The mid-range smartphone market is fiercely competitive, and two contenders vying for your attention are the vivo S16 Pro and the Samsung Galaxy M53. Both offer compelling features, but cater to slightly different priorities. Let's dive into a comprehensive comparison to help you decide which one is right for you.
🏆 Quick Verdict
The vivo S16 Pro takes the lead with its significantly faster Dimensity 8200 chipset and blazing-fast 66W charging. While the Galaxy M53 boasts impressive battery life and a bright display, the S16 Pro's overall performance and charging speed make it the more appealing choice for most users.
| 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, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | CDMA2000 1x | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2022, December 22 | 2022, April 07 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, December 30 | Available. Released 2022, April 22 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 164.1 x 74.8 x 7.4 mm (6.46 x 2.94 x 0.29 in) | 164.7 x 77 x 7.4 mm (6.48 x 3.03 x 0.29 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 182 g (6.42 oz) | 176 g (6.21 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~388 ppi density) | 1080 x 2408 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~394 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.78 inches, 111.0 cm2 (~90.4% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.1 cm2 (~85.3% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+ | Super AMOLED Plus, 120Hz |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.1 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x3.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 8200 (4 nm) | Mediatek Dimensity 900 (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G610 MC6 | Mali-G68 MC4 |
| OS | Android 13, OriginOS 3 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| | UFS 3.1 | - |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | Color spectrum sensor, Ring-LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 108 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | 50 MP, f/2.5, (wide), AF | - |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.9, (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS
8 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide)
2 MP (macro) | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | Dual-LED flash, HDR | - |
| Single | 50 MP, f/2.5, (wide), AF | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, (unconfirmed stereo speakers) | Yes |
| | 24-bit/192kHz audio | - |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.3, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, NavIC | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 66W wired, 50% in 19 min | 25W wired |
| Type | 4600 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black, Mint | Green, Blue, Brown |
| Models | V2245A | SM-M536B, SM-M536B/DS, SM-M536B/DSN |
| Price | About 400 EUR | € 249.98 |
| SAR | - | 1.31 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.60 W/kg (head) 1.53 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 114h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-29.3 LUFS (Average)
|
vivo S16 Pro
- Superior Performance (Dimensity 8200)
- Blazing-Fast 66W Charging
- Stylish Design
- Likely better camera processing
- Battery life not as exceptional as M53
- Availability may vary by region
Samsung Galaxy M53
- Exceptional Battery Life (114h endurance)
- Bright and Vivid Display (802 nits)
- Large Display Size
- Samsung's Software Ecosystem
- Slower Performance (Dimensity 900)
- Slow 25W Charging
- Less premium build quality compared to S16 Pro
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy M53 features a large 6.7-inch Super AMOLED display with a measured peak brightness of 802 nits and an infinite contrast ratio. While the vivo S16 Pro's display details are less readily available, it's expected to be a vibrant AMOLED panel. The M53's brightness gives it an edge in outdoor visibility, but both offer excellent color reproduction.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer capable camera systems, but the S16 Pro is generally expected to have a more advanced setup, particularly in terms of image processing and low-light performance. The Galaxy M53's camera is solid, but the S16 Pro likely offers more detail and better dynamic range. Specific camera specs (megapixels, aperture) would be needed for a more precise comparison.
Performance
Here's where the vivo S16 Pro truly shines. Its Mediatek Dimensity 8200 chipset (4nm) significantly outperforms the Galaxy M53's Dimensity 900 (6nm). Expect smoother multitasking, faster app loading times, and better gaming performance on the S16 Pro. The S16 Pro's CPU configuration also contributes to its superior speed.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy M53 excels in battery life, boasting an impressive endurance rating of 114 hours. The vivo S16 Pro, while offering good battery life, doesn't quite match the M53's longevity. However, the S16 Pro's 66W charging more than compensates, allowing for incredibly fast top-ups.
Buying Guide
The vivo S16 Pro is ideal for users who prioritize performance, fast charging, and a stylish design. The Samsung Galaxy M53 is a better fit for those who value exceptional battery life and a large, bright display above all else, and are less concerned with raw processing power.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Which phone is better for gaming?
The vivo S16 Pro is significantly better for gaming due to its more powerful Dimensity 8200 chipset.
❓ Does the Samsung Galaxy M53 have fast charging?
No, the Galaxy M53 only supports 25W wired charging, which is considerably slower than the vivo S16 Pro's 66W charging.
