Cheap smartphones should leave out this premium feature all together

I’ve been reviewing smartphones at Tech Advisor for almost five years, but a recent trend among cheap handsets has left me very frustrated.

The majority of the devices I tested would be considered affordable: budget or mid-range phones, usually costing less than £500/$500.

So compared to flagships, some compromise is inevitable. I’ve become accustomed to reduced performance, lower quality displays, and less capable cameras.

But the fierce competition among Android phones has forced companies to be smart about where they make these sacrifices, so much so that you might not always notice.

The result is that you can get a formidable device for less than a third of the price of Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S24 Ultra, which is only really worth buying if you’re a phone enthusiast.

Dominik Tomaszewski / Foundry

Dominik Tomaszewski / Foundry

Dominik Tomaszewski / Foundry

That phone has an impressive ultrasonic fingerprint sensor under the display, but most cheap handsets use an inferior optical version, which ultimately ends up being a pale imitation of the real thing.

I understand that after phones all but eliminated screen bezels a few years ago, a new alternative to a PIN, pattern, or password was needed.

One option is improved facial unlocking, as Apple has done with Face ID on the iPhone. It’s secure enough to be used to verify payments or log into apps, something only the Honor Magic 6 Pro can match on the Android side.

Dominik_Tomaszewski / Foundry

Dominik_Tomaszewski / Foundry

Dominik_Tomaszewski / Foundry

On most other handsets you get a standard face unlock that usually doesn’t work in the dark and can sometimes be fooled with a photo of you.

I understand that advanced Face ID-like sensors aren’t realistic on affordable phones, but that doesn’t mean under-display fingerprint scanners are the answer.

Frustrating shortcomings

My first problem is the target area of ​​your finger, which is often frustratingly small. Unless you place it in exactly the right position, the phone simply won’t recognize it.

They are also often extremely sensitive to moisture. If your finger is a little wet or sweaty, good luck unlocking your phone.

And then there’s speed: cheap under-screen scanners are noticeably slower than the more advanced ones, and also compared to the physical scanners of yesteryear.

The best alternative

So I say we should go back to physical versions, which are still generally fast, reliable and much more resistant to moisture than under-screen versions.

And don’t worry, you don’t have to give up modern design to add this. Simply build the fingerprint sensor into the power button, as we’ve seen on devices like the Samsung Galaxy A15 5G and Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 5G.

Jon Mundy / Foundry

Jon Mundy / Foundry

Jon Mundy / Foundry

The target area for your index finger is still small, but in my experience the phone unlocks almost 100% of the time. With this approach, you get the added security of fingerprint authentication, without the bulk or frustrations of an under-display sensor.

Instead of it feeling like a step back, companies should be willing to embrace a sensor placement that is often overlooked but still offers the best of both worlds for budget smartphones.

For now, high-end phones can keep their more advanced under-display fingerprint scanners. There are some good ones, but you won’t find them on budget devices. It’s time for change.