Nothing Phone 3 VS Nothing Phone (3a) Pro

The most consequential difference in this group is water protection. The Nothing Phone 3 carries an IP68 rating, meaning it is certified to withstand full submersion in water — a genuine safety net if the phone is dropped in a sink, pool, or puddle. The Nothing Phone (3a) Pro, by contrast, is rated IP64, which covers only dust ingress and splash/spray resistance but offers no protection against immersion. In day-to-day use this gap matters: Phone 3 users can be far more relaxed around water, while (3a) Pro users should treat it as splash-proof rather than waterproof.

On physical form, the two devices trade blows. The (3a) Pro is notably slimmer at 8.4 mm versus 9 mm, and sheds 7 g (211 g vs. 218 g), making it the more comfortable option during extended single-handed use. However, it is also taller (163.5 mm vs. 160.6 mm) and wider (77.5 mm vs. 75.6 mm), so the in-pocket slimness advantage is partially offset by a larger footprint. Overall displaced volume is marginally lower on the (3a) Pro, but the difference is negligible in practice. Neither device has a rugged build or a folding form factor.

On balance, the Nothing Phone 3 holds a clear design-category edge, solely because of its IP68 certification. The (3a) Pro's slimmer and lighter profile is a real comfort benefit, but IP68 versus IP64 is a qualitative protection gap that is difficult to dismiss — especially for users who frequently use their phone in or around water.

Sharpness is where these two screens diverge most visibly. The Nothing Phone 3 packs a 1260 x 2800 resolution into its 6.67″ panel, yielding a pixel density of 460 ppi — comfortably in the territory where individual pixels become imperceptible to the naked eye. The Nothing Phone (3a) Pro runs a 1080 x 2392 panel across a slightly larger 6.77″ screen, landing at 387 ppi. Both are perfectly watchable, but side by side the Phone 3 will render finer text, detailed photography, and high-resolution video with noticeably more clarity.

The (3a) Pro counters with a striking contrast advantage: its rated contrast ratio of 5,000,000:1 is five times that of the Phone 3's 1,000,000:1. In practice on an OLED panel this translates to deeper perceived blacks and punchier highlights in dark scenes, which can make HDR content appear more dramatic. The Phone 3 also carries branded damage-resistant glass — a real-world durability benefit — while the (3a) Pro does not, making the latter more vulnerable to surface scratches over time. Everything else — refresh rate, touch sampling, typical brightness, HDR10/HDR10+ support, and Always-On Display — is identical between the two.

Overall, the Nothing Phone 3 holds the display edge for most users. Its resolution and pixel density lead is meaningful for everyday readability, and the added screen protection is a practical plus. The (3a) Pro's superior contrast ratio is a genuine strength for media consumption, but it is not enough to outweigh the sharpness and durability gap in a head-to-head comparison.

This is one of the most lopsided performance matchups possible between two phones sharing a brand. The Nothing Phone 3 runs on the Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 — a flagship-tier chip — while the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro relies on the mid-range Snapdragon 7s Gen 3. The benchmark numbers make the gap impossible to ignore: the Phone 3 scores 2,084,000 on AnTuTu versus the (3a) Pro's 750,673 — nearly three times higher. Geekbench 6 tells the same story, with the Phone 3 posting 2041 single-core and 6833 multi-core against the (3a) Pro's 1162 and 3239 respectively. In real-world terms, this translates to faster app launches, smoother multitasking, and significantly more headroom for demanding games and AI-driven tasks.

Memory compounds the gap further. The Phone 3 ships with 16 GB of RAM at 4800 MHz and a maximum memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s — three times the (3a) Pro's 25.6 GB/s — meaning data moves between the CPU and memory dramatically faster, benefiting everything from gaming to video editing. Storage also favors the Phone 3, offering 512 GB versus the (3a) Pro's 256 GB. The Phone 3's Adreno 825 GPU also outclasses the Adreno 710 in the (3a) Pro, a meaningful difference for graphically intensive workloads. One nuance worth noting: the Phone 3's 12.5 W TDP versus the (3a) Pro's 5 W signals that the more powerful chip draws more energy under load, which may affect sustained performance and thermals differently.

The Nothing Phone 3 wins this category decisively and without ambiguity. Across every meaningful performance metric — raw compute, memory speed, GPU capability, and storage capacity — it outclasses the (3a) Pro by a wide margin. The (3a) Pro is a capable mid-range device, but users who prioritize performance should consider these two phones in fundamentally different tiers.

Both phones open with identical 50 MP primary sensors and 50 MP front cameras, and share a strong common feature set — OIS, phase-detection autofocus, RAW capture, and 3x optical zoom. The real divergence begins with the third rear lens: the Nothing Phone 3 fields a full 50 MP sensor there, while the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro drops to just 8 MP. That third camera is typically used for ultra-wide or macro shooting, and the resolution gap means the Phone 3 retains far more detail when cropping or printing shots taken through that lens.

Aperture differences also favor the Phone 3 in low-light conditions. Its primary lens opens to f/1.68 compared to the (3a) Pro's f/1.9 — a wider aperture that admits more light and can produce a shallower depth of field. The gap on the second lens is even more pronounced: f/2.68 versus f/2.0 on the (3a) Pro, which actually gives the (3a) Pro an edge on that specific lens. Video capability, however, is unambiguous: the Phone 3 shoots 4K at 60 fps while the (3a) Pro is capped at 4K at 30 fps, a meaningful difference for anyone shooting action, sports, or footage intended for slow-motion editing in post. The Phone 3 also features a dual-tone LED flash with two LEDs, which produces more natural-looking flash photography by blending warm and cool tones — the (3a) Pro carries only a single-LED flash.

Across the camera group as a whole, the Nothing Phone 3 holds a clear advantage. Its higher-resolution third lens, superior video frame rate, and dual-tone flash collectively make it the stronger imaging system — particularly for video creators and users who shoot frequently in mixed or low-light environments.

Running the same version of Android 15, these two phones are virtually identical from a software standpoint. Both offer the same privacy controls, the same productivity tools — split screen, Picture-in-Picture, offline voice recognition — and the same customization options including dynamic theming and dark mode. For the vast majority of users, the day-to-day software experience will be indistinguishable between the two devices.

Scanning the full spec list, only one functional difference surfaces: the Nothing Phone 3 supports Wi-Fi password sharing, while the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro does not. This feature allows users to share network credentials with nearby contacts without manually reading out a password — a minor but genuinely convenient quality-of-life capability, particularly in households or workplaces with frequent guests.

In practical terms, this category is essentially a tie. The Phone 3 earns a marginal edge courtesy of Wi-Fi password sharing, but this is a slim differentiator that will matter to very few buyers. Anyone choosing between these two devices should weight software capabilities as a neutral factor and focus their decision on the hardware differences identified in other categories.

Battery capacity between the two is close but not equal: the Nothing Phone 3 carries a 5150 mAh cell versus the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro's 5000 mAh. The 150 mAh difference is slim enough that real-world endurance will be shaped more by the respective chips' power efficiency than raw capacity alone — though it is worth noting the Phone 3's more powerful processor has a higher TDP, which could partially offset its larger battery under heavy load.

Where the gap becomes unambiguous is charging. The Phone 3 pulls ahead with 65W wired fast charging versus the (3a) Pro's 50W, meaning meaningfully shorter time tethered to a cable during top-ups. More significantly, the Phone 3 is the only one of the two to support wireless charging — a feature entirely absent on the (3a) Pro. For users who rely on a bedside pad or desk charger, this is a concrete daily convenience that cannot be added to the (3a) Pro after the fact. Neither phone ships with a charger in the box, and neither has a removable battery.

The Nothing Phone 3 takes a clear win in this category. Its larger battery, faster wired charging, and exclusive wireless charging support give it a well-rounded advantage on every meaningful dimension. The (3a) Pro is a competent mid-ranger in this regard, but it simply offers less flexibility in how and how quickly users can keep it powered.

Both phones share the same basic audio hardware — stereo speakers, no 3.5 mm headphone jack, and three microphones — so for users who listen through the built-in speakers or standard Bluetooth, the experience will be comparable. The meaningful split emerges entirely in wireless audio codec support. The Nothing Phone 3 supports aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, and LDAC, while the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro supports none of them, defaulting to the standard SBC or AAC codecs common to all Android devices.

This matters more than it might initially appear. High-resolution codecs like LDAC and aptX Adaptive transmit significantly more audio data per second than SBC, reducing the compression artifacts that can make wireless audio sound flat or congested. For users with compatible high-end wireless headphones or earbuds, the Phone 3 can deliver noticeably richer, more detailed sound over Bluetooth — the (3a) Pro simply cannot unlock that capability regardless of how premium the headphones are.

The Nothing Phone 3 wins this category clearly. The hardware baseline is identical, but its comprehensive codec support gives it a substantial advantage for anyone who takes wireless audio quality seriously. The (3a) Pro's omission of every high-resolution Bluetooth codec is a genuine limitation for audiophile-leaning users, and one that cannot be remedied through software updates or accessories.

Connectivity is another area where the two phones share a solid common foundation — 5G, NFC, USB-C, Wi-Fi 6, GPS with Galileo support, and a fingerprint scanner are present on both. The divergence lies in how far beyond that baseline each device reaches. The Nothing Phone 3 adds Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) support, a standard the (3a) Pro lacks entirely. Wi-Fi 7 delivers substantially higher throughput and lower latency on compatible routers, making it a meaningful future-proofing advantage as Wi-Fi 7 infrastructure becomes more common in homes and offices.

The wireless technology gap extends to both Bluetooth and cellular. The Phone 3 ships with Bluetooth 6 versus the (3a) Pro's 5.4, with the newer version offering improved connection stability, lower power consumption, and better handling of multiple simultaneous audio devices. On the cellular side, the Phone 3's peak download speed of 4200 Mbps towers over the (3a) Pro's 2900 Mbps — a 45% theoretical advantage that reflects the faster modem integrated into its flagship chipset. Additionally, the Phone 3 supports an eSIM alongside its two physical SIM slots, giving it more flexibility for international travel or carrier switching without requiring a physical card swap — a capability the (3a) Pro does not offer.

The Nothing Phone 3 wins this category comprehensively. Across Wi-Fi generation, Bluetooth version, peak download speed, and SIM flexibility, it outpaces the (3a) Pro at every turn. For users who prioritize staying connected at the fastest available speeds — or who travel frequently — these are concrete, practical advantages rather than spec-sheet footnotes.

The miscellaneous spec group offers no differentiators whatsoever between these two devices. Both the Nothing Phone 3 and the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro share an identical profile across every data point: both include a video light, neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display.

This is a complete tie. Buyers should treat this category as a neutral factor and direct their attention to the meaningful hardware and software differences covered in other groups.