The Honor Magic4 Lite and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G represent compelling options in the increasingly competitive mid-range 5G smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a balanced experience, they take different approaches to achieving it. The Magic4 Lite prioritizes rapid charging and a streamlined experience, while the A53 5G focuses on a brighter display and Samsung’s established software ecosystem. This comparison will dissect their key differences to help you determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing fast charging and a smooth, if less feature-rich, experience, the Honor Magic4 Lite emerges as the winner. Its 66W charging significantly outperforms the A53 5G’s 25W, and the Snapdragon 695 provides adequate performance for everyday tasks, all at a potentially lower price point.
| 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, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 66 - SM-A536U |
| 5G bands | SA/NSA | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | - | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2022, March 23 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, April 26 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic frame, plastic back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 166 x 75.8 x 8 mm (6.54 x 2.98 x 0.31 in) | 159.6 x 74.8 x 8.1 mm (6.28 x 2.94 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 189 g (6.67 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| | - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2388 pixels (~385 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.81 inches, 112.3 cm2 (~89.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 660 Gold & 6x1.7 GHz Kryo 660 Silver) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 695 5G (6 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 11, Magic UI 4.2 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.7X", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.5 | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), PDAF
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.5 | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | No |
| 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, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| | - | Virtual proximity sensing |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 66W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4800 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Titanium Silver, Ocean Blue, Midnight Black | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | ANY-LX1, ANY-LX2, ANY-LX3 | SM-A536B, SM-A536B/DS, SM-A536U, SM-A536U1, SM-A5360, SM-A536E, SM-A536E/DS, SM-A536V, SM-A536W, SM-A536N, SM-S536DL |
| Price | About 180 EUR | $ 151.42 / £ 185.00 / € 169.14 |
| SAR | - | 0.75 W/kg (head) 1.58 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.89 W/kg (head) 1.60 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life |
Endurance rating 104h
|
Endurance rating 113h
|
| Camera |
Photo / Video |
Photo / Video |
| Display |
Contrast ratio: 1229:1 |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker |
-34.0 LUFS (Poor)
|
-26.5 LUFS (Good)
|
| Performance |
AnTuTu: 387218 (v9)
GeekBench: 1906 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 17fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
AnTuTu: 329802 (v8), 379313 (v9)
GeekBench: 1891 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 19fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Honor Magic4 Lite
- 66W fast charging is significantly faster than the A53.
- Potentially lower price point offers excellent value.
- Lightweight design for comfortable handling.
- Lower display brightness may struggle in direct sunlight.
- Snapdragon 695 is less powerful than the Exynos 1280.
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter display for better outdoor visibility.
- Exynos 1280 offers smoother performance for demanding tasks.
- Samsung’s One UI provides a feature-rich software experience.
- 25W charging is considerably slower than the Magic4 Lite.
- Potentially higher price point.
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching 830 nits compared to the Honor Magic4 Lite’s 535 nits. This translates to better visibility outdoors under direct sunlight. While Honor quotes a 1229:1 contrast ratio, Samsung’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (typical of AMOLED panels) suggests deeper blacks and more vivid colors. However, the Magic4 Lite’s lower brightness may be preferable for users sensitive to bright screens. Both devices likely employ LCD panels, but the A53’s higher peak brightness is a clear advantage for media consumption and outdoor usability.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature a 'Photo / Video' camera setup, but detailed sensor information is lacking. Without specifics, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. However, Samsung generally excels in image processing, offering vibrant and shareable photos. The A53’s potential for better dynamic range and low-light performance, given Samsung’s software optimizations, is higher. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the A53 (a common feature in Samsung’s A-series) would further enhance image quality, particularly in video recording. The 2MP macro cameras found on many phones in this price range, including likely both of these, offer limited practical benefit.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G utilizes the Exynos 1280, fabricated on a 5nm process, offering a theoretical advantage in power efficiency and performance over the Honor Magic4 Lite’s Snapdragon 695 (6nm). The A53’s CPU features 2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 cores, while the Magic4 Lite has 2x2.2 GHz Kryo 660 Gold cores. This suggests the A53 will handle demanding tasks and multitasking more smoothly. However, real-world performance differences may be less pronounced for typical usage, and the Snapdragon 695 is still capable of running most apps and games. The 5nm process of the Exynos 1280 should also result in better thermal management under sustained load.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G edges out the Honor Magic4 Lite in endurance, achieving 113 hours versus 104 hours in our testing. This suggests slightly better battery optimization or a more efficient chipset. However, the Magic4 Lite’s 66W wired charging is a game-changer, allowing for a significantly faster 0-100% charge time compared to the A53’s 25W charging. This difference in charging speed is a major convenience factor for users who frequently need to top up their battery throughout the day. While the A53 has a slightly larger battery capacity (implied by the endurance rating), the Magic4 Lite’s charging speed effectively mitigates any potential battery life disadvantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Honor Magic4 Lite if you need blazing-fast charging, a lightweight design, and prioritize value for money. It’s ideal for users who frequently top up their phones and don’t demand the absolute highest performance. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display, Samsung’s One UI software experience, and a slightly longer battery endurance rating, even if it means sacrificing charging speed and potentially paying a premium.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A53 5G tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
While the Exynos 1280 is a capable chip, it has been known to exhibit some thermal throttling under sustained heavy load, particularly in graphically intensive games. Samsung’s software optimizations help mitigate this, but users engaging in extended gaming may experience some performance dips. The Snapdragon 695 in the Magic4 Lite, being less powerful, is less prone to overheating, but also offers lower peak performance.
❓ Is the 66W charging on the Honor Magic4 Lite compatible with Power Delivery (PD) chargers?
The Honor Magic4 Lite utilizes Honor’s proprietary 66W SuperCharge protocol. While it may work with some PD chargers, it won’t achieve the full 66W charging speed unless you use the included charger. Using a standard PD charger will still charge the phone, but at a slower rate.
❓ How does the software update policy differ between Honor and Samsung?
Samsung generally offers a more robust and longer-term software update policy than Honor. Samsung typically guarantees 4 years of OS updates and 5 years of security patches for its A-series devices. Honor’s update commitment is typically shorter, often around 2 years of OS updates and 3 years of security patches. This means the Galaxy A53 5G will likely remain supported for a longer period.
