Skip to Content

Samsung vs Apple: 2025 Global Smartphone Sales Landscape

An analysis of the 2025 global smartphone sales rankings, highlighting Apple’s dominance, Samsung’s position, and the impact of rising AI‑driven memory costs on future pricing.
29 January 2026 by
TechStora Editorial Board

2025 Top‑Ten Smartphone Rankings

According to Counterpoint Research, Apple secured seven of the ten best‑selling models in 2025, while Samsung placed three.

  • 1 – iPhone 16
  • 2 – iPhone 16 Pro Max
  • 3 – iPhone 16 Pro
  • 4 – iPhone 17 Pro Max
  • 5 – Samsung Galaxy A16 5G (best‑selling Samsung model)
  • 6 – Samsung Galaxy A06 4G
  • 7 – iPhone 17
  • 8 – iPhone 17 Pro
  • 9 – Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra (only high‑end Android phone)
  • 10 – iPhone 17 Pro Max

Samsung’s Position in the Global Market

Samsung sold more units in 2025 than in 2024, maintaining its lead in the Android segment, yet it fell short of Apple by a few million devices overall. The brand’s presence in the top‑ten was limited to three models, reflecting a shift toward Apple’s premium lineup.

  • Galaxy A16 5G – top‑selling Samsung phone
  • Galaxy A06 4G – second‑ranked Samsung model
  • Galaxy S25 Ultra – sole flagship Android entry

Despite a reduced share of the top‑ten, Samsung continues to dominate Android sales by volume.

Impact of Rising AI‑Driven Memory Costs

Increasing demand for AI workloads is pushing DRAM and NAND prices higher, which raises manufacturing costs for smartphones. Brands are responding by:

  • Increasing retail prices, especially for mid‑range and premium devices
  • Reducing the frequency of annual upgrades among price‑sensitive consumers
  • Potentially limiting the number of entry‑level phones that can compete in the top‑ten rankings

Outlook for 2026 Smartphone Sales

Higher component costs are expected to curb upgrades in the entry‑level segment, possibly leading to fewer budget models in the next year’s best‑selling list. Samsung may see:

  • Greater representation of mid‑range and premium Galaxy models
  • Reduced presence of low‑cost devices
  • Continued pressure to balance price competitiveness with profitability