The Nothing Phone (4a) Pro enters a crowded mid-range market with an unusual design choice: a metal unibody chassis that sets it apart from the more common mix of glass and plastic. On paper, the approach suggests durability and a more premium in-hand feel. But a recent teardown-style durability test indicates that the design comes with a few practical compromises that may matter in daily use.

In a hands-on assessment by YouTuber JerryRigEverything, the device holds up in some expected areas. The aluminum body shows the kind of scratch resistance typical of the material, picking up marks under pressure but avoiding deeper structural damage. More notably, the phone resists bending under force, an area where slimmer devices sometimes falter. Without a glass back panel, it also avoids one of the more common failure points seen in drop scenarios.

The front display is protected by Gorilla Glass 7i, and behaves much as expected. Visible scratches only appear when exposed to materials at level six or higher on the Mohs hardness scale, aligning with industry norms for modern smartphones in this segment.

Yet the test draws attention to two details that could affect long-term use. The transparent cover over the camera module is made of plastic rather than glass. That choice makes it significantly more prone to scratching, particularly in pockets or bags where it may come into contact with keys or grit. Over time, such wear could affect both appearance and image clarity.

A second concern lies in the placement of a microphone opening near the SIM card slot. According to the test, the opening is large enough that a SIM ejector tool could be mistakenly inserted into it. Doing so risks damaging the internal seal, potentially compromising the phone’s resistance to water. While the device carries an IP65 rating, meaning it is designed to withstand splashes and rain rather than submersion, the issue still raises questions about durability in everyday handling.

The teardown also points to limited ease of repair, though details on specific repair challenges remain sparse. Taken together, the findings suggest a device that performs solidly in structural terms but leaves room for refinement in smaller design decisions.