Android 15 vs Android 16: Real-World Benchmarks on the Pixel 8a with SmartViser’s Viser Neo At SmartViser, we prioritise rigorous testing with our Viser Neo automation platform whenever a new Android release arrives. Each upgrade introduces new features, refinements, and potential optimisations—but the real question is: do they make a measurable difference in end-user experience? Using our Viser Neo active test automation platform, we benchmarked Android 15 (“Vanilla Ice Cream”) against Android 16 (“Baklava”) on the Google Pixel 8a. Our tests focused on the areas most relevant to users: battery life, gaming, web performance, data throughput, and streaming efficiency. To ensure fairness, both devices were set up under strictly controlled conditions: automatic brightness was disabled, volume levels were aligned, and all battery power-saving features were switched off. This guarantees that results reflect the OS performance itself, not environmental inconsistencies. Feature Differences: Android 15 vs Android 16 Android 15 Highlights Privacy & Security: Theft Detection Lock, Private Space, stronger authentication. Multitasking: Partial screen sharing, app pair shortcuts for foldables/tablets. Notifications: Notification Cooldown to limit repetitive alerts. Media & Developer Tools: HDR image format support, predictive back gesture, improved app archiving. Android 16 Enhancements Material 3 Expressive UI: Richer animations, dynamic colors, blur effects. Notifications: Live Updates, adaptive progress-based alerts. Desktop Multitasking Mode: Early implementation for tablets and large screens. Security & Privacy: Advanced Protection, USB port blocking, offline lock, enhanced Health Connect API. Audio/Media: Auracast audio sharing, APV codec for high-quality video, integrated photo picker with cloud services. Performance & Dev Tools: Enforced adaptive apps, improved scheduling, and vertical text support. Category Android 15 Android 16 UI & Design Material You refinements Material 3: Expressive animations, color, blur effects Notifications Notification cooldown Live Updates, progress notifications, bundling, cooldowns Multitasking App pairs, partial screen sharing Desktop mode (tablet), adaptive apps support Media & Pickers HDR support Embedded photo picker with cloud integration Security & Privacy Theft detection, private space Advanced Protection, USB/blocking, battery health tools Audio/Video APV codec, Auracast audio sharing Health Data Integration FHIR support in Health Connect Performance & Dev Tools App archiving, ART improvements Compatibility mode, efficient scheduling Test Environment Validation Before diving into performance benchmarks, it’s critical to ensure both Android 15 and Android 16 were tested under identical and controlled conditions. Using Viser Neo, we validated the test environment and recorded the following baseline parameters: Volume (Voice Call): Both OS versions were set to an average level of 5. Brightness: Both maintained the same average brightness setting of 11, with automatic brightness disabled. Volume (Music): Both set to the same maximum level of 6. These consistent settings confirm that differences observed in later benchmarks—whether in battery performance, gaming, web performance, data throughput, or streaming—can be attributed to the OS changes rather than test setup inconsistencies. Web Browsing Performance To evaluate real-world browsing speed, we tested multiple websites and measured Interactive loading time using Viser Neo. Results showed: Average Loading Time: Android 15 – 492 ms, Android 16 – 484 ms Minimum Loading Time: Android 15 – 80 ms, Android 16 – 70 ms Maximum Loading Time: Android 15 – 4106 ms, Android 16 – 4388 ms Overall, both OS versions delivered near-identical browsing performance, with Android 16 showing a slight advantage in average and minimum loading times. The higher maximum value on Android 16 suggests that occasional page load spikes still occur, likely influenced by network or rendering variations rather than core OS changes. These findings indicate that end users moving from Android 15 to Android 16 are unlikely to notice significant differences in day-to-day browsing speed. Data Performance Using Viser Neo, we benchmarked HTTP download and upload throughput to assess raw data performance under controlled conditions. The average results were: Average Download Throughput: Android 15 – 46.93 Mbps, Android 16 – 42.89 Mbps Average Upload Throughput: Android 15 – 22.37 Mbps, Android 16 – 21.57 Mbps In both upload and download, Android 15 slightly outperformed Android 16, though the differences are small enough that most users may not notice in everyday tasks such as web browsing, social media uploads, or streaming. These results could be influenced by subtle differences in network stack behaviour or background OS processes in Android 16. Battery Performance To simulate a typical day of user activity, we ran continuous mixed-use scenarios including gaming, browsing, streaming, file transfers, and idle time. Both Android versions were tested under identical conditions with all power-saving features disabled. Battery Life: Android 15 – 17h 13m 08s Android 16 – 17h 13m 11s The results show no meaningful difference in endurance, with both versions performing almost identically. Current Consumption (per activity): Gaming (WebGL) remained the most demanding activity, averaging around -1350 mA on both OS versions. Other tasks such as web browsing, video streaming, HTTP upload/download, and local playback showed similar consumption across Android 15 and 16, confirming stable energy profiles. Battery Temperature: Average temperature on Android 15: 25.9°C Average temperature on Android 16: 26.2°C Both showed consistent thermal management patterns, with Android 16 running fractionally warmer but without significant deviation. Takeaway: Battery endurance, consumption distribution, and thermal stability remain consistent between Android 15 and 16. Users upgrading should not expect gains or losses in daily longevity, which highlights the maturity of Google’s power optimization across Android releases. Gaming Performance Gaming remains one of the most demanding use cases, so we tested WebGL-based graphics performance to measure frames per second (FPS). Average FPS: Android 15 – 52 FPS, Android 16 – 48 FPS Minimum FPS: Android 15 – 42 FPS, Android 16 – 35 FPS Maximum FPS: Android 15 – 62 FPS, Android 16 – 61 FPS While both OS versions delivered a smooth experience, Android 15 consistently achieved slightly higher frame rates across all measurements. On Android 16, frame rates dipped more significantly at the lower end (minimum FPS), which could result in occasional drops in fluidity during demanding gaming sessions. This suggests that while Android 16 introduces new system-level features and UI improvements, its graphics pipeline may still require further optimisation for high-performance gaming. For most casual users, the difference will be marginal, but heavy gamers may notice Android 15 running a touch smoother under intensive loads. Streaming Performance For video streaming, we measured streaming efficiency, representing how consistently data was delivered and rendered without stalling or buffering. Average Efficiency: Android 15 – 99.9%, Android 16 – 99.8% Minimum Efficiency: Both Android 15 and 16 – 99.7% Maximum Efficiency: Both Android 15 and 16 – 99.9% These near-perfect results show that both OS versions handle video streaming seamlessly, with no meaningful difference between Android 15 and Android 16. End users should expect smooth playback, stable buffering, and no visible degradation when upgrading. Conclusion & Recommendation Our benchmarking of Android 15 vs Android 16 on the Google Pixel 8a, using SmartViser’s Viser Neo test automation, shows that the two operating systems deliver a very similar end-user experience under controlled lab conditions. Battery Life & Thermal Stability: Both OS versions lasted over 17 hours, with almost identical current consumption across usage scenarios. Temperature remained stable, with Android 16 only marginally warmer on average. Web Browsing: Both OS versions were highly comparable, with Android 16 showing a slight edge in average and minimum loading times, though occasional load spikes still occur. Data Performance: Android 15 recorded slightly higher upload and download throughput, but the difference is small and unlikely to impact real-world user experience. Gaming: Android 15 achieved higher average and minimum FPS, making it the better performer for intensive gaming. Android 16 is smooth for casual play but may require further optimisation for demanding titles. Streaming Efficiency: Both versions delivered near-perfect performance (≈100%), ensuring smooth and reliable video playback. SmartViser’s Take For end users, upgrading to Android 16 will not drastically change performance in key areas like battery life, browsing, streaming, or daily app usage. The main improvements of Android 16 lie in new features, UI refinements, and enhanced security tools rather than raw performance gains. If you are a heavy gamer, Android 15 may still feel marginally smoother, but most other users will not notice a difference. If you value security, privacy, and new functionality, Android 16 is the clear choice, offering features like Advanced Protection, improved multitasking, and Material 3 UI updates. Ultimately, the upgrade decision comes down to whether users prioritise stability and slightly better gaming on Android 15, or new features and improved system-level protections on Android 16. At SmartViser, our role is to ensure these insights are backed by real measurements under repeatable conditions, helping the industry and end-users alike make informed choices. About SmartViser’s Viser Neo All benchmarks in this study were conducted using SmartViser’s Viser Neo test automation solution. Viser Neo enables fully automated, repeatable, and reliable performance testing across any device—regardless of operating system, chipset, model, or brand. This flexibility allows us to deliver unbiased insights and validate real-world end-user experience across a wide range of scenarios. With Viser Neo, manufacturers, operators, and enterprises can accelerate device benchmarking, compare OS upgrades, and ensure that every change delivers measurable value to end users. Susie Siouti is the Chief Commercial Officer for SmartViser helping organisations in the Telecommunications industry offer superior end-user quality of experience and service with the introduction of innovative test automation products. Susie has 20 years of experience in the Telecoms industry and in that time has led teams across the world mainly in Testing and Compliance. Holding an MBA from Henley Business School brings a diverse set of skills and expertise, including business acumen, strategic thinking, financial management, sales and marketing expertise, leadership, and innovation. Susie joined SmartViser in 2016, is part of the internal steering committee, responsible for developing and implementing the company's commercial strategy and encouraging a customer-centric culture. The main mission is to help organizations to create value by offering better quality products and services by improving operational efficiency and innovation.

Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) have quietly become a multibillion‑dollar force in telecoms. Analysts put the global MVNO market at roughly US $ 98 billion in 2025, on track to top US $ 170 billion by 2032  Fortune Business Insights, while subscription counts are expanding faster than the wider mobile market, at 3.6 % CAGR through 2029 Omdia. In other words, more consumers, enterprises and connected “things” are choosing a brand that doesn’t even own a radio tower. Yet the commercial freedom MVNOs enjoy—lighter assets, faster launches, razor‑sharp niches—comes with a hidden catch: they must guarantee service quality over infrastructure they don’t control. That tension only intensifies as the industry splits into two distinct camps: B2C MVNOs chasing price‑sensitive or lifestyle segments, where a single dropped call can trigger social‑media churn. B2B/enterprise MVNOs delivering 5G network slices for factories, hospitals and fleets, where penalties kick in the moment an SLA is missed. In this article we will — Define what an MVNO is and how it differs from its host MNO. Map the main MVNO flavours, from discount consumer brands to slice‑enabled industrial players. Unpack the operational challenges—margin squeeze, RAN dependency, tight enterprise SLAs—and the KPIs that matter. Show how SmartViser’s test‑automation and real‑device monitoring platform closes the assurance gap, giving MVNOs live QoS & QoE evidence they can take to the boardroom—or the customer’s service review. Whether you run a consumer sub‑brand or a mission‑critical IoT network, robust testing and continuous monitoring aren’t optional extras; they are the foundations of subscriber trust and contract profitability. What exactly is an MVNO? A mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) is a telecom brand that buys wholesale radio‑access capacity from a licensed mobile‑network operator (MNO) and resells it under its own brand. An MVNO typically owns the commercial layers—SIMs/eSIMs, branding, pricing, customer care, billing and sometimes its own core network elements—but does not own spectrum or base‑station (RAN) assets, which remain under the MNO’s control. In contrast, an MNO finances and operates the radio spectrum, towers, back‑haul and national licences. Some MVNOs integrate more deeply (so‑called full MVNOs with their own HLR/HSS, PGW, etc.), whereas “light” or “reseller” MVNOs focus mainly on sales and marketing Onomondo. How MVNOs differ from MNOs at a glance Area MNO MVNO Spectrum & RAN Owns/licensed Rents wholesale CapEx intensity Very high Low/asset‑light Network control Full QoS prioritisation Limited; subject to host MNO prioritisation Time‑to‑market Slower (infrastructure cycles) Faster, brand‑driven Typical differentiation Coverage, bundling (handsets, fixed lines) Pricing, niche segments, value‑added services Key challenges MVNOs face today Quality‑of‑service dependency – Traffic is usually deprioritised during cell congestion, leading to higher latency, jitter or lower speeds compared with the host MNO. Next‑gen technology access (5G SA, network slicing, VoLTE/VoNR) – MVNOs rely on their host to make features available and must then ensure handset compatibility and back‑office upgrades. Margin pressure from wholesale rates & price wars – Wholesale terms are often volume‑based; intense SIM‑only competition erodes ARPU. High churn & Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) – Budget‑conscious users are quick to switch; marketing spend can outstrip lifetime value if not managed carefully. Limited brand stickiness – When the core offer is “same network, lower price”, differentiation must come from service experience, ecosystem perks or laser‑focused niches. Regulatory & data‑privacy compliance – KYC/AML rules, eSIM remote provisioning, emergency‑services location accuracy, GDPR, etc. Operational visibility – Without direct access to RAN counters, MVNOs must invest in active/drive‑testing or API‑based monitoring to see what customers really experience.   KPIs MVNOs should monitor continuously Technical / QoS KPIs (Test Automation and smartphone devices as probes & SLA management) Access/Attach success rate – SIM registration & authentication failures Voice – Call‑setup time (CST), VoLTE fallback rate Data – DL/UL throughput http/ftp/bi-directional, latency (RTT), jitter, packet‑loss % Messaging – SMS/MMS delivery time & success rate 5G slice availability / hand‑over success  Consumer‑ vs business‑focused MVNOs Dimension B2C MVNOs B2B / Enterprise‑first MVNOs Typical positioning Low‑cost SIM‑only, lifestyle/brand extensions ( e.g. supermarket, youth, ethnic calling ) Managed mobility, IoT connectivity, private/campus networks, global eSIM hubs Buyer Individual subscribers‑at‑scale CIO/CTO, operations or OT teams Value lever Price simplicity, community perks, flexible bundles SLA‑backed connectivity, integration with IT/OT, analytics & security Wholesale deal Usually “best‑effort” bit‑pipe with retail margin Often bespoke: dedicated APNs, static IP, QoS class identifiers (QCIs) or a full 5G network slice Capabilities to own Digital CX, referral engine, churn analytics Service orchestration, SIM lifecycle, edge/cloud integration, multi‑IMSI steering Regulatory load Consumer protection, number portability In addition: ISO 27001, sector‑specific (health, utilities), data‑residency    B2C archetypes Discount/price‑fighter – e.g. SMARTY, Visible. Brand‑extension – e.g. Tesco Mobile, Superdrug Mobile. Community/lifestyle – youth (giffgaff), international (Lycamobile). Digital nomad/eSIM‑only – Airalo, Holafly. B2B archetypes Corporate mobility MVNO – pooled data and voice with global roaming, device‑fleet portals. IoT/M2M specialists – connectivity plus API/SaaS for logistics, automotive (KORE, Cubic Telecom). Private‑/campus‑5G enablers – carve out a wholesale 5G network slice or lease local spectrum to run an on‑prem 5G core for factories, ports or hospitals  MVNO‑as‑a‑Service aggregators – white‑label platforms letting brands spin up their own offers. Why network slicing is a game‑changer for B2B MVNOs Network slicing (5G SA) = a virtual end‑to‑end network instance with its own QoS, security and policy, delivered over the shared RAN, transport and core. What an enterprise MVNO can do with a slice Use case Slice attribute Example vertical Ultra‑reliable low‑latency comms (URLLC) ≤10 ms RTT, 99.999 % availability Robotics on an automotive line; remote surgery rooms Massive IoT (mMTC) Battery‑efficient signalling, high device density Smart‑meter fleets, agriculture sensors High‑throughput FWA Guaranteed 200 Mbps+ downlink Retail branch connectivity, pop‑up venues Mission‑critical voice/video Priority bearer, local breakout Public safety, energy utilities With GSMA Open Gateway and 3GPP NEF APIs, a full MVNO can programmatically request, expand or tear down slices per customer or per site, bundling them with edge‑compute and security services CSG Commercial models emerging Slice‑as‑a‑Service – monthly fee per site/device group for a managed slice. Private‑network extension – single SIM roaming seamlessly between a campus slice and the public macro network (Transatel P‑LTE/5G extension) Transatel. Outcome‑based SLA – e.g. “< 50 ms motion‑control latency, 99.95 % uptime”, with penalties baked into the wholesale agreement. Additional challenges specific to B2B MVNOs Challenge Mitigation Multi‑slice orchestration & OSS/BSS readiness Adopt cloud‑native core and policy control that can tag traffic per slice; upgrade billing to rate per SLA tier. Device & modem compatibility Work with OEMs for SA‑capable chipsets and enterprise firmware supporting slice selection and URSP rules (Android Open Source Project). Security & isolation Offer options for on‑prem UPF breakout, IPsec tunnels into enterprise WAN, zero‑trust SIM authentication. Complex contracting Enterprise‑grade support (24/7 NOC), liability cover, and procurement frameworks (ITIL, ISO, NDAA where needed). Why continuous, real‑device monitoring is critical for MVNO SLAs Enterprise contracts usually carry tight latency, throughput and availability guarantees that far exceed consumer “best‑effort” levels. Because an MVNO has no native RAN counters and may be running several dedicated 5G slices at once, the only reliable way to prove compliance—or to catch a breach before it hurts production—is to measure performance from the same device types and SIM profiles the customer actually uses. SmartViser’s viSer platform shows how this is done: it turns ordinary Android or iOS handsets into 24 × 7 autonomous probes that execute user actions like voice, data, video and application workflows on the live slice, streaming granular QoS metrics (throughput, latency, hand‑over success,) and QoE metrics (POLQA MOS, page‑load time, video buffering, battery drain) to a cloud dashboard. Because every data point comes from a real device under real radio conditions, the MVNO can present indisputable evidence during quarterly service reviews, trigger automated trouble tickets the moment a KPI drifts, and even feed predictive models that warn of SLA breaches before users notice. Conclusion Across today’s rapidly evolving MVNO landscape—from cost‑focused consumer brands to enterprise providers leveraging dedicated 5G network slices—successful operators have three critical imperatives: Clearly define and differentiate the value proposition. Whether addressing budget‑sensitive retail segments or delivering high‑availability, low‑latency connectivity for industrial sites, each MVNO must translate wholesale capacity into a distinctive customer experience. Monitor the metrics that matter. Technical key performance indicators such as call‑setup success, data throughput, latency, messaging delivery and slice availability form the foundation of service assurance. When correlated with commercial measures—churn, Net Promoter Score and contractual SLA compliance—these metrics provide a comprehensive view of network health and business performance. Provide continuous, evidence‑based assurance. Measurements taken on real smartphones and IoT endpoints, under live network conditions, remain the most reliable proof of Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE), particularly where financial penalties are tied to enterprise SLAs. SmartViser: Comprehensive, Automated Assurance SmartViser’s integrated platform addresses these imperatives through a fully automated, device‑centric monitoring solution: SmartViser Capability Benefit to the MVNO viSer autonomous device probes Converts standard smartphones and industry‑specific devices into 24/7 test agents—eliminating the cost and complexity of traditional testing. Voice, data, messaging, and slice workflows Recreates real user journeys, capturing detailed QoS and QoE indicators. Multi‑layer interactive dashboard Consolidates network and SLA data into an intuitive interface, SmartViser thus equips MVNOs with a single, end‑to‑end assurance framework—transforming raw network data into actionable intelligence while reducing operational overhead. By adopting this platform, MVNOs can demonstrate service excellence, uphold stringent SLAs and maintain the customer confidence that underpins sustainable growth. Susie Siouti is the Chief Commercial Officer for SmartViser helping organisations in the Telecommunications industry offer superior end-user quality of experience and service with the introduction of innovative test automation products. Susie has 20 years of experience in the Telecoms industry and in that time has led teams across the world mainly in Testing and Compliance. Holding an MBA from Henley Business School brings a diverse set of skills and expertise, including business acumen, strategic thinking, financial management, sales and marketing expertise, leadership, and innovation. Susie joined SmartViser in 2016, is part of the internal steering committee, responsible for developing and implementing the company's commercial strategy and encouraging a customer-centric culture. The main mission is to help organizations to create value by offering better quality products and services by improving operational efficiency and innovation.

Real-World Performance Benchmarks on the Google Pixel 8a with SmartViser's viSer Neo With every new Android release, Google introduces new capabilities designed to improve security, intelligence, connectivity, and the overall user experience. While feature announcements often attract the headlines, mobile operators, device manufacturers and test laboratories need to answer a more important question: Do these updates deliver measurable improvements in real-world performance? To answer this question, SmartViser used its viSer Neo active test automation platform. Following the release of Android 17, we benchmarked the Google Pixel 8a running Android 16 and Android 17 under identical test conditions to evaluate the impact of the new operating system on everyday mobile usage. Our benchmark evaluated key aspects of smartphone performance across the mobile experiences that matter most to users, including network performance, web browsing, messaging, multimedia streaming and gaming performance. Consistent Testing for Reliable Results To ensure a fair comparison, both test campaigns were executed using the same Google Pixel 8a device, identical SIM configuration and the same automated test sequence. The benchmark was performed under controlled conditions using SmartViser's viSer Neo test automation, eliminating human variability and ensuring repeatable results. Throughout the tests, viSer Neo continuously collected application performance metrics alongside detailed radio measurements, allowing user experience to be correlated with actual network conditions. What's New in Android 17? Android 17 builds on the solid foundation established by Android 16, introducing further improvements in performance, connectivity and AI-powered capabilities. Feature Android 16 Android 17 AI Integration Expanded Gemini integration Enhanced on-device AI and smarter contextual assistance Performance Improved background task management Further system optimisation and faster resource scheduling Connectivity Enhanced 5G support Improved modem efficiency and connectivity management Privacy & Security Advanced privacy sandbox features Additional privacy controls and stronger security protections Battery Management Adaptive battery improvements More intelligent power optimisation User Experience Refined interface and animations Smoother system responsiveness and UI refinements Future Connectivity Initial NTN enhancements Expanded support for emerging technologies, including NTN While many of these enhancements operate behind the scenes, they have the potential to influence network responsiveness, application performance and overall user experience. Test Environment Validation Before analysing application performance, viSer Neo verified that both benchmark campaigns were executed under comparable conditions, including volume and brightness. Figure 1 Device configuration verification prior to benchmarking. Screen brightness, voice call volume and multimedia volume were configured identically for both Android 16 and Android 17 using SmartViser viSer Neo. Maintaining consistent device settings ensures that observed performance differences are attributable to the operating system and network conditions rather than variations in device configuration. Radio Environment Analysis One of the key strengths of SmartViser's viSer Neo is its ability to continuously monitor radio conditions throughout an automated benchmark. This enables engineers to correlate application performance with the quality of the mobile network experienced during testing. For this benchmark, the primary radio indicators analysed were Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), which reflects signal strength, and Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), which measures signal quality and interference. RSRQ (Signal Quality) RSRQ is a key indicator of LTE radio quality. Better (less negative) values indicate lower interference and generally allow the network scheduler to allocate radio resources more efficiently. Figure 2 Distribution of LTE Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) during the benchmark. Android 17 spent 60% of the test in the highest-quality radio conditions compared with 41.6% for Android 16, indicating a cleaner radio environment with lower interference. This improvement aligns with the observed increases in download throughput and reductions in latency. The benchmark shows that Android 17 spent considerably more time operating under excellent radio quality conditions. The percentage of measurements within the best RSRQ range (-8 to -3 dB) increased from 41.6% on Android 16 to 60% on Android 17, representing a substantial improvement in overall signal quality. Although Android 17 also recorded a small increase in the proportion of measurements within the poorest category, these represented only 5.1% of the total benchmark and had a limited impact on the overall results. Overall, the RSRQ distribution indicates that Android 17 experienced a cleaner radio environment with lower interference during much of the benchmark. This is consistent with the higher download throughput and lower latency measured during testing. RSRP (Signal Strength) RSRP measures the received LTE signal strength. Unlike RSRQ, stronger signal strength alone does not necessarily translate into higher throughput, but it provides useful context for interpreting network performance. Figure 3: Distribution of LTE Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) during the benchmark. Although Android 17 experienced slightly weaker received signal strength than Android 16, it still achieved significantly higher download throughput. This demonstrates that signal quality (RSRQ) had a greater influence on overall performance than signal strength alone, highlighting the importance of analysing multiple radio KPIs when benchmarking mobile devices. The RSRP results indicate that Android 17 generally operated with slightly weaker received signal strength than Android 16. While Android 16 spent most of the benchmark in the stronger -100 to -91 dBm range, Android 17 recorded a higher proportion of measurements in the -110 to -101 dBm range. Interestingly, despite the weaker received signal strength, Android 17 still achieved a very good performance. This highlights an important principle in mobile network performance: signal quality is often more important than signal strength. The improved RSRQ distribution observed during the Android 17 benchmark indicates lower interference and more efficient utilisation of the radio channel, enabling better overall network performance despite the slightly lower signal strength. Web Browsing Performance To evaluate web browsing performance, SmartViser's viSer Neo measured the loading time, which represents the point at which a webpage becomes responsive to user interaction. This metric closely reflects the perceived responsiveness experienced by users during everyday web browsing. The benchmark results show mixed performance between Android 16 and Android 17. Figure 4. Comparison of webpage loading times measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. Android 17 achieved a 9% faster minimum loading time, demonstrating strong browser responsiveness under optimal conditions. Although the average and maximum loading times increased due to isolated long-loading events, the concurrent improvements in download throughput and network latency indicate that these variations are more likely attributable to external web or server conditions than to the Android 17 operating system itself. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average Loading Time 1,451 ms 1,730 ms Minimum Loading Time 1,225 ms 1,114 ms Maximum Loading Time 1,721 ms 4,570 ms Data Performance Speed Test: Download Throughput One of the most significant improvements observed during the benchmark was in download throughput. Under identical automated test conditions, the Google Pixel 8a running Android 17 consistently achieved higher download speeds than when running Android 16. Figure 5. Comparison of average and maximum download throughput measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average Download Speed 104.37 Mbps 140.14 Mbps Maximum Download Speed 270.79 Mbps 416.02 Mbps Data Performance Speed Test Upload Throughput This chart below shows a different trend from the download throughput results. While Android 17 delivered a significant improvement in download performance, upload throughput remained largely unchanged, with a small reduction in the average upload speed. Figure 6. Comparison of average and maximum upload throughput measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. While the average upload speed under Android 17 was approximately 10% lower than Android 16, the maximum throughput remained identical at 150.8 Mbps, indicating that Android 17 preserves the device's uplink performance and that the observed variation is most likely attributable to normal network conditions rather than operating system changes. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average Upload Speed 26.00 Mbps 23.34 Mbps Maximum Upload Speed 150.80 Mbps 150.80 Mbps Ping RTT This is a good result for Android 17. Lower latency is one of the most important indicators of perceived network responsiveness, benefiting applications such as web browsing, cloud services, online gaming, video conferencing and messaging. Figure 7. Comparison of network Round-Trip Time (RTT) measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. Android 17 achieved lower average, minimum and maximum latency than Android 16, reducing average RTT by 4.8% and maximum RTT by 10.1%. These results indicate a more responsive and consistent network experience, particularly for interactive applications such as web browsing, cloud services, gaming and video conferencing. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average RTT 65.17 ms 62.07 ms Minimum RTT 27.58 ms 22.41 ms Maximum RTT 126.03 ms 113.27 ms Why Lower Latency Matters Latency has a direct impact on many everyday mobile applications: Web browsing: Faster page requests and quicker interaction with websites. Video conferencing: Reduced conversational delay and smoother communication. Online gaming: Improved responsiveness and lower input lag. Cloud applications: Faster synchronisation and file access. Messaging services: Quicker message delivery and acknowledgements. Although throughput often attracts the most attention, latency is frequently a better indicator of perceived user experience. The consistent reduction in RTT observed with Android 17 complements the significant increase in download throughput, demonstrating improvements in both speed and responsiveness. SMS Performance As part of this year's benchmark, SmartViser introduced SMS performance testing to evaluate the responsiveness of one of the most fundamental mobile network services. Although often overlooked in favour of data-centric applications, SMS continues to play a vital role in two-factor authentication (2FA), emergency alerts, enterprise messaging and IoT communications. Figure 8. Comparison of Mobile Originated (MO) SMS transmission times measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. Android 17 delivered slightly faster average and minimum SMS sending times while maintaining virtually identical maximum transmission times. These results confirm that Android 17 preserves the reliability of core messaging services and introduces no measurable regression in SMS performance. The benchmark measured the time required to send a Mobile Originated (MO) SMS message from the Google Pixel 8a under both Android 16 and Android 17. The results show that Android 17 maintains excellent messaging performance, with a small but consistent improvement across all measured KPIs. The average SMS sending time decreased from 1,379 ms to 1,362 ms, representing an improvement of approximately 1.2%. Similarly, the minimum transmission time improved by nearly 3%, while the maximum transmission time remained virtually unchanged. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average SMS Sending Time 1,379 ms 1,362 ms Minimum SMS Sending Time 1,185 ms 1,151 ms Maximum SMS Sending Time 1,564 ms 1,561 ms Gaming Performance Graphics performance plays a critical role in the overall user experience, particularly for Mobile gaming. Maintaining a stable frame rate close to the display refresh rate ensures smoother gameplay, improved responsiveness and a more fluid visual experience. Figure 9. Comparison of WebGL graphics performance measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. Both Android 16 and Android 17 maintained a stable average frame rate of 59 FPS, demonstrating that Android 17 preserves graphics rendering performance and delivers a consistently smooth gaming experience without introducing performance regressions. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average Frame Rate 59 FPS 59 FPS Minimum Frame Rate 58 FPS 58 FPS Maximum Frame Rate 62 FPS 60 FPS Both operating systems maintained an average frame rate of 59 FPS, with the minimum frame rate remaining stable at 58 FPS throughout the test. These results indicate that Android 17 preserves the smooth and consistent rendering performance required for modern mobile games and graphics-rich applications. Although Android 16 recorded a slightly higher peak frame rate (62 FPS compared with 60 FPS), this difference is minimal and has no practical impact on the overall gaming experience. More importantly, the consistent average and minimum frame rates demonstrate that Android 17 maintains stable graphics performance without introducing frame drops or rendering instability. Streaming Efficiency To assess multimedia performance, SmartViser's viSer Neo measured YouTube streaming efficiency during automated video playback. This KPI evaluates how effectively video content is delivered and played without interruptions, making it an excellent indicator of the end-user streaming experience. Figure 10. Comparison of YouTube streaming efficiency measured using SmartViser viSer Neo on the Google Pixel 8a. Both Android 16 and Android 17 maintained streaming efficiencies above 96%, demonstrating excellent multimedia performance. Android 17 achieved a slight increase in average and maximum efficiency, confirming that the operating system upgrade preserves a smooth, high-quality video streaming experience. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Average Streaming Efficiency 96.0% 96.2% Minimum Streaming Efficiency 95.1% 94.2% Maximum Streaming Efficiency 96.8% 97.2% Battery Performance Full Battery Endurance Benchmark Battery life remains one of the most important indicators of smartphone performance. To evaluate the impact of Android 17 on power efficiency, SmartViser performed a full battery endurance benchmark using the Google Pixel 8a. Unlike short-duration battery tests, this benchmark measured the complete battery discharge cycle. Both devices were fully charged to 100% before testing commenced and executed the same automated viSer Neo test campaign continuously until the battery was completely depleted and the device automatically powered off. This battery benchmarking methodology provides an accurate representation of real-world battery endurance under sustained mixed usage. Figure 11 Battery capacity throughout the full automated benchmark. Both Google Pixel 8a devices started the test at 100% charge and executed the same viSer Neo test campaign until the battery was completely depleted. Android 17 achieved a slightly longer operating time (10 h 35 min 26 s) than Android 16 (10 h 31 min 57 s), demonstrating that the performance improvements introduced by Android 17 do not come at the expense of battery endurance. KPI Android 16 Android 17 Difference Battery Endurance 10 h 31 min 57 s 10 h 35 min 26 s +3 min 29 s (+0.6%) Initial Battery Level 100% 100% Identical End Condition Device powered off Device powered off Identical Current Consumption by Application To complement the battery endurance measurements, SmartViser also monitored the average current drawn during each application scenario executed by viSer Neo. Figure 12 Average battery current measured during each automated test scenario. Android 17 maintained a power consumption profile comparable to Android 16, with slightly lower current draw during Speed Test, WebGL Gaming and YouTube Streaming. These results indicate that Android 17 delivers higher network performance while preserving excellent energy efficiency. Average current consumption remained highly consistent between Android 16 and Android 17 across all application scenarios. Several workloads actually required slightly less current under Android 17: Speed Test: approximately 1% lower current consumption WebGL Gaming: approximately 2% lower YouTube Streaming: approximately 2% lower These reductions suggest that Android 17 introduces modest improvements in system efficiency during more demanding multimedia and networking tasks. Conversely, Web Browsing and Ping testing exhibited slightly higher current draw under Android 17. However, the differences are relatively small and had little impact on the overall battery endurance measured during the complete benchmark. Overall, the current consumption profile confirms that Android 17 maintains an energy profile comparable to Android 16 while simultaneously delivering improved network performance. Conclusion The benchmark demonstrates that Android 17 represents a mature and efficient evolution of the Android platform. Compared with Android 16, Android 17 delivers: A higher average download throughput Higher maximum download throughput Lower network latency Stable gaming performance Excellent multimedia quality Reliable SMS performance Stable battery life Perhaps the most significant finding is that these performance improvements are achieved without increasing power consumption or compromising battery endurance, highlighting the efficiency gains introduced by Android 17. For mobile operators, device manufacturers and certification laboratories, the results confirm that Android 17 provides measurable improvements in user experience while maintaining the stability expected from a major operating system release. Disclaimer: Testing was performed between 15th July and 30th of July 2026 on a live UK network. Results may vary depending on network, device, location and other environmental conditions. About SmartViser viSer Neo SmartViser's viSer Neo is a comprehensive active test automation solution designed to evaluate the real Quality of Experience (QoE) delivered by smartphones and mobile networks. Supporting both Android and iOS devices, viSer Neo automates end-to-end testing of voice, messaging, web browsing, video streaming, gaming, battery performance and network connectivity while simultaneously collecting more than 100 network, radio and application KPIs. By replacing manual testing with fully automated, repeatable workflows, viSer Neo enables mobile operators, device manufacturers, chipset vendors, regulators and certification laboratories to accelerate validation, detect regressions earlier and benchmark devices under consistent real-world conditions. One of viSer Neo's key differentiators is its ability to correlate radio-layer measurements, device performance metrics and application Quality of Experience within a single automated test campaign, providing engineers with deeper insight into the root causes of performance variations. All charts, dashboards and benchmark visualisations presented in this report were generated using SmartViser's Viser Web Services (VWS) Analytics Studio. VWS Analytics Studio provides an intuitive web-based analytics platform that transforms the rich dataset collected by viSer Neo into interactive dashboards, detailed KPI visualisations, and comprehensive benchmark reports. Engineers can explore hundreds of network, device and application metrics, compare multiple devices or software versions, identify trends over time, and rapidly investigate performance anomalies. By combining automated testing with powerful analytics, SmartViser delivers a complete end-to-end solution—from test execution through to actionable insights—helping organisations make informed decisions based on objective, repeatable measurements. Get the latest news from SmartViser. Make sure to subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn. Susie Siouti is the Chief Commercial Officer for SmartViser helping organisations in the Telecommunications industry offer superior end-user quality of experience and service with the introduction of innovative test automation products. Susie has 20 years of experience in the Telecoms industry and in that time has led teams across the world mainly in Testing and Compliance. Holding an MBA from Henley Business School brings a diverse set of skills and expertise, including business acumen, strategic thinking, financial management, sales and marketing expertise, leadership, and innovation. Susie joined SmartViser in 2016, is part of the internal steering committee, responsible for developing and implementing the company's commercial strategy and encouraging a customer-centric culture. The main mission is to help organizations to create value by offering better quality products and services by improving operational efficiency and innovation.

Learn more about SmartViser and view our latest Press Release Test Labs Discover who are the test labs we work with Read the Press Release Read the Press Release Read the Press Release OUR RESOURCES Learn about the benefits and challenges of 6G. Know more 6G blog Video Overview Want to see what viSer can do? Check the video! Watch the video Discover how we have helped MNOs with their testing challenges. Know more Success Stories Want to meet us? Discover the events we are attending and exhibiting at. Know more Latest News Want help or have a question? Get in touch

SmartViser automates Battery Life testing with real-world scenarios, trusted by the EU, media and leading mobile industry leaders. Battery Testing and assessment Fully Automate Battery life and Performance testing on real end user actions. Overview of Battery Testing Smartphone battery testing is crucial for ensuring that a device's battery meets performance, safety, and longevity standards. This process involves evaluating various aspects of the battery's performance under different conditions and usage scenarios. viSer Learn more Key Highlights Supports any device Android or iOS Works on any chipset Can be used on non-rooted devices for true end-user experience evaluation Understand the real end-user experience of battery life for devices and mobile services like 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G Significantly reduce testing by fully automating all user activities Benchmark battery life by device, chipset, application, network settings and more Measure current and power consumption, battery depletion, temperature Fully standalone with no other equipment required the closest test to end users' behavior The solution selected by the EU Commission as the first Pilot application for smartphones and tablets Energy Labelling Regulation User Actions Calls Camera Web Browsing Social Media SMS/MMS/Email Data Music Playback/ Streaming Video Playback/ Streaming Standby / Idle GSMArena partnered with SmartViser for their Battery Assessment Tests Read the Press Release Use cases Media Media technology reviewers conduct comprehensive and user-focused battery testing on smartphones to provide potential buyers with a clear understanding of battery performance. Their methods typically balance real-world usage scenarios with standardized testing procedures. Some common practises are: Battery benchmarking, Charging Speed Tests, heavy usage simulation, standby, video playback, temperature tests and others. OEMs Manufacturers combine several testing methodologies to ensure that the batteries used in smartphones are reliable, and perform well over the expected lifespan of the device. Battery life is key decision point for end users and they need to ensure superior battery life and performance. MNOs Device Mobile network operators (MNOs) conduct their own battery testing to ensure that the devices they offer meet specific performance KPIs under their network conditions. MNOs simulate different user profiles (heavy, moderate, and light users) to test battery performance. This includes varying the mix of voice calls, data usage, video streaming, and standby time. Mission Critical Testing smartphone battery performance for mission-critical networks involves rigorous and specialized procedures. These networks, such as those used by emergency services, defense, and other critical infrastructure sectors, require devices to perform reliably with good battery performance under extreme conditions and high-stress scenarios. MNOs Network Mobile network operators (MNOs) conduct extensive battery life testing to understand how network conditions impact smartphone performance. This testing helps ensure that devices perform optimally on their networks and provides valuable data for network optimization. Some of their testing procedures are weak signal testing, 4G vs 5G, WiFi vs Cellular, Network Congestion, Mobility, 5G SA vs 5G NSA. Labs Testing labs that specialize in smartphone battery testing conduct a variety of rigorous and standardized tests to ensure that batteries meet industry standards for performance, safety, and reliability. Some methods and procedures these labs use are battery life testing, discharge rate, power and current consumption. App Developers To understand how their apps impact battery life and optimize their software for better performance. Some of the activities include monitor battery consumption during app usage, conduct testing with various usage patterns, and optimize code for efficiency. Arrange a meeting Arrange a free trial KPIs There are several KPIs support by viSer test automation for a variety of test methodologies for Battery Testing on Android smartphones and tables as well Apple devices and iPads. Battery Temperature Battery voltage and current discharge Current usage breakdown per user actions Power usage breakdown per user actions Current Consumption Live Sample Reports from Analytics Studio SmartViser Studio Analytics Current Consumption Live Sample Report from SmartViser Analytics Studio SmartViser Studio Analytics Battery Temperature and Battery Level Sample Report from SmartViser Analytics Studio SmartViser Studio Analytics CuPower Consumption by User Actions Sample Report from SmartViser Analytics Studio SmartViser Studio Analytics Current Consumption Live Sample Report from SmartViser Analytics Studio 1/4 Arrange a meeting Arrange a free trial Sample Reviews from Technology Review Media GSMArena Battery Test 2.0 GSMArena has been using viSer Test Automation for their battery assessment reviews since 2017 with their Testing protocols to ensure consistency and repeatability. Learn More Sample Reviews from Technology Review Media LesNumeriques Battery and Performance Testing Les Numeriques has deployed viSer Test Automation for all their battery assessment and device performance tests. Learn More OUR RESOURCES viSer Leaflet Discover viSer's main features in this leaflet. Know more Video Overview Want to see what viSer can do? Check the video! Watch the video Success Stories Discover our main success stories with Telecoms and other industries. Know more Latest News Want to meet us? Discover the events we are attending and exhibiting at. Know more Want help or have a question? Get in touch

SmartViser enables smartphone manufacturers to cut costs, accelerate launches & improve quality with optimised test automation. Mobile Network Operators Sucess Stories and Case Studies We have been working with several operators across the world to help them improve the quality of their services, reduce costs, and offer a super quality of performance for their end users They Trust Us Mobile Network Operators Sucess Stories EU Mobile Network Operator QoE Optimisation MOBILE NETWORK OPERATOR MAKES SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN QoE MONITORING AND OPTIMISATION Learn More EU Mobile Network Operator Mobility/Field Testing ENSURED EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND TIME OPTIMISATION BY PERFORMING MOBILITY TESTING FULLY AUTOMATED Learn More EU Mobile Network Operator Multi SIM Testing OPTIMISED TEST AUTOMATION WITH 40 DIFFERENT SIM CARDS TEST SET UP Learn More EU Mobile Network Operator Device Acceptance 75% REDUCTION IN TESTING TIME WAS ACHIEVED WITH THE SUCCESSFUL INTRODUCTION OF TEST AUTOMATED DEVICE ASSESSMENTS Learn More EU Mobile Network Operator Network Monitoring ENSURE NETWORK QOE AND QOS WITH A LIGHT SOLUTION USING POPULAR END USER DEVICES Learn More EU Mobile Network Operator Network Monitoring ENSURE NETWORK QOE AND QOS WITH A LIGHT SOLUTION USING POPULAR END USER DEVICES Learn More QoE Monitoring and Optimisation MOBILE NETWORK OPERATOR MAKES SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN QoE MONITORING AND OPTIMISATION EU Operator "We have used viSer ro complement existing solutions as it gave us a different view of the customer experince. Its now part of our main set up" The Challenge Difficulty in measuring real-life and LIVE network performance Current measurements with simulators do not reflect the actual user experience The existing solution was locked to specific hardware and was too costly and time-consuming to expand the scope of testing and add new KPIs The Solution The viSer Test Automation solution was selected with an Audio MOS add-on package and the following KPIs were measured: Call Performance (2G, 3G, VoLTE, VoWiFi) including WhatsApp Voice Quality (2G, 3G, VoLTE, VoWiFi) including WhatsApp Data Performance (2G, 3G, 4G) VoLTE, VoWifi Web browsing fluidity Network benchmark. Able to compare with competitors MNVOs & MNOs Field testing in high-speed trains and specific drive routes to understand The Results Improved network performance was achieved with the device-agnostic approach, especially in areas the competition was offering a better standard and supply of service Better management of the VoLTE and VoWiFi rollout with an automated assessment of POLQA audio scores, without user input Conduction of a study to measure the impact of call quality on delivered customer service quality Significant cost reduction by maximisation of test simulators and existing complex hardware set-up efficiency, with comprehensive reports Easy to use and 24/7 scalable solution No additional equipment and no footprint on the existing test environment Talk to an Expert Success Stories Overview Arrange a Free Trial Device Acceptance 75% REDUCTION IN TESTING TIME WAS ACHIEVED WITH THE SUCCESSFUL INTRODUCTION OF TEST AUTOMATED DEVICE ASSESSMENTS EU Operator "All the elements we needed to automate our tests were successfully brought together with SmartViser, the support and the test solution. We have doubled our testing load and halved the testing time. We have both won on both sides!" The Challenge Company restructuring resulting in reduced manpower Increased workload with the introduction of new technology like VoLTE/VoWiFi Ensuring repeatability and consistency of the testing The Solution viSer full test automation of existing test plan to test all key use cases like Call Performance & Voice Quality Data performance / Bearer testing Battery life measurement VoLTE & VoWiFi Audio MOS on any device The Results Increased Test Efficiency. Increased number of devices being tested. Achieved a reduction of time by 75% Achieved ROI 40% Talk to an Expert Success Stories Overview Arrange a Free Trial Drive/ Mobility Testing ENSURED EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND TIME OPTIMISATION BY PERFORMING MOBILITY TESTING FULLY AUTOMATED EU Operator "Thanks to viSer we were able to continue testing uninterrupted. Enhanced testers motivation and reduced the time they spent on the road performing mobility testing" The Challenge Covid-19 social distancing restrictions mean no more than one person in a car while testing General Safety when one person had to carry out field testing while driving The Solution viSer full test automation to test all key use cases like Call Performance, Voice Quality, Data performance, handovers Test Scripts creation with required conditions to ensure testing starts is specific Cell ID, RAT, IMS Reg Status etc. The Results Increased employee safety Reduced Test times Adhered to guidelines regarding social distancing. Part of business continuity and process improvement Talk to an Expert Success Stories Overview Arrange a Free Trial Network Monitoring ENSURE NETWORK QoE AND QoS WITH A LIGHT SOLUTION USING POPULAR END-USER DEVICES EU Operator "Thanks to viSer we were able to continue monitoring our network esepcially on the new technology like 5G which was not covered by the existing solution" The Challenge Complex setup of Network Monitoring in place that does not allow update of test cases, especially with the introduction of new 5G Technology. Costly update of existing solution. Looking to test with the most popular devices in the market/ What their end users are using when one person had to carry out field testing while driving The Solution viSer full test automation to test Calls, Messages, Data transfer, browsing performance Alerts are generated by viSer to an email address when a test case fails twice Commercial end-user devices used The Results Easy to update test scenarios Already using viSer so the cost of the setup was 1/10 of the existing system upgrade Portable to use in any location needed to monitor performance Talk to an Expert Success Stories Overview Arrange a Free Trial Multi SIM Testing OPTIMISED TEST AUTOMATION WITH 40 DIFFERENT SIM CARDS TEST SET UP EU Operator "We are very pleased with the set up, we saved over 90% if time managing the testing and we only need 4 devices to test 40 different SIM set ups" The Challenge Complex set-up testing manually 40 different SIM cards with 40 devices to check all provisions work correctly Frequent mistakes in managing all devices Open Market Testing and time spent to insert SIMs The Solution Smartboard hardware device that can support 10 different SIM cards connected to one device with a flex cable Python controlled viSer set up to automate testing on each SIM card The Results Easy to update test scenarios Already using viSer so the cost of the setup was 1/10 of the existing system upgrade Fully automated reducing the need for technical staff to monitor and test Only 4 devices are required reducing cost and risk of device failure Time savings of 90% Talk to an Expert Success Stories Overview Arrange a Free Trial Want help or have a question? Get in Touch