The mid-range smartphone market is fiercely competitive, and the vivo Y200 and Samsung Galaxy A55 represent compelling options for users seeking a balance of features and affordability. The Y200 aims to undercut with a newer Snapdragon chipset, while the A55 leverages Samsung’s display expertise and software optimization. This comparison dives deep into the specifics to determine which device delivers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and long-term software support, the Samsung Galaxy A55 is the better choice. However, the vivo Y200 offers a strong performance-per-dollar ratio, particularly for those focused on gaming and fast charging, making it a viable alternative.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2023, October | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2023, October | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic frame, glass back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), glass back (Gorilla Glass), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 162.4 x 74.9 x 7.7 mm (6.39 x 2.95 x 0.30 in) | 161.1 x 77.4 x 8.2 mm (6.34 x 3.05 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM + eSIM (max 2 at a time) |
| Weight | 190 g (6.70 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~88.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~85.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4375 Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 (6 nm) | Exynos 1480 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Xclipse 530 |
| OS | Android 13, Funtouch 13 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 64 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Features | Ring-LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | - | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm
5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, 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, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 44W wired, 80% in 30 min
Reverse wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Ion 4800 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Titanium Silver, Emerald Green, Purple, Black | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | - | SM-A556V, SM-A556B, SM-A556B/DS, SM-A556E, SM-A556E/DS, SM-A5560 |
| Price | About 200 EUR | $ 324.99 / £ 251.50 / € 319.99 / ₹ 23,998 |
| SAR | 0.99 W/kg (head) 0.86 W/kg (body) | - |
| SAR EU | - | 0.68 W/kg (head) 1.04 W/kg (body) |
vivo Y200
- Faster 44W charging
- Potentially better value for money
- Modern Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 chipset
- Likely lower display brightness
- Unknown battery capacity and longevity
Samsung Galaxy A55
- Excellent battery life (13:27h active use)
- Bright and vibrant 1010 nit display
- Samsung’s software and update support
- Slower 25W charging
- Higher price point
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A55 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1010 nits, compared to an unstated value for the vivo Y200. This brightness advantage translates to superior visibility outdoors. While the Y200’s panel technology isn’t specified, the A55 likely utilizes a Super AMOLED panel known for vibrant colors and deep blacks. The A55’s display is a clear advantage for media consumption and outdoor use, offering a more immersive and usable experience. Bezels are expected to be similar on both devices, given their market positioning.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications for the vivo Y200, a direct comparison is limited. However, Samsung typically excels in image processing, and the A55 likely benefits from this expertise. The A55’s camera system is expected to prioritize image quality and consistency across various lighting conditions. While the Y200 may offer a high megapixel count, sensor size and lens aperture are crucial factors. We can assume the A55 will deliver more reliable results, especially in low-light scenarios, due to Samsung’s established camera algorithms. The presence of OIS on the A55 is also a significant advantage for stable video recording and sharper photos.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A55’s Exynos 1480, built on a 4nm process, holds a performance edge over the vivo Y200’s Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 (6nm). The A55’s CPU configuration (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) is clocked higher than the Y200’s (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55), indicating faster processing speeds. The 4nm node of the Exynos 1480 also contributes to better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during sustained workloads. While the Y200 is capable for everyday tasks, the A55 will handle demanding applications and multitasking more smoothly.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A55 demonstrates superior battery performance with a reported 13 hours and 27 minutes of active use. While the Y200’s battery capacity is unknown, the A55’s longevity is a significant advantage for power users. The Y200 compensates with faster 44W wired charging, achieving 80% charge in 30 minutes, while the A55 is limited to 25W. This means the Y200 can quickly top up its battery, but the A55 will last considerably longer on a single charge.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo Y200 if you need a phone that prioritizes quick charging (44W) and a relatively modern chipset for gaming on a budget. It’s ideal for users who frequently top up their battery and enjoy mobile games. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A55 if you prefer a brighter, more color-accurate display, exceptional battery life (13:27h active use), and the peace of mind that comes with Samsung’s established software update policy and ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1480 in the Galaxy A55 tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Exynos 1480, built on a 4nm process, is generally efficient and well-managed by Samsung’s thermal solutions. While some heat generation is inevitable during intensive gaming, it’s unlikely to cause significant throttling or discomfort during typical use. The 4nm node contributes to better heat dissipation compared to larger process nodes.
❓ Is the 44W charging on the vivo Y200 significantly faster in real-world use compared to the 25W charging on the A55?
Yes, the 44W charging on the Y200 will noticeably reduce charging times. It’s advertised to reach 80% in 30 minutes, while the A55 will take considerably longer to achieve a similar charge level. This makes the Y200 a better option for users who frequently need to quickly top up their battery.
❓ How does the Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 in the Y200 perform in popular games like PUBG Mobile and Call of Duty Mobile?
The Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 is capable of running PUBG Mobile and Call of Duty Mobile at medium settings with stable frame rates. While it won’t deliver the highest possible graphics settings, it provides a playable and enjoyable gaming experience for casual and moderate gamers. Expect some frame drops during intense action sequences.
❓ What kind of software update support can I expect from vivo for the Y200 compared to Samsung for the A55?
Samsung is known for its robust software update policy, typically offering 4 years of OS updates and 5 years of security patches for its A-series devices. Vivo’s update commitment for the Y200 is likely to be less extensive, potentially limited to 2-3 years of OS updates. This is a significant advantage for the A55, ensuring long-term software support and security.
