewers loved the design of the Nokia 3 despite the plastic design. Reviewers found the squared design comfortable in the hand and the textured back provided plenty of grip. NDTV summed up opinions well, saying, “While [it] doesn't have an all-metal body, the quality of polycarbonate used for the back and its metal frame still make the design good overall.”
Things slide downhill from there…
While reviewers felt the 5-inch 720p IPS display offered ample detail and brightness, nearly every review mentioned a blue hue shifting colors on the display. Many also complained about reflections making the phone hard to use in bright lighting. Phone Arena described the screen as “... one of the worst displays in terms of color reproduction that we have seen in a long while.”
Performance reviews aren’t much better. The quad-core 1.3Ghz MediaTek processor and 2GB of RAM offer enough power for basic use. But reviewers found that gaming and graphics-intensive websites were slow to load and stuttered.
The stock interface on Android 7.0 Nougat impressed reviewers. This is rare in the budget market. The lack of customizations and bloatware means most of the 16GB of internal storage is free to use. Should you need more space, the microSD slot supports cards up to 128GB in capacity.
While the 2,630mAh battery might seem small when other phones are sporting batteries 3,000mAh or more, the slower processor and 720p screen help stretch battery life to respectable levels. Phone Arena noted, “... we average around a day and a half off the charger, with more intense use killing the battery in a day.”
If you run out of juice, there’s no fast charging. So you’ll need nearly two hours to go from empty to full.
Budget phones aren’t known for their picture taking prowess. The 8MP front and rear cameras on this phone are no exception. Reviewers had issues in low light and found the camera slow to focus in good lighting. If you’re hoping to take video, the phone limits you to 720p.
Overall, reviewers found it hard to recommend the Nokia 3. Alphr summed up opinions well, saying, “It’s an attractive, practical handset and one that's cheaper than most of its rivals, too. In every other respect, however, the Nokia 3 lags behind.”
Reviews (5.8/10 Avg. rating)
A bit of a disappointment
A decent first effort
Back from the dead
An almost throughout solid entry-level smartphone
Feels solid but average overall performance
Three isn't the magic number
Very good build quality and likable design
A beauty that's only skin-deep
I really, really, really wanted to like the Nokia 3. I’ve always loved the way the company designs its smartphones, and the look and feel of this model is classic Nokia. I like the fact that it runs pure Android and that it has 16GB of storage. It’s also good that you can expand that via micro-USB. It’s an attractive, practical handset and one that's cheaper than most of its rivals, too. In every other respect, however, the Nokia 3 lags behind. Performance is below par. Battery life is below average and the camera is disappointing. Hopefully, when the Nokia 5 and 6 arrive... Full review
A decent first effort from Nokia
Nokia’s first stab at a budget Android smartphone is decent enough, but it doesn’t bring anything noteworthy to the table. It’s a looker, sure, and its display is pretty good, but elsewhere it's disappointing. Performance is below par, battery life isn't great and the camera isn't up to scratch either. The trouble is at £130, there isn't much direct competition, aside from the 2016 Motorola Moto G4, which you can still buy for £140. But, as long as you don't mind buying a generation-old phone, the Moto is the better choice. It has a bigger, higher-resolution sc... Full review
Cheap and you'll know it
Darn, there are no reviews yet for this phone.