Poco C75 vs Samsung Galaxy A25: A Detailed Comparison for Budget Buyers
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Samsung Galaxy A25 is the superior choice. Its significantly more efficient Exynos 1280 chipset, coupled with a brighter display and longer battery life, outweighs the Poco C75’s lower price. While the Poco C75 offers a functional experience, the A25 provides a smoother, more refined user experience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Xiaomi Poco C75 | Samsung Galaxy A25 |
| 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, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 26, 28, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2024, October 26 | 2023, December 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, November 05 | Available. Released 2023, December 16 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 171.9 x 77.8 x 8.2 mm (6.77 x 3.06 x 0.32 in) | 161 x 76.5 x 8.3 mm (6.34 x 3.01 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 204 g (7.20 oz) | 197 g (6.95 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 720 x 1640 pixels (~260 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~396 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.88 inches, 112.4 cm2 (~84.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 103.7 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz, 450 nits (typ), 600 nits (HBM) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra (12 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G52 MC2 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 14, HyperOS | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 7 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Single | 50 MP, f/1.8, 28mm (wide), PDAF Auxiliary lens | - |
| Triple | - | 50 MP, f/1.8, 27mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/4", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 13 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.4, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | FM radio | Market/region dependent |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, PD | 25W wired |
| Type | 5160 mAh | 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, Green, Gold | Brave Black, Personality Yellow, Fantasy Blue, Optimistic Blue |
| Models | 2410FPCC5G | SM-A256E, SM-A256E/DS, SM-A256E/DSN, SM-A256B, SM-A256B/DS, SM-A256B/DSN, SM-A256U, SM-A256U1 |
| Price | $ 134.99 / € 135.00 / £ 94.99 | € 175.99 / $ 120.32 / ₹ 18,399 |
| SAR | 1.03 W/kg (head) 1.08 W/kg (body) | - |
| SAR EU | 0.98 W/kg (head) 0.98 W/kg (body) | 0.46 W/kg (head) 1.19 W/kg (body) |
Xiaomi Poco C75
- More affordable price point
- Functional for basic smartphone tasks
- PD charging support
- Less powerful processor
- Likely lower display quality
- Potentially shorter battery life
Samsung Galaxy A25
- More powerful and efficient Exynos 1280 chipset
- Brighter and higher-quality display
- Longer battery life and faster charging
- Higher price compared to the Poco C75
- May still lack features found in higher-end phones
- Software updates may be slower than some competitors
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A25 boasts a significant advantage in display quality, achieving a measured peak brightness of 1030 nits. This is crucial for outdoor visibility, a common pain point for budget phones. While the Poco C75’s display specifications are not provided, it’s likely to be considerably dimmer. Samsung’s panel technology, though not specified as AMOLED, likely offers superior color accuracy and viewing angles compared to what’s typically found in the Poco C75’s price bracket. The lack of high refresh rate on either device is standard for this segment, but the A25’s brightness makes it the clear winner.
Camera Comparison
Detailed camera specifications for both devices are limited. However, given the market positioning, it’s safe to assume the Galaxy A25 benefits from Samsung’s superior image processing algorithms. While both phones likely feature a primary camera and potentially ultra-wide/macro lenses, the A25’s image quality will likely be more consistent across different lighting conditions. The Poco C75 may rely more heavily on software enhancements to compensate for a potentially less capable sensor. Without specific sensor size or aperture information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment, but Samsung’s track record suggests a better overall camera experience.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the Poco C75 utilizes the Mediatek Helio G81 Ultra (12nm), while the Galaxy A25 features the Exynos 1280 (5nm). The 5nm fabrication process of the Exynos 1280 is a major advantage, offering significantly improved power efficiency and thermal performance. The Exynos 1280’s CPU, with its 2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 cores, also provides a noticeable performance uplift over the Poco C75’s 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores. This translates to faster app loading times, smoother multitasking, and a more responsive overall experience. The G81 Ultra is adequate for basic tasks, but will struggle with demanding applications and games. The A25 will handle more intensive workloads with greater ease.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A25 demonstrates a clear advantage in battery endurance, achieving 10:19 hours of active use. While the Poco C75’s battery capacity is unknown, the more efficient Exynos 1280 in the A25 allows it to extract more runtime from its battery. Furthermore, the A25 supports 25W wired charging, compared to the Poco C75’s 18W, resulting in faster charging speeds. This means less time tethered to a charger and more time using the device. The combination of efficiency and faster charging makes the A25 the better choice for users who prioritize battery life.
Buying Guide
Buy the Xiaomi Poco C75 if you prioritize absolute affordability and are willing to compromise on performance and display quality. It’s a suitable option for basic tasks like calling, texting, and light social media use. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A25 if you value a smoother user experience, a brighter and more vibrant display, and longer battery life, even if it means spending a bit more. It’s ideal for users who enjoy media consumption, casual gaming, and want a phone that feels more responsive.