Motorola Moto G85 vs Samsung Galaxy A55: A Detailed Comparison of Mid-Range Powerhouses
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and long-term software support, the Samsung Galaxy A55 is the better choice. However, the Motorola Moto G85 offers a compelling value proposition with a capable processor and efficient design, making it ideal for budget-conscious users who prioritize performance-per-dollar.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Motorola Moto G85 | Samsung Galaxy A55 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 42 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 | 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, June 25 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, June 25 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back or silicone polymer (eco leather) back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), glass back (Gorilla Glass), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 161.9 x 73.1 x 7.6 mm (6.37 x 2.88 x 0.30 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 | 171 g or 173 g (6.03 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~90.8% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~85.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | P-OLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 1600 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 (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 | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 8GB RAM, 512GB 12GB 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), 1/1.95", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm, AF | - |
| 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@30/60fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, (wide), 0.7µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | Unspecified | 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 30W wired - International 33W wired - India | 25W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Olive Green, Cobalt Blue, Urban Grey, Magenta | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | XT2427-3 | SM-A556V, SM-A556B, SM-A556B/DS, SM-A556E, SM-A556E/DS, SM-A5560 |
| Price | $ 289.99 / C$ 287.10 / £ 214.58 / € 194.79 | $ 324.99 / £ 251.50 / € 319.99 / ₹ 23,998 |
| SAR EU | - | 0.68 W/kg (head) 1.04 W/kg (body) |
Motorola Moto G85
- Faster charging speeds (30W/33W)
- Potentially better thermal management due to efficient chipset
- Strong performance-to-price ratio
- Likely inferior display quality compared to the A55
- Less established software update commitment
Samsung Galaxy A55
- Brighter, more vibrant display
- Longer battery life in active use
- Samsung’s software ecosystem and update promise
- Slower charging speeds (25W)
- Potentially more expensive than the Moto G85
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A55 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1010 nits, compared to an expected (based on segment) lower peak brightness on the Moto G85. This brightness advantage translates to superior visibility outdoors. While the Moto G85’s panel specifics are not provided, the A55’s likely utilizes a Super AMOLED panel, offering excellent color accuracy and contrast. The A55’s display is a clear advantage for media consumption and outdoor use.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specs for the Moto G85, a direct comparison is limited. However, Samsung typically excels in image processing, and the A55 likely benefits from this. The A55’s image processing prioritizes vibrant colors and detail, while Motorola often aims for a more natural look. The absence of information regarding OIS or sensor size on the G85 makes it difficult to assess its low-light capabilities relative to the A55. It's reasonable to assume the A55 will offer a more refined and versatile camera experience.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A55’s Exynos 1480, built on a 4nm process, has a CPU configuration of 4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 cores and 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This contrasts with the Motorola Moto G85’s Snapdragon 6s Gen 3 (6nm) featuring 2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A78 and 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. The Exynos 1480’s higher clock speeds and more efficient 4nm node suggest a performance edge, particularly in sustained workloads. However, the Snapdragon 6s Gen 3’s efficiency could lead to better thermal management during prolonged gaming sessions. The A55’s CPU configuration provides a noticeable boost in multi-core performance.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A55 demonstrates strong battery performance with an active use score of 13 hours and 27 minutes. The Moto G85 offers 30W (International) or 33W (India) wired charging, while the A55 is limited to 25W. While the A55’s charging is slower, its superior battery optimization and efficiency likely offset this difference. The G85’s faster charging could be beneficial for quick top-ups, but the A55’s longevity in real-world use is a significant advantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola Moto G85 if you need a phone that prioritizes raw processing power for the price, and you appreciate a cleaner Android experience. It’s a great fit for users who frequently multitask or enjoy mobile gaming without demanding ultra-high settings. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A55 if you prefer a vibrant, bright display, a more polished software experience with guaranteed updates, and a camera system optimized for consistent results in various lighting conditions.