Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 76.9 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 10, 9.0 Pie | Android 14 |
| 2019-04-26 | 2024-04-03 |
| 6.47 x 3.02 x 0.31 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 6.46 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Black, Blue, Pink and White | Black and White |
| Plastic | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 299.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 8 inches |
| 2400 x 1080 pixels | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 393 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 675 SM6150 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 460, 64-bit, 11 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 612 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.18 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 14.14 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 32.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | 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 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 3.52 | 12.87 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.6 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 7.36 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | 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 |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro is slightly better than the Samsung Galaxy A70, having a general score of 77.8 against 76.9. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro design is notably newer and much thinner than the Samsung Galaxy A70's, but it's also somewhat heavier. These devices work with Android operating system, but vivo X Fold 3 Pro has newer 14 version and Samsung Galaxy A70 has Android 10 version, so it gives lots of additional features and performance optimizations.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much sharper screen than Galaxy A70, because it has a bigger screen, a little bit higher pixels density and a way better resolution of 2200 x 2480px. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much greater storage capacity to store more games and applications than Samsung Galaxy A70, because although it has no SD card slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal memory capacity.
The Samsung Galaxy A70 counts with a really superior performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a lower amount of RAM memory, they both have a Octa-Core processor. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much better camera than Galaxy A70, and although they both have a F1.7 aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a much better 7680x4320 video quality and a way bigger camera sensor taking much better quality pictures and videos.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with superior battery life than Galaxy A70, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity.
Although vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than Galaxy A70, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as the Galaxy A70. If you are trying to save some money, you can buy Galaxy A70, and give up a few specs and features, but you'll get the most out of your savings.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.