Notebookcheck Logo

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review - Colorful, sustainable and really good! Is there a catch?

The best smartphone display for under $300. Price-wise, the Galaxy A25 is situated in the mid-range category, and, offering 4 big Android updates as well as 5 years of security updates, it has more software support than some high-end smartphones. The built-in OIS, the very bright 120 Hz Super AMOLED display and the 3,5 mm audio jack make the Galaxy handset worthy of your attention.
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

If you're on the hunt for a modern, and, above all, affordable 5G Samsung smartphone, look no further than the A25 5G - a suitable model in the Galaxy cosmos. To achieve this, the Korean manufacturer has equipped the device with the same 5G-capable Exynos 1280 that can be found in the Galaxy M34

In addition to the guarantee of long updates, the 6.5-inch and lightning-fast, 120 Hz Super AMOLED display is certainly one of the Galaxy A25's highlights. On top of that, Samsung has fitted its budget mid-range smartphone with a rear camera that comes with optical image stabilization. Depending on the model variant, you can either have 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB of UFS mass storage or 8 GB of RAM and 256 of GB internal storage. However, up to now, the Samsung handset is only available in its basic configuration with an RRP of $299. 

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Galaxy A20 Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 1280 8 x 2 - 2.4 GHz
Graphics adapter
Memory
6 GB 
Display
6.50 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 396 PPI, Capacitive touchscreen, Super AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 128 GB 
, 105 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3.5 mm jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 1TB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, compass, USB OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 5.3, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B17/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B32/​B38/​B40/​B41/​B66), 5G (n1/​n3/​n7/​n8/​n20/​n28/​n38/​n40/​n41/​n77/​n78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.3 x 161 x 76.5 ( = 0.33 x 6.34 x 3.01 in)
Battery
5000 mAh
Operating System
Android 14
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8) + 8 MP (f/2.2) + 2 MP (f/2.4)
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix (f/2.0)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo , Keyboard: OnScreen, USB cable, info material , One UI 5.1, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value; 0.458W/​kg Head, 1.189W/​kg Body, widevine L1, fanless
Weight
197 g ( = 6.95 oz / 0.43 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
299 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors compared

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
84.5 %
02/2024
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4
197 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.50"2340x1080
83.7 %
02/2024
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4
208 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.50"2340x1080
82.2 %
11/2023
Motorola Moto G84
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
166.8 g256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.50"2400x1080
81.4 %
06/2023
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
195 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.72"2400x1080
81.4 %
05/2023
Xiaomi Poco X5
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
190 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.67"2400x1080

Case - The Samsung smartphone comes with a notch

The Galaxy A25 5G's selection of colors
The Galaxy A25 5G's selection of colors

The Samsung smartphone comes in the typical Galaxy A series design, including the display notch. But, compared to the Galaxy A34 5G, the Galaxy A25 has a wider "chin" below the display. This means, at 84.2 percent, the ratio between the AMOLED panel and the front side of the device is slightly less efficient – in this area, for example, the Poco X5 just has its nose in front with an 85 percent screen-to-body ratio. Samsung has not disclosed any information regarding the implemented protective glass.

The Galaxy A25 is available in three different color options "Blue Black", "Blue" and "Yellow" with every device possessing an eye-catching structure on the rear of the smartphone called "Haze Finish". However, the surface is very glossy and this leads to the presence of fingerprints. When it comes to how premium the device feels, there is also room for improvement considering the plastic rear is paired with a plastic frame. The Samsung smartphone lacks IP certification against spray water.

Weighing 197 grams, the Galaxy A25 is not a lightweight but you couldn't describe it as uncomfortably heavy either. The build quality is satisfactory and the gap dimensions are tight. The button's pressure points have a nice crisp feel. 

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

Size comparison

165.88 mm / 6.53 inch 76.21 mm / 3 inch 7.98 mm / 0.3142 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs165.5 mm / 6.52 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 195 g0.4299 lbs161.7 mm / 6.37 inch 77.2 mm / 3.04 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs161 mm / 6.34 inch 76.5 mm / 3.01 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 197 g0.4343 lbs160 mm / 6.3 inch 74.4 mm / 2.93 inch 7.6 mm / 0.2992 inch 166.8 g0.3677 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

Features - The Galaxy A25 5G has NFC

The affordable, mid-range smartphone's features include an NFC chip, stereo speakers, Bluetooth 5.3 as well as an audio jack for headphones. However, a mistake appears to have slipped into the data sheet since the installed Samsung SoC only supports the 5.2 standards. For wired data transfer, a USB type C connector stands at the ready and supports the slow USB 2.0 standard. Likewise on board is USB OTG which enables the quick connection of external accessories. The wireless transfer of display content to external monitors via Miracast is possible and, thanks to Widevine L1, video content from streaming services can be viewed in HD quality.

Our review sample comes with 128 GB of UFS 2.2 storage which has, in fact, a lower available capacity of 105 GB  due to the operating system and some preinstalled apps. Despite this, the internal storage can be expanded via microSD cards.

Case left side (card slot)
Case left side (card slot)
Case right side (buttons)
Case right side (buttons)
Case top (microphone)
Case top (microphone)
Case bottom (speakers, USB port, microphone, 3.5 mm audio jack)
Case bottom (speakers, USB port, microphone, 3.5 mm audio jack)

microSD card reader

The Galaxy A25's integrated microSD slot covers all of the current standards including SDHC as well as SDXC up to 1 TB, however, memory expansion comes at the cost of losing the dual SIM capabilities.   

When it comes to copy speed, at 27 MB/s, the Samsung smartphone runs solidly. The manufacturer's current entry-level tablet, the Tab A9, shows that more is feasible. In our tests, the Galaxy A23 copied images considerably quicker. In the Cross Platform Disk Test, the Galaxy A25 demonstrated itself to be very unstable. Nevertheless, paired with our AV PRO V60 reference card, the values are still convincing. 

SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird V60)
48.5 MB/s +77%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird V60)
39.5 MB/s +44%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird V60)
27.4 MB/s
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
27.13 MB/s -1%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird V60)
24.6 MB/s -10%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

0102030405060708090100Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø33.1 (17.6-53.8)
Motorola Moto G84 Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø39.1 (31.5-48.4)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø75.1 (39.1-107.7)
Motorola Moto G84 Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø78.1 (26.1-83.5)

Software - The Samsung Galaxy A25 5G offers lengthy updates

One of the Galaxy A25's special features - especially in this price category - is its long-term software support. In this area of software maintenance, with four big Android updates and five years of security patches, Samsung is both exemplary and sustainable. No other $300 smartphone offers this. 

In addition, the Galaxy phone already uses the current One UI 6 user interface that is based on Android 14. At the time of review, the Galaxy A25 is relying on the most recent security updates from Januar 2024. According to information provided by the manufacturer, the latter will be updated quarterly.

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

Communication and GNSS - The 5G Samsung smartphone

In home networks, the Galaxy A25 5G only transmits using WiFi 5, however, it includes support for VHT80 meaning that, in theory, a transfer speed of up to 800 MBit/s can be achieved. Although the Samsung handset has impressively consistent transfer rates, in no way does the Wi-Fi modem make the most of the maximum bandwidth. Just like the competition, paired with the Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000, the Galaxy A25 reaches, on average, speeds of around 300 MBit/s. 

For mobile internet access, the mid-tier phone supports access to the 5G network. With 17 LTE bands, the 4G frequency range is also very commendable for this price class. In German-speaking areas, users are very well covered but, we would recommend checking the necessary frequencies before embarking on a foreign trip.

Networking
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
iperf3 receive AXE11000
339 (min: 325) MBit/s ∼52%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
304 (min: 288) MBit/s ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
iperf3 receive AXE11000
321 (min: 303) MBit/s ∼49%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
242 (min: 197) MBit/s ∼35%
Motorola Moto G84
iperf3 receive AXE11000
326 (min: 319) MBit/s ∼50%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
358 (min: 334) MBit/s ∼52%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
iperf3 receive AXE11000
330 (min: 290) MBit/s ∼50%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
357 (min: 269) MBit/s ∼52%
Xiaomi Poco X5
iperf3 receive AXE11000
344 (min: 173) MBit/s ∼53%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
364 (min: 183) MBit/s ∼53%
Average of class Smartphone
iperf3 receive AXE11000
655 (min: 34.8) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
692 (min: 40.5) MBit/s ∼100%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280, ARM Mali-G68 MP4; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø339 (325-345)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø338 (173-351)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280, ARM Mali-G68 MP4; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø304 (288-328)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø358 (183-386)
Location outdoors
Location outdoors
Location indoors
Location indoors

Positioning with the Galaxy A25 is done via single-band GNSS using the common satellite networks: Glonass, Galileo, BeiDou and GPS. Theoretically, the latter should be possible in dual-band, with the installed Exynos 1280 at least supporting this feature. In everyday use, the satellite fix happens swiftly and is also accurate inside buildings six meters tall.

On a bike tour, we took a closer at the Samsung smartphone's location quality, comparing it with the Garmin Menu 2. The total calculated distance only differed by 20 meters. However, in the detailed route analysis, minor inaccuracies could be observed in and after bends in the road. Despite this, overall, the Galaxy A25 manages to present a very accurate illustration of the travelled route.  

Garmin Venu 2 location
Garmin Venu 2 location
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G location
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G location

Telephone functions and voice quality - The Galaxy A25 has dual SIM functionality

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

Held to your ear, the Galaxy A25's voice quality is pleasant sounding and voice reproduction is very natural. The mid-range smartphone can do both VoLTE and Wi-Fi calls as well as being able to house a fully functional dual SIM with two nano SIM card slots. However, the device is not eSIM-capable. Conveniently, the VoWiFi can be switched on and off via a button in the One UI quick menu.

Cameras - The Samsung phone comes with OIS

A Galaxy A25 portrait image
A Galaxy A25 portrait image

The Galaxy A25 possesses a 13 MPix selfie camera with a fixed focus. Under daylight conditions, the camera housed inside the display notch offers satisfactory sharpness and very decent exposure. The Samsung phone takes videos at a maximum of FullHD quality. 

On the rear of the device, we have a 50 MPix camera with OIS and a bright f/1.8 aperture. Although Samsung has not disclosed which sensor it has installed, the key figures would suggest we are dealing with an in-house ISOCELL JN1 - the HW app device info is the same for the main camera. With a sensor size of  1/2.76 inches and a resolution of 50 MP, the 0.64-micrometer pixels are quite small but the ISOCELL 2.0 technology calculates 1.28-micrometer virtual pixels by default.  

0.8x
0.8x
1x
1x
2x
2x
4x
4x
10x (max)
10x (max)
50 MP mode
50 MP mode
Macro
Macro

The main camera's color balance is kept quite neutral which means photos appear natural and not over-saturated. The Galaxy A25 is also no slouch when it comes to image sharpness, but, on closer inspection, a slight graininess is present, even in daylight. Exposure is not one of the 50 MPix lens's strengths. In return, we really like the low-light photos for a $300 cell phone. This is where the longer exposure time resulting from the OIS makes its presence felt. 

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

The ultra wide-angle lens and its low-resolution 8 MP sensor are appropriate for this price category. Low dynamics and few image errors lead to solid image quality. Galaxy A25 users shouldn't expect print-standard images. The same applies to the 2 MPix sensor for macro shots which round off the rear triple-camera system. 

The Samsung smartphone can record videos at a maximum of UHD resolution at 30 fps.

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 cameraLow-lightWide-angle

Under controlled lighting conditions, we analysed the 50 MP lens's color reproduction compared to the actual reference colors. Typical for smartphones, photo brightening is visible, however, this only occurs very subtly. Otherwise, the Samsung camera software delivers surprisingly low deviations in the ColorChecker passport and hardly puts a foot wrong when it comes to color accuracy (>10). 

ColorChecker
6.2 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
7 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
4 ∆E
6 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
6 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
1.3 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A25 5G: 5.74 ∆E min: 1.29 - max: 9.32 ∆E
ColorChecker
28.8 ∆E
48.9 ∆E
37.9 ∆E
34.6 ∆E
43.1 ∆E
57.9 ∆E
47.9 ∆E
32.6 ∆E
35.6 ∆E
28 ∆E
59.2 ∆E
60.6 ∆E
29.1 ∆E
44.6 ∆E
31 ∆E
67.4 ∆E
40.7 ∆E
40.5 ∆E
64.8 ∆E
65.2 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
36.4 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A25 5G: 42.56 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 67.43 ∆E

Accesories and warranty - The Samsung smartphone comes without a charger

The Galaxy A25's optional card slot case
The Galaxy A25's optional card slot case

Unfortunately, the Galaxy A25 5G doesn't come with a charger. In the box, you will only find a data/ charging cable (USB-C to USB-C), a SIM tool as well as a quick guide and the warranty conditions. Anyone who likes to use a case to protect their phone will find what they're looking for in the Samsung store.

In the US, Samsung offers a 12-month warranty on its cell phone. The manufacturer also offers the Care+ insurance package for the affordable mid-range device. Prices start at $8 per month for a 36-month term.

Input devices & operation - The Samsung Galaxy A25 5G has Face Unlock

The built-in AMOLED and its 120 Hz refresh rate are responsible for smooth animations and website scrolling. However, in everyday use, small stutters consistently rear their head in an otherwise smooth operating experience. Inputs on the 6.5-inch display are implemented quickly and accurately right into the corners of the touchscreen. Out-of-the-box, the manufacturer has opted against fitting the device with a screen protector.

A fingerprint scanner takes care of biometric security and is integrated into the power button. It's nicely positioned and easy to reach. The active sensor is sometimes somewhat slow to respond but still manages to deliver satisfactory recognition rates.

Using the front camera under good lighting conditions, the face recognition unlocking process works a little faster but is slightly less secure due to its use of 2D scanning technology.

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone review

Display - The Galaxy A25 OLED panel

The OLED display uses an RGGB subpixel matrix based on a red, a blue and two green light diodes.
The OLED display uses an RGGB subpixel matrix based on a red, a blue and two green light diodes.

The Galaxy A25's 6.5-inch Super AMOLED display has a resolution of 2,400 x 1,080 pixels, thereby achieving a pixel density of almost 400 ppi. The 120 Hz refresh rate doesn't adapt automatically depending on the use case but can only be switched manually between one of two levels - 60 or 120 Hz. 

The South Korean manufacturer has specified the panel brightness to reach a maximum of 1,000 cd/m² (HBM) and is fairly in accordance with our measurements (1,088 cd/m²) when the ambient light sensor is active and an APL18 pattern is displayed on the screen. With a completely white image on the display, we measured a similar 946 cd/m². Having HDR10 and HGL support also makes the panel suitable for displaying HDR content. 

Due to the type of display technology used here, the Galaxy A25 is not spared from screen flickering. In our measurements, the PWM frequency hardly fluctuates and sits at a relatively constant 120 Hz. 

917
cd/m²
921
cd/m²
946
cd/m²
926
cd/m²
912
cd/m²
943
cd/m²
943
cd/m²
932
cd/m²
914
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 946 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 928.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 912 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.09 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
145.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.251
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.50
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.50
Motorola Moto G84
P-OLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.72
Xiaomi Poco X5
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67
Screen
-13%
-20%
-132%
-48%
Brightness middle
912
883
-3%
894
-2%
672
-26%
674
-26%
Brightness
928
888
-4%
889
-4%
656
-29%
683
-26%
Brightness Distribution
96
95
-1%
94
-2%
90
-6%
98
2%
Black Level *
0.39
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
1.09
1.76
-61%
1.1
-1%
3.88
-256%
1.6
-47%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
2.26
2.51
-11%
2.81
-24%
7.89
-249%
5.3
-135%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.6
1.6
-0%
3
-88%
5.2
-225%
2.5
-56%
Gamma
2.251 98%
2.109 104%
2.252 98%
2.218 99%
2.21 100%
CCT
6491 100%
6626 98%
7122 91%
7734 84%
6346 102%
Contrast
1723

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 119.8 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 119.8 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 119.8 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17915 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

minimum brightness
minimum brightness
25% brightness
25% brightness
50% brightness
50% brightness
75% brightness
75% brightness
100% brightness
100% brightness

A series of measurements using a fixed level of zoom and various brightness settings

The mid-tier phone has a total of two color profiles. Using the "Vivid" profile it's possible to set the basic colors as well as the color temperature.

We analysed the AMOLED panel's color calibration using the Calman analysis software and a photo spectrometer. We achieved the best results using the "Natural" profile and observed very low color deviations as well as recording small differences in the displayed gray scale DeltaE values. It's also worth mentioning that in the comparison, the larger sRGB P3 color space was almost completely covered.

Color accuracy (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color accuracy (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: Adobe RGB; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: Adobe RGB; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: sRGB; profile: natural)
Color space (target color space: sRGB; profile: natural)
Gray scales (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Gray scales (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color saturation (target color space: P3; profile: natural)
Color saturation (target color space: P3; profile: natural)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
1.5 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.1 ms rise
↘ 7.9 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1 ms rise
↘ 1 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 5 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

Outdoors, the Galaxy A25 made a good impression. Thanks to its high brightness, the OLED panel's legibility under winter lighting conditions is a given. Only reflections in summer are likely to result in a more restricted viewing experience.  

We have no complaints when it comes to the Super AMOLED panel's viewing angle stability. Even when viewed from a wide angle, the brightness and colors appear unchanged.  

Performance - The Samsung smartphone has an Exynos SoC

The Galaxy A25 comes with the in-house manufactured, 5 nm process, Exynos 1280. The chipset possesses two Cortex A78 cores for power delivery and its graphics unit comes in the form of the integrated Mali G68 MP4.  

In our series of benchmarks, the Samsung smartphone positions itself along with the Galaxy M34 5G, a little bit behind the Snapdragon 695 mid-range competition. However, in Geekbench, the Galaxy A25 performed marginally better than its sister model in the areas of both single-core and multi-core performance.

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 2138, n=217, last 2 years)
918 Points +22%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
751 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (736 - 751, n=5)
741 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
740 Points -1%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
678 Points -10%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
674 Points -10%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
674 Points -10%
Multi-Core
Average of class Smartphone
  (473 - 6681, n=217, last 2 years)
3009 Points +47%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
2042 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
2031 Points -1%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1963 Points -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (1826 - 2042, n=5)
1936 Points -5%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
1925 Points -6%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
1839 Points -10%
Geekbench 6.2
Single-Core
Average of class Smartphone
  (193 - 2930, n=103, last 2 years)
1409 Points +44%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
976 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (961 - 976, n=2)
969 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
961 Points -2%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
911 Points -7%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
893 Points -9%
Multi-Core
Average of class Smartphone
  (845 - 7408, n=103, last 2 years)
3888 Points +81%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
2152 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (2061 - 2152, n=2)
2107 Points -2%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
2064 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
2061 Points -4%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
2058 Points -4%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone
  (102602 - 1650926, n=153, last 2 years)
738503 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
434975 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
416086 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (398969 - 434975, n=3)
414640 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
404106 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
398336 Points
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
13748 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
13643 Points -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (11077 - 13748, n=5)
12233 Points -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4761 - 21385, n=213, last 2 years)
11798 Points -14%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
11732 Points -15%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
10634 Points -23%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
10055 Points -27%
CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone
  (200 - 1474, n=165, last 2 years)
837 Points +40%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
598 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
591 Points -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (579 - 598, n=2)
589 Points -2%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
583 Points -3%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average of class Smartphone
  (411 - 11438, n=165, last 2 years)
5745 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
3819 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
3767 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3719 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (3477 - 3719, n=3)
3607 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3333 Points
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
Points
System
Average of class Smartphone
  (2376 - 16475, n=165, last 2 years)
9678 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
8231 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
7745 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
7444 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (7157 - 7444, n=3)
7262 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
6958 Points
Memory
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 12716, n=165, last 2 years)
6250 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
4560 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
4179 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (3604 - 3855, n=3)
3763 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3623 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3604 Points
Graphics
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 58651, n=165, last 2 years)
14101 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
5274 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (5104 - 5274, n=3)
5185 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
4360 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
4346 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3975 Points
Web
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2145, n=165, last 2 years)
1494 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
1382 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1352 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
1348 Points
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1232 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (1041 - 1352, n=3)
1201 Points
UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI
Average of class Smartphone
  (207 - 84787, n=150, last 2 years)
21814 Points +337%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
5785 Points +16%
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
5758 Points +15%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
5723 Points +15%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
4988 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
4825 Points -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (4126 - 4988, n=4)
4545 Points -9%
AImark - Score v3.x
Average of class Smartphone
  (298 - 245629, n=105, last 2 years)
17833 Points
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
3080 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 12288
478 Points
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
Points

In the graphics tests, with its Mali G68 MP4, the Galaxy A25 5G achieved very competitive results. With lower GFX Bench and 3DMark scores, the comparison devices and their Adreno 619 also fare worse here than the Samsung smartphone.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
631 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
624 Points -1%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
354 Points -44%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
352 Points -44%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
640 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
639 Points 0%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
361 Points -44%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
360 Points -44%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2401 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2285 Points -5%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1207 Points -50%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1193 Points -50%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2367 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2321 Points -2%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1216 Points -49%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1203 Points -49%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2846 Points +5%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2777 Points +2%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2712 Points
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3987 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3955 Points -1%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2713 Points -32%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3614 Points 0%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3609 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2741 Points -24%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3506 Points +12%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3392 Points +9%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3327 Points +6%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3125 Points
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4098 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4040 Points -1%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2988 Points -27%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2968 Points -28%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3856 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3804 Points
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3073 Points -19%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3069 Points -19%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
87 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
85 fps -2%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
83 fps -5%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
79 fps -9%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
60 fps -31%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
97 fps
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
96 fps -1%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
95 fps -2%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
94 fps -3%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
93 fps -4%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
59 fps +20%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
49 fps
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
43 fps -12%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
42 fps -14%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
42 fps -14%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
63 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
60 fps -5%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
48 fps -24%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
47 fps -25%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
47 fps -25%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
38 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
37 fps -3%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
31 fps -18%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
30 fps -21%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
30 fps -21%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
41 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
41 fps
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
35 fps -15%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
34 fps -17%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
34 fps -17%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
21 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps -5%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
17 fps -19%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
17 fps -19%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
17 fps -19%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
24 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
24 fps
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps -17%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps -17%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps -17%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
16 fps +7%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
15 fps
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
12 fps -20%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
12 fps -20%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
12 fps -20%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
10 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
10 fps
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
8 fps -20%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
7.8 fps -22%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
7.8 fps -22%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
24 fps +4%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
23 fps
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
19 fps -17%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
19 fps -17%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
19 fps -17%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
28 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
27 fps -4%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
22 fps -21%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
21 fps -25%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
21 fps -25%
GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4.5 fps
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4.4 fps -2%
Xiaomi Poco X5
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4 fps -11%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3.5 fps -22%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3.5 fps -22%

When surfing with the Chrome browser, the Galaxy A25 impressed us with moderate loading times. The Samsung smartphone also did well in the benchmark test. In this area, the Samsung device is consistently ahead of its M34 5G sister model.  

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years)
106.1 Points +8%
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
102.69 Points +5%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G (Chrome 120)
101.961 Points +4%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Chrome 212)
97.837 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (63.5 - 102, n=4)
82.3 Points -16%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chrome 114)
78.264 Points -20%
Xiaomi Poco X5 (Chrome 113)
68.36 Points -30%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years)
107.1 runs/min +44%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Chrome 212)
74.3 runs/min
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G (Chrome 120)
74.2 runs/min 0%
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
72.6 runs/min -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (48 - 74.3, n=4)
61.9 runs/min -17%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chome 114)
58.2 runs/min -22%
Xiaomi Poco X5 (chrome 113)
44.3 runs/min -40%
WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Chrome 212)
109 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (106 - 109, n=2)
107.5 Points -1%
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
107 Points -2%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G (Chrome 120)
106 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 202, n=160, last 2 years)
100.2 Points -8%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chrome 114)
80 Points -27%
Xiaomi Poco X5 (Chrome 113)
73 Points -33%
WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
187 Points
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
156 Points -17%
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years)
133.1 Points -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (69 - 187, n=3)
112.7 Points -40%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chrome 114)
106 Points -43%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years)
33640 Points +3%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Chrome 212)
32736 Points
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G (Chrome 120)
32718 Points 0%
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
30733 Points -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (24159 - 32736, n=4)
28534 Points -13%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chrome 114)
24196 Points -26%
Xiaomi Poco X5 (Chrome 113)
22881 Points -30%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Xiaomi Poco X5 (Chrome 113)
1860 ms * -50%
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G (Chrome 114)
1615.5 ms * -30%
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years)
1595 ms * -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (1244 - 1920, n=4)
1576 ms * -27%
Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118)
1309.3 ms * -5%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
1281.6 ms * -3%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G (Chrome 212)
1243.5 ms *

* ... smaller is better

When it comes to storage connectivity, the Galaxy A25's budget price makes itself known. The Samsung handset has only opted for the UFS 2.2 standard which is ok compared to the competition, however, in general, it can't be regarded as really fast. In addition, the Galaxy A25 delivers low read speeds for this type of storage – similar to the M34 5G. The reasons for this can no doubt be found in the Exynos SoC's installed memory controller.

Samsung Galaxy A25 5GSamsung Galaxy M34 5GAverage 128 GB UFS 2.2 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
PCMark for Android
1%
46%
297%
Storage 2.0 seq. read int.
439 ?(3.0.4061)
471 ?(3.0.4061)
7%
Storage 2.0 seq. write int.
109.4 ?(3.0.4061)
94.2 ?(3.0.4061)
-14%
Storage 2.0 random read int.
34.9 ?(3.0.4061)
35 ?(3.0.4061)
0%
27.7 ?(18.2 - 35, n=11)
-21%
Storage 2.0 random write int.
42.2 ?(3.0.4061)
43.7 ?(3.0.4061)
4%
36.7 ?(22.2 - 44.3, n=11)
-13%
Storage 2.0
17052 ?(3.0.4061)
18141 ?(3.0.4061)
6%

Games - The Galaxy smartphone can hit 60fps

Despite being a mid-range smartphone, you can definitely grab a Galaxy A25 to play some PlayStore games. However, high frame-rate gaming is not possible with this budget device. Using the GameBench app, we took a look to see how smoothly Android games run. 

At medium detail settings (HD mode), PUBG mobile ran at a constant 30fps, and, after reducing our test's graphics detail settings, the Galaxy A25 also only managed 30 frames per second. Our data bank shows that the graphics unit is generally capable of better performance. Both the 90fps setting as well as the UHD mode are not available.

The graphically demanding Genshin Impact is very playable at low graphics settings at an average of 37 fps and set to the highest details, many graphical errors and massive dips in the frame rate sneak into the fantasy action role-playing game. 

Genshin Impact
Genshin Impact
PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G; Genshin Impact; lowest 120 fps: Ø37.5 (16-57)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G; Genshin Impact; highest 120 fps: Ø27.3 (8-60)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G; PUBG Mobile; Smooth: Ø29.8 (27-31)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G; PUBG Mobile; HD: Ø29.8 (27-31)

Emissions - The Samsung Galaxy A25 5G hardly throttles

Temperature

In our load scenario, the case remained comparatively cool with an average of only 37 °C, however, the heat development builds up quite heterogeneously. The upper third of the Galaxy A25 has significantly higher temperatures than the "chin" area.   

In terms of the Exynos SoC's performance, this hotspot didn't really make itself noticeable. With the 3DMark stress tests, we checked the performance under sustained load. For the Galaxy A25, we recorded scores of over 99 percent which attest to the system's consistent performance.

Max. Load
 45.4 °C
114 F
37.3 °C
99 F
32.5 °C
91 F
 
 43 °C
109 F
36.8 °C
98 F
32.8 °C
91 F
 
 41 °C
106 F
35.9 °C
97 F
32.2 °C
90 F
 
Maximum: 45.4 °C = 114 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
31.5 °C
89 F
36.6 °C
98 F
42.6 °C
109 F
31.7 °C
89 F
38.4 °C
101 F
42.1 °C
108 F
31.5 °C
89 F
36.5 °C
98 F
40.6 °C
105 F
Maximum: 42.6 °C = 109 F
Average: 36.8 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  41.2 °C = 106 F | Room Temperature 19.8 °C = 68 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.4 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.6 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.5 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life stress test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.7 % +1%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.6 % +1%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.5 % 0%
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.1 %
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.3 %
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.2 % 0%
Motorola Moto G84
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99 % 0%
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
98.6 % -1%
01234567891011121314Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø3.86 (3.85-3.88)
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø3.84 (3.8-3.86)
Motorola Moto G84 Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø2.15 (2.14-2.16)
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø2.17 (2.16-2.18)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.9 (13.8-14)
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.9 (13.9-13.9)
Motorola Moto G84 Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.2 (7.19-7.22)
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.26 (7.24-7.27)

Speakers

The Galaxy A25 doesn't possess fully-featured stereo speakers but, with the second speaker placed in the ear cup, a slight stereo feeling is present and the audio quality - despite lacking bass - is quite decent for a mid-range smartphone. Nevertheless, at 80 dBA, it could be somewhat louder. When it comes to pink noise, you can hear an increase in the mids and a decrease in the highs, however, for this price category, the progression is still quite linear. 

Wired headphones can be connected via the 3.5 mm audio jack. Alternatively, wireless transmission is possible with the help of Bluetooth. The only available audio codecs are SBC, AAC, aptX as well as LDAC and SSC.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.234.32532.630.43123.920.54025.828.15035.434.76322.420.88014.614.110018.126.712514.83816015.445.120012.648.125010.950.331510.755.34009.455.15008.255.76308.159.48008.760.8100010.767.31250969.516009.17020009.771.6250010.271.8315010.969.1400011.665.3500012.359.4630013.260800014.1621000014.960.41250015.7531600016.655SPL23.679.6N0.541.4median 10.9median 59.4Delta2.87.729.642.93043.824.537.725.840.837.543.325.240.320.247.520.445.917.547.814.450.814.351.215.251.811.956.913.561.612.166.112.466.311.77111.876.611.478.112.377.112.279.312.180.612.283.912.985.713.48413.282.512.979.613.678.913.476.913.265.324.8930.691.7median 12.9median 76.90.99.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A25 5GXiaomi Poco X5
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Xiaomi Poco X5 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (93 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.2% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Battery life - The Samsung smartphone charges slowly

Power consumption

The 5,000 mAh battery can be charged at up to 25 watts but you will have to purchase a suitable charger separately. A full charge with an appropriately powerful power source takes around 1.5 hours – in our test, we used a powerbank (PD 3.0, max. 100-watt).

The Galaxy A25's power consumption under both load and when running idle is inconspicuous. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt
Load midlight 4.6 / 8.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
6000 mAh
Motorola Moto G84
5000 mAh
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco X5
5000 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
4%
19%
6%
17%
3%
-1%
Idle Minimum *
1
1
-0%
1
-0%
1.1
-10%
0.96
4%
0.945 ?(0.88 - 1, n=4)
5%
Idle Average *
1.5
1.2
20%
1.3
13%
1.5
-0%
1.49
1%
1.368 ?(1.2 - 1.5, n=4)
9%
Idle Maximum *
1.7
1.7
-0%
1.4
18%
1.7
-0%
1.53
10%
Load Average *
4.6
4.5
2%
3.5
24%
4.1
11%
3.52
23%
5.05 ?(4.5 - 5.7, n=4)
-10%
Load Maximum *
8.3
8.4
-1%
5
40%
5.8
30%
4.32
48%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø5.14 (0.99-8.34)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø3.03 (1.085-5.3)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.165 (0.999-1.832)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.183 (1.111-1.285)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

012345Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø4.48 (4.2-5.28)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø3.13 (2.92-3.86)
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.165 (0.999-1.832)
Xiaomi Poco X5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.183 (1.111-1.285)

Battery runtime

The Samsung phone's runtimes are impressive but not on the same level as a Galaxy M34 5G - for our tests, we used the full, 120 Hz refresh rate.

The typical, greatly increased power consumption of the communication modules was very noticeable in the Galaxy A25 when running the Big Buck Bunny video endless loop. At around 15.5 hours, the Samsung smartphone only lasted just short of 3 hours longer in our Wi-Fi battery test with adaptive display brightness (150 cd/m²).  

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
29h 23min
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 121)
12h 50min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
15h 41min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 48min
Samsung Galaxy A25 5G
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M34 5G
6000 mAh
Motorola Moto G84
5000 mAh
OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco X5
5000 mAh
Battery Runtime
28%
15%
18%
-1%
Reader / Idle
1763
2155
22%
1997
13%
2165
23%
1482
-16%
H.264
941
1203
28%
1002
6%
1029
9%
896
-5%
WiFi v1.3
770
1064
38%
908
18%
986
28%
662
-14%
Load
228
286
25%
277
21%
254
11%
304
33%

Pros

+ bright, 120 Hz AMOLED panel
+ smart-looking design
+ long updates
+ extensive features
+ long battery life
+ good main camera with OIS

Cons

- slow charging
- no IP rating
- a lot of plastic
- not many BT codecs
- only WiFi 5
- no charger included

Verdict - Samsung Galaxy A25 5G

Review: Samsung Galaxy A25 5G. Review device provided by cyberport.de
Review: Samsung Galaxy A25 5G. Review device provided by cyberport.de

With its new Galaxy A25 5G, Samsung has done a lot right. The mid-range smartphone looks stylish and offers a well-rounded set of features which is complimented by long-term software support. Highlights, in addition to the software maintenance, are the bright and very well-calibrated (for its price class) AMOLED panel. But, we were also positively surprised by the 50 MPix OIS camera, especially in low-light situations. Anyone in the Galaxy cosmos not satisfied with the Galaxy A25's battery life could find a long-lasting alternative in the form of the Galaxy M34 5G. In addition, the sister model is IP67 certified, unlike the Galaxy A25.

The Samsung Galaxy A25 is a very good mid-range smartphone whose small stutters you will have to forgive.  

The installed Exynos 1280 is a solid chipset, especially when considering the RRP of under $300. However, the Samsung SoC is not always capable of continually providing the Galaxy A25 with sufficient power to guarantee a stutter-free user experience. There's still some room for improvement in this area when it comes to driver and software optimization. The same applies to the long charging times and the limited choice of Bluetooth codecs. With its Nord CE 3 Lite, Oneplus demonstrates that more is possible regarding these points.  

Anyone on the lookout for a somewhat slimmer and, above all, lighter device than the Galaxy A25, should take a closer look at the Motorola Moto G84

Price and availability

With an RRP of $300, the Samsung Galaxy A25 5G smartphone is currently available on Amazon

Samsung Galaxy A25 5G - 02/12/2024 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
85%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
50 / 70 → 72%
Weight
88%
Battery
90%
Display
94%
Games Performance
41 / 64 → 64%
Application Performance
85 / 86 → 98%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 90 → 80%
Camera
68%
Average
79%
85%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of 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.

Pricecompare

Read all 4 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article