Understanding the Deception Behind Samsung SAR Levels: How to Use Your Phone Safely
Samsung's All-Time Lowest Radiation Cell Phones
Which Samsung smartphone had the lowest radiation for Body SAR testing across all years? According to FCC test reports, the Samsung phone with the lowest SAR rating was 0.25 W/kg, accounting for 15.63% of the 1.6 W/kg limit. In contrast, the highest SAR Samsung phone had a 1.36 W/kg rating, or 85% of the limit. This equates to a 444% difference between the two extremes.
Body SAR
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
|---|---|---|
 | 0.25 W/kg (15.63%) | Ranks 1st Compare |
 | 0.45 W/kg (28.13%) | Ranks 2nd Compare |
 | 0.49 W/kg (30.63%) | Ranks 3rd Compare |
 | 0.49 W/kg (30.63%) | Ranks 3rd Compare |
 | 0.49 W/kg (30.63%) | Ranks 3rd Compare |
 | 0.52 W/kg (32.5%) | Ranks 4th Compare |
 | 0.52 W/kg (32.5%) | Ranks 4th Compare |
 | 0.56 W/kg (35%) | Ranks 5th Compare |
 | 0.57 W/kg (35.63%) | Ranks 6th Compare |
 | 0.58 W/kg (36.25%) | Ranks 7th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
 | 0.62 W/kg (38.75%) | Ranks 8th Compare |
 | 0.62 W/kg (38.75%) | Ranks 8th Compare |
 | 0.65 W/kg (40.63%) | Ranks 9th Compare |
 | 0.65 W/kg (40.63%) | Ranks 9th Compare |
 | 0.67 W/kg (41.88%) | Ranks 10th Compare |
 | 0.68 W/kg (42.5%) | Ranks 11th Compare |
 | 0.70 W/kg (43.75%) | Ranks 12th Compare |
 | 0.70 W/kg (43.75%) | Ranks 12th Compare |
 | 0.72 W/kg (45%) | Ranks 13th Compare |
 | 0.73 W/kg (45.63%) | Ranks 14th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
 | 0.76 W/kg (47.5%) | Ranks 15th Compare |
 | 0.76 W/kg (47.5%) | Ranks 15th Compare |
 | 0.77 W/kg (48.13%) | Ranks 16th Compare |
 | 0.77 W/kg (48.13%) | Ranks 16th Compare |
 | 0.78 W/kg (48.75%) | Ranks 17th Compare |
 | 0.78 W/kg (48.75%) | Ranks 17th Compare |
 | 0.79 W/kg (49.38%) | Ranks 18th Compare |
 | 0.80 W/kg (50%) | Ranks 19th Compare |
 | 0.80 W/kg (50%) | Ranks 19th Compare |
 | 0.81 W/kg (50.63%) | Ranks 20th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
 | 0.82 W/kg (51.25%) | Ranks 21st Compare |
 | 0.83 W/kg (51.88%) | Ranks 22nd Compare |
 | 0.87 W/kg (54.38%) | Ranks 23rd Compare |
 | 0.88 W/kg (55%) | Ranks 24th Compare |
 | 0.90 W/kg (56.25%) | Ranks 25th Compare |
 | 0.92 W/kg (57.5%) | Ranks 26th Compare |
 | 0.93 W/kg (58.13%) | Ranks 27th Compare |
 | 0.95 W/kg (59.38%) | Ranks 28th Compare |
![samsung-galaxy-s21-plus-5g-[1]](https://www.rfsafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/samsung-galaxy-s21-plus-5g-1-150x150.jpg) | 0.95 W/kg (59.38%) | Ranks 28th Compare |
 | 0.96 W/kg (60%) | Ranks 29th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
 | 0.97 W/kg (60.63%) | Ranks 30th Compare |
 | 0.98 W/kg (61.25%) | Ranks 31st Compare |
 | 0.98 W/kg (61.25%) | Ranks 31st Compare |
 | 1.01 W/kg (63.13%) | Ranks 32nd Compare |
 | 1.02 W/kg (63.75%) | Ranks 33rd Compare |
 | 1.03 W/kg (64.38%) | Ranks 34th Compare |
 | 1.04 W/kg (65%) | Ranks 35th Compare |
 | 1.08 W/kg (67.5%) | Ranks 36th Compare |
 | 1.08 W/kg (67.5%) | Ranks 36th Compare |
 | 1.08 W/kg (67.5%) | Ranks 36th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
![samsung-galaxy-s22-plus-5g[1]](https://www.rfsafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/samsung-galaxy-s22-plus-5g1-150x150.jpg) | 1.08 W/kg (67.5%) | Ranks 36th Compare |
 | 1.10 W/kg (68.75%) | Ranks 37th Compare |
 | 1.11 W/kg (69.38%) | Ranks 38th Compare |
 | 1.13 W/kg (70.63%) | Ranks 39th Compare |
 | 1.14 W/kg (71.25%) | Ranks 40th Compare |
 | 1.14 W/kg (71.25%) | Ranks 40th Compare |
 | 1.15 W/kg (71.88%) | Ranks 41st Compare |
 | 1.17 W/kg (73.13%) | Ranks 42nd Compare |
 | 1.19 W/kg (74.38%) | Ranks 43rd Compare |
 | 1.24 W/kg (77.5%) | Ranks 44th Compare |
| Phone Model | Body SAR (% Limit) | SAR Rank |
 | 1.25 W/kg (78.13%) | Ranks 45th Compare |
 | 1.35 W/kg (84.38%) | Ranks 46th Compare |
 | 1.36 W/kg (85%) | Ranks 47th Compare |
Lowest: Samsung Galaxy A70
Highest: Samsung Galaxy A14 5g
Last 5 Year’s Samsung Radiation Levels (Samsung vs Samsung)
