Cubot X50 vs. Samsung Galaxy A23 5G: Which Budget 5G Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing long-term performance and efficiency, the Samsung Galaxy A23 5G is the better choice. Its Snapdragon 695, built on a 6nm process, offers superior power efficiency and sustained performance compared to the Cubot X50’s older 12nm Helio P60, despite a similar endurance rating.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Cubot X50 | Samsung Galaxy A23 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 - International |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 2, 5, 30, 66, 77 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - USA | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021 | 2022, August 05 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021 | Available. Released 2022, September 02 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 166.8 x 77.6 x 8.8 mm (6.57 x 3.06 x 0.35 in) | 165.4 x 76.9 x 8.4 mm (6.51 x 3.03 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 213 g (7.51 oz) | 197 g (6.95 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2408 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~400 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~83.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 104.9 cm2 (~82.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | PLS LCD, 120Hz |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A53) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 660 Gold & 6x1.7 GHz Kryo 660 Silver) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6771V/CA Helio P60 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 695 5G (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 11 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 14, One UI 6 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 64GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, (wide), PDAF 16 MP, 125˚ (ultrawide) 5 MP (macro), AF Auxiliary lens | 50 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF, OIS 5 MP, f/2.2, 13mm, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/5.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Single | 32 MP | 8 MP, f/2.0, 25mm (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm - USA 8 MP, f/2.2, 25mm (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm - International |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Unspecified | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 4.2, A2DP | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | FM radio (market/region dependent) |
| USB | microUSB, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (USA only) |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | - | 25W wired |
| Type | 4500 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, Green | Black, White, Peach, Blue |
| Models | - | SM-A236U, SM-A236U1, SM-A236B, SM-A236B/DS, SM-A236B/DSN, SM-A236E, SM-S236DL |
| Price | - | $ 84.44 / £ 129.00 / € 125.28 / ₹ 21,000 |
| SAR | - | 0.68 W/kg (head) 0.57 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.49 W/kg (head) 1.25 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 138h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: 1328:1 (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -25.9 LUFS (Very good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 318821 (v9) GeekBench: 1940 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Cubot X50
- Potentially lower price point
- 5G connectivity
- Functional for basic tasks
- Older, less efficient chipset
- Limited software support likely
- Unspecified display quality
Samsung Galaxy A23 5G
- More efficient Snapdragon 695 chipset
- Faster 25W charging
- Better brand reputation and software support
- Slightly higher price
- Similar endurance rating doesn't fully reflect efficiency gains
- May still include a low-resolution macro camera
Display Comparison
Both devices feature similar contrast ratios around 1328:1, suggesting comparable color reproduction. However, the Samsung Galaxy A23 5G boasts a measured peak brightness of 508 nits, which will provide a noticeably more vibrant and readable experience outdoors compared to the Cubot X50, whose brightness is not specified. The lack of information regarding panel technology (IPS vs AMOLED) for the Cubot X50 makes it difficult to assess color accuracy and viewing angles, areas where Samsung typically excels.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are listed as having Photo/Video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is absent for the Cubot X50. The Samsung Galaxy A23 5G likely features a more sophisticated camera system, benefiting from Samsung’s image processing algorithms. Without specific details on the Cubot X50’s sensor size and aperture, it’s difficult to assess its low-light performance or dynamic range. The prevalence of 2MP macro lenses on budget phones suggests both devices may include one, but these typically offer limited practical benefit.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A23 5G’s Snapdragon 695 (6nm) utilizes a more modern architecture with 2x 2.2 GHz Kryo 660 Gold cores and 6x 1.7 GHz Kryo 660 Silver cores. This contrasts with the Cubot X50’s Helio P60 (12nm) featuring 4x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A73 and 4x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. The 6nm process of the Snapdragon 695 translates to significantly better power efficiency and thermal management, reducing the likelihood of performance throttling during extended use. While both are octa-core CPUs, the Snapdragon’s newer core designs offer a performance advantage in most tasks.
Battery Life
Both devices share an endurance rating of 138 hours, indicating similar battery life under typical usage. However, the Snapdragon 695’s superior efficiency means the Samsung Galaxy A23 5G achieves this endurance with less strain on the battery, potentially extending its lifespan. The A23 5G also supports 25W wired charging, which will significantly reduce charging times compared to the Cubot X50, whose charging speed is unspecified. This faster charging is a practical advantage for users who need to quickly top up their device.
Buying Guide
Buy the Cubot X50 if you need a functional 5G device at the absolute lowest price point and are willing to compromise on long-term software support and sustained performance. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A23 5G if you prefer a more refined experience, better software updates, and a chipset designed for improved efficiency and longevity, even if it comes at a slightly higher cost.