I used the Moto G 2026 and Samsung Galaxy A16 5G, and only one makes sense for $200

I spent two weeks using the Samsung Galaxy A16 5G and the Moto G (2026) to figure out which one is actually worth buying at $200. Spoiler alert — both come with major caveats and require the user to make compromises.

For example, the Galaxy A16 annoyed me with its stuttery performance almost immediately. The Moto G, on the other hand, made me cringe every time I wanted to enjoy a YouTube video.

But even though both have their issues, at the end of this experiment I was convinced that only one has a place in the budget phone market.

Display quality matters more than refresh rate at this price

The first and most important difference between these two phones is the display. Needless to say, it is the part you interact with the most, so it has to be up to modern standards. At $200, however, it’s hard to cover all aspects that make a modern phone display.

The Galaxy A16 uses a 6.7-inch AMOLED panel with a 1080p (full HD) resolution. The Moto G (2026) also uses a 6.7-inch panel, but it’s a 720p LCD. On a screen this large, that difference is not subtle at all. While the difference in resolution was as jarring with text, it made watching video or even social media content feel like I was using a phone from 2010. I could not get used to this.

Motorola tries to compensate with a 120Hz refresh rate, while Samsung sticks to 90Hz. Frankly, I didn’t notice that big of a difference in the animation smoothness between the two. Plus, extra smooth scrolling will never make up for blurry videos and photos. I would take a sharper 1080p AMOLED at 90Hz over a 720p LCD at 120Hz every single time.

My only major issue with the A16’s display is that it doesn’t get bright enough to use the phone comfortably outdoors. The Moto G is slightly better on this front, but still not quite good enough to improve use in bright conditions.

Performance: Both are frustratingly slow

Neither of these phones is fast.

The Galaxy A16 runs on Samsung’s Exynos 1330, which seems to be doing a much better job than the Moto G (2026)’s Dimensity 6300 in our benchmarks.




None of that really matters once you start using the phones, though.

Despite its better chipset, the Galaxy A16 still exhibits micro stutters, even during regular use like navigating the UI or opening the camera. This is partly due to the limited 4GB of RAM and partly due to Samsung’s heavier software.

The Moto G is not fast either, but it gave me less of those stutters and less lag. Motorola’s lighter software helps avoid some of the constant hitching seen on the A16. That said, the Moto G also suffers from lack of sufficient RAM, resulting in the phone slowing down when you bombard it with tasks.

In short, the Moto G feels slow but a bit more stable. The Galaxy A16 feels faster on paper but rougher in actuality. Neither phone is suitable for gaming or heavy multitasking.

Cameras: Samsung wins by default

You get a pretty basic camera experience at this price. The Galaxy A16 includes a usable 50MP main camera and an actual ultra-wide camera. The ultra-wide is mediocre at best, but at least you have one more option, letting you shoot at a different (wider) angle.

The Moto G (2026) lacks a usable secondary camera altogether. Its 2MP macro camera is a checkbox feature that adds no real value. If I was Motorola, I would have gotten rid of it altogether and put that money somewhere else, even if that meant making the phone cheaper by $10.

In our tests, the Galaxy A16 scored significantly higher in both the photo and video categories. It took photos with more consistent image quality, better dynamic range and detail. Video quality is also better, offering a more stable image and 4K 30FPS recording.

The Motorola’s main camera performed well for the price too, but it struggled with the HDR, often exposing either for the highlights or the shadows. The upgraded selfie camera is arguably this generation’s biggest change, but it comes with a lot of oversharpening and has a very narrow field of view, so I actually felt discouraged from using it.

Battery life and charging

This is where the Moto G (2026) earns its reputation.

The 5200 mAh battery, low-resolution display and energy efficient chip result in a rather long battery life. I could easily go through a full day and then have enough battery to last me for another half day before having to recharge.

The Galaxy, on the other hand, was low enough to make me think about charging by 8PM.

My experience was reflected in our tests, with the Moto G (2026) comfortably outlasting the Galaxy A16.

Charging is also faster with the Moto. Half an hour charge in mid-afternoon was enough to juice it up enough until the rest of the day.

Software support and longevity

Samsung promises six years of software updates. Motorola promises two OS updates and three years of security patches. That is a big difference, but you also have to take into account that phones of this caliber get outdated much quicker, so the likelihood of upgrading to a newer model in just two years is pretty high.

That long support window on the Galaxy A16 sounds great, but in reality it is not that big of an advantage, at least not in my book.

I’d take Motorola’s clean software over Samsung’s long software support any day at this price point.

My verdict: Only one of these phones actually makes sense

If I had to pick a phone to use every day at $200, I would choose the Samsung Galaxy A16 5G.

That might sound strange given how much I criticized its performance, but the overall package simply holds together better.

The main reason behind this choice is the dramatically superior display. I love using my phone for YouTube, and 720p is a dealbreaker for me. I also enjoy playing games on occasion, so the extra contrast from the OLED panel and the higher resolution come in handy.

But even if display quality is not that important to you, I’d still recommend the Galaxy for its better camera and chip performance. I find 2 MP macro cameras offensive at this point, which makes me appreciate the (not that great) 5 MP on the A16 a lot more.

The Motorola Moto G (2026) does exactly one thing well: battery life — even that was a bit disappointing, considering the predecessor lasted even longer.

There are better options out there if you can save up an extra $70 or $80, like the CMF Phone 2 Pro, for example. But if $200 is the hard limit, the Galaxy A16 is the only one of these two that I would spend my money on.

Galaxy A16 5G at Mint: $185 off + 50% off 12-month data

$15

$200

$185 off (93%)

Mint Mobile's limited-time holiday offer saves you $185 on the Galaxy A16 5G. Users can bundle the device with a 12-month data plan, with prices of just $15/mo. Users picking the unlimited plan get 50% off its yearly price and pay just $180 for a whole year of service.

Buy at Mint Mobile