My benchmark scores align with my real world view. The A17 ranks slightly higher than Motorola’s $200 Moto G in single-core performance, but lower in multi-core performance, indicating that the Motorola device generally loses when you’re juggling multiple apps. That makes sense, because I don’t recall having a disappointing experience with the Moto G when I tried it a month ago. Don’t get me wrong, that phone is very slow and annoying to use, but I don’t IT confused.

The Good Stars

I didn’t have any issues with the 6.7-inch AMOLED display—it’s bright enough in sunny conditions, and it’s sharp enough. A mono speaker is available, although it is easily blocked when holding the phone in landscape orientation. There is a microSD card slot to expand the storage to 128 GB, the phone is IP54-rated to withstand rain, contactless payments work OK, and the fingerprint sensor is reliable. GPS is good, although Google Maps sometimes glitches out, especially if you try to do something else while navigating.

I dropped the A17 a few times (under 2-foot drops), and it held up surprisingly well, so it gets an A+ for durability. If it matters to you, there is not headphone jack here (Motorola kept it with the Moto G). It’s also nice to see that this phone will receive six years of software updates, better than anything Motorola offers at this price. There is a large amount of bloatware that you will want to remove, but the software experience is the same as the others. Samsung phones. If you are a fan of One UI, you will feel comfortable here.

Samsung has put a 5,000-mAh cell here, but battery life isn’t all that remarkable. It lasts a whole day with average to heavy use, but if you use the phone a little, then it is easy to stay alive for a second day. There’s no wireless charging, not surprising for a budget phone, but 25-watt wired charging means it won’t be slow to recharge.