The mid-range smartphone market is fiercely competitive, and the Honor X9d and Samsung Galaxy A35 represent compelling options for budget-conscious buyers. The X9d arrives with a newer Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 chipset and blazing-fast 66W charging, while the A35 counters with Samsung’s established brand recognition, a brighter display, and a proven track record for battery endurance. This comparison dissects the key differences to determine which device delivers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing fast charging and potentially better long-term performance, the Honor X9d is the stronger choice. Its 66W charging significantly reduces downtime, and the Snapdragon 6 Gen 4, built on a 4nm process, offers a more efficient architecture. However, the Samsung Galaxy A35 excels in battery life and display brightness, making it ideal for media consumption.
| 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, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 26, 28, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, September 24 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, October 09 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), plastic frame, glass back |
| Dimensions | 161.9 x 76.1 x 7.8 mm (6.37 x 3.00 x 0.31 in) | 161.7 x 78 x 8.2 mm (6.37 x 3.07 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 193 g (6.81 oz) | 209 g (7.37 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Aluminosilicate glass | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1200 x 2640 pixels (~427 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.79 inches, 112.1 cm2 (~90.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~84.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 3840Hz PWM, HDR, 800 nits (typ), 1800 nits (HBM), 6000 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.3 GHz Cortex-A720s & 3x2.2 GHz Cortex-A720s & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A520s) | Octa-core (4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 (4 nm) | Exynos 1380 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 810 | Mali-G68 MP5 |
| OS | Android 15, Magic OS 9 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 7 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 108 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF, OIS
5 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide) | - |
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | - | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.96", PDAF, OIS
8 MP, f/2.2, 123˚, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.5, (wide) | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| 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/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, compass, gyro, proximity | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 66W wired
7.5W reverse wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Si/C Li-Ion 8300 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Reddish Brown, Midnight Black, Sunrise Gold, Forest Green | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | MTN-NX1 | SM-A356E, SM-A356E/DS, SM-A356B, SM-A356B/DS, SM-A356U, SM-A356U1 |
| Price | About 300 EUR | $ 138.00 / C$ 419.99 / £ 205.99 / € 259.99 / ₹ 18,299 |
| SAR | - | 0.81 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.44 W/kg (head) 0.92 W/kg (body) |
Honor X9d
- Significantly faster 66W charging
- Potentially better performance with Snapdragon 6 Gen 4
- More efficient 4nm chipset for improved thermals
- Battery life likely shorter than the A35
- Brand recognition is lower than Samsung
Samsung Galaxy A35
- Excellent battery life (12h 26m active use)
- Brighter display (1024 nits)
- Samsung’s established software support
- Slower 25W charging
- Older generation Exynos 1380 chipset
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A35 immediately stands out with its measured peak brightness of 1024 nits, offering superior visibility in direct sunlight compared to the Honor X9d (brightness data unavailable). While the X9d’s panel technology isn’t specified, the A35’s likely utilizes Samsung’s Super AMOLED technology, known for vibrant colors and deep blacks. The absence of LTPO on either device suggests neither offers adaptive refresh rate technology for power savings. Bezels appear comparable based on available imagery, but the A35’s brighter panel is a clear advantage for outdoor use.
Camera Comparison
Camera details are limited, but focusing on the main sensors reveals a potential advantage for the Honor X9d if equipped with a larger sensor (data unavailable). The A35’s image processing is likely tuned for Samsung’s signature vibrant look, while Honor’s processing tends towards a more natural aesthetic. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on either device is unknown, but its presence would significantly improve low-light photography and video stabilization. The prevalence of 2MP macro lenses on both devices suggests they are largely marketing features with limited practical utility.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the Honor X9d features the Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 (4nm) versus the Samsung Galaxy A35’s Exynos 1380 (5nm). Despite the 5nm process of the Exynos, the Snapdragon 6 Gen 4’s newer architecture – utilizing Cortex-A720s cores – suggests a performance edge, particularly in sustained workloads. The A35’s CPU configuration (4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) relies on older generation cores. The 4nm node of the Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 also implies better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during demanding tasks. RAM specifications are not provided, but LPDDR5X support on the X9d would further enhance performance.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A35 demonstrates a clear advantage in battery endurance, achieving an active use score of 12 hours and 26 minutes. The Honor X9d’s battery capacity is not specified, but its 66W wired charging dwarfs the A35’s 25W charging. This translates to significantly faster top-up times – potentially a full charge in under 45 minutes for the X9d versus over an hour for the A35. While the A35 offers longer runtimes, the X9d’s charging speed mitigates the inconvenience of needing to charge less frequently.
Buying Guide
Buy the Honor X9d if you need rapid charging, a potentially cooler-running processor for sustained tasks, and are comfortable with a less established brand. This phone suits users who frequently top up their battery throughout the day or engage in extended gaming sessions. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A35 if you prioritize all-day battery life, a brighter screen for outdoor visibility, and the peace of mind that comes with Samsung’s software support and ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1380 in the Galaxy A35 tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
While the Exynos 1380 is a capable chip, its 5nm process and older core architecture may lead to more noticeable thermal throttling during extended gaming compared to the Honor X9d’s Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 (4nm). The Snapdragon’s more efficient design should maintain higher sustained performance.
❓ How much faster is the 66W charging on the Honor X9d compared to the 25W charging on the Galaxy A35 in real-world use?
The 66W charging on the X9d can realistically reduce charging times by 30-45 minutes for a full 0-100% charge. The A35’s 25W charging will take considerably longer, making the X9d ideal for users who need quick top-ups.
❓ Is the difference in CPU architecture (Cortex-A720s vs Cortex-A78) noticeable in everyday tasks?
For basic tasks like browsing and social media, the difference will be minimal. However, the newer Cortex-A720s cores in the Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 will provide a more responsive experience in demanding applications and multitasking scenarios.
❓ Does the Samsung Galaxy A35 support software updates for a longer period than the Honor X9d?
Samsung generally provides longer software support commitments than Honor. Expect the Galaxy A35 to receive more years of Android OS updates and security patches, offering greater long-term value.
