CAT S53 review - Rugged, waterproof phone with 5G
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78.3 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2023 | CAT S53 SD 480, Adreno 619 | 320 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 77.2 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | CAT S52 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 210 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.65" | 1440x720 | |
| 82.6 % v7 (old) | 12 / 2022 | Gigaset GX6 Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4 | 278 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2412x1080 | |
| 81.9 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2022 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 235 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2408x1080 | |
| 81.1 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2021 | Nokia XR20 SD 480, Adreno 619 | 248 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 |
Case and equipment - Heavy, but well protected
The CAT S53 is a true ruggedized phone that is not only protected against water and dust but can also withstand drops well due to its reinforced chassis and the recessed screen. This is also noticeable in the weight: at 320 grams, the CAT Phone is not lightweight, even among outdoor phones.
The predecessor, the CAT S52, wanted to be more elegant. Our test device looks like a classic work phone at first glance. Thus there is a slightly roughened surface, which helps the CAT S53 not slip off the hand so easily, a grippy groove pattern on the back, and a huge camera module on the back. There is also an LED light on the upper edge that has a brightness of up to 120 lumens. Additionally, there is an LED flash in the camera module that can be permanently activated.
All slots are protected with rubber covers that are difficult to open with the fingers. However, these ensure very good dust and water resistance according to IP68/IP69K and MIL-STD-810H.
NFC is also on board, as is a microSD reader. However, you have to give up one of the SIM cards if you want to use microSD to expand the memory. The card reader proves to be quite fast in our test with the reference microSD Angelbird V60 in the CPDT benchmark as well as in the copy test.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| CAT S53 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Gigaset GX6 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro (Angelbird V60) | |
| Nokia XR20 (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation - Old operating system
With the CAT S53, the manufacturer also brings 5G connectivity to one of its outdoor phones for the first time. Quite a lot of frequencies are available for the currently fastest mobile standard and also for 4G, so you can surf the mobile Internet with the smartphone even when traveling. The mobile reception proves to be good during our random tests in the test period, but not quite on the level of high-end smartphones.
In terms of WLAN, there is WiFi 5 with overall good speeds but also significant fluctuations and individual drops in the transfer rates.
The CAT S53's operating system is still based on Android 11, and the security patches are from July 2022 at the time of testing. An older Android version might be desirable for corporate customers since apps written in-house have to be adapted for each new Android version. However, at least the security should be on a more current level. After all, CAT only pre-installs a few third-party apps that can be easily removed.
The touchscreen of the CAT S53 can still be used with wet fingers and gloves. A large programmable button on the left of the casing can be used for launching apps or switching integrated flashlight, for example. A fingerprint sensor is found below the camera module on the back. It is not quite optimally placed for large hands, but it reliably recognizes stored fingers and unlocks the phone from standby after a delay of about one second. Face recognition is also possible, but it is only software-based and thus not as secure.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (52 - 1857, n=182, last 2 years) | |
| CAT S53 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (49.8 - 1806, n=184, last 2 years) | |
| CAT S53 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average of class Smartphone (521 - 1945, n=81, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| Gigaset GX6 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average of class Smartphone (451 - 1864, n=81, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| Gigaset GX6 | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| CAT S52 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| CAT S52 | |
Cameras - Not very convincing
Sony's IMX582 is used as the main camera's sensor. It offers a resolution of 48 megapixels but combines four pixels into one by default so that a better light yield is possible and 12-megapixel photos are created. There is also a low-resolution macro camera on the back that can be used in a special mode for extreme close-ups.
The photos from the main camera look noticeably blurry and could be brightened better. The white balance is set quite cool ex-factory. The weaknesses are particularly obvious in low light and high contrasts. The test chart also looks washed out in studio lighting.
Videos can be recorded in 1080p and 30 fps at most. The sharpness of the material could be higher here as well, but at least the autofocus works reasonably fast, and the brightness adjustment works well.
The selfie camera has a high resolution of 16 megapixels. Here, photos also look a bit cool and very grainy when enlarged.
Thus, the CAT S53 is not a phone for photo fans, but the camera is sufficient for snapshots or documentation.
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Main cameraMain cameraLowLight
Display - True color screen in the CAT S53
The screen offers a resolution of 1600 x 720 pixels. At the price point of the CAT S53, a Full HD screen with more than 60 Hz frame rate would have been possible, and the competition proves it. The brightness of 504 cd/m² is decent, but even for an outdoor phone, more would always be welcome to ensure good legibility in the sun.
The black value is high at 0.6 cd/m², so the contrast drops and displayed colors look quite dull. However, the color reproduction is true to the original, as we found out in our tests with the spectrophotometer and the software CalMAN. There is no visible color cast in the display, and only a few color tones deviate visibly from the reference color space.
We do not notice PWM flickering in the IPS display.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 82 %
Center on Battery: 476 cd/m²
Contrast: 793:1 (Black: 0.6 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.18 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.86
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
95.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.268
| CAT S53 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | CAT S52 IPS, 1440x720, 5.7" | Gigaset GX6 IPS, 2412x1080, 6.6" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro PLS, 2408x1080, 6.6" | Nokia XR20 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 62% | 19% | -41% | 21% | |
| Brightness middle | 476 | 521 9% | 505 6% | 510 7% | 599 26% |
| Brightness | 504 | 530 5% | 491 -3% | 495 -2% | 598 19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 82 | 91 11% | 93 13% | 92 12% | 99 21% |
| Black Level * | 0.6 | 0.16 73% | 0.3 50% | 0.46 23% | 0.33 45% |
| Contrast | 793 | 3256 311% | 1683 112% | 1109 40% | 1815 129% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.18 | 2.69 15% | 4.32 -36% | 7.41 -133% | 4.52 -42% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.86 | 5.07 13% | 7.22 -23% | 13.26 -126% | 7.6 -30% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 1.8 57% | 3 29% | 10.6 -152% | 4.2 -0% |
| Gamma | 2.268 97% | 2.243 98% | 2.268 97% | 2.518 87% | 2.279 97% |
| CCT | 7234 90% | 6622 98% | 7098 92% | 10050 65% | 7309 89% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8445 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 21.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13.9 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 7.5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 53 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 27.7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 25.3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 89 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.4 ms). | ||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Could use more power
With the Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 5G, CAT integrates the most modern mobile standard, but the SoC does not offer much performance compared to other rugged phones in this price range. Especially the Galaxy XCover 6 Pro is in a completely different league when it comes to processor and graphics performance.
The CAT S53 usually runs without delays in menus, but the phone stutters noticeably in more complex apps or when another process is running in the background. The fact that the system does not feel as smooth is also due to the fact that the smartphone only has a 60 Hz screen and that slower eMMC storage is installed.
With up to 45.1 °C on the front, the CAT S53 can already get quite warm at room temperature under load. It could also become uncomfortable to hold the phone on hot days. However, this does not affect the performance: 99.1% of the initial frame rate is still achieved at the end of the 3DMark stress test.
The speaker is located in the camera module on the back. Not an ideal placement when the phone is resting on a soft surface, but the speaker can get quite loud. This is helpful in noisy work environments.
In terms of sound, trebles are very strongly emphasized, which is also visible in our chart. The music also sounds a bit muffled. A 3.5 mm audio port is available for connecting headphones or speakers, and there is also Bluetooth 5.1 for wireless connections. The modern aptX TWS+ codec is also available, but not the current LHDC variants.
CAT uses a strong 5,500 mAh battery that can be charged with up to 18 watts. However, a suitable charger is not included in the package, only a USB cable. The phone even supports wireless charging with up to 10 watts. The phone's stamina is good, with almost 19 hours in our WLAN test, but charging via cable can take 3 hours or longer.
| CAT S53 | CAT S52 | Gigaset GX6 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | Nokia XR20 | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -45% | 43% | 66% | 35% | -37% | 309% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 510.9 | 286.2 -44% | 953.5 87% | 841.6 65% | 485 -5% | 294 ? -42% | 2054 ? 302% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 208.2 | 195.4 -6% | 454.7 118% | 484.7 133% | 452 117% | 195.8 ? -6% | 1667 ? 701% |
| Random Read 4KB | 140.7 | 76.6 -46% | 194.9 39% | 170.6 21% | 174.8 24% | 83.9 ? -40% | 286 ? 103% |
| Random Write 4KB | 141.4 | 21.3 -85% | 39.9 -72% | 204.2 44% | 146.2 3% | 56.7 ? -60% | 327 ? 131% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.1 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.1 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| Gigaset GX6 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Gigaset GX6 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| CAT S53 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
CAT S53 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 32% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Nokia XR20 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 71% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
| CAT S53 5500 mAh | CAT S52 3100 mAh | Gigaset GX6 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro 4050 mAh | Nokia XR20 4630 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -44% | -12% | -32% | -18% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1135 | 637 -44% | 1002 -12% | 768 -32% | 927 -18% |
| Reader / Idle | 1321 | 1786 | |||
| H.264 | 856 | 895 | |||
| Load | 266 | 301 |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Bulky outdoor phone with good runtimes
The CAT S53 is a classic ruggedized phone that is well protected against environmental influences and drops thanks to its bulky and heavy chassis. It comes with 5G, NFC, wireless charging, and a color-accurate screen.
The battery runtimes are convincing, the fingerprint sensor and touchscreen work reliably, and the bright integrated flashlight keeps the user safe even in dark environments. On the other hand, every smartphone nowadays offers a permanently activatable LED flash, so an additional flashlight is probably just a nice gadget in the end.
However, the outdated security patches and the outdated Android 11 are annoying for private users. The manufacturer does not specify whether updates are still planned. The camera is more suitable for snapshots and documenting processes than for real photo enthusiasts and the performance is sufficient but lags behind other outdoor phones in the price range.
Environmental influences leave the CAT S53 cold, and thanks to 5G, NFC, and a large battery, the equipment is decent. However, there are slimmer and more powerful alternatives without gimmicks for the price.
Similar strong battery runtimes are almost not available anywhere but much lighter phones with a more restrained design are available, while Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro even lets you swap the battery. Gigaset GX6 also has a removable battery and a fast 120 Hz display.
Price and availability
The CAT S53 is available directly from the manufacturer https://www.catphones.com/de-de/cat-s53/at a price of 549 Euros. The rugged phone can also be found at this price on amazon.de.
Our lending partner cyberport.de even grants a significant discount and sells the outdoor phone for 476 Euros at the time of testing. Some even cheaper offers can be found on the Internet.
CAT S53
- 04/17/2023 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Price comparison
