The Honor 400 Smart and Samsung Galaxy A73 5G represent compelling options in the competitive mid-range 5G smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a balanced experience, they take different approaches to chipset selection and feature prioritization. This comparison dives deep into their specifications to determine which device offers the best value for your money.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing sustained performance and longevity, the Samsung Galaxy A73 5G emerges as the stronger contender. Its Snapdragon 778G 5G chipset offers a noticeable performance advantage over the Honor 400 Smart’s Snapdragon 6s Gen 3, making it better suited for demanding tasks and gaming, despite the Honor’s impressive battery endurance.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | LTE | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 28, 40, 41, 66, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, August 07 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, August 09 | Available. Released 2022, April 22 |
| Body |
|---|
| Dimensions | 166.9 x 76.8 x 8.4 mm (6.57 x 3.02 x 0.33 in) | 163.7 x 76.1 x 7.6 mm (6.44 x 3.00 x 0.30 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 189 g (6.67 oz) | 181 g (6.38 oz) |
| | - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Scratch-resistant glass, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1610 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~261 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.77 inches, 110.2 cm2 (~86.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~87.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | TFT LCD, 120Hz, 700 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED Plus, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x1.9 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 (6 nm) | Qualcomm SM7325 Snapdragon 778G 5G (6 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Adreno 642L |
| OS | Android 15, Magic OS 9 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 108 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF, OIS
12 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide)
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | - | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 5 MP, f/2.2, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | No | Unspecified |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 35W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 6500 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black | Gray, Mint, White |
| Models | LGN-NX1 | SM-A736B, SM-A736B/DS |
| Price | - | About 600 EUR |
| SAR | - | 1.14 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.28 W/kg (head) 1.42 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL |
|---|
| Battery | 69:32h endurance, 1600 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class A | - |
| Free fall | Class A (270 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
Honor 400 Smart
- Exceptional battery life (69:32h endurance)
- Long battery lifespan (1600 cycles)
- Faster 35W wired charging
- Less powerful Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 chipset
- Limited performance for demanding tasks
- Display specifications unknown
Samsung Galaxy A73 5G
- More powerful Snapdragon 778G 5G chipset
- Superior gaming performance
- Vibrant Super AMOLED display
- Shorter battery life compared to Honor 400 Smart
- Slower 25W wired charging
- Potential for thermal throttling under sustained load
Display Comparison
While display specifications are missing for the Honor 400 Smart, the Samsung Galaxy A73 5G features a 6.5-inch Super AMOLED display. The A73’s AMOLED panel inherently provides superior contrast and color vibrancy compared to the LCD panels typically found in this price bracket. The Snapdragon 778G’s ISP is also capable of driving higher refresh rates, though the A73 is limited to 120Hz. Without knowing the Honor’s panel type or refresh rate, it’s difficult to make a direct comparison, but the A73’s AMOLED is a clear advantage.
Camera Comparison
Camera details beyond the presence of sensors are unavailable for the Honor 400 Smart. The Samsung Galaxy A73 5G’s camera system, while not flagship-level, benefits from Qualcomm’s Spectra 570 ISP within the Snapdragon 778G. This ISP provides advanced image processing capabilities, potentially leading to better dynamic range and low-light performance. Without knowing the sensor sizes or apertures of the Honor 400 Smart’s cameras, it’s difficult to assess its image quality, but the A73’s ISP gives it an edge in computational photography.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A73 5G’s Snapdragon 778G 5G (6nm) boasts a more powerful CPU configuration – a 1x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 prime core alongside 3x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 cores – compared to the Honor 400 Smart’s Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 (6nm) with its 2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A78 and 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 setup. This translates to a noticeable performance uplift for the A73 in CPU-intensive tasks. While both are built on a 6nm process, the 778G’s more robust core configuration and Adreno 642L GPU provide a superior gaming experience. The Honor 400 Smart’s CPU, while efficient, is geared towards power saving rather than raw performance.
Battery Life
The Honor 400 Smart shines in battery endurance, boasting a remarkable 69:32h rating and a 1600 cycle lifespan. This suggests significantly longer usability between charges and a slower degradation of battery health over time. The Samsung Galaxy A73 5G, while offering respectable battery life, doesn’t match the Honor’s longevity. The Honor’s 35W charging is faster than the A73’s 25W, meaning quicker top-ups, but the A73’s overall power draw is likely lower due to the more efficient chipset in some scenarios.
Buying Guide
Buy the Honor 400 Smart if you prioritize exceptional battery life and are a casual user who primarily focuses on everyday tasks like browsing, social media, and light media consumption. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A73 5G if you value smoother performance for gaming, multitasking, and content creation, and are willing to trade some battery endurance for a more responsive experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 in the Honor 400 Smart struggle with graphically intensive games like Genshin Impact?
Yes, the Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 is a mid-range chipset and will likely require significant graphics settings reductions to achieve playable frame rates in demanding titles like Genshin Impact. Expect noticeable frame drops and potential stuttering, especially during intense combat sequences. The Galaxy A73 5G’s Snapdragon 778G 5G offers a much smoother experience.
❓ How much faster is the charging on the Honor 400 Smart compared to the Samsung Galaxy A73 5G in real-world use?
The Honor 400 Smart’s 35W charging will noticeably reduce charging times compared to the A73’s 25W. While exact 0-100% times are unavailable, expect the Honor to gain approximately 15-20% charge in the same timeframe as the A73. However, the A73’s lower power draw may offset some of this difference.
❓ Is the 1600 cycle battery lifespan claim for the Honor 400 Smart realistic?
While 1600 cycles is a high number, Honor’s claim suggests a focus on battery health management and potentially optimized charging algorithms. However, actual battery lifespan will depend heavily on usage patterns and charging habits. It’s a strong indicator of long-term reliability, but not a guarantee.
