The smartphone market is flooded with options, but finding the right balance between price and performance can be tricky. We pit the entry-level vivo Y3 against the mid-range Samsung Galaxy A53 5G to determine which device delivers the best value for budget-conscious consumers. This comparison focuses on real-world implications of their differing hardware, not just raw specifications.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the superior choice. Its Exynos 1280 chipset provides significantly faster performance and smoother multitasking, justifying the higher price. However, the vivo Y3 remains a viable option for those prioritizing absolute affordability and basic smartphone functionality.
| 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, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 66 - SM-A536U |
| 5G bands | - | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 400/50 Mbps | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | CDMA2000 1xEV-DO | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2019, May. Released 2019, May | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 159.4 x 76.7 x 8.9 mm (6.28 x 3.02 x 0.35 in) | 159.6 x 74.8 x 8.1 mm (6.28 x 2.94 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 190.5 g (6.70 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| | - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1544 pixels, 19.3:9 ratio (~268 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.35 inches, 99.6 cm2 (~81.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.3 GHz Cortex-A53 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A53) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6765 Helio P35 (12 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | PowerVR GE8320 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie), Funtouch 9.0 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| | eMMC 5.1 | - |
| 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 |
| Single | - | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/3.06", 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 | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | microUSB 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, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| | - | Virtual proximity sensing |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh, non-removable | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Peacock blue, Peach powder (pink), Ink blue | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | - | SM-A536B, SM-A536B/DS, SM-A536U, SM-A536U1, SM-A5360, SM-A536E, SM-A536E/DS, SM-A536V, SM-A536W, SM-A536N, SM-S536DL |
| Price | About 190 EUR | $ 151.42 / £ 185.00 / € 169.14 |
| SAR | - | 0.75 W/kg (head) 1.58 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.89 W/kg (head) 1.60 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 113h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-26.5 LUFS (Good)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 329802 (v8), 379313 (v9)
GeekBench: 1891 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 19fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
vivo Y3
- Significantly more affordable
- Functional for basic tasks
- Acceptable battery life
- Outdated and slow processor
- Inferior display quality
- Limited camera capabilities
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Powerful Exynos 1280 chipset
- Bright and vibrant display
- Faster 25W charging
- Higher price point
- May be overkill for basic users
- Potential for software bloat (Samsung)
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 830 nits, compared to an unspecified brightness for the vivo Y3. This makes the A53 far more usable outdoors under direct sunlight. While both displays are likely LCD panels given the price points, the A53’s higher brightness and 'Infinite' contrast ratio (likely marketing for a good black level) will deliver a more immersive viewing experience. The Y3’s display specs are minimal, suggesting a focus on cost reduction rather than visual fidelity.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is expected to deliver superior image quality. While specific sensor details are missing for both, Samsung typically employs larger sensors and more sophisticated image processing algorithms in its A-series phones. The A53 likely benefits from features like optical image stabilization (OIS), which the Y3 is unlikely to have. The Y3’s camera system is likely focused on basic functionality, while the A53 aims for a more versatile and higher-quality photography experience. We can assume the Y3 will have a lower quality sensor and less advanced image processing.
Performance
The performance gap between these two devices is substantial. The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s Exynos 1280, built on a 5nm process, features a more modern CPU architecture (Cortex-A78 vs A53) and a more efficient manufacturing process. This translates to significantly faster application loading times, smoother multitasking, and improved gaming performance. The vivo Y3’s MediaTek Helio P35, fabricated on a 12nm node, is an older, less powerful chipset. Its Cortex-A53 cores will struggle with demanding tasks and may exhibit noticeable lag. The A53’s CPU configuration (2x2.4GHz A78 + 6x2.0GHz A55) is a clear upgrade over the Y3’s (4x2.3GHz A53 + 4x1.8GHz A53).
Battery Life
Both phones share an endurance rating of 113 hours, suggesting comparable battery life despite the Y3’s likely smaller battery capacity. However, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s 25W wired charging is significantly faster than the vivo Y3’s 18W charging. This means the A53 can replenish its battery more quickly, minimizing downtime. While both will likely last a full day with moderate use, the A53 offers the convenience of faster charging.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo Y3 if you need a functional smartphone for essential tasks like calls, messaging, and light social media use, and your budget is extremely limited. You'll be sacrificing performance and camera quality. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prioritize a responsive user experience, better camera capabilities, 5G connectivity, and a brighter, more vibrant display, and are willing to spend more for these features.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A53 5G tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
While the Exynos 1280 isn't known for extreme thermal throttling, it can get warm during extended gaming. Samsung's software and cooling solutions generally manage temperatures adequately, but performance may dip slightly after an hour of intensive gameplay. The Helio P35 in the Y3 will likely throttle much sooner due to its less efficient architecture.
❓ Is the 2MP macro camera on either phone actually useful for taking detailed close-up photos?
Generally, 2MP macro cameras on budget and mid-range phones offer limited detail and image quality. They are often included for marketing purposes but rarely deliver truly impressive macro photography. The A53's likely superior image processing might yield slightly better results, but don't expect professional-level close-ups from either device.
❓ Can the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G reliably run PUBG Mobile at 60fps with high graphics settings?
Yes, the Exynos 1280 is capable of running PUBG Mobile at 60fps with high graphics settings, although you may experience occasional frame drops during intense firefights. The vivo Y3, with its Helio P35, will struggle to maintain a stable 60fps even on lower settings.
❓ How long does it realistically take to fully charge the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G from 0% to 100% using the 25W charger?
With the included 25W charger, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G should fully charge from 0% to 100% in approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on usage during charging. The vivo Y3's 18W charging will take considerably longer, likely exceeding 2.5 hours.
