Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 78.9 | 78.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 10, 9.0 Pie, 8.1 Oreo | Android 11 |
| 2019-02-05 | 2021-09-30 |
| 6.16 x 2.93 x 0.35 inches | 6.23 x 2.88 x 0.31 inches |
| 6.56 ounces | 6.49 ounces |
| Charcoal black and Ocean blue | Aurora Down and Cosmic black |
| Plastic and Plastic | Glass |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 6.6 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 2376 x 1080 pixels |
| IPS LCD | AMOLED |
| 409 pixels per inch | 395 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 7904 chipset | MediaTek Dimensity 1200 MT6893 (6 nm) chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Cortex-A78, 64-bit (Octa-Core 3000 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Mali-G71 MP2 GPU | Mali-G77 MC9 GPU |
| 8.91 | 9.81 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.90 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 12.00mm focal length | 16.00mm focal length |
| 0.32 inches (1/3.1") sensor | 0.64 inches (1/1.56") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 9.02 | 12.1 |
| 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, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4450mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.8 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy M20 is slightly better than the vivo X70 Pro, with a 78.9 score against 78.3. Despite being the best in this comparison review, the Samsung Galaxy M20 is a noticeably older, thicker and just a little heavier device than vivo X70 Pro. Both phones in this review have Android operating system, but the Samsung Galaxy M20 has an older 10 version and vivo X70 Pro has Android 11.
Vivo X70 Pro features a quite better performance than Galaxy M20, and although they both have the same number of cores, the vivo X70 Pro also has a larger amount of RAM memory. The vivo X70 Pro counts with a little bit better screen than Galaxy M20, because although it has a little bit lower count of pixels per screen inch, it also counts with a slightly higher resolution of 1080 x 2376px and a little larger screen.
The vivo X70 Pro shoots way better photographs and videos than Galaxy M20, because it has a larger aperture to take better low light images and video, a much larger sensor taking way higher quality photos, a much higher 3840x2160 (4K) video quality and a lot more MP back camera. Vivo X70 Pro features a greater storage capacity to install applications and games than Samsung Galaxy M20, because although it has no SD extension slot, it also counts with 192 GB more internal storage.
Galaxy M20 has just a little bit longer battery duration than vivo X70 Pro, because it has a 5000mAh battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.