Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 88.1 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 11 | Android 14 |
| 2021-02-22 | 2024-04-03 |
| 6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 7.69 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Laser Blue, Laser Green and Laser Grey | Black and White |
| -- | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 8 inches |
| 2400 x 1080 pixels | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Super AMOLED Plus | AMOLED |
| 393 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| 420 cd/m2 brightness | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.4 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Exynos 9825 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Cortex-A55, 7 nm (Quad-Core 2730 MHz) processor | processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| ARM Mali-G76 MP12 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.27 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 15.42 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 64.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.59 inches (1/1.7") sensor | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution |
| -- | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 11.99 | 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 | |
| 7000mAh Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 8.32 | 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
The Galaxy F62 is much better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, getting an 88.1 score against 77.8. These devices have Android operating system, but the Galaxy F62 has the older 11 version while vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14. Although the Galaxy F62 is notably older and a lot thicker than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, it's construction is still just a little lighter.
Samsung Galaxy F62 has a much greater performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has 10 GB less RAM memory and less cores. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much more vibrant display than Samsung Galaxy F62, because it has a much higher 2200 x 2480 resolution, much more brightness, a bit greater count of pixels per display inch and a bigger display.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a better storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy F62, because although it has no external memory card slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a little bit better camera than Samsung Galaxy F62, because although it has a back-facing camera with a lot worse 50 MP resolution, it also counts with a much larger sensor taking much better quality photographs, a way better 7680x4320 video quality and a larger aperture to capture better low light images and videos.
The Samsung Galaxy F62 counts with superior battery lifetime than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, because it has a 7000mAh battery size.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.