Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.8 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| -- | Android 14 |
| 2016-06-10 | 2024-04-03 |
| 5.86 x 2.95 x 0.39 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 6.53 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Camo green, Sandy gold and Titanium gray | Black and White |
| Plastic | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 247.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 8 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| 500 cd/m2 brightness | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 9.3 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit, 14 nm (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor | processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 8.91 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 200 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 8.56 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 23.00mm focal length |
| -- | 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 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video |
| 9.46 | 12.87 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| HSPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 3 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.92 | 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
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro is just a bit better than the Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, with a global score of 77.8 against 75.8. Although the vivo X Fold 3 Pro is somewhat heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, it's notably thinner and way newer. Galaxy S7 Active features a much greater hardware performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has less cores (although faster) and lesser RAM.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a better looking screen than Galaxy S7 Active, because although it has a much lower pixel density, it also counts with a really brighter display, a lot bigger screen and a better resolution of 2200 x 2480. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a greater camera than Galaxy S7 Active, and although they both have the same diafragm aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a lot more mega-pixels camera in the back and a way higher 7680x4320 video quality.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a very superior storage for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy S7 Active, because although it has no external SD slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage capacity. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a really longer battery duration than Galaxy S7 Active, because it has a 5700mAh battery size.
Although vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than Galaxy S7 Active, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as Galaxy S7 Active. So if you want that extra specs, you can buy vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but if you don't you can save some dollars and buy the Galaxy S7 Active, letting go some features and specs.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.