- dotrising.com
- Compare
- 200 4G vs 210 4G
Nokia 200 4G vs Nokia 210 4G
What 200 4G does better (1) and where 210 4G wins (1) — every spec side by side.
Dimensions
Size comparison
200 4G210 4G
| 200 4G | 210 4G | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 126.1 mm | 126.1 mm | = |
| Width | 50.5 mm | 50.5 mm | = |
| Thickness | 14 mm | 13 mm | +1 mm |
| Weight | 92 g | 93 g | = |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is 200 4G better than 210 4G?
- Main camera2 MP vs 0.3 MP6.7×
Why is 210 4G better than 200 4G?
- Thickness14 mm vs 13 mm+8%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design | ||
| Weight | 92 g | 93 g |
| Thickness | 14 mm | 13 mm |
| Height | 126.1 mm | 126.1 mm |
| Width | 50.5 mm | 50.5 mm |
| Colours | Black, Blue, Yellow | Dark Blue, Silver |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 2.4″ | 2.4″ |
| Panel | TFT LCD | TFT LCD |
| OLED panel | No | No |
| Resolution (width) | 240 px | 240 px |
| Resolution (height) | 320 px | 320 px |
| Pixel density | 167 ppi | 167 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 28% | 28% |
| Memory | ||
| RAM | — | 0.062 GB |
| Memory card slot | Yes | Yes |
| Camera | ||
| Main camera | 2 MP | 0.3 MP |
| Rear cameras | 1 | 1 |
| Optical stabilisation | No | No |
| Ultra-wide camera | No | No |
| Telephoto camera | No | No |
| Selfie camera | 0.3 MP | 0.3 MP |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 1,450 mAh | 1,450 mAh |
| Battery type | Li-Ion | Li-Ion |
| Wireless charging | No | No |
| Connectivity | ||
| 5G | No | No |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Dual SIM | Yes | Yes |
| Bluetooth | 5 | 5 |
| NFC | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C | USB Type-C |
| Features | ||
| Stereo speakers | No | No |
| 3.5 mm headphone jack | Yes | Yes |
| Sensors | No | No |
| Software | ||
| OS at launch | Nokia OS | — |
| Platform | Other | — |
