Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 94.8 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 13, 12, 11, 10 | Android 14 |
| 2020-03-06 | 2024-04-03 |
| 5.97 x 2.72 x 0.31 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 5.78 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Cloud blue, Cloud pink, Cosmic grey and Cosmic white | Black and White |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 6) | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 1000.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.2 inches | 8 inches |
| 3200 x 1440 pixels | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Dynamic AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 566 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 SM8250 (7 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor | processor |
| 12 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 650 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.72 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1000 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 15.38 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.59 inches (1/1.7") sensor | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 7680 x 4320 (24 fps) video resolution | 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 10.78 | 12.87 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.92 | 7.36 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | 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 |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy S20 has an overall score of 94.8, which is a lot better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro's overall score of 77.8. Both phones we are comparing work with Android OS (operating system), but the Samsung Galaxy S20 has 13 version and vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14. Samsung Galaxy S20's body is a lot lighter than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it's way thicker and was released many years before.
The Galaxy S20 counts with a very superior processing power than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has 4 GB lesser RAM memory, they both have 8 processing cores. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a more vivid display than Samsung Galaxy S20, because although it has a much worse screen density, it also counts with a bigger display and a slightly better resolution of 2200 x 2480 pixels.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro shoots much clearer videos and photos than Samsung Galaxy S20, and although they both have the same video resolution, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a larger diafragm aperture to take better low-light images and videos, better 30 frames per second video frame rates, a way better resolution back-facing camera and a much larger back-facing camera sensor taking more light and vivid colors.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a better storage for games and applications than Galaxy S20, because although it has no SD card slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal memory capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much better battery duration than Samsung Galaxy S20, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity.
Galaxy S20 not only is the best devices between the ones we are comparing, but it's also a bargain compared to the other devices.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.