The ZTE Blade A56 and Nokia 3.4 represent the fiercely competitive sub-$200 Android smartphone market. Both aim to deliver essential functionality at an accessible price, but they take different approaches to achieving this. The A56 prioritizes battery endurance with a Unisoc chipset, while the Nokia 3.4 leverages Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 460 for a potentially smoother user experience. This comparison dissects their key differences to determine which device offers the best value.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing longevity, the ZTE Blade A56 is the better choice. Its significantly longer 56:03h battery endurance, coupled with a respectable octa-core processor, outweighs the Nokia 3.4’s slightly faster CPU cores. While the Nokia 3.4 offers the Qualcomm brand recognition, the A56 delivers superior real-world usability for power users.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 13, 28, 66 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, June 11 | 2020, September 22. Released 2020, October 26 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, July | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Dimensions | 167.6 x 77.4 x 8.3 mm (6.60 x 3.05 x 0.33 in) | 161 x 76 x 8.7 mm (6.34 x 2.99 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 193 g (6.81 oz) | 180 g (6.35 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Mohs level 4 | - |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~260 ppi density) | 720 x 1560 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~269 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.75 inches, 110.0 cm2 (~84.8% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.39 inches, 100.2 cm2 (~81.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | IPS LCD, 400 nits (typ) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x1.6 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.6 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Unisoc T7200 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM4250 Snapdragon 460 (11 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MP1 | Adreno 610 |
| OS | Android 15 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 11 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM | 32GB 3GB RAM, 64GB 3GB RAM, 64GB 4GB RAM |
| | - | eMMC 5.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 13 MP, AF
Auxiliary lenses | - |
| Triple | - | 13 MP, (wide), PDAF
5 MP, (ultrawide)
Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 8 MP | 8 MP, (wide) |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE | 4.2, A2DP, aptX |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 10W wired | 10W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | Li-Po 4000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black, Yellow | Fjord, Dusk, Charcoal |
| Models | Z2473 | TA-1288, TA-1285, TA-1283 |
| Price | € 69.00 / $ 87.12 / £ 66.75 | About 100 EUR |
| SAR | - | 0.83 W/kg (head) 1.05 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.36 W/kg (head) 1.56 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL |
|---|
| Battery | 56:03h endurance, 800 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class A | - |
| Free fall | Class D (80 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
ZTE Blade A56
- Exceptional battery life (56:03h endurance)
- More efficient CPU architecture (Cortex-A75 cores)
- Potentially better sustained performance due to thermal management
- Unisoc chipset may lack software optimization compared to Qualcomm
- 10W charging is slow
Nokia 3.4
- Qualcomm Snapdragon 460 offers brand recognition
- Slightly higher CPU clock speed
- Potentially smoother app launch speeds
- Significantly shorter battery life
- Less efficient CPU architecture (Cortex-A73 cores)
- 10W charging is slow
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a standout display. Both are likely utilizing LCD panels, common in this price bracket. Without specific display specs, the comparison hinges on processing power to drive the UI. The Unisoc T7200 and Snapdragon 460 are both entry-level chipsets, so neither will deliver a fluid 120Hz experience. Expect similar viewing experiences, with color accuracy and brightness being average for the segment.
Camera Comparison
Both phones likely feature basic camera setups geared towards casual photography. Without detailed sensor information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. However, the inclusion of a 2MP macro lens on the Nokia 3.4 is a common marketing tactic that rarely translates to usable images. The focus should be on the main sensor, and any differences in image processing algorithms will be more impactful than minor sensor variations. Expect similar image quality in good lighting conditions, with both struggling in low-light scenarios.
Performance
The CPU architecture is where the key difference lies. The ZTE Blade A56’s Unisoc T7200 features a combination of Cortex-A75 and A55 cores, while the Nokia 3.4 uses Cortex-A73 and A53 cores. The A75 cores in the A56 are generally more efficient and offer better single-core performance than the A73 cores in the Nokia 3.4, despite the Nokia’s slightly higher clock speed (1.8GHz vs 1.6GHz). However, the Snapdragon 460 is fabricated on an 11nm process, which *should* offer better power efficiency than the Unisoc T7200’s 12nm node, but this is offset by the A56's massive battery capacity. The Nokia 3.4 may feel slightly more responsive in quick tasks, but sustained performance will likely favor the A56 due to thermal throttling.
Battery Life
This is where the ZTE Blade A56 truly shines. Its 56:03h endurance is a significant advantage over the Nokia 3.4, which lacks published endurance data but is expected to be considerably lower. The A56’s larger battery capacity, combined with the relatively efficient Unisoc T7200, allows for multi-day usage for moderate users. Both phones are limited to 10W wired charging, meaning 0-100% charge times will be lengthy – likely exceeding 3 hours – regardless of which device you choose.
Buying Guide
Buy the ZTE Blade A56 if you need a phone that can reliably last through a full day – and then some – of moderate to heavy use. This is ideal for travelers, commuters, or anyone who dislikes frequent charging. Buy the Nokia 3.4 if you prefer the Qualcomm ecosystem and prioritize a potentially snappier app launch experience, understanding that this comes at the cost of significantly reduced battery life. It's a better fit for users with consistent access to charging.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Unisoc T7200 in the ZTE Blade A56 struggle with demanding apps?
The Unisoc T7200 is an entry-level chipset, so it won't excel at graphically intensive tasks like high-end gaming. However, it's perfectly capable of handling everyday apps like social media, web browsing, and video streaming. The Cortex-A75 cores provide a performance boost over older architectures, making it a reasonable choice for basic smartphone usage.
❓ Is the 10W charging on either phone a major drawback?
Yes, 10W charging is quite slow by modern standards. Expect to spend over 3 hours to fully charge either the ZTE Blade A56 or the Nokia 3.4. This is a compromise made to keep the price low, and it's something to consider if you frequently need to top up your battery throughout the day.
❓ Does the Nokia 3.4 receive regular software updates?
Nokia is known for providing relatively clean and timely Android updates, even on their budget devices. This is a key advantage over some other brands in this price range. However, the update schedule may not be as frequent as on flagship models.
❓ How does the ZTE Blade A56 handle multitasking?
The ZTE Blade A56's 800 cycles battery rating suggests a focus on longevity and consistent performance. While it has sufficient RAM for basic multitasking, running numerous apps simultaneously may lead to slowdowns. It's best suited for switching between a few apps at a time.
