Moto G Power (2025) vs. Samsung Galaxy A35: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range Champions
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing all-day (and then some) battery life, the Motorola Moto G Power (2025) is the clear winner, offering nearly 12 hours of active use. However, the Samsung Galaxy A35’s more efficient Exynos 1380 chipset and slightly brighter display make it a better choice for those who value performance and a smoother visual experience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Motorola Moto G Power (2025) | Samsung Galaxy A35 |
| 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, 13, 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/Sub6 | 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, January 14 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, February 06 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), silicone polymer (eco leather) back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), plastic frame, glass back |
| Dimensions | 166.6 x 77.1 x 8.7 mm (6.56 x 3.04 x 0.34 in) | 161.7 x 78 x 8.2 mm (6.37 x 3.07 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM | · Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 208 g (7.34 oz) | 209 g (7.37 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2388 pixels (~385 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.8 inches, 112.0 cm2 (~87.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~84.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 6300 (6 nm) | Exynos 1380 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G68 MP5 |
| OS | Android 15, up to 2 major Android upgrades | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 7 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 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), 1/2.88", 0.61µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ 13mm (ultrawide), 1.12µm, AF | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | 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 | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.4, 24mm (wide), 1/3.0", 1.0µm | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers (with Dolby Atmos) | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | Yes | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | FM radio | 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 | 30W wired 15W wireless | 25W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Slate Gray, Leaf Green | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | XT2515-1 | SM-A356E, SM-A356E/DS, SM-A356B, SM-A356B/DS, SM-A356U, SM-A356U1 |
| Price | $ 199.99 | $ 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) |
Motorola Moto G Power (2025)
- Exceptional battery life (11:56h active use)
- Wireless charging support (15W)
- Higher contrast ratio for a more vibrant display
- Less powerful CPU architecture
- Potentially slower app loading times
Samsung Galaxy A35
- More efficient chipset (Exynos 1380, 5nm)
- Slightly brighter display (1024 nits)
- Potentially smoother performance in demanding apps
- Shorter battery life (12:26h active use)
- No wireless charging support
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A35 boasts a 1024 nit peak brightness, while the Motorola Moto G Power (2025) reaches a higher 993 nits. However, the G Power’s 1358:1 contrast ratio suggests deeper blacks and a more vibrant image, potentially offsetting the slight brightness difference. Both displays likely utilize LCD technology given the price point, but the contrast ratio advantage of the Motorola suggests a superior panel. Neither manufacturer specifies refresh rates, but we anticipate both will be 60Hz, impacting smoothness during scrolling and animations.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications, a direct comparison is difficult. However, given the market positioning, it’s reasonable to assume both phones will feature a primary camera, ultrawide, and potentially a macro lens. The absence of megapixel counts necessitates focusing on processing. Samsung’s image processing is generally known for vibrant, saturated colors, while Motorola tends towards a more natural look. The quality of the primary sensor and aperture will be the deciding factor, but without that data, it’s difficult to declare a winner. We anticipate both phones will struggle in low-light conditions.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A35’s Exynos 1380, fabricated on a 5nm process, offers a potential efficiency advantage over the Motorola’s Mediatek Dimensity 6300 (6nm). The A35’s CPU configuration – 4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 – utilizes the more powerful Cortex-A78 cores compared to the G Power’s 2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55. This translates to snappier performance in CPU-intensive tasks and potentially better sustained performance due to the 5nm node’s improved thermal characteristics. While both have octa-core CPUs, the architectural differences favor the Samsung.
Battery Life
The Motorola Moto G Power (2025) delivers an impressive 11:56h of active use, while the Samsung Galaxy A35 edges it out with 12:26h. This difference, while not massive, is significant. The G Power supports both 30W wired and 15W wireless charging, offering flexibility. The A35 is limited to 25W wired charging. The longer active use time of the A35, combined with the convenience of wireless charging on the G Power, creates a trade-off. The G Power’s wireless charging capability is a notable advantage for users who prefer cable-free charging.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola Moto G Power (2025) if you need exceptional battery endurance and don’t heavily rely on demanding mobile games or applications. It’s ideal for travelers, commuters, or anyone who frequently finds themselves away from a power outlet. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A35 if you prefer a more responsive user experience, a slightly brighter display, and the Samsung ecosystem, even if it means sacrificing some battery life. It’s a better fit for everyday users who enjoy social media, streaming, and casual gaming.