vivo Y52 5G vs Samsung Galaxy A32 5G: Which Budget 5G Phone Wins?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing raw processing power, the vivo Y52 5G edges out the Samsung Galaxy A32 5G. While both phones offer identical battery endurance ratings, the Y52 5G’s slightly faster CPU core clock speeds provide a noticeable performance boost in demanding applications.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo Y52 5G | Samsung Galaxy A32 5G |
| 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 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 7, 28, 40, 41, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 78, 79 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat16 1024/75 Mbps, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 25, 41, 66, 71 SA/NSA/Sub6 - SM-A326U | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, May 18 | 2021, January 13 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, June 20 | Available. Released 2021, January 22 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 164 x 75.3 x 8.5 mm (6.46 x 2.96 x 0.33 in) | 164.2 x 76.1 x 9.1 mm (6.46 x 3.00 x 0.36 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 193 g (6.81 oz) | 205 g (7.23 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2408 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~401 ppi density) | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~270 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.58 inches, 104.3 cm2 (~84.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~81.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | TFT LCD, 60Hz (International), 90Hz (SM-A326U, SM-326DL only) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 700 (7 nm) | Mediatek Dimensity 720 (7 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G57 MC3 |
| OS | Android 11, Funtouch 11.1 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 48 MP, f/1.8, 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 |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | - |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.1", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | 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 (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 15W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Shiny Black, Glacier Blue | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Blue, Awesome Violet |
| Models | V2053 | SM-A326B, SM-A326B/DS, SM-A326BR/DS, SM-A326BR, SM-A326U, SM-A326W, SM-A326U1, SM-A326K, SCG08, SM-S326DL |
| Price | About 240 EUR | € 111.89 / $ 78.64 / £ 77.53 |
| SAR EU | - | 0.33 W/kg (head) 1.08 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 123h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: 1470:1 (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -28.5 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 226561 (v8) GeekBench: 1673 (v5.1) |
vivo Y52 5G
- Slightly faster CPU for improved responsiveness
- Faster 18W charging
- Potentially better thermal management due to slightly less demanding CPU
- No specific display details beyond contrast ratio
- Camera specs are vague
Samsung Galaxy A32 5G
- Brighter display for better outdoor visibility
- Samsung ecosystem integration
- Identical battery endurance rating
- Slower CPU clock speeds
- Slower 15W charging
- Vague camera specifications
Display Comparison
Both the vivo Y52 5G and Samsung Galaxy A32 5G feature displays with similar contrast ratios – 1490:1 and 1470:1 respectively. However, the Galaxy A32 5G boasts a measured peak brightness of 497 nits, offering a marginally more visible experience in direct sunlight. While both likely utilize LCD panels, the lack of detailed panel specifications (like refresh rate or color gamut coverage) means the A32 5G’s brightness is the key differentiator for outdoor visibility.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, lacking specific details. This suggests a similar approach to camera hardware – likely a primary sensor paired with supporting lenses. Without sensor size or aperture information, it’s difficult to assess image quality. The prevalence of 2MP macro lenses in this segment suggests both phones likely include one, but its utility is limited due to the low resolution and lack of optical image stabilization (OIS).
Performance
The core of the performance difference lies in the chipsets. The vivo Y52 5G utilizes the Mediatek Dimensity 700, featuring a dual-core configuration with 2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, while the Samsung Galaxy A32 5G employs the Dimensity 720 with 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A76 cores. This 200MHz clock speed difference, though seemingly small, translates to a tangible improvement in CPU-bound tasks for the Y52 5G. Both phones share the same 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 efficiency cores, meaning multi-core performance will be similar. Both devices likely utilize LPDDR4X RAM, as is typical for this price segment.
Battery Life
Interestingly, both the vivo Y52 5G and Samsung Galaxy A32 5G achieve an identical Endurance rating of 123 hours. This suggests comparable battery life despite the Y52 5G’s 18W charging versus the A32 5G’s 15W. The faster charging on the Y52 5G will reduce 0-100% charge times, but overall daily usage will be similar, assuming comparable battery capacities (which are not specified in the provided data).
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo Y52 5G if you frequently multitask, play mobile games, or need a phone that feels responsive under load. Its Mediatek Dimensity 700 chipset offers a slight performance advantage. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A32 5G if you prioritize a slightly brighter display and are heavily invested in the Samsung ecosystem, valuing its software features and brand recognition.