Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 81.6 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | |
| -- | Android 14 |
| 2017-10-19 | 2024-04-03 |
| 5.74 x 2.74 x 0.31 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 5.04 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Black, Blue and White | Black and White |
| Aluminum and Glass | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 129.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5 inches | 8 inches |
| 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 441 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.3 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 MSM8998 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 280, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2350 MHz) processor | processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 540 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.27 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 10.1 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.38 inches (1/2.6") sensor | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 9.79 | 12.87 |
| 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, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 4.64 | 7.36 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.3 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Infra-red port |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Google Pixel 2 has a score of 81.6, which is slightly better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro's 77.8 global score. Google Pixel 2 is an extremely older and notably thicker phone than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but Google managed to build it noticeably lighter anyway. Google Pixel 2 counts with a much greater processing power than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a lower amount of RAM memory, they both have a Octa-Core processing unit.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a lot better looking display than Google Pixel 2, because although it has a quite lower display density, it also counts with a way higher 2200 x 2480 resolution and a much larger screen. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a lot better camera than Google Pixel 2, because it has a back-facing camera with a much better resolution, a larger aperture to capture better photos and video in low-light environments, a way better video definition and a much bigger sensor capturing more light and vivid colors.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much greater storage for apps and games than Google Pixel 2, because it has more internal memory capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a much longer battery performance than Google Pixel 2, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity instead of 2700mAh.
Google Pixel 2 not only is the best devices of the ones in this comparison, but it's also very cheap compared to the other devices.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.