Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.5 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Vivo |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 14 |
| 2016-09-01 | 2024-04-03 |
| 6.04 x 2.96 x 0.20 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 4.80 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | Black and White |
| Aluminum | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 284.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 8 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 534 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 12.76 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 23.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 9.57 | 12.87 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.3 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2600mAh Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 4.56 | 7.36 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.3 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Infra-red port |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a bit better than Moto Z, getting a 77.8 score against 74.5. Both devices we are comparing here work with Android operating system, but the vivo X Fold 3 Pro has an older 14 version and Moto Z has Android 8.0 Oreo version. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a extremely newer and a little thinner cellphone than the Moto Z, but it's also incredibly heavier.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a lot better looking screen than Moto Z, because although it has a little bit lower display density, it also counts with a much larger display and a better resolution of 2200 x 2480. Motorola Moto Z has a very superior performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has 12 GB less RAM and 4 less processing cores (although they are faster).
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much better camera than Moto Z, because it has a back camera with lot more mega-pixels, a way higher video resolution and a bigger aperture to take better low light images. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a superior storage for games and applications than Moto Z, because although it has no slot for an external memory card, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage capacity.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a really longer battery duration than Motorola Moto Z, because it has a 5700mAh battery capacity against 2600mAh.
Although vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than the Moto Z, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as the Moto Z. If you prefer to save some dollars, you can get Moto Z, letting go a few specs and features, but you will get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.