ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G vs Samsung Galaxy A52 5G: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range 5G Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and a more refined software experience, the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G emerges as the stronger choice. However, the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G offers a competitive chipset and potentially lower price, making it attractive for budget-conscious consumers focused on raw performance.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G | Samsung Galaxy A52 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 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 41, 78, 79 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 / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| CDMA 800 | - | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, November 30. Released 2021, January 04 | 2021, March 17 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2021, March 19 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back |
| Dimensions | 159.2 x 73.4 x 7.9 mm (6.27 x 2.89 x 0.31 in) | 159.9 x 75.1 x 8.4 mm (6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 168 g (5.93 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~398 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~407 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.47 inches, 102.8 cm2 (~87.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 101.0 cm2 (~84.1% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 800 nits (HBM) |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 620 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 10, MiFavor 10 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 14, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.9, 25mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚, 16mm (ultrawide) 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | 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 |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30fps; gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 20 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/2.8", 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 | No | Yes |
| 35mm jack | No | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| 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 | No | FM radio (market/region dependent) |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.1 | 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, QC4 | 25W wired, 50% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Ion 4000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Blue | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Violet, Awesome Blue |
| Models | - | SM-A526B, SM-A526B/DS, SM-A5260, SM-A526W, SM-A526U, SM-A526U1 |
| Price | About 350 EUR | $ 137.39 / £ 280.00 / € 115.49 |
| SAR | - | 0.74 W/kg (head) 0.53 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.05 W/kg (head) 1.42 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 111h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -27.5 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 334981 (v8), 386474 (v9) GeekBench: 1820 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G
- Potentially lower price point
- Snapdragon 765G offers strong processing power
- 5G connectivity
- Slower 18W charging
- Display specs are less detailed, suggesting lower quality
- Less refined software experience (likely)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
- Brighter and higher quality display (787 nits)
- Faster 25W charging with 30-minute 50% boost
- More polished software experience
- Snapdragon 750G is slightly less powerful than 765G
- Potentially higher price
- Similar battery life despite slower chipset
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 787 nits, compared to an unspecified brightness for the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G. This higher peak brightness translates to better visibility outdoors under direct sunlight. While both displays share an 'infinite' (nominal) contrast ratio, the A52 5G’s superior brightness is a clear advantage. The lack of detailed display specs for the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G suggests a more basic panel, potentially impacting color accuracy and viewing angles.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, lacking specific details. However, the camera experience is likely to be a key differentiator. Without sensor size or aperture information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. Samsung generally excels in image processing, offering vibrant and shareable photos. The ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G may rely more on software enhancements to compensate for potentially less advanced hardware. The absence of details regarding Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on either device suggests a reliance on digital stabilization, which can introduce artifacts in low-light conditions.
Performance
Both phones utilize Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets, but differ in their generation and model. The ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G features the Snapdragon 765G (7nm), while the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G uses the Snapdragon 750G (8nm). The 8nm process of the 750G generally offers improved power efficiency, potentially leading to better battery life. The 765G’s CPU configuration (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime, 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold, 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) is similar to the A52 5G’s (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570, 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570), but the Kryo 570 cores in the A52 5G represent a newer architecture, potentially offering incremental performance gains. The 765G's Adreno 620 GPU is a capable performer, but the 750G's Adreno 619 is likely to be slightly less powerful.
Battery Life
Both the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G and Samsung Galaxy A52 5G achieve an endurance rating of 111 hours, indicating comparable battery life under similar usage scenarios. However, the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G benefits from 25W wired charging, capable of reaching 50% charge in just 30 minutes, while the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G is limited to 18W charging with QC4 support. This faster charging speed provides a significant convenience advantage for A52 5G users.
Buying Guide
Buy the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G if you need a phone that prioritizes raw processing power for demanding tasks and potentially offers significant cost savings. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display, a more polished user experience, and faster charging capabilities, even if it means a slightly less powerful chipset.