The Oppo A53 and Samsung Galaxy A31 represent compelling options in the crowded budget smartphone market. Both aim to deliver essential features at an accessible price point, but they take different approaches to achieving this. The A53 leverages Qualcomm's Snapdragon 460, while the A31 opts for MediaTek's Helio P65. This comparison dives deep into the specifics to determine which device offers the best value for your money.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Oppo A53 emerges as the slightly better choice. Its newer Snapdragon 460 chipset, despite being in the same performance tier, benefits from a more efficient 11nm process, potentially leading to better sustained performance and thermal management. While both phones offer similar battery endurance, the A53's faster 18W charging provides a convenience advantage.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 - SM-A315F |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40, 41 - SM-A315F |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020, August 20. Released 2020, August 25 | 2020, March 24. Released 2020, April 27 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Dimensions | 163.9 x 75.1 x 8.4 mm (6.45 x 2.96 x 0.33 in) | 159.3 x 73.1 x 8.6 mm (6.27 x 2.88 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 186 g (6.56 oz) | 185 g (6.53 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 | - |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~270 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~411 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~82.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.4 inches, 98.9 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | Super AMOLED |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x1.8 GHz Kryo 240 & 4x1.6 GHz Kryo 240) | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.7 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4250 Snapdragon 460 (11 nm) | Mediatek MT6768 Helio P65 (12 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 610 | Mali-G52 MC2 |
| OS | Android 10, upgradable to Android 11 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 12, One UI 4.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | - |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 48 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 123˚, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Triple | 13 MP, f/2.2, 25mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm, PDAF
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | 20 MP, f/2.2, (wide) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio, RDS, recording |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | 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, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 15W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Fairy White, Electric Black, Fancy Blue | Prism Crush Black, Prism Crush Blue, Prism Crush Red, Prism Crush White |
| Models | CPH2127, CPH2131 | SM-A315F, SM-A315F/DS, SM-A315G/DS, SM-A315G, SM-A315N |
| Price | £ 158.16 / € 169.99 | £ 139.00 / € 138.27 |
| SAR | 0.77 W/kg (head) 0.97 W/kg (body) | - |
| SAR EU | - | 0.49 W/kg (head) 1.68 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 124h |
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-30.9 LUFS (Below average) |
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 151815 (v8)
GeekBench: 5096 (v4.4), 1216 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 7fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo A53
- Faster 18W charging
- More efficient 11nm Snapdragon 460 chipset
- Potentially better sustained performance
- Likely lower display brightness
- Less established brand recognition
Samsung Galaxy A31
- Brighter 635 nit display
- Samsung's established brand and software
- Comparable battery endurance
- Less efficient 12nm Helio P65 chipset
- Slower 15W charging
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A31 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 635 nits. This is a substantial advantage for outdoor visibility compared to the Oppo A53, which lacks published brightness data but is expected to be lower. While both displays have an 'infinite' contrast ratio (typical for AMOLED/LCD panels), the A31's higher peak brightness makes it the clear winner for users who frequently use their phones in direct sunlight. The A31's larger screen size also contributes to a more immersive viewing experience.
Camera Comparison
Both devices feature 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack detailed camera specifications in the provided data. Given their price points, it's reasonable to expect similar camera performance – adequate for casual snapshots in good lighting conditions. The absence of information regarding sensor size, aperture, or optical image stabilization (OIS) makes a direct comparison difficult. It's likely both phones rely on software processing to enhance image quality, and the results will vary depending on the scene and lighting. The inclusion of a 2MP macro camera on either device is unlikely to significantly impact the overall camera experience.
Performance
The Oppo A53's Qualcomm Snapdragon 460, built on an 11nm process, contrasts with the Samsung Galaxy A31's MediaTek Helio P65 (12nm). While both are octa-core CPUs, the Helio P65 features a more powerful CPU core configuration – 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 vs. the A53’s 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 240. However, the 11nm process of the Snapdragon 460 should offer better power efficiency and potentially less thermal throttling during sustained workloads. This means the A53 might maintain performance for longer periods during gaming or demanding apps. The A31's CPU architecture, with its Cortex-A75 cores, may provide a slight edge in single-core performance, but the overall user experience will likely be similar.
Battery Life
Both the Oppo A53 and Samsung Galaxy A31 achieve an endurance rating of 124 hours, indicating comparable battery life under similar usage conditions. However, the Oppo A53 offers faster 18W wired charging compared to the A31's 15W charging. This translates to quicker top-up times, a significant convenience factor for users who frequently need to recharge their devices. While the battery capacity isn't specified, the similar endurance ratings suggest they are similarly sized, and the charging speed becomes the differentiating factor.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo A53 if you prioritize a slightly more responsive user experience and faster charging speeds, even if the difference isn't dramatic. It's ideal for everyday tasks, social media, and light gaming. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A31 if display brightness is paramount, and you value Samsung's established brand reputation and software ecosystem. The A31 is a solid choice for media consumption and users who prefer a larger, brighter screen.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the MediaTek Helio P65 in the Galaxy A31 tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Helio P65, being built on a 12nm process, is more prone to thermal throttling than the Snapdragon 460's 11nm process. While it can handle casual gaming, extended sessions with graphically demanding titles may lead to noticeable performance drops as the chip heats up. The A31's thermal design may mitigate this somewhat, but the A53 is likely to maintain more consistent performance over time.
❓ Is the 18W charging on the Oppo A53 a significant improvement over the 15W charging on the Samsung Galaxy A31?
Yes, while both are relatively slow by modern standards, the 18W charging on the A53 will noticeably reduce charging times. Expect a roughly 30-minute difference for a full charge, making it more convenient for users who need to quickly top up their battery throughout the day. This difference is especially noticeable when charging from a very low battery level.
❓ How does the display quality of the Samsung Galaxy A31 compare to other phones in its price range?
The Galaxy A31's 635 nits of peak brightness is excellent for its price bracket. Many competitors offer displays with significantly lower brightness levels, making the A31 a standout choice for outdoor use. However, it's important to note that the A31 likely uses an LCD panel, which won't offer the same vibrant colors and deep blacks as an AMOLED display.
