Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 88.1 | 90.6 |
| Basic Information | |
| Apple | Samsung |
| -- | Android 11 |
| 2017-11-03 | 2021-08-11 |
| 5.65 x 2.79 x 0.30 inches | 6.23 x 5.04 x 0.25 inches |
| 6.14 ounces | 9.56 ounces |
| Silver and Space gray | Phantom Black, Phantom Green and Phantom Silver |
| Glass and Stainless steel | Aluminum and Glass |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 1149.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.8 inches | 7.6 inches |
| 2436 x 1125 pixels | 2208 x 1768 pixels |
| OLED | Super AMOLED |
| 463 pixels per inch | 372 pixels per inch |
| 625 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8 |
| Performance | |
| Apple A11 Bionic APL1W72 (10 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 SM8350 chipset |
| 64-bit Monsoon and Mistral, 64-bit (Hexa-Core 2390 MHz) processor | Kryo 680 Prime, 64-bit, 5 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Apple 3-core GPU GPU | Adreno 660 GPU |
| 10.17 | 9.72 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 13.3 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 7.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 4.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/2.20 aperture |
| 28.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.33 inches (1/3") sensor | -- |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | -- |
| 1920 x 1080 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.12 | 7.7 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2716mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4400mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | Wireless Charging |
| 4.72 | 6.24 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 is a little bit better than iPhone X, getting a score of 90.6 against 88.1. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3's design is way newer and somewhat thinner, but also notably heavier than the iPhone X. The iPhone X has just a bit better performance than Galaxy Z Fold 3, because although it has a smaller amount of RAM memory and less and slower cpu cores, it also counts with a 64-bits processor.
IPhone X has a much better looking screen than Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3, because although it has a lot smaller screen and a bit worse resolution of 1125 x 2436px, it also counts with a quite greater count of pixels in each inch of display. The iPhone X and the Galaxy Z Fold 3 have similar storage for applications and games, both have the same internal memory capacity.
IPhone X has a much better camera than Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3, and although they both have a 12 megapixels camera in the back, the iPhone X also has a bigger aperture. The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3 counts with a much better battery performance than Apple iPhone X, because it has 4400mAh of battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.