Motorola One 5G Ace vs Samsung Galaxy A52 5G: A Detailed Comparison
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and faster charging, the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G is the better choice. While the Motorola One 5G Ace offers comparable performance, the A52 5G’s brighter screen and 25W charging provide a more refined experience, justifying the potential price difference.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Motorola One 5G Ace | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G |
| 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, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66, 71 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 2, 5, 25, 41, 66, 71 Sub6 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, January 08 | 2021, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, January 14 | Available. Released 2021, March 19 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back |
| Dimensions | 166.1 x 76.1 x 9.9 mm (6.54 x 3.00 x 0.39 in) | 159.9 x 75.1 x 8.4 mm (6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 212 g (7.48 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| Water-repellent coating | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~407 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~85.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 101.0 cm2 (~84.1% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, HDR10 | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 800 nits (HBM) |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) | Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 10 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 14, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | 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 |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 2 MP (macro), AF | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1.0µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | FM radio (market/region dependent) |
| 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 Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 15W wired | 25W wired, 50% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Volcanic Gray, Frosted Silver | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Violet, Awesome Blue |
| Models | XT2113-2, XT2113-5 | SM-A526B, SM-A526B/DS, SM-A5260, SM-A526W, SM-A526U, SM-A526U1 |
| Price | About 50 EUR | $ 137.39 / £ 280.00 / € 115.49 |
| SAR | - | 0.74 W/kg (head) 0.53 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.05 W/kg (head) 1.42 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 111h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -27.5 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 334981 (v8), 386474 (v9) GeekBench: 1820 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Motorola One 5G Ace
- Highly affordable 5G connectivity
- Snapdragon 750G provides solid performance
- Decent battery life (111h endurance)
- Slow 15W charging
- Display specs are unknown and likely inferior
- Camera details are lacking
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
- Bright and vibrant 787 nit display
- Fast 25W charging with 30-minute 50% boost
- Good battery life (111h endurance)
- Potentially higher price point
- Snapdragon 750G performance is identical to the Ace
- Camera specs are not detailed
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G boasts a significant advantage in display quality, achieving a measured peak brightness of 787 nits. This is a crucial difference for outdoor visibility, where the Motorola One 5G Ace’s display (brightness unspecified) will likely struggle. While both devices share an unspecified panel type, the A52 5G’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) suggests a superior viewing experience with deeper blacks. The lack of detailed display specs for the Motorola One 5G Ace makes a precise comparison difficult, but the A52 5G clearly leads in this category.
Camera Comparison
Both devices feature 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but the provided data lacks specifics regarding sensor size, aperture, or image processing algorithms. Without this information, a detailed camera comparison is impossible. It’s reasonable to assume the A52 5G, given Samsung’s camera expertise, may offer more refined image processing and potentially better low-light performance. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on either device is unlikely to significantly impact overall camera quality, serving primarily as a novelty feature.
Performance
Both the Motorola One 5G Ace and the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G are powered by the Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) chipset, featuring an octa-core CPU configuration of 2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 and 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570 cores. This means CPU performance will be virtually identical for everyday tasks and most gaming scenarios. However, thermal management could differ based on chassis design and cooling solutions, a factor not detailed in the provided data. The shared chipset ensures similar 5G connectivity speeds and overall responsiveness.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G and Motorola One 5G Ace both achieve an endurance rating of 111 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage conditions. However, the A52 5G’s 25W wired charging capability, capable of reaching 50% charge in 30 minutes, provides a significant convenience advantage over the Motorola One 5G Ace’s slower 15W charging. While both offer all-day battery life, the A52 5G allows for quicker top-ups when needed.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola One 5G Ace if you need a highly affordable 5G phone and prioritize simplicity over premium features. It’s ideal for users who primarily browse, use social media, and make calls. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display, faster charging, and a potentially more robust software update cycle, even if it means spending a bit more upfront.