OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v1.0
Tablets Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Tablets Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Tablets Methodology v1.0

Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) Review | 168 Data compared

Avg. price:~£440RAM capacity:3 GBInternal storage:32 GBScreen size:10.2 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra X1

Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB)
6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 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–² Better than 56% of models
Score components

90%

6.3

Technical score

10%

7.4

User score

â–²Better than 56% of tablets
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 56% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 56%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 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–² Better than 56% of models
Score components

22%

5.5

Performance

20%

6.7

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

6.5

Battery

12%

6.6

Connectivity

8%

7.8

Software & Features

5%

5.7

Design

3%

6.2

Audio & Multimedia

â–²Better than 56%
7.4

User score

User score
7.4/ 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 77% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

User ratings

30%

6.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–¼Worse than 77%
  • google-pixel-c-3gb-32gb
  • google-pixel-c-3gb-32gb
google-pixel-c-3gb-32gb
google-pixel-c-3gb-32gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Available versions:
3GB + 32GB
Other versions:
3GB + 64GB
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB)

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 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–² Better than 56% of models
Score components:

22%

5.5

Performance

20%

6.7

Display

16%

5.9

Camera

14%

6.5

Battery

12%

6.6

Connectivity

8%

7.8

Software & Features

5%

5.7

Design

3%

6.2

Audio & Multimedia

6.3
User score
User score
7.4/ 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 77% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

User ratings

30%

6.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
7.4
Popularity
Popularity
6.9/ 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 68% of models
Popularity:
Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) has a user popularity of 6.9 points, which is lower than 68.5% of Tablets.
6.9
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 56% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

7.0
RAM capacity
3 GB
Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
This tablet has a RAM capacity of 3 GB which is smaller than the RAM capacity of 52.4% of tablets and equal to that of 8.5% of tablets.
Process node
20 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 20 nm process node, which is larger than the node size used in 56.1% of tablets and equal to the node used in 1.4% of tablets.
Internal storage
32 GB
Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
This tablet has an internal storage capacity of 32 GB which is smaller than the storage of 60.5% of tablets and equal to that of 18% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
270 points
Market range: <233 points – >2.3k points
This tablet scored 270 points in Geekbench 6 (single-core) which is lower than the score of 88.5% of tablets.
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra X1
This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra X1 chipset, which is less advanced than the chipsets in 63.7% of tablets.
Show more
Screen resolution
2560×1800
This tablet has a screen resolution of 2560×1800 which is higher than that of 88% of tablets.
Refresh rate
60 Hz
Market range: <60 Hz – >120 Hz
This tablet supports a refresh rate of 60 Hz which is equal to that in 73.8% of tablets.
Display type
IPS LCD
This tablet uses a IPS LCD display type. 17% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
308 ppi
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 308 ppi which is higher than that of 92.8% of tablets and equal to that of 0.2% of tablets.
Display glass type
Corning Gorilla Glass
This tablet uses Corning Gorilla Glass display glass which is stronger than that on 45.4% of tablets and equal to that on 32.7% of tablets.
Show more
Optical image stabilization
no
This tablet does not support optical image stabilization. 0.4% of tablets include OIS.
Main camera megapixels
8 MP
Market range: <3.15 MP – >13 MP
This tablet has a main camera resolution of 8 MP which is higher than that of 36.5% of tablets and equal to that of 31.8% of tablets.
Front camera megapixels
2.1 MP
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera resolution of 2.1 MP which is lower than in 52.4% of tablets and equal to that in 1.2% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
f/2.4
This tablet has a main camera aperture of f/2.4 which is narrower than that of 69.8% of tablets and equal to that of 17.6% of tablets.
Optical zoom
1xxx
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
9,800 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has a battery capacity of 9,800 mAh which is larger than the batteries in 86.8% of tablets and equal to those in 0.9% of tablets.
Charging speed
18 W
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
10 hours
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
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets support wireless charging.
Fast charging
yes
This tablet supports fast charging. 50.4% of tablets support fast charging.
Show more
LTE support
no
This tablet does not support LTE. 63.3% of tablets include LTE connectivity.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
This tablet supports Wi-Fi connectivity. 0.2% of tablets offer Wi-Fi support.
GPS
yes
This tablet supports GPS. 17.3% of tablets include GPS functionality.
5G connectivity
no
This tablet does not support 5G connectivity. 11.1% of tablets support 5G.
NFC
no
This tablet does not support NFC. 10.9% of tablets support NFC.
Show more
Operating system
Android
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.3%.
Update support duration
medium
This tablet offers medium update support, which is longer than the support period of 47.3% of tablets and equal to that of 32.6% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
This tablet receives direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets receive direct updates.
On-device AI
no
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
This tablet does not include app tracking protection. 28.3% of tablets include app tracking protection.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
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
517 g
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 517 g which is heavier than 58.1% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.8% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
4
Market range: <0 – >5
This tablet includes 4 microphones, which is more than in 93% of tablets and equal to the number in 4.4% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this codec.
Dolby Atmos support
no
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.5% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
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
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer FM radio functionality.
Show more

Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftware & FeaturesDesignAudio & Multimedia
  • Higher screen resolution
    This tablet has a higher screen resolution than the average tablet (2560×1800 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet resolution is 1920×1200.
    2560×1800 vs 1920×1200
  • 48.9% larger battery capacity
    This tablet has a higher battery capacity than the average tablet (9,800 mAh vs 6,580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6,580 mAh.
    9,800 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • 37.5% higher pixel density
    This tablet has a higher pixel density than the average tablet (308 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    308 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 100 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (500 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    500 nits vs 400 nits
  • Supports fast charging
    This tablet supports fast charging, the average tablet does not. 49.7% of tablets feature fast charging.
  • 3 more microphone/s
    This tablet has more microphones than the average tablet (4 vs 1). The average tablet has 1 microphones.
    4 vs 1
  • Higher contrast ratio
    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
  • 99 nits higher peak brightness
    This tablet has a higher peak brightness than the average tablet (500 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits peak brightness.
    500 nits vs 401 nits
  • 252 more GPU execution units
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (256 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    256 vs 4
  • More capable chipset
    This tablet uses the Nvidia Tegra X1 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Nvidia Tegra X1 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 53.8% faster GPU clock
    This tablet has a higher GPU frequency than the average tablet (1,000 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet has GPU frequency of 650 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 650 MHz
  • 1,334 MHz faster RAM speed
    This tablet has a higher RAM speed than the average tablet (3,200 MHz vs 1,866 MHz). The average tablet has RAM speed of 1,866 MHz.
    3,200 MHz vs 1,866 MHz
  • 2 more CPU threads
    This tablet has more CPU threads than the average tablet (8 vs 6). The average tablet has 6 CPU threads.
    8 vs 6
  • 71.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This tablet has a higher memory bandwidth than the average tablet (25.6 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has memory bandwidth of 14.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR memory version
    This tablet supports a newer DDR version than the average tablet (LPDDR4 vs LPDDR3). The average DDR version is LPDDR3.
    LPDDR4 vs LPDDR3
  • Higher screen resolution
    This tablet has a higher screen resolution than the average tablet (2560×1800 vs 1920×1200). The average tablet resolution is 1920×1200.
    2560×1800 vs 1920×1200
  • 37.5% higher pixel density
    This tablet has a higher pixel density than the average tablet (308 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    308 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 100 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (500 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    500 nits vs 400 nits
  • Higher contrast ratio
    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
  • 99 nits higher peak brightness
    This tablet has a higher peak brightness than the average tablet (500 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits peak brightness.
    500 nits vs 401 nits
  • 87 ppi higher screen sharpness
    This tablet has a higher screen sharpness than the average tablet (308 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has screen sharpness of 221 ppi.
    308 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 0.1 inches larger screen size
    This tablet has a higher screen size than the average tablet (10.2 inches vs 10.1 inches). The average tablet has screen size of 10.1 inches.
    10.2 inches vs 10.1 inches
  • Supports slow-motion recording
    This tablet supports slow-motion recording, the average tablet does not. 37.5% of tablets offer slow-mo.
  • 48.9% larger battery capacity
    This tablet has a higher battery capacity than the average tablet (9,800 mAh vs 6,580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6,580 mAh.
    9,800 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • Supports fast charging
    This tablet supports fast charging, the average tablet does not. 49.7% of tablets feature fast charging.
  • Newer USB version
    This tablet supports a newer USB version than the average tablet (USB 3.2 Gen 1 vs USB 2). The average tablet uses USB USB 2.0.
    USB 3.2 Gen 1 vs USB 2.0
  • 1 mm thinner
    This tablet is thinner than the average tablet (7 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8.0 mm thick.
    7 mm vs 8.0 mm
  • 3 more microphone/s
    This tablet has more microphones than the average tablet (4 vs 1). The average tablet has 1 microphones.
    4 vs 1
  • Supports LDAC
    This tablet supports LDAC, the average tablet does not. 25.2% of tablets support LDAC.
  • Worse GPU
    This tablet uses the NVIDIA Maxwell GPU GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    NVIDIA Maxwell GPU vs Mali-G51
  • No LTE support
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • Narrower front camera aperture
    This tablet has a worse front camera aperture than the average tablet (f/2.4 vs f/2.2). The average tablet uses f/2.2 front camera aperture.
    f/2.4 vs f/2.2
  • No manual exposure control
    This tablet does not offer manual exposure control, the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets have manual exposure.
  • No manual white balance
    This tablet does not allow manual white balance adjustments, the average tablet does. 51.6% of tablets include white balance controls.
  • 2.9 MP lower front camera megapixels
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2.1 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2.1 MP vs 5 MP
  • 63% lower Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    This tablet achieves a lower Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score than the average tablet (270 points vs 729 points). The average tablet scores 729 points in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    270 points vs 729 points
  • No burst mode
    This tablet does not support burst mode, the average tablet does. 60.5% of tablets support burst mode.
  • 69.2% more expensive
    Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£440 vs £260).
    £440 vs £260
  • 7.4% lower user score
    User score
    7.4/ 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
    Google Pixel C
    the average tablet
    Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) has a lower user score than the average tablet (7.45 vs 8.000).
    7.45 vs 8
  • Worse GPU
    This tablet uses the NVIDIA Maxwell GPU GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    NVIDIA Maxwell GPU vs Mali-G51
  • 63% lower Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    This tablet achieves a lower Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score than the average tablet (270 points vs 729 points). The average tablet scores 729 points in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    270 points vs 729 points
  • 50% less storage
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet provides 64 GB of internal storage.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 1 GB less RAM
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (3 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    3 GB vs 4 GB
  • 5% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.9 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.9 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 42.9% larger process node
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (20 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    20 nm vs 14 nm
  • Narrower front camera aperture
    This tablet has a worse front camera aperture than the average tablet (f/2.4 vs f/2.2). The average tablet uses f/2.2 front camera aperture.
    f/2.4 vs f/2.2
  • No manual exposure control
    This tablet does not offer manual exposure control, the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets have manual exposure.
  • No manual white balance
    This tablet does not allow manual white balance adjustments, the average tablet does. 51.6% of tablets include white balance controls.
  • 2.9 MP lower front camera megapixels
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (2.1 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    2.1 MP vs 5 MP
  • No burst mode
    This tablet does not support burst mode, the average tablet does. 60.5% of tablets support burst mode.
  • No BSI sensor
    This tablet lacks a BSI sensor, the average tablet has one. 52.6% of tablets use BSI sensors for better low-light shots.
  • Narrower main camera aperture
    This tablet has a worse main camera aperture than the average tablet (f/2.4 vs f/2.2). The average tablet uses f/2.2 main camera aperture.
    f/2.4 vs f/2.2
  • No LTE support
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • No cellular module
    This tablet does not have a cellular module, the average tablet does. 59.3% of tablets include a cellular module.
  • No HDMI output
    This tablet does not have an HDMI output, the average tablet does. 50.1% of tablets support HDMI output.
  • No face recognition
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56% of tablets support face recognition.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    This tablet uses an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (4.1 vs 5). The average tablet uses Bluetooth 5.0.
    4.1 vs 5.0
  • No camera/mic privacy toggles
    This tablet lacks camera and microphone privacy toggles, the average tablet includes them. 56.2% of tablets offer these toggles.
  • No full-page screenshots
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 52.5% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No dark mode
    This tablet does not support dark mode, the average tablet does. 57.2% of tablets have dark mode.
  • 5.5% heavier
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (517 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    517 g vs 490 g
  • 4 older release date
    This tablet is an older model than the average tablet (2015 vs 2019).
    December 2015
    2015 vs 2019
  • 42 mm taller
    This tablet is taller than the average tablet (242 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200.0 mm tall.
    242.0 mm vs 200.0 mm

Video reviews

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

7.0
MrMobile [Michael Fisher]
≈ estimated
08/02/2017
Long-term review · 15 months of daily use
Verdict
Google Pixel C has an attractive design and great software, but the price is too high; only worth it on sale.
5.0
Tim Schofield
≈ estimated
08/04/2016
Long-term review · 4 months of daily use
Verdict
Google Pixel C is the best Android tablet available, but Android's tablet software holds it back; hard to recommend at this price.
8.9
NotebookcheckReviews
✓ explicit
05/02/2016
Detailed review · performance, battery and gaming tests
Verdict
Google Pixel C is a good tablet overall, but limited connectivity and a high price make it hard to justify.
8.0
Teqreation
≈ estimated
24/12/2015
Hands-on review · daily use, battery, keyboard and features
Verdict
Google Pixel C will be their main tablet for media and email, leaving the buying decision to viewers.
8.0
Android Authority
≈ estimated
21/12/2015
Hands-on review · build, battery, camera and productivity
Verdict
Google Pixel C is an excellent, beautifully built tablet for games and video, but not an ideal productivity device yet.
7.0
Pocketnow
≈ estimated
18/12/2015
Full review · battery and multitasking tests
Verdict
Google Pixel C is pretty solid, but it doesn't quite earn its price tag; best for heavy Google users.
7.0
DetroitBORG
≈ estimated
12/12/2015
Hands-on review · unboxing, camera and battery tests
Verdict
Google Pixel C is a nice piece of hardware in search of better software, mainly for Android fans or developers.
9.5
MakeUseOf
≈ estimated
13/09/2016
Short review · several weeks of use
Verdict
Google Pixel C is the best tablet available on iOS or Android, expensive but worth the price.
9.0
Jon Rettinger
≈ estimated
05/02/2016
Short hands-on review · six days as only tablet
Verdict
Google Pixel C is strongly recommended for Android fans who want the keyboard, despite stock Android quirks.
7.0
Android Central
≈ estimated
24/12/2015
Full review · keyboard, display and software impressions
Verdict
Google Pixel C has excellent hardware, but software that doesn't finish the thought holds it back.
4.0
The Verge
≈ estimated
08/12/2015
Short review · design, keyboard and software
Verdict
Google Pixel C has great hardware, but Android's tablet software isn't good enough yet to justify the price.
6.0
TechRadar
≈ estimated
08/12/2015
First look · unboxing and first impressions
Verdict
Google Pixel C feels premium and pairs easily with its keyboard, though the reviewer is still testing it.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
theverge.com
08/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C review: Too clever by half
C
cnet.com
08/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C review: An Android tablet worthy of replacing your iPad
T
time.com
08/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C Tablet Review: Great, But With Drawbacks
T
theguardian.com
11/01/2016
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C review: the best Android tablet is a viable iPad competitor
U
uk.pcmag.com
18/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C - Review 2015
T
techadvisor.com
20/01/2016
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C review
E
expertreviews.co.uk
17/01/2017
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C review: A brilliant tablet, limited by Android
S
slashgear.com
29/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C Review
T
theverge.com
08/12/2015
Summary of the review
Mossberg: Google should build hardware — but not like this
T
techwalls.com
22/07/2016
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C Tablet Review - The Best Android Tablet on the Market
T
technologytales.com
26/12/2016
Summary of the review
A look at Google's Pixel C
M
medium.com
09/03/2017
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C - Medium
9
9to5google.com
16/06/2023
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C revisit: Ahead of its time
S
spiegel.de
08/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C im Test: Googles Magnet-Tablet ist fast ein Notebook
(Translated)Show original
F
futurezone.at
22/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C im Test: Das Beste ist nicht gut genug
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
24/12/2015
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C - Notebookcheck.com Externe Tests
(Translated)Show original
T
tagesspiegel.de
07/01/2016
Summary of the review
Google-Tablet Pixel C: Purer Magnetismus
(Translated)Show original
S
stern.de
25/01/2016
Summary of the review
Pixel C: Googles iPad-Killer im Test
(Translated)Show original
C
chip.de
27/01/2016
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C (Tablet) Test
(Translated)Show original
C
connect.de
26/02/2016
Summary of the review
Google Pixel C im Test
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: November 2026 · How we calculate this

What customers like about Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB)

  • Premium aluminium build quality and robust design
  • Excellent 10.2-inch display with high brightness and 308 ppi density
  • Strong magnetic keyboard with comfortable key travel and adjustable angles
  • Powerful Nvidia Tegra X1 processor providing smooth gaming and app performance
  • Long battery life, often lasting over 12 hours of video playback
  • Unique light bar that displays battery levels with a double-tap

What customers don't like about Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB)

  • Android software is not fully optimised for productivity on a large tablet screen
  • Lack of native multi-window or split-screen support at launch
  • High total cost when paired with the required separate keyboard accessory
  • Occasional Bluetooth connectivity issues and lagging keyboard input
  • Unremarkable cameras that produce grainy images in low light
  • No expandable storage via microSD slot

Verdict

The Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) is a premium 10.2-inch Android tablet featuring a high-resolution 2560 x 1800 LTPS LCD display with a 308 ppi density and 500 nits of brightness. Encased in a minimalist aluminum unibody, it is powered by the Nvidia Tegra X1 octa-core processor and a Maxwell GPU, delivering fast performance for gaming and multitasking. Key characteristics include a unique 1:√2 aspect ratio, a rear-mounted light bar for battery status, four microphones for voice commands, and a USB Type-C port for rapid charging of its 34.2Wh battery. Main pros include its exceptional build quality, sharp and vibrant screen, and stellar battery life that often exceeds 10 hours of active use. However, notable cons include its relatively heavy weight (517g), lack of expandable storage or cellular options, and software limitations in early versions of Android that hindered split-screen productivity.

Compare Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) with other tablets

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

Graphic comparison of Google Pixel C (3GB + 32GB) and other tablets

No results found