Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 71.5 | 83.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 13 | -- |
| 0000-00-00 | 2019-03-15 |
| 6.63 x 3.02 x 0.33 inches | 6.24 x 2.93 x 0.30 inches |
| 6.99 ounces | 5.86 ounces |
| Cerulean Blue, Cloudwing Grey and Flowing Purple | Black, Blue, Coral and White |
| -- | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| -- | $ 202.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.8 inches | 6.4 inches |
| 2460 x 1080 pixels | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| IPS LCD | Super AMOLED |
| 395 pixels per inch | 403 pixels per inch |
| 5000 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.6 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| MediaTek Helio G99 MT6789 (6 nm) chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9610 chipset |
| Octa-Core 2200 MHz processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G57 MC2 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 15.42 | 14.14 |
| Camera | |
| 64.00 MP + 13.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 25.00 MP |
| -- | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor |
| -- | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 8.69 | 10.12 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Battery | 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.8 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy A50 is better than OSCAL Tiger 12, with an 83.8 score against 71.5. Samsung Galaxy A50's construction is lighter and a little bit thinner than the OSCAL Tiger 12. The OSCAL Tiger 12 counts with a much more vibrant display than Samsung Galaxy A50, because although it has a bit less pixels per inch of screen, it also counts with a little larger display and a quite better resolution of 1080 x 2460 pixels.
The OSCAL Tiger 12 features a bit bigger memory for applications and games than Galaxy A50, and although they both have exactly the same 128 GB internal memory, the OSCAL Tiger 12 also has a SD card slot that holds a maximum of 1 TB. Samsung Galaxy A50's processor is very similar to OSCAL Tiger 12's processor, and although the Samsung Galaxy A50 has a smaller amount of RAM, they both have 8 CPU cores.
The OSCAL Tiger 12 has superior battery performance than Samsung Galaxy A50, because it has a 25% bigger battery capacity. The Galaxy A50 has a superior camera than OSCAL Tiger 12, although it has a way less mega-pixels back camera.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.