5 reasons I won’t spend more than $500 on my next phone

The phones we all like to talk about the most are incredibly expensive. The base Galaxy S25 starts at $800, while the Ultra launched at $1,300. The Pixel 9 goes for $800 as well, and you’ll need at least $1,100 for the XL model. That’s a lot of money.

And don’t even get me started on foldables. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold goes for $1,800, while the latest Galaxy Z Fold 7 costs even more at $2,000.

I love technology, especially phones, but I’m not paying that much for my next device. Considering the specs and features I need, I don’t need to spend more than $500, and I think that goes for most other people — here’s why.

You don’t need to spend a grand on a phone to get a lag-free experience. Most mid-range phones these days have more than enough power for the majority of users.

The phone at the top of my list right now is the Pixel 9a. It comes in at $500 and packs the Tensor G4 under the hood, which is the same SoC you find in the rest of the Pixel 9 series — including the $1,800 Pixel 9 Pro Fold. Paired with 8GB of RAM, this phone will handle everything I need it to and more.

It’s a similar situation with some of the other phones in this price range. These include the Galaxy S24 FE, OnePlus 13R, Nothing Phone 3a Pro, and even some that currently aren’t available in the US like the Xiaomi 14T and the Galaxy A56. Some of these launched at a little more than my budget but are frequently on sale and can be had for around $500 when shopping around.

I’m not a huge photography enthusiast, but I still appreciate a camera that can capture great photos. The $500 Pixel 9a gets the job done in this area, offering two sensors on the back that perform great both in daylight and when there’s limited light available. The setup comes with loads of Google AI features, including Magic Editor, which can get rid of unwanted people and objects from my shots.

My colleague Ryan tested out the cameras of the Pixel 9a and was impressed. He said they process images brilliantly, offer a simple, intuitive camera interface, and pack plenty of clever shooting modes.

I’ve played with the Pixel 9a myself, as well as lots of other mid-rangers under $500 from Samsung and various Chinese brands, and I was always impressed with the image quality when compared to the price tag. Sure, I might miss out on a few features I’d get with more premium phones and will perhaps have to make do with two instead of three rear cameras, but that’s something I can live with if it means saving a lot of money.

The thing I care most about when buying a new phone is software support. The great news is that many $500 phones offer the same software pledge as phones costing as much as $2,000.

The Pixel 9a, for example, is promised seven years of OS and security updates, the same as the rest of the Pixel 9 series. The story is similar with the Galaxy S24 FE, while the Galaxy A56 drops down to six years, which is still good enough since I’ll upgrade my phone within that timeframe anyway.

The only potential drawback with Samsung phones is that it can sometimes take a while for updates to arrive. When Samsung starts shipping out the latest version of Android, premium phones get them first before they make it to those around the $500 mark. The Pixel 9a is the better option in this case since it gets the latest version of Android on day one, alongside the rest of the supported Pixel phones.

Just because I won’t spend more than $500 on a phone doesn’t mean I won’t get any of the premium features available on flagship phones.

Sure, the build quality might be a little less premium, as phones in this price range usually have plastic backs instead of glass ones. However, a lot of them come with an IP rating that will protect the device against water and dust. This includes the Pixel 9a, which also supports wireless charging. Then there’s the 120Hz display for a smoother viewing experience.

Samsung’s S24 FE also packs all these features, while the A56 drops wireless charging, which is something I can live with. Cheaper phones like the Nothing Phone 3a Pro make additional sacrifices, like dropping the water resistance from IP68 to IP64, meaning they can only handle splashes of water.

You’d think that a cheaper phone would have a worse battery life than an expensive one, but you’d be wrong. It’s on par in most cases, and even better in some.

Let’s take my favorite budget phone, the Pixel 9a, as an example again. It sports a 6.3-inch display and a 5,100mAh battery. For reference, the more expensive Pixel 9 comes with the same display size and a smaller 4,700mAh battery.

Then there’s the premium Pixel 9 Pro XL, which has a larger screen at 6.8 inches yet still sports a smaller battery at 5,060mAh. And considering that this phone has more power under the hood, which takes its toll on the battery, the Pixel 9a comes out on top as the better option for battery life. Great battery life is a pillar of a great smartphone, and you don’t need to spend over a grand for a phone to experience it.

As you were probably able to tell, I’m eyeing the Pixel 9a as my next phone. It has everything I need for $500, and it really feels like I wouldn’t be making that much of a sacrifice compared to getting a flagship that costs at least twice as much. Of course, your mileage may vary since we all have different wants and needs.

Besides the Pixel 9a, I’d also be happy with the S24 FE if I could get it on sale for around $500. Samsung is currently selling it for $525, so it’s technically just a tad over my price range. Then there’s the A56, which is a fantastic phone as well, but it’s not yet available in the US. I’m from the other side of the Atlantic, though, so I can easily pick one up.

I think the average user will also be happy with phones from brands like Nothing, OnePlus, and Xiaomi that don’t cost an arm and a leg. But for me, I’ll stick to either Pixel or Galaxy due to the software experience and the update promise, along with the rest of the features I value.

What about you? Which phone under $500 would you consider buying? Let me know in the comments.