OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v1.0
Tablets Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Tablets Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Tablets Methodology v1.0

Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) Review | 168 Data compared

Avg. price:~£290RAM capacity:1 GBInternal storage:8 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 2 T20

Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

4.9

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the smartphone's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best Tablets on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

7.6

User score

â–¼Worse than 94% of tablets
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

22%

4.1

Performance

20%

5.2

Display

16%

4.4

Camera

14%

3.1

Battery

12%

5.5

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software & Features

5%

4.3

Design

3%

4.8

Audio & Multimedia

â–¼Worse than 98% of tablets
7.6

User score

User score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

User ratings

30%

7.2

Number of reviews

No reviews for this version.

Check reviews from other versions.

â–¼Worse than 72% of tablets
  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £290

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Available versions:
1GB + 16GBCheck price
Other versions:
1GB + 8GB
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB)

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

22%

4.1

Performance

20%

5.2

Display

16%

4.4

Camera

14%

3.1

Battery

12%

5.5

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software & Features

5%

4.3

Design

3%

4.8

Audio & Multimedia

4.6
User score
User score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

User ratings

30%

7.2

Number of reviews

No reviews for this version.

Check reviews from other versions.

7.6
Popularity
Popularity
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the smartphone.
When it matters
When you prefer to purchase a product chosen and reviewed by many other consumers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Popularity:
Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) has a user popularity of 7.2 points, which is lower than 70.6% of Tablets.
7.2
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the smartphone's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a smartphone with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

60%

4.9

Overall score

40%

9.0

Price

6.1
RAM capacity
1 GB
RAM capacity
1 GB
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
This tablet has a RAM capacity of 1 GB which is smaller than the RAM capacity of 77.8% of tablets and equal to that of 19.3% of tablets.
Process node
40 nm
Process node
40 nm
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 40 nm process node, which is larger than the node size used in 86.8% of tablets and equal to the node used in 8% of tablets.
Internal storage
8 GB
Internal storage
8 GB
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
This tablet has an internal storage capacity of 8 GB which is smaller than the storage of 93.5% of tablets and equal to that of 4.9% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
?
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra 2 T20
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra 2 T20
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 chipset, which is less advanced than the chipsets in 70.5% of tablets and equal to those in 2.6% of tablets.
Show more
Screen resolution
1280×800
Screen resolution
1280×800
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
This tablet has a screen resolution of 1280×800 which is lower than that of 68.1% of tablets and equal to that of 21.7% of tablets.
Refresh rate
?
Display type
LCD
Display type
LCD
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
This tablet uses a LCD display type. 83% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
149 ppi
Pixel density
149 ppi
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 149 ppi which is lower than that of 86.8% of tablets and equal to that of 9.2% of tablets.
Display glass type
?
Show more
Optical image stabilization
no
Optical image stabilization
no
Category Benchmark
This tablet does not support optical image stabilization. 0.4% of tablets include OIS.
Main camera megapixels
N/A
Front camera megapixels
2 MP
Front camera megapixels
2 MP
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera resolution of 2 MP which is lower than in 53.6% of tablets and equal to that in 25.5% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
N/A
Optical zoom
N/A
Show more
Battery capacity
3,260 mAh
Battery capacity
3,260 mAh
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has a battery capacity of 3,260 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 94.8% of tablets and equal to those in 0.3% of tablets.
Charging speed
18 W
Charging speed
18 W
â–² Better than 48% of models
Market range: <10 W – >60 W
This tablet supports charging speeds of 18 W which is faster than in 48% of tablets and equal to speeds in 12.3% of tablets.
Battery life
8 hours
Battery life
8 hours
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 8 hours, which is shorter than that of 72.2% of tablets and equal to that of 11.9% of tablets.
Wireless charging
no
Wireless charging
no
â–¼ Worse than 2% of models
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets support wireless charging.
Fast charging
no
Fast charging
no
â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
This tablet does not support fast charging. 49.7% of tablets support fast charging.
Show more
LTE support
no
LTE support
no
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This tablet does not support LTE. 63.3% of tablets include LTE connectivity.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Category Benchmark
This tablet supports Wi-Fi connectivity. 0.2% of tablets offer Wi-Fi support.
GPS
yes
GPS
yes
â–² Better than 17% of models
This tablet supports GPS. 17.3% of tablets include GPS functionality.
5G connectivity
no
5G connectivity
no
â–¼ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support 5G connectivity. 11.1% of tablets support 5G.
NFC
no
NFC
no
â–¼ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support NFC. 10.9% of tablets support NFC.
Show more
Operating system
Android
Operating system
Android
â–² Better than 23% of models
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.3%.
Update support duration
short
Update support duration
short
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This tablet offers short update support, which is shorter than the support period of 52.7% of tablets and equal to that of 47.3% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
Direct OS updates
yes
â–² Better than 20% of models
This tablet receives direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets receive direct updates.
On-device AI
no
On-device AI
no
â–¼ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
App tracking protection
no
â–¼ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not include app tracking protection. 28.3% of tablets include app tracking protection.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
IP rating
not rated
â–¼ Worse than 16% of models
This tablet has an IP rating of not rated which is lower than that of 16.3% of tablets and equal to that of 83.7% of tablets.
Weight
700 g
Weight
700 g
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 700 g which is heavier than 88.3% of tablets and equal to the weight of 0.3% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
Backlit keyboard
no
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.8% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
Keyboard accessory
yes
â–² Better than 16% of models
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
1
Number of microphones
1
â–¼ Worse than 45% of models
Market range: <0 – >5
This tablet includes 1 microphones, which is more than in 0.2% of tablets and equal to the number in 54.8% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
aptX Adaptive
no
â–¼ Worse than 7% of models
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this codec.
Dolby Atmos support
no
Dolby Atmos support
no
â–¼ Worse than 31% of models
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.5% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
N. of speakers
2
â–¼ Worse than 29% of models
Market range: <1 – >6
This tablet includes 2 speakers, which is more than in 9.8% of tablets and equal to the number in 60.9% of tablets.
FM radio
no
FM radio
no
â–¼ Worse than 19% of models
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer FM radio functionality.
Show more

Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftware & FeaturesDesignAudio & Multimedia
  • Higher contrast ratio
    Contrast ratio
    1500:1
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This tablet has a higher contrast ratio than the average tablet (1500:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet contrast ratio is 1015:1.
    1,500:1 vs 1,015:1
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 4 more GPU execution units
    GPU execution units
    8
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <2 – >24
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (8 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 4
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 4 more GPU execution units
    GPU execution units
    8
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    Market range: <2 – >24
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (8 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 4
  • Higher contrast ratio
    Contrast ratio
    1500:1
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This tablet has a higher contrast ratio than the average tablet (1500:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet contrast ratio is 1015:1.
    1,500:1 vs 1,015:1
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • 3 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    1 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (1 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    1 GB vs 4 GB
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 50.5% smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    3,260 mAh
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
    This tablet has a lower battery capacity than the average tablet (3260 mAh vs 6580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6580 mAh.
    3,260 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • Shorter update support
    Update support duration
    short
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    ULP GeForce
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This tablet uses the ULP GeForce GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 3 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    2 MP
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • 33.5% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    149 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 16.1% worse value for money
    Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.11 vs 7.1).
    6.11 vs 7.1
  • 5.2% lower user score
    User score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Acer Iconia Tab A200
    the average tablet
    Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) has a lower user score than the average tablet (7.61 vs 8.000).
    7.61 vs 8
  • 3 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    1 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (1 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    1 GB vs 4 GB
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    ULP GeForce
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This tablet uses the ULP GeForce GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 2.86x larger process node
    Process node
    40 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This tablet has less CPU threads than the average tablet (2 vs 6). The average tablet has 6 CPU threads.
    2 vs 6
  • 87.5% less storage
    Internal storage
    8 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet provides 64 GB of internal storage.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • 82.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Memory bandwidth
    2.66 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <4.26 GB/s – >60 GB/s
    This tablet has a lower memory bandwidth than the average tablet (2.7 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has memory bandwidth of 14.9 GB/s.
    2.66 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    This tablet does not use a big.LITTLE architecture, the average tablet does. 51.3% of tablets use a big.LITTLE architecture.
  • Older DDR memory version
    DDR memory version
    DDR2
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    This tablet uses an older DDR memory version than the average tablet (DDR2 vs LPDDR3). The average tablet uses DDR version LPDDR3.
    DDR2 vs LPDDR3
  • 33.5% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    149 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • Inferior display type
    Display type
    LCD
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    LCD vs IPS LCD
  • 83 nits lower peak brightness
    Peak brightness
    318 nits
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <320 nits – >750 nits
    This tablet has a lower peak brightness than the average tablet (318 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits peak brightness.
    318 nits vs 401 nits
  • 82 nits lower typical brightness
    Typical brightness
    318 nits
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <300 nits – >600 nits
    This tablet has a lower typical brightness than the average tablet (318 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    318 nits vs 400 nits
  • Lower screen resolution
    Screen resolution
    1280×800
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    This tablet has a lower screen resolution than the average tablet (1280×800 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet has a resolution of 1920×1200.
    1280×800 vs 1920×1200
  • 72 ppi lower screen sharpness
    Screen sharpness
    149 ppi
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower screen sharpness than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has screen sharpness of 221 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 3 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    2 MP
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus in video
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • No touch autofocus
    Touch autofocus
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet does not support touch autofocus, the average tablet does. 82.8% of tablets allow touch-to-focus.
  • No manual exposure control
    Manual exposure
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This tablet does not offer manual exposure control, the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets have manual exposure.
  • No HDR photo mode
    HDR photo mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    This tablet does not have HDR photo mode, the average tablet does. 79.6% of tablets support HDR photo mode.
  • No manual white balance
    Manual white balance
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    This tablet does not allow manual white balance adjustments, the average tablet does. 51.6% of tablets include white balance controls.
  • No panorama mode
    Panorama mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    This tablet does not have a panorama mode, the average tablet does. 78.6% of tablets include panorama features.
  • No BSI sensor
    BSI sensor
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a BSI sensor, the average tablet has one. 52.6% of tablets use BSI sensors for better low-light shots.
  • No timelapse video
    Timelapse video
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets include timelapse modes.
  • 50.5% smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    3,260 mAh
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
    This tablet has a lower battery capacity than the average tablet (3260 mAh vs 6580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6580 mAh.
    3,260 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • 2 hours shorter battery life
    Battery life
    8 hours
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (8 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    8 hours vs 10 hours
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • No LTE support
    LTE support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    2.1
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This tablet uses an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (2.1 vs 5). The average tablet uses Bluetooth 5.0.
    2.1 vs 5.0
  • Older Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet uses an older Wi-Fi version than the average tablet (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)). The average tablet uses Wi-Fi Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • No cellular module
    Cellular module
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This tablet does not have a cellular module, the average tablet does. 59.3% of tablets include a cellular module.
  • Fewer Wi-Fi bands
    Wi-Fi bands
    2.4GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This tablet supports fewer Wi-Fi bands than the average tablet (2.4GHz vs 2.4GHz/5GHz). The average tablet supports 2.4GHz/5GHz Wi-Fi bands.
    2.4GHz vs 2.4GHz/5GHz
  • No HDMI output
    HDMI output
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This tablet does not have an HDMI output, the average tablet does. 50.1% of tablets support HDMI output.
  • No face recognition
    Face recognition
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56% of tablets support face recognition.
  • No Ethernet support
    Ethernet support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not have Ethernet support, the average tablet does. 76.3% of tablets support Ethernet.
  • Shorter update support
    Update support duration
    short
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • No split-screen
    Split-screen support
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This tablet does not support split-screen, the average tablet does. 72.4% of tablets support split-screen.
  • No picture-in-picture mode
    Picture-in-picture
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No camera/mic privacy toggles
    Camera/mic privacy
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This tablet lacks camera and microphone privacy toggles, the average tablet includes them. 56.2% of tablets offer these toggles.
  • No multi-user mode
    User score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    ▼▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Acer Iconia Tab A200
    the average tablet
    Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) does not support multi-user mode, the average tablet does. 73.6% of tablets allow multiple user profiles.
  • No full-page screenshots
    Full-page screenshots
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 52.5% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No location privacy controls
    Location privacy
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not offer location privacy controls, the average tablet does. 76.5% of tablets include location privacy features.
  • No dark mode
    Dark mode
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
    This tablet does not support dark mode, the average tablet does. 57.2% of tablets have dark mode.
  • 42.9% heavier
    Weight
    700 g
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <315 g – >730 g
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (700 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    700 g vs 490 g
  • 4.4 mm thicker
    Thickness
    12.4 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <6.1 mm – >11.5 mm
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (12.4 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8.0 mm thick.
    12.4 mm vs 8.0 mm
  • 7 older release date
    Release date
    2012
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This tablet is an older model than the average tablet (2012 vs 2019).
    January 2012
    2012 vs 2019
  • 84.7 mm wider
    Width
    260 mm
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (260 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    260 mm vs 175.3 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
t3.com
19/04/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 review - T3
U
uk.pcmag.com
06/03/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 - Review 2012 - PCMag UK
T
techradar.com
11/04/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 review - TechRadar
C
cnet.com
15/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 review - CNET
N
notebookcheck.net
11/04/2012
Summary of the review
Review Acer Iconia Tab A200 Tablet/MID
T
trustedreviews.com
01/03/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 Review - Trusted Reviews
L
laptopmag.com
07/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 Review | Laptop Mag
P
phonearena.com
23/01/2012
Summary of the review
Acer ICONIA TAB A200 Review - PhoneArena
C
connect-living.de
29/05/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia TAB A200 im Test - connect-living
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
03/05/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 (Tablet-PC) Test - CHIP
(Translated)Show original
H
hifitest.de
30/07/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 - Tablets im Test
(Translated)Show original
N
netzwelt.de
01/03/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 im Test
(Translated)Show original
N
n-tv.de
03/04/2012
Summary of the review
Acer-Tablet für 350 Euro: Iconia A200 top für Einsteiger
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
09/04/2012
Summary of the review
Test Acer Iconia Tab A200 Tablet/MID
(Translated)Show original
P
planetenumerique.com
15/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer A200 Iconia en test - Planète Numérique
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
11/04/2012
Summary of the review
Test Acer Iconia Tab A200 - Les Numériques
(Translated)Show original
I
id.nl
17/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 | ID.nl
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
29/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 review: instaptablet van Acer
(Translated)Show original
F
fwd.nl
22/03/2012
Summary of the review
Review: Acer Iconia Tab A200
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
29/02/2012
Summary of the review
Hardware.info
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
20/02/2012
Summary of the review
Acer Iconia Tab A200 – Notebookcheck.nl Testrapporten
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB)

  • Competitive, budget-friendly price point
  • Full-sized USB 2.0 port for easy file transfer and peripheral connection
  • Textured, rubberized back provides a secure and comfortable grip
  • Expandable storage via a microSD card slot
  • Responsive performance for basic daily tasks like web browsing and video
  • Ships with or is easily upgradable to Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich

What we don't like about Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB)

  • Notably thick and heavy design, making it difficult to hold one-handed
  • Mediocre display with poor viewing angles and low brightness for outdoor use
  • Lacks a rear-facing camera, offering only a basic front-facing webcam
  • No HDMI output for direct connection to larger displays
  • Proprietary charging port; does not support charging over USB
  • Internal speakers are often described as weak or anemic

Verdict

The Acer Iconia Tab A200 is a budget-focused 10.1-inch tablet featuring a 1280 x 800 WXGA resolution display and an Nvidia Tegra 2 dual-core 1GHz processor paired with 1GB of RAM. This specific model provides 8GB of internal storage, expandable via a microSD slot (up to 32GB), and runs on Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich with the unique 'Acer Ring' interface for multitasking. Its main characteristics include a full-size USB 2.0 port—a rarity that allows for easy file transfers—and a grippy, soft-touch rubberised back for better handling. Pros include its affordable price point, solid connectivity options, and decent 8-hour battery life for media playback. However, it suffers from several cons, such as being relatively thick and heavy (approx. 715g), lacking a rear-facing camera and HDMI port, and having a display with mediocre brightness and viewing angles compared to more premium IPS screens.

Compare Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) with other tablets

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Acer Iconia Tab A200 (1GB + 8GB) and other tablets

No results found