I just tested this $200 Samsung phone to see what you actually get for the money

Even now, I still find it terribly hard to convince myself to shell out over $1,000 on a new phone — but that’s exactly the premium you’re looking at to get the best phones around. That’s why I consistently look at cheaper alternatives, including Samsung’s most affordable option: the Galaxy A17.

Launched earlier this year in the U.S., its $199 starting cost is unbelievable when I think about how the best cheap phone I’ve tested this year, the Pixel 10a, still costs more than double that. As much as I might be seduced by this low price — which gets you a phone with a 6.7-inch Super AMOLED display, triple camera system, and 6 years of software support — I have to be mindful of the compromises involved in choosing a phone this cheap.

That’s why I want to tell you exactly what you’re in for with my Galaxy A17 review after testing it out for a couple of weeks.

Samsung Galaxy A17 review: Cheat Sheet

• What is it? The cheapest new Galaxy phone from Samsung, successor to the Galaxy A16
• Who is it for? People who are on a really tight budget, but don't mind trade-offs that help to lower its price point
• What does it cost? It costs $199 and comes with 128GB of storage and expansion via microSD card slot
• What do we like? The solid premium-feeling design, 6 years of software support, and ultra-affordable cost
• What don’t we like? Processing performance underperforms against its rivals, laughably short battery life, and extremely dim screen

Samsung Galaxy A17 review: Specifications

Samsung Galaxy A17 review: What I like

Unbeatable cost

I can’t overstate the savings you’re getting from a $199 phone such as this. You can essentially buy five Galaxy A17s and it would still be cheaper than buying one flagship model like the iPhone 17 Pro.

This is part of the reason why it’s an ideal starter phone for parents looking to get their kids a phone, or even as a temporary backup if you happen to lose yours. I think the best part is that you’re getting the same level of functionality as more expensive phones.

Considering that it has a triple camera system, a 90Hz display refresh rate, a 5,000 mAh battery, and 25W wired charging, it’s almost hard to believe you can get all of that in a phone that costs under $200.

Solid design for its price

The Galaxy A17 doesn’t stray too far from the design language Samsung employs with its other phones, even though it opts for more modest materials. Specifically, I’m referring to its plastic polymer back and frame that initially looks and almost feels like metal — but it’s actually a slick plastic finish.

I’ll admit, it does well to emulate the metal-meets-glass construction of the flagship line. I’m particularly drawn to the shimmer of the phone at just the right angle, and combined with its IP54-rated build, all makes the phone look way more premium than its price suggests. Samsung also manages to integrate a finger print sensor into the power button and a microSD slot.

Samsung Galaxy A17 review: What I don't like

Super dim screen

While the size is more than generous for a phone of this caliber, its dimness makes it impossible to use under normal conditions when there’s strong ambient light around. With a peak brightness output of 657 nits, it’s certainly the dimmest screen I’ve tested this year.

Sure, the colors capture my attention with their vibrancy — but I still need to make sure the screen is shielded or angled in such a way that the glare doesn’t interfere with the view.

Lags with basic functions

Nothing annoys me more than serious lag. I’m okay when it happens with complex operations, like rendering video footage, but it’s a different story when it happens during basic tasks. For example, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve missed a photo op because the phone lagged while opening the camera app — and it doesn’t help that there’s a noticeable delay between when I tap the shutter button and when the phone actually captures the shot.

Benchmark scores confirm my suspicions as the Exynos 1330 chip powering the phone falls flat compared to mid-range phones like the Pixel 10a. Its Geekbench 6 scores rival those of the Moto G (2026), but it struggles just as much with graphics processing, due to the choppy 7.97 fps performance in 3DMark’s Wild Life Unlimited test.

Extremely short battery life

You’d think that a phone with a 5,000 mAh battery would manage at least average runtime, but it doesn’t. In the Tom’s Guide battery drain test, the Galaxy A17 turned in a pitiful average time of 7 hours and 52 minutes — which is ridiculously short and nowhere near the 10-hour average of most phones.

Even though the 25W wired charging speed helps get the phone to a decent level — reaching a 56% charge in 30 minutes — it’s not enough to overlook the poor battery life. In fact, I found myself having to charge it midway through my shift to avoid hitting a critical battery level during my commute home.

Camera underperforms

For a budget phone, it’s uncommon to find a triple camera setup, but the one here doesn’t include a telephoto shooter. Instead, it packs a 50MP main camera, 5MP ultrawide, and a 5MP macro — while a 13MP selfie camera rounds out the package on the front. I’ve already mentioned my annoyance with the sluggish shutter response, but it’s also worth noting that video recording tops out at 1080p.

Image 1 of 8

The camera handles outdoor scenes best during the daytime, delivering decent detail and proper exposure. However, the images look bland compared to the Moto G Stylus (2026) due to the A17's washed-out colors and less contrast.

Not surprisingly, it also struggles heavily under low light, where it tends to underexpose the scene.

Image 1 of 17

Samsung Galaxy A17 review: Verdict

I’m not one to knock budget phones, but there are clearly huge trade-offs made by the Galaxy A17. For me, it’s the sluggish performance of the Exynos 1330 and the camera’s underwhelming performance that turn me off. In fact, I would gladly pay the extra money for the Pixel 10a to see those issues mitigated — all while getting even more out of the software.

The Galaxy A17 is for those who want a basic phone without paying a whole lot out of pocket. You could settle for its flaws, but I think they would overwhelm people in the long run. If your budget is still tight, I’d recommend looking at the Moto G (2026) instead.