Nothing Phone (3a) VS Nothing Phone (3a) Pro

In terms of physical design, the Nothing Phone (3a) and the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro are remarkably similar. Both share identical dimensions — 163.5 × 77.5 × 8.4 mm — and the same IP64 ingress protection rating, meaning both resist dust and water splashes to the same degree. Neither has a rugged build or a foldable form factor, so they occupy the same category of standard candy-bar smartphones with a moderate level of environmental protection.

The only meaningful differentiator within this group is weight: the Phone (3a) comes in at 201 g while the Phone (3a) Pro is slightly heavier at 211 g — a 10 g difference. In absolute terms this gap is small, but over extended one-handed use or all-day carry, a lighter device is marginally more comfortable. That said, 10 g is unlikely to be a deciding factor for most users.

Overall, design is essentially a tie between the two phones. The Phone (3a) holds a slight practical edge due to its lower weight, but the advantage is minor. If design and portability are your primary concern, neither phone offers a meaningfully superior experience over the other.

Both phones sport an identical OLED/AMOLED panel at 6.77 inches, with the same 1080 × 2392 px resolution, 387 ppi pixel density, 120Hz refresh rate, and 5,000,000:1 contrast ratio. HDR10+ and Always-On Display support round out a display package that is, by every visual metric, the same on both devices. For everyday content consumption — streaming, browsing, or reading — users will find no perceptible difference between the two screens.

The sole differentiator is the touch sampling rate: the Phone (3a) operates at 240Hz, while the Phone (3a) Pro steps up to 1000Hz. Touch sampling rate determines how frequently the display registers finger input per second. At 1000Hz, the Pro captures touch input far more granularly, which translates to noticeably lower input latency during fast interactions — most relevant in competitive mobile gaming, precise stylus-like drawing apps, or any scenario demanding rapid, accurate touch response. For standard daily use such as typing or scrolling, the gap between 240Hz and 1000Hz is largely imperceptible.

The Phone (3a) Pro holds a clear edge in this category, but it is a narrow, use-case-specific advantage. Casual users and non-gamers are unlikely to ever notice the difference. For mobile gamers or power users who prioritize touch responsiveness, however, the Pro's 1000Hz sampling rate is a meaningful and real upgrade.

Under the hood, the two phones are virtually identical: both run on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 chipset, pair it with 12GB of LPDDR5 RAM and 256GB of internal storage, and share the same CPU configuration, GPU, clock speeds, and thermal envelope. Geekbench 6 scores — 1162 single-core and 3239 multi-core — are exactly the same across both devices, confirming that their raw computational muscle is indistinguishable in controlled conditions.

The one data point that breaks the symmetry is the AnTuTu benchmark score: the Phone (3a) registers 816,384 against the Pro's 750,673 — a gap of roughly 8.7%. AnTuTu is a composite score that aggregates CPU, GPU, memory, and UX performance, so a meaningful difference here on otherwise identical hardware is unusual. It most likely reflects software-level optimizations or thermal tuning differences between the two devices rather than a hardware distinction. That said, based strictly on the provided data, the standard Phone (3a) scores higher.

For real-world use, neither phone will feel faster or slower than the other in day-to-day tasks — the Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 handles everything from multitasking to casual gaming competently at this tier. The AnTuTu gap gives the Phone (3a) a narrow edge on paper, but it is unlikely to translate into a perceptible performance difference for the vast majority of users.

The rear camera systems are built on the same foundation: a triple-lens array of 50 + 50 + 8 MP with matching apertures, optical image stabilization, phase-detection autofocus, and 4K 30fps video on both phones. For most shooting scenarios — daylight photography, portraits, or casual video — the rear camera experience will be effectively identical between the two devices.

Three distinctions tip the balance toward the Pro. First, its telephoto lens delivers 3x optical zoom versus the standard model's 2x — a genuinely useful difference when shooting distant subjects, as optical zoom preserves image quality in a way that digital zoom cannot. Second, the Pro's front camera jumps to 50MP from the Phone (3a)'s 32MP, offering more detail and greater cropping flexibility in selfies and video calls. Third, and most significant for enthusiast photographers, the Pro adds RAW file support — something the standard Phone (3a) lacks entirely. RAW capture preserves unprocessed sensor data, giving users far more latitude to edit exposure, color, and detail in post-processing software.

The Phone (3a) Pro is the clear winner in this category. The combination of a longer optical zoom, a higher-resolution front camera, and RAW shooting capability gives it a meaningful and practical edge — particularly for users who take mobile photography seriously. The standard Phone (3a) is no slouch on the basics, but the Pro offers noticeably more versatility and creative control.

When it comes to software, there is nothing to separate these two devices — every single specification in this category is identical. Both ship with Android 15 and run Nothing's custom OS layer on top, bringing the same feature set: dynamic theming, on-device machine learning, Live Text, Picture-in-Picture, split-screen multitasking, and a solid suite of privacy controls including app tracking blockers and granular camera and microphone permissions.

This is a complete tie. A user picking up either phone will have an indistinguishable software experience from day one, with no advantage on either side in terms of OS version, feature availability, or privacy tooling. The notable shared omissions — no direct OS updates, no Wi-Fi password sharing, no focus modes — apply equally to both, and should be weighed as a category-level consideration rather than a differentiator between the two models.

Battery is another category where the two phones are completely level. Both carry a 5000 mAh cell — a capacity that comfortably supports full-day use for most users — and both top up at 50W wired fast charging, which typically delivers a meaningful charge in under an hour. Neither device offers wireless charging, and neither ships with a charger in the box, so buyers will need to source their own compatible adapter.

This is a straight tie. There is no specification in this group that gives either phone an advantage over the other. Users choosing between the two can treat battery life and charging capability as a non-factor in their decision.

Audio hardware is identical across both phones. Each features stereo speakers, a 3-microphone array for voice capture and noise reduction, and no 3.5mm headphone jack — meaning wired listening requires a USB-C adapter or dongle. Notably, neither device supports any high-resolution Bluetooth audio codec, including aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, or LDAC, which limits wireless audio quality to standard SBC or AAC depending on the connected headphones.

This is a complete tie with no differentiators between the two models. The absence of hi-res Bluetooth codecs is a shared limitation worth flagging for audiophiles considering either device, but it does not factor into choosing one over the other.

Connectivity is yet another area where the two phones are perfectly matched. Both support 5G, Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax), Bluetooth 5.4, and NFC, with a maximum download speed of 2900 Mbits/s and dual SIM capability. For day-to-day connectivity — fast mobile data, reliable wireless networking, contactless payments, and low-latency Bluetooth peripherals — the experience will be identical on either device.

The sensor suite is equally uniform: both include GPS with Galileo support, a gyroscope, accelerometer, and compass, covering navigation and motion-sensing needs comprehensively. Worth noting as a shared limitation is the USB 2.0 standard on the Type-C port, which constrains wired data transfer speeds and rules out video output — a consideration for users who frequently move large files via cable.

This category is a complete tie. There is not a single connectivity or feature specification that distinguishes the Phone (3a) from the Phone (3a) Pro, so this group carries no weight in the buying decision between the two.

The miscellaneous specs for both phones are identical across every data point in this group. Neither device features a sapphire glass display, a curved screen, or an e-paper panel — all of which are premium or niche traits found at higher price points or in specialized devices. Both do include a video light, which is a practical addition for recording in low-light environments.

This is a complete tie with no differentiators. None of the specifications here favor one model over the other, and this category has no bearing on the choice between the two phones.