Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 68.2 | 71.5 |
| Basic Information | |
| Xiaomi | Samsung |
| Android 10 | Android 4.0 |
| 2020-07-15 | 0000-00-00 |
| 6.49 x 3.03 x 0.35 inches | 5.39 x 2.80 x 0.34 inches |
| 6.91 ounces | 4.72 ounces |
| Carbon grey, Ocean green and Sky blue | Black, Blue, Brown and White |
| Plastic | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 126.00 | $ 100.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.5 inches | 4.8 inches |
| 1600 x 720 pixels | 720 x 1280 pixels (HD) |
| IPS LCD | Super AMOLED |
| 270 pixels per inch | 306 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | Capacitive, Multi-touch |
| 7.2 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| MediaTek Helio G25 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus MSM8960 chipset |
| Arm Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 12 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | Krait (Dual-Core 1500 MHz) processor |
| 2 GB RAM | 2 GB (500 MHz) RAM |
| PowerVR GE8320 GPU | Adreno 225 (400 MHz) GPU |
| 9 | 8.46 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 32 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSD, microSDHC, microSDXC (up to 64 GB) external memory slot |
| 5.8 | 7.56 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 8.00 MP + 1.90 MP |
| -- | f/2.60 aperture |
| -- | 0.33 inches (1/3") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| 8.14 | 8.47 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE (4G), EV-DO A and CDMA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Micro SIM |
| 6.7 | 5.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 2100mAh Li-Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| -- | 200 hours standby time 15 hours talk time |
| 6.8 | 4 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| -- | NFC |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Galaxy S III Cricket is a bit better than Xiaomi Redmi 9A, with a 71.5 score against 68.2. Both phones we compare here work with Android OS (Operating System), but the Galaxy S III Cricket has 4.0 version and Xiaomi Redmi 9A has Android 10 version. Galaxy S III Cricket is a noticeably lighter and a little thinner phone than the Xiaomi Redmi 9A.
The Xiaomi Redmi 9A features a bit superior processing unit than Samsung Galaxy S III Cricket, because although it has doesn't have an extra graphics co-processor, and they both have a 2 GB RAM, the Xiaomi Redmi 9A also counts with a larger number of cores. The Galaxy S III Cricket has a better looking screen than Xiaomi Redmi 9A, because although it has a bit worse resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels and a really smaller screen, it also counts with a little more pixels per inch in the screen.
Samsung Galaxy S III Cricket has a very superior memory capacity to store more games and applications than Xiaomi Redmi 9A, and although they both have equal 32 GB internal storage capacity, the Samsung Galaxy S III Cricket also has a SD memory slot that allows up to 64 GB. The Xiaomi Redmi 9A has a superior battery lifetime than Samsung Galaxy S III Cricket, because it has 5000mAh of battery capacity against 2100mAh.
The Galaxy S III Cricket shoots slightly better photos and videos than Xiaomi Redmi 9A, although it has a lower 1920x1080 (Full HD) video resolution and a way less megapixels resolution camera in the back.
Even being the best phone of the ones we are comparing, the Galaxy S III Cricket is also very cheap compared to the other ones, which makes it an easy decision.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.