Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.4 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| -- | Android 14 |
| 2017-07-07 | 2024-04-03 |
| 6.04 x 2.91 x 0.31 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 5.89 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Black, Blue, Gold and Silver | Black and White |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 611.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 8 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 515 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Exynos M1and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor | processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Mali-T880 MP12 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.27 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 256 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 10.78 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.4 inches (1/2.5") 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 |
| 9.57 | 12.87 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.1 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3200mAh Li - Ion Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.2 | 7.36 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.2 | 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
Galaxy Note Fan Edition is just a bit better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, getting an 80.4 score against 77.8. The Galaxy Note Fan Edition design is incredibly lighter than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but it's noticeably thicker and was released many years before. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features an incredibly better looking display than Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because although it has a just a little less pixels per display inch, it also counts with a better 2200 x 2480px resolution and a much bigger display.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much bigger memory capacity to store more apps and games than Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because although it has no SD card slot, it also counts with more internal memory capacity. Galaxy Note Fan Edition features a much powerful processing unit than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has less RAM memory, they both have the same number of cores.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a much better camera than Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition, and although they both have the same aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a much larger sensor providing a lot higher image quality, a lot more megapixels back facing camera and a way better video quality. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a way better battery duration than Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity against 3200mAh.
In addition to being the best phone between the ones we are comparing here, the Galaxy Note Fan Edition is also very cheap compared to the other ones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.