Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarOppo A52 Smartphone Review: cheaper, but not much weaker than its bigger brother A72
The Oppo A52 has an MSRP of 199 Euros (~$235), which means that it is exactly 50 Euros (~$59) cheaper than the A72. Both smartphones offer different memory configurations and camera systems. However, in our review, we also examine the rest of the hardware. In this price range, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T and the Samsung Galaxy A21s are the two most notable competitors. The A21s does not feature a Qualcomm SoC and instead relies on Samsung’s proprietary Exynos CPU.
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77 % | 09/2020 | Oppo A52 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 192 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 77.3 % | 08/2020 | Oppo A72 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.3 % | 01/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T SD 665, Adreno 610 | 200 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
| 76.4 % | 08/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A21s Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 |
Case & Connectivity - Stylish budget smartphone
The Oppo A52 comes in the following colour schemes: Twilight Black and Stream White. Our review device features the latter colour scheme. There is a significant camera bump on the back. Putting on the transparent protective case, which is included in the box, will help ameliorate this issue. The glossy back shimmers with multiple colours when it is exposed to light.
On the sides, there is a SIM card slot and a fingerprint sensor. On the bottom, there is a speaker grill, a microphone hole, a USB-C port and a 3.5-mm headphone jack. The housing of the A52 is very stiff. The A72 and the A52 have the same weight and dimensions. Weighing in at 192 grams, neither device is particularly light.
Hardware Configuration – Oppo smartphone with stereo speakers
The A72, the A52 and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T feature a Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, 4 GB of RAM and an Adreno GPU. The Galaxy A21s offers only 3 GB of RAM. The A72 offers a quad-camera system with a 48-megapixel main sensor and 128 GB of internal memory, whereas the A52 packs a quad-camera system with a 12-megapixel main shooter and 64 GB of storage space. This means that the A52 offers only half as much storage as the A72. While the Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Note 8T have only one mono speaker, the A52 and its bigger brother A72 offer stereo speakers.
Software - A52 comes with Oppo’s ColorOS
The A52 runs Android 10 with Oppo’s proprietary launcher known as ColorOS (version 7.1). Shortly after Google released Android 11, Oppo announced ColorOS 11, which is coming to the A52 in the fourth quarter.
The A52 features proprietary applications for music and video playback. Many other proprietary applications such as Oppo Relax, Game Space, Files and Phone Manager are also preinstalled. Additionally, we found some applications that should not be preinstalled such as the Opera browser and the ad-supported free version of OfficeSuite.
Communication & Geolocation - A52 is suited for navigation
The A52 comes with Bluetooth 5.0. An NFS chip, which supports Google Pay, is also included.
The dual SIM smartphone supports all the relevant LTE frequency bands (17 in total). With our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, all four competing devices achieve similar download and upload speeds. That being said, the Oppo smartphones are a tiny bit faster than the rest of the competition.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=70, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T | |
Indoors, the A52 has no trouble acquiring the user’s location. Outdoors, the Oppo smartphone determines the user’s location with a margin of error of about three metres, which is a good result. In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to geolocation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 500. The smartphone did a good job mapping our route. There were very few deviations.
Telephony & Call Quality - Poor call quality
Whether you make phone calls in standard mode or in speaker mode, the call quality is always poor. Alternatively, you can make phone calls using the included headset. However, voices will still sound somewhat unnatural and there will still be an ever-present hissing noise.
Cameras - Ultra wide-angle lens disappoints
The Oppo A52 comes with a quad-camera system. It offers an ultra wide-angle lens and a depth sensor. The bokeh effect is well-realised as can be seen in the photograph of the flowers.
The 12-megapixel camera produces photographs that do not look as good as those produced by the LG Velvet, the Huawei P40 Pro Plus or the Canon EOS 70D. However, they are on a normal level for a 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone.
The 8-megapixel ultra wide-angle lens fails to impress: The Oppo smartphone produces blurry, washed-out and colour-inaccurate images, which are not comparable to the rest of the competition. The A52 is also very weak when it comes to low-light photography despite its large f/1.8 aperture. The pictures it takes are just too noisy. Even though the Oppo A72 comes with a 48-megapixel sensor, it is not much better as the test photographs in our review of the A72 show.
The punch-hole camera on the front can take group selfies. However, the images taken with the front-facing camera appear washed-out.
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.
Wide angleWide angle5X ZoomUltra wide-angleLow-light photography
We use the ColorChecker Passport to further analyse the colour reproduction of the 12-megapixel image sensor. Under controlled lighting conditions, the A52 produces sharper photographs than under natural lighting conditions. The colours appear quite natural. However, they are overbrightened.
Accessories & Warranty
The box contains a transparent protective case, a charger, a USB-C cable, a SIM card removal tool, a quick-start guide, an information packet and a warranty card. Moreover, the Oppo smartphone comes with a factory-applied screen protector, which will start to look quite hazy if you do not wipe it down frequently.
In the box, there is also a set of earbuds with a 3.5-mm plug. This is not something that 200-Euro (~$236) smartphones typically offer.
The smartphone comes with a 24-month warranty.
Input Devices & Handling - Oppo smartphone with a side-mounted fingerprint sensor
The side-mounted fingerprint scanner can be used not only to unlock the smartphone but also to protect data and make applications more secure. The initial setup was a bit tedious. However, subsequently, the fingerprint sensor functioned very well.
Even though the A52 comes with a proprietary music player and a proprietary gallery application, it uses Android’s default keyboard known as GBoard. It works very well and supports haptic feedback, which users can enable if they so desire.
Display - Mid-range IPS screen
The Oppo smartphones offer a screen resolution of 2400x1000. The Xiaomi smartphone also offers a very similar resolution. The A21s, which also has a 6.5-in screen, features a display with a very low resolution of 1600x720. Thanks to a low black value, the IPS panel of the Oppo A52 has a very good contrast ratio. The display brightness is quite mediocre, though. The A52 has a ColorChecker deltaE 2000 average of 3.9 and a greyscale deltaE 2000 average of 2, which means that its screen is rather colour-accurate. Here, the Xiaomi smartphone manages to achieve even better results.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 492 cd/m²
Contrast: 1587:1 (Black: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.9 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
| Oppo A52 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Oppo A72 IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T IPS, 2340x1080, 6.30 | Samsung Galaxy A21s PLS, 1600x720, 6.50 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -55% | -5% | -42% | |
| Brightness middle | 492 | 505 3% | 628 28% | 540 10% |
| Brightness | 472 | 482 2% | 631 34% | 509 8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 93 0% | 93 0% | 91 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.31 | 0.55 -77% | 0.54 -74% | 0.36 -16% |
| Contrast | 1587 | 918 -42% | 1163 -27% | 1500 -5% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.9 | 6.3 -62% | 2 49% | 6.58 -69% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.3 | 10.1 -22% | 5.1 39% | 11.55 -39% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2 | 6.8 -240% | 3.7 -85% | 6.4 -220% |
| Gamma | 2.29 96% | 2.29 96% | 2.17 101% | 2.206 100% |
| CCT | 6910 94% | 8161 80% | 6230 104% | 8482 77% |
* ... 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 18925 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Right out of the box, the colours appear rather cold, because of a slightly elevated colour temperature. Users can adjust the colour reproduction in the settings menu. By lowering the colour temperature, we were able to achieve a very accurate colour reproduction in our target colour space (sRGB).
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 23.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.4 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. » 43 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 40.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 56 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.1 ms). | ||
Thanks to an ambient light sensor, the Oppo A52 can automatically decrease or increase the display brightness depending on the environment. When viewed head-on, the screen content is readable even outside.
Outdoors, the display is not legible when viewed at acute angles due to screen reflections. However, indoors, the screen content can be read even at acute angles.
Performance - Qualcomm SD 655 is ahead of Exynos 850
In the benchmarks, all devices that we selected for this review performed as expected. What we found quite interesting, though, was that the Exynos 850 in the Galaxy A21s, generally, performed worse than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 in other smartphones, even though the Samsung SoC does not feature a cluster-based CPU design. Unlike the Qualcomm chip, which has four high-efficiency cores clocked at 1.8 GHz and four high-performance cores clocked at 2 GHz, the Exynos 850 offers eight high-performance cores, all of which are clocked at 2 GHz. This is why the Exynos chip should be faster, in theory.
In the browser benchmarks, the Oppo smartphone performs quite well and is way ahead of the Samsung Galaxy A21s.
| Geekbench 5.4 | |
| Vulkan Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (453 - 457, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (79 - 9992, n=177, last 2 years) | |
| OpenCL Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (369 - 387, n=4) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (368 - 10711, n=166, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (7437 - 9051, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6189 - 11432, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (30 - 52, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (35 - 37, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (15 - 34, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (19 - 20, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (10 - 27, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (13 - 13, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (167305 - 181432, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (101336 - 725649, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| BaseMark OS II | |
| Overall (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (2001 - 2556, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (411 - 9585, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| System (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4391 - 5089, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2565 - 19657, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| Memory (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (1804 - 3174, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (670 - 11617, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| Graphics (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (1881 - 1932, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (697 - 30125, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| Web (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A52 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (926 - 1400, n=9) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2392, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (27.5 - 414, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A52 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (33.4 - 51, n=8) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (34 - 292, n=144, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A52 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (38 - 58, n=9) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A52 (Chrome 85) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6133 - 9671, n=9) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4434 - 6719, n=9) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo A52 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10031, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
The A52 offers 64 GB of internal memory, which is normal for a device in this price range. However, only 47 GB is available to the user. The rest of the storage space is occupied by Oppo’s ColorOS launcher and preinstalled applications. Here, the 64 GB Note 8T offers 57 GB of available storage space.
Both Oppo smartphones offer slower read and write rates than the Samsung Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T. However, the Oppo devices perform better with our reference-grade microSD card (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501). This is good news for those who use SD cards to store high-quality photographs.
| Oppo A52 | Oppo A72 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T | Samsung Galaxy A21s | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 1% | 2% | 5% | 21% | 122% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 475.9 | 504 6% | 315.8 -34% | 307 -35% | 697 ? 46% | 1183 ? 149% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 220.6 | 234.6 6% | 173.9 -21% | 104.3 -53% | 217 ? -2% | 743 ? 237% |
| Random Read 4KB | 136.2 | 135.9 0% | 90.4 -34% | 77.2 -43% | 136.6 ? 0% | 208 ? 53% |
| Random Write 4KB | 147 | 152.9 4% | 91.2 -38% | 89.5 -39% | 81.6 ? -44% | 217 ? 48% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 40.16 ? | 37.76 ? -6% | 71.6 ? 78% | 80 ? 99% | 68.6 ? 71% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 33.38 ? | 31.2 ? -7% | 52.8 ? 58% | 66.4 ? 99% | 52.2 ? 56% |
Gaming - Not suited for demanding games
The 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone struggles in demanding racing games. These are not the titles that the Adreno 610 can handle. However, the motion sensor worked very well in Temple Run. These are the titles for which the A52 is suited.
Emissions - Low-priced stereo smartphone
Temperature
The A52 does not become warm. Under load, the surface temperatures peak at only 35 °C (95 °F).
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.3 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.2 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.6 °C / 91 F.
Speakers
While the Samsung Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T offer mono speakers, both low-priced Oppo smartphones comes with stereo speakers. However, the sound quality is not that impressive and can only be described as satisfactory. The A52 is somewhat louder than the A72, though.
Oppo A52 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Oppo A72 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Battery Life
Energy Consumption
The comparison between the Exynos 850 and the Snapdragon 665 reveals how much of a difference the cluster-based design makes when it comes to energy efficiency. The A52, A72 and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T are much more energy-efficient than the Galaxy A21s, which features an SoC with eight high-performance cores.
| Off / Standby |   0.02 / 0.23 Watt |
| Idle |  0.62 / 1.91 / 1.94 Watt |
| Load |
3.57 / 6.09 Watt |
    
| |
| Oppo A52 5000 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -5% | 3% | -48% | -20% | -9% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.62 | 0.7 -13% | 0.62 -0% | 1.5 -142% | 1.017 ? -64% | 0.885 ? -43% |
| Idle Average * | 1.91 | 1.97 -3% | 1.77 7% | 2.1 -10% | 1.893 ? 1% | 1.486 ? 22% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.94 | 1.98 -2% | 1.8 7% | 2.9 -49% | 2.36 ? -22% | 1.7 ? 12% |
| Load Average * | 3.57 | 3.83 -7% | 3.42 4% | 4.6 -29% | 3.77 ? -6% | 4.27 ? -20% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.09 | 6.2 -2% | 6.14 -1% | 6.6 -8% | 6.66 ? -9% | 7.09 ? -16% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
In our practically oriented Wi-Fi test, the battery of the Redmi Note 8T dies first, because it has the lowest capacity. The A72, which has the exact same battery capacity, lasts slightly longer than our review device. Both Oppo devices last about one hour longer than the A21s in our battery test.
| Oppo A52 5000 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 987 | 1018 3% | 764 -23% | 943 -4% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
The Oppo A52 is a stylish 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone that offers a good level of performance in its price range. The camera and the storage capacity are the only things that differentiate the A52 from the A72. There are no other differences. The A72 is no better than its smaller sibling A52, except for the camera.
Well-calculated: The actual differences between the Oppo A52 and the A72 are well-reflected in the price difference.
There is another advantage that the A72 brings to the table, namely twice as much storage space, which is going to be needed for high-resolution photos and videos that its camera produces. If you do not need a high-resolution camera, then you will be able to save 50 Euros (~$56) or so. The price differential between the two devices has remained the same despite falling prices: At the time of our review the A52 retails for as little as 170 Euros (~$201) while the A72 sells for as little as 220 Euros (~$260).
Oppo A52
-
09/11/2020 v7
Inge Schwabe
Pricecompare
