Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 78.8 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | |
| Android 11, 10, 9.0 Pie | Android 14 |
| 2019-05-07 | 2024-04-03 |
| 5.96 x 2.76 x 0.32 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 5.19 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Black, Purple and White | Black and White |
| Plastic | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 186.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.6 inches | 8 inches |
| 2220 x 1080 pixels | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| OLED | AMOLED |
| 441 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.2 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 670 SDM670 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 360, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 615 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.09 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 7.7 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 28.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") 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 | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 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 3a has a general score of 78.8, which is just a bit better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro's global score of 77.8. The Google Pixel 3a design is extremely lighter than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it's incredibly thicker and was released 5 years before. Both phones in this review use Android OS, but the Google Pixel 3a has the older 11 version while vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14 version.
Google Pixel 3a features a really superior processing power than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has lesser RAM, they both have 8 cpu cores. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a lot better looking display than Google Pixel 3a, because although it has a quite inferior pixel count per inch of screen, it also counts with a way better 2200 x 2480 pixels resolution and a much larger display.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a superior storage capacity for applications and games than Google Pixel 3a, because it has 512 GB internal memory. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a superior battery performance than Google Pixel 3a, because it has a 5700mAh battery capacity against 3000mAh. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro captures much better photos and videos than Google Pixel 3a, because it has a lot bigger sensor providing a much better image quality, a lot higher video definition, a lot more mega-pixels back camera and a larger aperture to capture better photography and video in poorly lited situations.
The Google Pixel 3a not only is the best devices of the ones in this comparison, but it's also very cheap compared to the other devices, which makes buying this phone an easy decision.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.