The LG G7 Fit comes with a 6.1-inch QHD+ display, 2.15 GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 821, 4 GB of RAM, 32 GB of storage, a 16-megapixel rear camera and an 8 megapixel unit for selfies. Aug 30, 2018 The LG G7 Fit is a more modest version of the LG G7 flagship phone, offering simpler specs while still serving up strong media chops. For one, that G7 Fit display is stunning and spacious, while.
- Display6.1' 1440 x 3120 pixels
- Camera16 MP / 8 MP front
- ProcessorQualcomm Snapdragon 821, Quad-core, 2150 MHz
- Memory
- Storage32 GB + microSDXC
- Battery3000 mAh(14h talk time)
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
A bright display, but not a dazzler of a device.For years, LG has been releasing its flagship smartphones under its G-series branding. The South Korean company is now filling out the series with midrange devices like the G7 Fit, which is the focus of our review. The device is not aimed at fitness fanatics either but rather at buyers who want a stylish smartphone with some of the features from flagship devices without having to spend so much money. Read on to find out how well this approach works and how the G7 Fit fares against its competitors.
800 Euros (~$902) and more for a flagship smartphone is a lot of money by anyone’s account and does not offer good value for money. Midrange devices are quickly closing the gap to their flagship counterparts, but LG has sought to bridge the gap by introducing the G7 Fit, which blends some of the features that current flagships have with older flagship hardware. The G7 Fit looks like a modern flagship with its stylish design and bright display, but it only retails for 399 Euros (~$450). The compromises that LG has made to achieve this low price point are abundant though, not least of which that the South Korean company has equipped the device with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 SoC, which was first used in devices like the Google Pixel XL, the LG G6 and the OnePlus 3T back in 2016.
We have chosen to compare the G7 Fit against more recent smartphones, including the Honor 10 Lite, Moto G7 Plus and the Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018). Please keep in mind when reading this review that our three main comparison devices are between 49 Euros (~$55) and 149 Euros (~$167) cheaper than the G7 Fit.
Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG
4096 MB
6.1 inch 19.5:9, 3120 x 1440 pixel 563 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB , 32GB, 18.9 GB free
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm, Card Reader: Up to 2 TB microSD cards, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Compass, Gyro, Proximity sensor, USB 3.1 Type-C
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM, UMTS, LTE, LTE, GPS
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 153.2 x 71.9 ( = 0.31 x 6.03 x 2.83 in)
11.4 Wh, 3000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Android 8.1 Oreo
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/2.2, 28 mm
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/1.9, 26 mm
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/1.9, 26 mm
Keyboard: Virtual, Keyboard Light: yes, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0.327 W/kg. LTE Cat 11/5 (600 Mbps/75 Mbps), DRM Widevine L3, ExFAT support
156 g ( = 5.5 oz / 0.34 pounds), Power Supply: 64 g ( = 2.26 oz / 0.14 pounds)
399 Euro
LG homepage
LG notebook section
LG notebook section
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
Firstly, the G7 Fit looks chic and stylish. The G7 Fit has a metal frame that is sandwiched between two pieces of glass, the combination of which is uncommon for smartphones at this price as OEMs tend to opt for a plastic frame or back to save on material costs. Additionally, LG has kept the bezels pleasingly narrow, which makes our review unit look more like an 800-Euro (~$902) smartphone than a 400-Euro (~$451) one. Gaps between materials are tight and even too, which only adds to the G7 Fit’s premium feel. Our review unit measures 153.2 x 71.9 x 7.9 mm and weighs 156 g, making it more compact than all our comparison devices. The small footprint allows our review unit to sit comfortably in our hands, and there is no camera bump either so the G7 Fit will lie flat on a table without wobbling about like many flagships do.
The glass back is a nice touch, but it comes with its drawbacks. On the one hand, our review unit becomes greasy too quickly for our liking and is prone to slipping not only from our hands but also from a desk or table that is not completely flat. Fortunately, LG certifies the G7 Fit as MIL-STD-810G1 compliant, which means that the device has successfully passed 14 environmental and climatic tests. However, no independent organisation or agency certifies MIL-STD-810 compliance, so take the certification with a pinch of salt.
The G7 Fit is IP68 compliant too, the first digit of which means that the device has passed an eight-hour test to determine that it is dustproof. Moreover, the G7 Fit is water-resistant for at least 30 minutes having been fully submerged in between 1 m and 3 m of water.
LG sells the G7 Fit only in black in Europe at the time of writing, which it markets as New Aurora Black. The device will also come in New Platinum Grey in other regions.
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1.000 USD/Euros
Best Displays, for University Students
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera SmartphonesNotebookcheck's Top 10 Smartphones under 160 Euros
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera SmartphonesNotebookcheck's Top 10 Smartphones under 160 Euros
Connectivity
The choice of processor is rather surprising. LG has equipped the G7 Fit with a Snapdragon 821 SoC as we mentioned earlier, which turns three years old at the end of this year. The SoC should still be as powerful as newer midrange chips, but we suspect that it will be less economical too. LG complements the Snapdragon 821 with 4 GB of RAM, a decent amount by midrange smartphone standards and the same amount with which the company equipped the G7 ThinQ.
However, the G7 Fit has eMMC flash storage, which is much slower than the UFS 2.1 equivalent that OEMs are using in almost all their modern flagships. Our review unit has 32 GB of storage, but LG sells a 64 GB model in some markets too. The device supports up to 2 TB microSD cards should you fill up the internal storage and has dual-SIM functionality. You must choose between the two though because the G7 Fit has space for one or the other, but not both. Moreover, LG has equipped the device with a 3.5 mm jack and an NFC, the former of which has become almost extinct on flagship smartphones.
While the G7 Fit earns points for its hardware, it ships with outdated software. Our review unit arrived with Android 8.1 Oreo, which is comparatively up to date by LG's standards. Worse still, LG has only released security patches up to October 2018, which were over five months old at the time of our tests. In our opinion, no midrange smartphone released in 2019 should be so hopelessly outdated out of the box.
LG has applied its UI atop of Android 8.1 Oreo, but the company only makes minor visual adjustments compared to stock Android, so it should not take too long to acclimatise to if you have used Android before.
Positively, our review unit has minimal bloatware. LG includes its Smart Doctor service and a few of its other apps along with the usual suite of Google apps. The G7 Fit has four navigation buttons by default though, with LG adding a button to quickly switch between SIM cards rather than having to dive into Settings.
Frustratingly, LG has opted to make the G7 Fit only Widevine DRM Level 3-certified, which prevents it from being able to stream content in HD from services like Amazon Prime Video or Netflix. You can still stream in standard definition, but LG would need to start shipping devices with Level 1 certification to enable HD streaming. We have no idea why the company chose to do this as it is free to have a device Level 1-certified and OEMs are unable to upgrade devices from Level 3 to Level 1 via a software update.
Communication & GPS
The G7 Fit has poor Wi-Fi performance even by midrange standards too. We tested our review unit with our Linksys EA8500 reference router and ran iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests as we do with all the devices that we review. The G7 Fit averaged 155 Mb/s in the download test and 40.9 Mb/s in the upload test, which is both well below average and considerably slower than the Moto G7 Plus along with the Galaxy A7 (2018). Our review unit generally maintained below average Wi-Fi reception throughout our tests too, which is doubly disappointing.
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
Average of class Smartphone (2.1 - 939, n=396) | |
LG G7 Fit Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB eMMC Flash | |
Honor 10 Lite Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 703, n=396) | |
Honor 10 Lite Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
LG G7 Fit Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB eMMC Flash |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø102 (53-151)
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, ARM Mali-G51 MP4; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø48.3 (42-52)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø278 (265-284)
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Qualcomm Adreno 509; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø331 (314-341)
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø40.3 (19-45)
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, ARM Mali-G51 MP4; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø41.4 (29-56)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø320 (164-362)
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Qualcomm Adreno 509; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø288 (268-294)
By contrast, we had no issues with LTE reception nor did we with GPS either. Our review unit could even find a satellite fix indoors, which is not always the case with midrange smartphones. GPS accuracy improved from 11 metres to 3 metres when we tested it outdoors, which is also excellent even by modern flagship standards.
We also subjected our review unit to a bike ride to compare its GPS data against a professional navigation device, the Garmin Edge 520. The G7 Fit performed well overall but exhibited the same inaccuracies through tight corners that most smartphones do. In daily use, these should not be a problem though, and the G7 Fit is accurate enough for all general navigation tasks.
LG also includes its suite of telephony apps, which are laid out clearly and are intuitive to use. We have only minor complaints about call quality too. The earpiece in our review unit can get loud and reproduced our call partner’s voice well. Moreover, the microphone picked out our voice clearly throughout our test calls, which is also the case when making hands-free calls.
LG has equipped the G7 Fit with its Boombox speaker technology, which resonates onto surfaces like tabletops and desks to deliver higher volumes and better low-frequency reproduction than traditional speakers would. Placing the G7 Fit on a hollow object like an acoustic guitar, for example, creates a surprisingly full-bodied sound with almost something that sounds like real bass.
Cameras are one area in which LG has compromised to keep costs down. The G7 Fit has single front-facing and rear-facing cameras compared to the dual or triple sensors with which it has equipped the G7 ThinQ and V40 ThinQ.
The G7 Fit has a 16 MP rear-facing camera that has an f/2.2 aperture, which is comparatively narrow by modern smartphone standards. Hence, don't expect great things from the camera in low light. LG has also equipped the device with an 8 MP front-facing sensor that confusingly has an f/1.9 aperture, which should let in more light than the rear-facing one and thus perform better in low light.
The main camera takes passable photos in daily use, which look reasonably sharp with decent dynamic range. However, we noticed image noise in certain areas of most photos, such as in parts of the sky in scene 2. Our review unit’s low-light performance surprised us though, as demonstrated in scene 3. Although photos lack sharpness, the sensor and software compensate well against image noise to deliver a better than expected photo. Overall, scene 3 looks a bit warmer than in the photos taken by the Apple iPhone XS Max and OnePlus 6T, but this is acceptable considering how much more expensive those two devices are than the G7 Fit.
Interestingly, the front-facing camera produces considerably more image noise in darker areas than the rear-facing sensor, but it is still good enough for taking selfies. Both cameras take decent-looking videos too, but you will need a steady hand to prevent camera shake as neither sensor is optically stabilised.
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3We also subjected our review unit to further camera tests under controlled lighting conditions, which confirmed our initial observations. The G7 Fit captures our test chart sharply, but colours are oversaturated compared to ColorChecker reference colours. This is often the case with most smartphones though. Contrast levels gradually reduce towards the edges of our test chart picture too, but this is not overly concerning for a midrange smartphone.
The G7 Fit comes with the standard set of accessories for a midrange smartphone. Our review unit arrived with a pair of headphones that have a braided cable like those included with the LG V40 ThinQ, a charger and a corresponding USB Type-C cable. LG has thrown in a cleaning cloth too as it has done with most of its recent flagship smartphones dating back to at least the V20.
The G7 Fit comes with 24 months manufacturer’s warranty. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.
The G7 Fit has a 10-point capacitive touchscreen as almost all modern smartphones do. The touchscreen reproduced our inputs quickly and accurately even into the edges of the display throughout our tests. Likewise, the accelerometer promptly adjusted the screen orientation if we rotated our review unit, while the fingerprint sensor consistently unlocked the device without delay.
The power button and volume rocker have decent pressure points too with crisp keystrokes. The buttons are on par with those that LG uses in its flagship devices in our opinion.
One of the highlights of the G7 Fit is its display. LG has equipped the device with a 6.1-inch IPS panel that operates natively at 3120x1440, which equates to a pixel density of 563 PPI. However, the screen is not as sharp out of the box as LG reduces the resolution to 2340x1080 by default to extend battery life. You can further reduce the resolution to 1560x720 should you wish to minimise the power that the display draws. Please keep in mind that you must restart the device every time you change the resolution.
The star of the show is the display’s maximum brightness, which X-Rite i1Pro 2 recorded at 993 cd/m² across the entire panel and 1014 cd/m² at its centre. This is brighter than almost any smartphone and even brighter than the G7 ThinQ. However, The G7 Fit can only maintain its peak brightness for three minutes before dropping back to around 800 cd/m², which is still impressively bright.
Our review unit has a 0.46 cd/m² black value, which is higher than many IPS panels that we have tested. However, the black value is lower than our comparison devices that also have IPS panels, and it does not prevent the display from achieving an excellent contrast ratio, which we measure at 2,204:1. Only the colour accuracy is disappointing, which is well beaten by the Honor 10 Lite and Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018).
The 19.5:9 aspect ratio largely feels immersive too, although the G7 Fit’s broad notch may put off some people. Moreover, the device will show black bars with letterbox content shot in 16:9, but you should be able to zoom to fill the screen in apps like YouTube should you wish to view full-screen videos.
|
Maximum: 1023 cd/m² Average: 992.7 cd/m² Minimum: 4.76 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 530 cd/m²
Contrast: 2204:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.54 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 7.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.242
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 530 cd/m²
Contrast: 2204:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.54 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 7.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.242
LG G7 Fit IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1 | Honor 10 Lite IPS, 2340x1080, 6.21 | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6 | Motorola Moto G7 Plus IPS, 2270x1080, 6.2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 24% | |||
Brightness middle | 1014 | 467 | 570 | 537 |
Brightness | 993 | 446 | 565 | 525 |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 89 | 93 | 85 |
Black Level * | 0.46 | 0.58 | 0.58 | |
Contrast | 2204 | 805 | 926 | |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 6.54 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 6.41 |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 11.76 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 10.86 |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 7.3 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 6.7 |
Gamma | 2.242 98% | 2.07 106% | ||
CCT | 8749 74% | 6504 100% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 15 % brightness setting |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9533 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured. |
The G7 Fit uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate its screen brightness, which can cause eye strain and headaches for some people. Thankfully, the frequency, which we measure at 2,300 Hz when the screen is at 15% or below, should be high enough not to cause issues for most people.
Display Response Times
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13 ms rise | |
↘ 13 ms fall | ||
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.2 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise | |
↘ 23 ms fall | ||
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (40.3 ms). |
We also subjected the G7 Fit to further display tests with a photo spectrometer and CalMAN software to scrutinise its colour accuracy. Our additional tests confirmed our initial impressions and demonstrated that the display has only a slight blue tint to it, which is better than many midrange smartphones.
The G7 Fit is easy to use outdoors thanks to its impressively bright display. Even the brightest of summer suns should not prevent you from being able to read the display. Moreover, our review unit has stable viewing angles as many IPS panels do. We noticed no brightness, colour or image distortions even at acute viewing angles.
The Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 SoC is still a powerful chip, but it shows its age on closer inspection. Our review unit, for example, outscored our comparison devices in single-core benchmarks like Geekbench 4.3, but it finished dead last in the corresponding multi-core benchmark. It is also a mixed bag for the integrated Qualcomm Adreno 530 GPU. The GPU generally blew the chips in our comparison devices away in benchmarks like 3DMark, but it sometimes scored up to 20% less than the ARM Mali-G51 MP4 in the Honor 10 Lite. We doubt that most people would notice the difference in daily use though, with the G7 Fit handling anything that we threw at it with ease, just as our comparison devices do.
Geekbench 4.3 | PCMark for Android | 3DMark | GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | GFXBench 3.0 | GFXBench 3.1 | GFXBench | AnTuTu v7 | AnTuTu v6 | BaseMark OS II
Geekbench 4.3 | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (3327 - 4369, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1174 - 11598, n=350) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (1746 - 1891, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (891 - 4824, n=352) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (5152 - 6461, n=5) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3227 - 11440, n=346) | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (4739 - 7659, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4096 - 14439, n=514) |
3DMark | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (1728 - 2046, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (486 - 4262, n=436) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (2291 - 3005, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (65 - 6362, n=438) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (2207 - 2682, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (80 - 5734, n=446) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (15027 - 22860, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4811 - 45072, n=628) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (32128 - 40761, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3585 - 162695, n=628) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (27766 - 34290, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4164 - 83518, n=629) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (65 - 96, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 251, n=656) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (46 - 61, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 120, n=659) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (26 - 49, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2.7 - 132, n=575) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (23 - 48, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.4 - 115, n=580) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (12 - 32, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.6 - 88, n=437) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (12 - 32, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.4 - 110, n=440) |
GFXBench | |
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (6.9 - 7, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.86 - 59, n=141) | |
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (7.2 - 11, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.26 - 31, n=141) | |
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (12 - 15, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.8 - 59, n=142) | |
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (15 - 19, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.94 - 63, n=141) | |
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (14 - 20, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.89 - 54, n=366) | |
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (8.4 - 20, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.6 - 58, n=370) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (142395 - 158926, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (52607 - 380913, n=258) |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (138072 - 159866, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 274007, n=462) |
BaseMark OS II | |
Web (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (891 - 1136, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=587) | |
Graphics (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (3415 - 5138, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=587) | |
Memory (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (1531 - 2586, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6661, n=587) | |
System (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (2834 - 3939, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=587) | |
Overall (sort by value) | |
LG G7 Fit Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 4096 | |
Honor 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 3072 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (2078 - 2746, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=591) |
Browser benchmark results only compound our initial impressions about the Snapdragon 821 and the Adreno 530. While our review unit achieved a significantly better score in Mozilla Kraken 1.1, it finished last in our JetStream 1.1 and Octane V2 benchmarks.
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (45.1 - 59.8, n=10) | |
LG G7 Fit | |
Honor 10 Lite (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 273, n=494) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
LG G7 Fit | |
Honor 10 Lite (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (5511 - 10506, n=10) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Average of class Smartphone (1994 - 43280, n=649) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=669) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Honor 10 Lite (Chrome 71) | |
LG G7 Fit | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro (2400 - 4141, n=10) |
* ... smaller is better
The G7 Fit has eMMC flash storage like our comparison devices do, but our review unit achieved significantly slower write speeds than the Honor 10 Lite and Moto G7 Plus. Conversely, the G7 Fit averaged approximately 35% faster sequential read 256 KB speeds than our comparison devices, while it managed slightly faster random read 4 KB speeds than the Galaxy A7 (2018) too.
We also tested our review unit’s microSD card reader with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference microSD card, as we did with all our comparison devices. In short, LG has equipped the G7 Fit with a reader that is just as fast as its competitors.
LG G7 Fit | Honor 10 Lite | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | Motorola Moto G7 Plus | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -10% | -26% | ||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 66.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 64.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 62.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 49.3 (3.4 - 87.1, n=130) | 48.3 (9.5 - 87.1, n=391) |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 82.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 75.78 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 78.15 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 68 (8.2 - 96.5, n=130) | 66.3 (8.1 - 96.5, n=391) |
Random Write 4KB | 19.8 | 66.06 | 15.45 | 73.1 | 18.6 (0.75 - 77.3, n=174) | 19.4 (0.14 - 250, n=698) |
Random Read 4KB | 89.2 | 45.15 | 83.98 | 76.6 | 37.9 (3.59 - 117, n=174) | 43.8 (1.59 - 175, n=698) |
Sequential Write 256KB | 99.1 | 190.55 | 104.87 | 208.7 | 94.6 (14.8 - 189, n=174) | 90.2 (2.99 - 392, n=698) |
Sequential Read 256KB | 451.5 | 288.55 | 295.76 | 283.6 | 233 (25.8 - 452, n=174) | 254 (12.1 - 1468, n=698) |
The overall positive image produced during benchmarks and everyday life use continues with games. There are some occasional frame-rate stutters while starting games like Shadow Fight 3, but all the games that we tested played smoothly.
Moreover, the accelerometer worked well throughout our gaming tests. The touchscreen also worked flawlessly while playing fast-paced games like Temple Run 2.
The older chipset started to show its weaknesses in our temperature tests though. Surface temperatures average around 30 °C at idle but rise to closer to 40 °C under sustained load, which is much hotter than most of the Snapdragon 636-powered devices that we have tested.
The additional waste heat may cause the SoC to throttle during long gaming sessions too, although you should be at no risk of getting burned. In short, the G7 Fit will typically feel slightly warmer to the touch than most modern midrange smartphones and will feel hot in your hands if you push the device hard.
| |||||||||
Maximum: 40.6 °C = 105 F Average: 39.1 °C = 102 F |
| |||||||||
Maximum: 39.2 °C = 103 F Average: 37.5 °C = 100 F |
Power Supply (max.) 45.1 °C = 113 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.1 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.6 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.4 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.6 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.4 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
As we mentioned earlier, LG’s Boombox speakers can sometimes get louder and generate more bass than traditional smartphone speakers. As the frequency diagram below demonstrates, our review unit generally reproduces bass tones more loudly than the Moto G7 Plus can, but super high tones sound comparatively quiet. This is no bad thing though as it means that the speakers do not sound shrill at maximum volume, which should please most people.
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
LG G7 Fit audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Motorola Moto G7 Plus audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 21% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 21% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
As expected, our review unit consumes considerably more than our comparison devices and their more-efficient SoCs. The G7 Fit also consumes more at idle than the average of Snapdragon 821-powered comparison devices that we have tested, so the device is inefficient by old flagship standards too.
Power ConsumptionOff / Standby | 0.2 / 0.3 Watt |
Idle | 1.5 / 2.2 / 4 Watt |
Load | 7.8 / 9.8 Watt |
LG G7 Fit 3000 mAh | Honor 10 Lite 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 41% | 26% | ||||
Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 1 | 0.71 | 1.1 | 0.799 (0.4 - 1.5, n=10) | 0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=726) |
Idle Average * | 2.2 | 2.19 | 1.36 | 1.7 | 1.658 (1.07 - 2.41, n=10) | 1.737 (0.6 - 6.2, n=725) |
Idle Maximum * | 4 | 2.2 | 1.47 | 2.1 | 1.893 (1.12 - 4, n=10) | 2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=726) |
Load Average * | 7.8 | 4.64 | 5.13 | 5.1 | 7.08 (5.52 - 9.21, n=10) | 4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=720) |
Load Maximum * | 9.8 | 7.7 | 7.89 | 7.9 | 9.99 (6.26 - 14.2, n=10) | 5.87 (1.2 - 14.2, n=720) |
* ... smaller is better
The G7 Fit has a 3,000 mAh battery, which is the same size as the one in the Moto G7 Plus but 400 mAh and 300 mAh smaller than the ones in the Honor 10 Lite and Galaxy A7 (2018), respectively. Predictably, our review unit achieved a comparatively poor runtime in our Wi-Fi battery life test. The G7 Fit lasted just 6:25 hours in this test and needed recharging between 26% and 86% sooner than our comparison devices. In short, we would recommend considering another device if you are looking for a smartphone with good battery life.
Battery RuntimeNBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 | 6h 25min |
LG G7 Fit 3000 mAh | Honor 10 Lite 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 57% | |||
Reader / Idle | 1533 | |||
WiFi v1.3 | 385 | 484 | 605 | 715 |
Load | 178 | 196 | ||
H.264 | 836 |
Pros
+impressive colour accuracy
+great build quality
Cons
-high power consumption
-Android 8.1 Oreo
The LG G7 Fit is a stylish midrange smartphone with an excellent display. Our review unit is also well built, and its narrow display bezels make it compacter than our comparison devices. However, LG has compromised on too many areas for our liking.
The device has few real negatives, but LG’s decision to equip the device with an old flagship SoC causes it to run warmer and consume more power than its contemporaries. LG has not compensated for the high power consumption with a larger battery either, which results in comparatively poor battery life.
The LG G7 Fit is a confusing midrange smartphone. On the one hand, its incredibly bright display and contemporary design make the device attractive, but LG has made numerous compromises and odd decisions that detract from what could have been an excellent smartphone.
The main reason for buying the LG G7 Fit remains its display. If you can live with a few drawbacks like poor battery life and high temperatures, then you will get an experience that few other midrange smartphones offer. Ultimately, even though the G7 Fit already costs considerably less online than its retail price, we are still unsure for whom the device is suited.
LG G7 Fit - 03/20/2019 v6
Stefan Schomberg
Stefan Schomberg
82%
65 / 75 → 87%
81%
44 / 60 → 73%
92%
80%
85%
58 / 63 → 92%
60 / 70 → 85%
88%
100%
73 / 91 → 80%
69%
75%
Smartphone - Weighted Average
Related Articles
Pricecompare
Loading Comments