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

Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) Review | 168 Data compared

Avg. price:~£260RAM capacity:0.25 GBInternal storage:16 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Texas Instruments OMAP 3660

Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

4.4

Technical score

10%

6.2

User score

▼Worse than 99% of tablets
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

22%

3.7

Performance

20%

4.6

Display

16%

4.0

Camera

14%

3.7

Battery

12%

5.3

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software & Features

5%

4.7

Design

3%

4.8

Audio & Multimedia

▼Worse than 99% of tablets
6.2

User score

User score
6.2/ 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
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

User ratings

30%

5.7

Number of reviews

No reviews for this version.

Check reviews from other versions.

▼Worse than 94% of tablets
  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £260

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Available versions:
256MB + 8GBCheck price
Other versions:
256MB + 16GB
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB)

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

22%

3.7

Performance

20%

4.6

Display

16%

4.0

Camera

14%

3.7

Battery

12%

5.3

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software & Features

5%

4.7

Design

3%

4.8

Audio & Multimedia

4.4
User score
User score
6.2/ 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
▼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

User ratings

30%

5.7

Number of reviews

No reviews for this version.

Check reviews from other versions.

6.2
Popularity
Popularity
5.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 56% of models
Popularity:
Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) has a user popularity of 5.7 points, which is lower than 56% of Tablets.
5.7
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

5.9
RAM capacity
0.25 GB
RAM capacity
0.25 GB
▼ Worse than 100% of models
Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
This tablet has a RAM capacity of 0.25 GB which is smaller than the RAM capacity of 99.7% of tablets and equal to that of 0.2% of tablets.
Process node
45 nm
Process node
45 nm
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 45 nm process node, which is larger than the node size used in 94.9% of tablets and equal to the node used in 4.4% of tablets.
Internal storage
16 GB
Internal storage
16 GB
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
This tablet has an internal storage capacity of 16 GB which is smaller than the storage of 78.5% of tablets and equal to that of 15% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
?
Chipset
Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
Chipset
Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, which is less advanced than the chipsets in 73.6% of tablets and equal to those in 0.2% of tablets.
Show more
Screen resolution
1024×600
Screen resolution
1024×600
▼ Worse than 93% of models
This tablet has a screen resolution of 1024×600 which is lower than that of 92.8% of tablets and equal to that of 6.2% of tablets.
Refresh rate
?
Display type
LCD
Display type
LCD
▼ Worse than 83% of models
This tablet uses a LCD display type. 83% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
118 ppi
Pixel density
118 ppi
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 118 ppi which is lower than that of 99.3% of tablets and equal to that of 0.5% of tablets.
Display glass type
Plastic
Display glass type
Plastic
▼ Worse than 98% of models
This tablet uses Plastic display glass which is weaker than that on 97.7% of tablets and equal to that on 2.3% of tablets.
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
0.3 MP
Front camera megapixels
0.3 MP
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera resolution of 0.3 MP which is lower than in 93% of tablets and equal to that in 7% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
N/A
Optical zoom
1xxx
Optical zoom
1xx
▲ Better than 18% of models
This tablet supports 1xx optical zoom which is higher than in 18.4% of tablets and equal to that in 80.7% of tablets.
Show more
Battery capacity
4,000 mAh
Battery capacity
4,000 mAh
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has a battery capacity of 4,000 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 84.6% of tablets and equal to those in 4.5% of tablets.
Charging speed
10 W
Charging speed
10 W
▼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <10 W – >60 W
This tablet supports charging speeds of 10 W which is slower than in 61% of tablets and equal to speeds in 33.2% of tablets.
Battery life
10 hours
Battery life
10 hours
▼ Worse than 40% of models
Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 10 hours, which is longer than that of 39.1% of tablets and equal to that of 20.5% of tablets.
Wireless charging
no
Wireless charging
no
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
no
GPS
no
▼ Worse than 83% of models
This tablet does not support GPS. 82.7% of tablets include GPS functionality.
5G connectivity
no
5G connectivity
no
▼ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support 5G connectivity. 11.1% of tablets support 5G.
NFC
no
NFC
no
▼ 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
▲ 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
▼ 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
▲ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
480 g
Weight
480 g
▲ Better than 53% of models
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 480 g which is lighter than 53.2% of tablets and equal to the weight of 1.7% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
Backlit keyboard
no
▼ Worse than 10% of models
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.8% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
no
Keyboard accessory
no
▼ Worse than 84% of models
This tablet does not support a keyboard accessory. 84.3% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
1
Number of microphones
1
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ Worse than 19% of models
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer FM radio functionality.
Show more

Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftware & FeaturesDesignAudio & Multimedia
  • Wider front camera aperture
    Front camera aperture
    f/2.0
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    This tablet has a better front camera aperture than the average tablet (f/2 vs f/2.2). The average tablet uses f/2.2 front camera aperture.
    f/2.0 vs f/2.2
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3,660 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 50 mm shorter
    Width
    150 mm
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    This tablet is shorter than the average tablet (150 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200.0 mm tall.
    150 mm vs 200.0 mm
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3,660 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • Wider front camera aperture
    Front camera aperture
    f/2.0
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    This tablet has a better front camera aperture than the average tablet (f/2 vs f/2.2). The average tablet uses f/2.2 front camera aperture.
    f/2.0 vs f/2.2
  • 50 mm shorter
    Width
    150 mm
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    This tablet is shorter than the average tablet (150 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200.0 mm tall.
    150 mm vs 200.0 mm
  • 4.7 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    0.3 MP
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (0.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    0.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • 3.75 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    0.25 GB
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (0.3 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    0.25 GB vs 4 GB
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    ▼ 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.
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    ▼ 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
  • Lower screen resolution
    Screen resolution
    1024×600
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    This tablet has a lower screen resolution than the average tablet (1024×600 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet has a resolution of 1920×1200.
    1024×600 vs 1920×1200
  • 47.3% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    118 ppi
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (118 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    118 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • Shorter update support
    Update support duration
    short
    ▼ 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
  • 39.2% smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    4,000 mAh
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
    This tablet has a lower battery capacity than the average tablet (4000 mAh vs 6580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6580 mAh.
    4,000 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • 19.5% worse value for money
    Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (5.94 vs 7.1).
    5.94 vs 7.1
  • 29.2% lower user score
    User score
    6.2/ 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
    Archos 101
    the average tablet
    Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) has a lower user score than the average tablet (6.19 vs 8.000).
    6.19 vs 8
  • 3.75 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    0.25 GB
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (0.3 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    0.25 GB vs 4 GB
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    ▼ 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
  • 3.21x larger process node
    Process node
    45 nm
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (45 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    45 nm vs 14 nm
  • 5 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    1
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This tablet has less CPU threads than the average tablet (1 vs 6). The average tablet has 6 CPU threads.
    1 vs 6
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    PowerVR SGX530
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This tablet uses the PowerVR SGX530 GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    PowerVR SGX530 vs Mali-G51
  • 75% less storage
    Internal storage
    16 GB
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet provides 64 GB of internal storage.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 89.3% lower memory bandwidth
    Memory bandwidth
    1.6 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <4.26 GB/s – >60 GB/s
    This tablet has a lower memory bandwidth than the average tablet (1.6 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has memory bandwidth of 14.9 GB/s.
    1.6 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • Slower storage type
    Storage type
    Flash
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    This tablet uses Flash storage, while the average tablet uses faster eMMC. Storage technology still varies widely across tablets.
    Flash vs eMMC
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    no
    ▼ 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.
  • 69.2% slower GPU clock
    GPU frequency
    200 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <311 MHz – >1.1k MHz
    This tablet has a lower GPU frequency than the average tablet (200 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet has GPU frequency of 650 MHz.
    200 MHz vs 650 MHz
  • Older DDR memory version
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models
    This tablet uses an older DDR memory version than the average tablet (LPDDR vs LPDDR3). The average tablet uses DDR version LPDDR3.
    LPDDR vs LPDDR3
  • 3 fewer GPU execution units
    GPU execution units
    1
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <2 – >24
    This tablet has less GPU execution units than the average tablet (1 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    1 vs 4
  • Lower screen resolution
    Screen resolution
    1024×600
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    This tablet has a lower screen resolution than the average tablet (1024×600 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet has a resolution of 1920×1200.
    1024×600 vs 1920×1200
  • 47.3% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    118 ppi
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (118 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    118 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • Inferior display type
    Display type
    LCD
    ▼ 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
  • 228 nits lower peak brightness
    Peak brightness
    173 nits
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    Market range: <320 nits – >750 nits
    This tablet has a lower peak brightness than the average tablet (173 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits peak brightness.
    173 nits vs 401 nits
  • 225 nits lower typical brightness
    Typical brightness
    175 nits
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <300 nits – >600 nits
    This tablet has a lower typical brightness than the average tablet (175 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    175 nits vs 400 nits
  • Less durable display glass
    Display glass type
    Plastic
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    This tablet uses weaker display glass than the average tablet (Plastic vs Corning Gorilla Glass). Display glass choice still varies across tablets.
    Plastic vs Corning Gorilla Glass
  • Lower contrast ratio
    Contrast ratio
    406:1
    ▼ Worse than 100% of models
    This tablet has a lower contrast ratio than the average tablet (406:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    406:1 vs 1,015:1
  • 103 ppi lower screen sharpness
    Screen sharpness
    118 ppi
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower screen sharpness than the average tablet (118 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has screen sharpness of 221 ppi.
    118 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 4.7 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    0.3 MP
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (0.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    0.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus in video
    no
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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 burst mode
    Serial shot / Burst mode
    no
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    This tablet does not support burst mode, the average tablet does. 60.5% of tablets support burst mode.
  • No panorama mode
    Panorama mode
    no
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ Worse than 58% of models
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets include timelapse modes.
  • 39.2% smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    4,000 mAh
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
    This tablet has a lower battery capacity than the average tablet (4000 mAh vs 6580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6580 mAh.
    4,000 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • 44.4% slower charging speed
    Charging speed
    10 W
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <10 W – >60 W
    This tablet supports slower charging than the average tablet (10 W vs 18 W). The average tablet supports charging speed of 18 W.
    10 W vs 18 W
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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)
    ▼ 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 GPS
    GPS
    no
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet does not have GPS, the average tablet does. 82.7% of tablets feature GPS.
  • No cellular module
    Cellular module
    no
    ▼ 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.
  • No face recognition
    Face recognition
    no
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    6.2/ 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
    Archos 101
    the average tablet
    Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ Worse than 57% of models
    This tablet does not support dark mode, the average tablet does. 57.2% of tablets have dark mode.
  • No offline voice recognition
    Offline voice recognition
    no
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not support offline voice recognition, the average tablet does. 76.1% of tablets support offline voice recognition.
  • 4 mm thicker
    Thickness
    12 mm
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <6.1 mm – >11.5 mm
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (12 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8.0 mm thick.
    12 mm vs 8.0 mm
  • No keyboard accessory
    Keyboard accessory
    no
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    This tablet does not support a keyboard accessory, the average tablet does. 84.2% of tablets support a keyboard accessory.
  • 9 older release date
    Release date
    2010
    ▼ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This tablet is an older model than the average tablet (2010 vs 2019).
    2010 vs 2019
  • 94.7 mm wider
    Width
    270.0 mm
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (270 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    270.0 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

U
uk.pcmag.com
12/09/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 - Review 2011 - PCMag UK
T
trustedreviews.com
21/03/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Internet Tablet Review - Trusted Reviews
E
expertreviews.co.uk
26/02/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Internet Tablet review - Expert Reviews
C
cnet.com
22/02/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 review: Archos 101 - CNET
N
notebookcheck.net
05/01/2011
Summary of the review
Review Archos 101 Tablet/MID - Notebookcheck
L
laptopmag.com
06/12/2010
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Internet Tablet Review - Laptop Mag
L
liliputing.com
09/12/2010
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Android tablet reviewed - Liliputing
P
pocket-lint.com
16/04/2013
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Internet Tablet - Pocket-lint
P
pctipp.ch
10/12/2010
Summary of the review
Test: Tablet Archos 101 - pctipp.ch
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
30/12/2010
Summary of the review
Test Archos 101 Tablet/MID - Notebookcheck
(Translated)Show original
H
hifitest.de
10/10/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 10.1 internet tablet - Tablets im Test
(Translated)Show original
C
cnetfrance.fr
02/12/2010
Summary of the review
Archos 101 Internet Tablet - CNET France
(Translated)Show original
P
planetenumerique.com
15/06/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 IT, Internet tablet Android en test Souhaitez-vous des informations techniques spécifiques sur les performances de son processeur ARM Corte...
(Translated)Show original
P
planetenumerique.com
15/06/2011
Summary of the review
Premier test d'une tablette Android publié : l'Archos 101 IT
(Translated)Show original
F
forum.lesnumeriques.com
22/04/2011
Summary of the review
[Topic Unique] Test Tablette Tactile : Archos 101 Internet Tablet
(Translated)Show original
0
01net.com
20/10/2010
Summary of the review
Test : La nouvelle tablette tactile d'Archos tient ses promesses
(Translated)Show original
0
01net.com
15/10/2010
Summary of the review
Fiche technique Archos 101 Internet tablet 8 Go Are you looking for technical specifications or firmware update guides for this specific model?
(Translated)Show original
F
forum.frandroid.com
12/11/2010
Summary of the review
Test Archos 101 IT - Archos Gen 8(journaldugeek.com) | 25/11/2010 | Test : Archos 101 Internet Tablet
(Translated)Show original
F
fwd.nl
24/10/2011
Summary of the review
Review: Archos 101 en 70 Internet Tablets
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
26/02/2011
Summary of the review
Review Archos 101 Tablet/MID
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB)

  • Competitive low price point
  • Generous 10.1-inch screen size
  • Excellent connectivity options including Mini-HDMI, USB host, and microSD expansion
  • Long battery life, lasting up to 10-11 hours for web surfing
  • Very slim and lightweight design with an integrated kickstand
  • Good video codec support for various media formats
  • Clean, unadorned Android interface with minimal bloatware

What we don't like about Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB)

  • Poor screen viewing angles and restrained brightness
  • Mediocre touchscreen responsiveness and occasional laggy performance
  • Lack of official support for Google Play Store and standard Google mobile apps
  • Awkward onscreen keyboard layout in landscape mode
  • Low-quality front-facing camera with poor image resolution
  • Charging requires a specific wall adapter rather than standard USB
  • Cheap-feeling plastic build quality that lacks the solidity of premium rivals

Verdict

The Archos 101 Internet Tablet is a 10.1-inch Android 2.2 device featuring a 1024x600 capacitive multitouch display, a 1GHz ARM Cortex A8 processor, 256MB of RAM, and 16GB of internal flash storage. Its primary characteristics include a slim 12mm profile, a built-in adjustable kickstand, and extensive connectivity options such as a full-size USB host port, mini-HDMI output, and a microSDHC slot supporting up to 32GB. Main pros consist of its lightweight 480g design, versatile media codec support, and affordable price point for its size. However, significant cons include poor screen viewing angles, a lack of native access to the Google Play Store (using AppsLib instead), and sluggish performance due to its limited RAM.

Compare Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) with other tablets

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

Graphic comparison of Archos 101 (256MB + 16GB) and other tablets

No results found