Nothing Phone 3 vs Galaxy A56: Is the Nothing Phone 3 Worth £180 More?
Nothing Phone 3 or Galaxy A56? We compare price, measured performance and real-world trade-offs to work out which is the better buy.
Aisha Bello
The short answer
Nothing Phone 3 7h 20m, Galaxy A56 7h 40m — the same test, run the same way. Where they part company is who they suit: the Nothing Phone 3 is the one to get if you are buyers who want flagship battery and software without flagship pricing, the Galaxy A56 if you are buyers who want long software support on a tight budget.
Price difference: The Galaxy A56 undercuts the Nothing Phone 3 by £180. That gap only matters if the extras below are ones you will actually use.
Specifications side by side
| Specification | Nothing Phone 3 | Galaxy A56 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | £579 | £399 |
| Our score | 4 / 5 | 4 / 5 |
| Display | 6.7in AMOLED, 120Hz | 6.7in AMOLED, 120Hz |
| Chip | Snapdragon 7+ Gen 3 | Exynos 1580 |
| RAM | 12GB | 8GB |
| Battery | 5000mAh | 5000mAh |
| Charging | 45W wired | 45W wired |
| Weight | 198g | 198g |
| Screen-on time | 7h 20m | 7h 40m |
How we tested
Every figure quoted above comes from the same protocol, run on every unit in this category. This one spent fourteen days as the reviewer’s only phone, SIM included. Screen at a metered 200 nits, adaptive refresh left on, the same twelve apps installed on every handset, and a fixed 5G network in the same building.
| What we measure | How |
|---|---|
| Screen-on time | A scripted day — four hours of mixed browsing, an hour of video, thirty minutes of camera, the rest idle — repeated three times and averaged. |
| Sustained performance | Twenty minutes of continuous load, reporting the figure at the end rather than the peak in the first ninety seconds. |
| Charging | From 2% to 100% with the fastest charger the manufacturer sells, at 22°C ambient, timed to the minute. |
| Camera | The same eighteen scenes on every phone — backlit portrait, indoor low light, moving subject — shot in the default mode with no editing. |
| Thermals | Surface temperature at the hottest point after the sustained run, measured with a contact probe. |
We deliberately do not report synthetic benchmark totals quoted in isolation, and any figure supplied by the manufacturer.
The honest caveat: Battery results are specific to our routine. A heavy camera user will see materially less screen-on time than these numbers suggest.
Where the Nothing Phone 3 wins
- Excellent battery life
- Clean software with almost no preinstalled clutter
- A design that still stands out
It also has the edge on the intangibles: the Glyph lights have become genuinely useful as a delivery and timer readout.
Where the Galaxy A56 wins
- Six years of updates at this price
- A bright AMOLED panel
- Genuinely long battery life
And in day-to-day use, the update policy is better than phones costing twice as much.
The trade-offs
Neither is flawless. The Nothing Phone 3 has one clear weak point — weak low-light photography — and the Galaxy A56 has its own: middling low-light photography. Weigh those against how you actually work rather than against the spec sheet.
The value case
Both scored 4 out of 5, and the Galaxy A56 costs £180 less. Unless excellent battery life is specifically what you need, the cheaper one is the better buy and we would not agonise over it.
If neither quite fits
Look at the Pixel 9a at £499 — it scored 5 out of 5 and suits almost everyone — the sensible default recommendation.
Living with each of them
On paper the gap looks like a specification difference; in use it is a habits difference. With the Nothing Phone 3 the thing you adjust to is weak low-light photography, and you do adjust — within a week it stops registering. Its display (6.7in AMOLED, 120Hz) is the part you stop thinking about. The Galaxy A56 asks for a different accommodation: middling low-light photography, against a display of 6.7in AMOLED, 120Hz that holds up better than the number suggests. Neither compromise is severe. They are simply different, and which one you would rather not think about is a more useful question than which is objectively smaller.
Which one ages better
Both launched in 2025, so neither starts with a support-window advantage. The other half of ageing is the weak point you already know about: weak low-light photography on one side, middling low-light photography on the other. Weaknesses of that kind do not improve with firmware, so assume you are buying them for the life of the device and price the decision accordingly.
Our recommendation
For most people we would take the Nothing Phone 3, which scored 4 out of 5 in our testing against 4 for the other. That said, a score is a summary, not a substitute for knowing what you need.
Buy the Nothing Phone 3 for excellent battery life. Buy the Galaxy A56 for six years of updates at this price.
Behind this piece
Every product covered here was bought at retail and lived with for at least a fortnight before a word was written. Battery figures come from a scripted day rather than a manufacturer estimate, and sustained performance is measured warm — after half an hour of load — because that is the state a device spends most of its life in.
Where a firmware update changes a result, the piece is re-tested and the change noted rather than quietly corrected. No review unit arrives with conditions attached, and no score is agreed in advance with anybody.
Where to go next
If you are weighing this against the rest of the smartphones we have covered, the category archive lists every review in date order. The closest comparisons we have published are Nothing Phone 3 vs OnePlus 13: Is the OnePlus 13 Worth £320 More? and Nothing Phone 3 vs Pixel 9a: Where the Pixel 9a Pulls Ahead.
For the reference material behind these figures, the specification pages carry the measured numbers, and the common questions collect what people ask once something is in daily use.
