Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.4 | 80 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 6.0 Marshmallow | -- |
| 2016-03-30 | 2018-10-18 |
| 6.37 x 3.19 x 0.31 inches | 5.73 x 2.69 x 0.31 inches |
| 7.41 ounces | 5.22 ounces |
| Black, Gold and White | Black, Pink and White |
| -- | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| -- | $ 157.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) | 2160 x 1080 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | P-OLED |
| 367 pixels per inch | 439 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 7.8 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 652 8976 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A72 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 28 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Kryo 385, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2500 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 510 GPU | Adreno 630 GPU |
| 8.91 | 9.36 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 256 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 8.88 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 16.00 MP | 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.90 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 28.00mm focal length |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| -- | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 7.7 | 9.79 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G) and LTE (4G) | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 5.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 2915mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.8 | 4.88 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.2 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Google Pixel 3 has a global score of 80, which is a bit better than Galaxy A9 Pro (2016)'s overall score of 74.4. The Google Pixel 3 is a incredibly lighter cellphone than the Galaxy A9 Pro (2016), but they have the same thickness. Google Pixel 3 counts with a bit better looking display than Samsung Galaxy A9 Pro (2016), because although it has a quite smaller screen, it also counts with a just a bit higher quantity of pixels in each inch of screen and a little bit higher resolution of 1080 x 2160 pixels.
Galaxy A9 Pro (2016) has a quite bigger storage for apps and games than Google Pixel 3, because although it has just 32 GB internal storage capacity, it also counts with a slot for SD memory cards that admits a maximum of 256 GB. The Google Pixel 3 has just a little better performance than Samsung Galaxy A9 Pro (2016). Both have a Octa-Core CPU and a 4 GB RAM.
The Google Pixel 3 captures way better videos and photos than Galaxy A9 Pro (2016), because although it has a camera in the back with lot less mega-pixels, it also counts with a bigger sensor capturing more light and vivid colors and a bigger aperture for better images and video in low light situations.
Galaxy A9 Pro (2016) counts with a way better battery life than Google Pixel 3, because it has a 5000mAh battery capacity instead of 2915mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.