Samsung Galaxy M62 vs A52: A Deep Dive into Samsung's Mid-Range Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Samsung Galaxy A52 is the better choice. While the M62 boasts a more powerful processor on paper, the A52’s superior display brightness, efficient Snapdragon chipset, and comparable battery life provide a smoother, more refined daily experience. The M62’s advantage is limited to demanding tasks.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Samsung Galaxy M62 | Samsung Galaxy A52 |
| 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, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, February 24 | 2021, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, March 03 | Available. Released 2021, March 26 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 163.9 x 76.3 x 9.5 mm (6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 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 + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 218 g (7.69 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| 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 (~86.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 101.0 cm2 (~84.1% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED Plus, 420 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 90Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.73 GHz Exynos M4 & 2x2.40 GHz Cortex-A75 & 4x1.95 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.3 GHz Kryo 465 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 465 Silver) |
| Chipset | Exynos 9825 (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7125 Snapdragon 720G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G76 MP12 | Adreno 618 |
| OS | Android 11, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 14, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.73", 0.8µm, PDAF 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide) 5 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.7", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio, recording | FM radio |
| 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 (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 25W wired 4.5W reverse wired | 25W wired, 50% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 7000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Laser Green, Laser Gray, Laser Blue | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Violet, Awesome Blue |
| Models | SM-M625F, SM-M625F/DS | SM-A525F, SM-A525F/DS, SM-A525M, SM-A525M/DS |
| Price | - | C$ 699.00 / £ 129.99 / € 169.89 |
| SAR EU | 0.68 W/kg (head) 1.17 W/kg (body) | 0.35 W/kg (head) 0.84 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 105h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -27.0 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 261282 (v8) GeekBench: 5865 (v4.4), 1577 (v5.1) GFXBench: 15fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Samsung Galaxy M62
- More powerful processor (Exynos 9825) for demanding tasks
- Reverse wireless charging capability
- Potentially larger battery capacity (unconfirmed)
- Older chipset architecture, potentially less efficient
- Likely lower display brightness
- Potentially more thermal throttling under sustained load
Samsung Galaxy A52
- Brighter, more vibrant display (794 nits)
- More efficient Snapdragon 720G chipset
- Smoother overall user experience
- Less powerful processor than the M62
- No reverse wireless charging
- May struggle with extremely demanding games at max settings
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A52 clearly leads in display quality, boasting a measured peak brightness of 794 nits. This significantly surpasses what we’d expect from the M62, making the A52 far more usable outdoors. While both likely utilize AMOLED panels, the A52’s higher brightness and 'Infinite' contrast ratio (nominal) translate to a more immersive viewing experience. The M62’s display specs are not provided, but given its positioning, it likely falls short of the A52’s capabilities.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed camera specs are limited. Without sensor size or aperture information, a direct comparison is difficult. However, the A52’s image processing is likely more refined, benefiting from newer algorithms. The M62’s older chipset might struggle with the same level of computational photography. It’s safe to assume both phones will deliver acceptable results in good lighting, but the A52 likely holds an edge in low-light performance and video stabilization.
Performance
The chipset is where the biggest difference lies. The Galaxy M62’s Exynos 9825 (7nm) was a flagship processor, featuring an octa-core configuration with powerful Cortex-A75 cores. However, it’s an older architecture. The A52’s Snapdragon 720G (8nm) is a more modern, efficient design. While the Exynos has a theoretical performance advantage, the Snapdragon 720G’s 8nm process and optimized cores deliver a smoother experience in sustained tasks due to better thermal management. The A52’s CPU, with its Kryo 465 Gold and Silver cores, is designed for efficiency, while the M62’s Exynos M4 cores prioritize peak performance.
Battery Life
Both the M62 and A52 achieve an endurance rating of 105 hours, indicating similar real-world battery life despite the M62’s potentially larger capacity (not specified). The A52 compensates with its more efficient Snapdragon 720G. The M62 supports 25W wired charging, while the A52 also supports 25W charging and can reach 50% charge in 30 minutes. The M62 also offers 4.5W reverse wired charging, a feature absent on the A52.
Buying Guide
Buy the Samsung Galaxy M62 if you prioritize maximum processing power for demanding applications like video editing or emulation, and are willing to accept potentially lower efficiency. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A52 if you value a brighter, more vibrant display, consistent performance, and a more balanced overall experience for everyday use and light gaming.