Both the Motorola one 5G UW ace and the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G target the competitive mid-range 5G market, offering a blend of connectivity and affordability. However, despite sharing the same Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G chipset, key differences in display technology, charging speeds, and overall user experience separate these two devices. This comparison dives deep into the specifics to help you determine which phone best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G is the slightly better choice. While both phones share the same Snapdragon 750G, the A52 5G’s significantly brighter 787 nit display and 25W fast charging provide a more polished and convenient experience, justifying its often slightly higher price.
| 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, 17, 20, 48, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 2, 5, 66, 71, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - Verizon, USA | 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, July 08 | 2021, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, July 08 | Available. Released 2021, March 19 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back |
| Dimensions | 166.1 x 76 x 9.9 mm (6.54 x 2.99 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 | 213.5 g (7.51 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 (~85.9% 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 11 | 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 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 | Unspecified | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | 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 | 20W wired | 25W wired, 50% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Volcanic Gray | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Violet, Awesome Blue |
| Models | - | SM-A526B, SM-A526B/DS, SM-A5260, SM-A526W, SM-A526U, SM-A526U1 |
| Price | About 250 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 UW ace
- Potentially lower price point
- Clean Android experience
- 5G connectivity
- Slower 20W charging
- Likely less vibrant display
- Less refined camera system
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
- Brighter 787 nit display
- Faster 25W charging (50% in 30 min)
- Samsung’s One UI features
- Potentially higher price
- One UI can be bloated for some users
- Similar chipset to Motorola
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G boasts a clear advantage in display quality, achieving a measured peak brightness of 787 nits. This is a substantial improvement over what we’d expect from the Motorola one 5G UW ace, making the A52 5G far more usable outdoors under direct sunlight. While both devices likely utilize AMOLED panels (based on typical Samsung and Motorola implementations in this price bracket), the A52 5G’s higher brightness and 'Infinite' contrast ratio (nominal) suggest superior panel calibration and potentially better color accuracy. The Motorola’s display specs are not provided, making a direct comparison difficult, but it’s unlikely to match the A52 5G’s performance.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are absent. Given the market positioning, we can infer that both will feature multi-camera setups. However, the A52 5G likely benefits from Samsung’s more sophisticated image processing algorithms and potentially a larger main sensor. The Motorola’s camera system is likely more basic, focusing on providing acceptable image quality in good lighting conditions. Without specific sensor size or aperture information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment, but Samsung typically invests more heavily in camera technology within this price range.
Performance
Both the Motorola one 5G UW 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 in day-to-day tasks and most gaming scenarios. The performance bottleneck will likely be RAM speed and storage type, which are not specified for either device. Thermal management will also play a role; however, given the 8nm process node and the relatively modest power of the 750G, significant throttling is unlikely under sustained loads. The shared chipset means the core user experience – app launch times, multitasking – will be very similar.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G and Motorola one 5G UW ace both achieve an endurance rating of 111 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage patterns. However, the A52 5G offers a significant advantage in charging speed with 25W wired charging, capable of reaching 50% charge in just 30 minutes. The Motorola one 5G UW ace is limited to 20W wired charging, meaning a full charge will take considerably longer. While the battery capacity isn’t specified for either device, the faster charging of the A52 5G provides a more convenient user experience, especially for those who frequently need to top up their battery.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola one 5G UW ace if you prioritize value and a clean Android experience, and are comfortable with a slightly less vibrant display and slower charging. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G if you prefer a brighter, more color-accurate screen for media consumption, faster 25W charging to minimize downtime, and Samsung’s feature-rich One UI software.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Snapdragon 750G in either phone struggle with demanding games like PUBG or Call of Duty?
The Snapdragon 750G is a capable mid-range chipset. While it won't deliver flagship-level performance, it can handle PUBG and Call of Duty at medium settings with reasonable frame rates. Expect some frame drops during intense action, but the experience should be generally playable. Both phones will perform similarly in gaming due to the identical chipset.
❓ Is the 20W charging on the Motorola one 5G UW ace significantly slower in real-world use compared to the A52 5G’s 25W?
Yes, the difference is noticeable. While both phones offer 5G connectivity, the A52 5G’s 25W charging can add a substantial amount of battery life in a short period (50% in 30 minutes). The Motorola’s 20W charging will take considerably longer to reach a full charge, potentially over two hours from a low battery level.
❓ How does Samsung’s One UI affect the performance of the Galaxy A52 5G compared to the cleaner Android experience on the Motorola?
Samsung’s One UI is feature-rich but can be more resource-intensive than the near-stock Android experience on the Motorola. This *could* lead to slightly slower app launch times or multitasking performance on the A52 5G, but the difference is unlikely to be significant with the Snapdragon 750G and sufficient RAM.
