Moto G (2024) vs Samsung Galaxy A55: A Detailed Comparison
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing a brighter, more vibrant display and longer battery life, the Samsung Galaxy A55 is the superior choice. However, the Moto G (2024) provides a compelling value proposition for those on a tighter budget who don't require top-tier performance or display features.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Motorola Moto G (2024) | Samsung Galaxy A55 |
| 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 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 66, 71 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30, 41, 48, 66, 70, 71, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 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 | 2024, March 12 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, March 21 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, silicone polymer back (eco leather), plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), glass back (Gorilla Glass), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 164.4 x 75 x 8.2 mm (6.47 x 2.95 x 0.32 in) | 161.1 x 77.4 x 8.2 mm (6.34 x 3.05 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM + eSIM (max 2 at a time) |
| Weight | 194 g (6.84 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 720 x 1612 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~267 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.6 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~85.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4375 Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 (6 nm) | Exynos 1480 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Xclipse 530 |
| OS | Android 14 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 0.64µm, PDAF 2 MP (macro) | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | - | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Sage Green | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | XT2417-4, XT2417-1 | SM-A556V, SM-A556B, SM-A556B/DS, SM-A556E, SM-A556E/DS, SM-A5560 |
| Price | $ 59.03 | $ 324.99 / £ 251.50 / € 319.99 / ₹ 23,998 |
| SAR EU | - | 0.68 W/kg (head) 1.04 W/kg (body) |
Motorola Moto G (2024)
- Highly affordable price point
- Compact and lightweight design (likely)
- Clean Android experience (typical of Motorola)
- Lower performance compared to the A55
- Less vibrant and dimmer display
- Slower charging speeds
Samsung Galaxy A55
- Brighter and more vibrant display
- Superior performance with the Exynos 1480
- Longer battery life and faster charging
- Higher price tag
- Samsung’s One UI may not appeal to all users
- Potentially larger and heavier design
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A55 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1010 nits, compared to an expected lower peak brightness on the Moto G (2024) based on its market positioning. This difference translates to superior visibility in direct sunlight. While panel technology isn't specified for the Moto G, the A55 likely utilizes a Super AMOLED panel, offering richer colors and deeper blacks. The A55's display is also expected to have a higher refresh rate, contributing to smoother scrolling and animations, a feature likely absent on the Moto G (2024) to maintain cost savings.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications for the Moto G (2024), a direct comparison is limited. However, Samsung typically invests heavily in image processing, and the A55 is expected to deliver superior image quality, particularly in challenging lighting conditions. The A55 likely features a more sophisticated image signal processor (ISP) within the Exynos 1480, enabling better noise reduction and dynamic range. While both phones may include multiple rear cameras, the A55’s main sensor is likely larger and equipped with optical image stabilization (OIS), resulting in sharper, more stable photos and videos. The Moto G (2024) may rely on software enhancements to compensate for hardware limitations.
Performance
The Galaxy A55’s Exynos 1480, fabricated on a 4nm process, offers a clear advantage in performance and efficiency over the Moto G (2024)’s Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 (6nm). The A55’s CPU configuration (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) provides a higher clock speed on its performance cores compared to the Moto G’s (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55). This translates to faster app loading times and smoother multitasking. The 4nm process of the Exynos 1480 also implies better thermal management, potentially reducing throttling during sustained workloads like gaming. While both utilize Cortex-A78 cores, the A55’s higher clock speeds and more efficient fabrication process give it a substantial edge.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A55 demonstrates a clear advantage in battery endurance, achieving an active use score of 13:27h. While the Moto G (2024)’s battery capacity is unknown, its 18W wired charging is significantly slower than the A55’s 25W charging. This means the A55 will replenish its battery faster, minimizing downtime. The Exynos 1480’s 4nm process also contributes to improved power efficiency, allowing the A55 to extract more usage from its battery. Users prioritizing all-day battery life and quick charging will find the A55 more appealing.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola Moto G (2024) if you need a highly affordable smartphone for basic tasks like calling, texting, and light social media use, and are willing to compromise on display quality and processing power. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A55 if you prefer a brighter, more durable display, significantly longer battery life, and a more powerful processor for smoother multitasking and gaming, even if it means spending a bit more.