Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 88.5 | 77.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 12, 11, 10 | Android 14 |
| 2020-02-14 | 2024-04-03 |
| 6.59 x 2.90 x 0.28 inches | 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches |
| 6.46 ounces | 7.73 ounces |
| Mirror black and Mirror purple | Black and White |
| Aluminum | -- |
| $ 1380.00 | $ 1915.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 8 inches |
| 2636 x 1080 pixels | 2480 x 2200 pixels |
| Dynamic AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 425 pixels per inch | 414 pixels per inch |
| -- | 4500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.3 | 10.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ SM8150-AC (7 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2960 MHz) processor | processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Adreno 750 GPU |
| 9.72 | 6.3 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 13.3 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | 23.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) 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 |
| 10.23 | 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 | |
| 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.28 | 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 |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip is much better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, with a global score of 88.5 against 77.8. Both devices we compare here include Android OS (Operating System), but Samsung Galaxy Z Flip has an older 12 version and vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14. Despite of the fact the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip is way older and notably thicker than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, it's body is still lighter.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip counts with a much better performing processor than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a lower amount of RAM, they both have 8 cpu cores. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much more vibrant screen than Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, because although it has a little bit worse display pixels density, it also counts with a bigger display and a higher 2200 x 2480 resolution.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a way better camera than Galaxy Z Flip, because it has a larger diafragm aperture to take better photography and videos in low light situations, a lot bigger sensor capturing more light and vivid colors, a lot higher 7680x4320 video definition and a much more megapixels back-facing camera.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a very superior storage capacity for applications and games than Galaxy Z Flip, because it has 256 GB more internal memory capacity. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a way better battery life than Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity.
Even being the best phone of the ones we are comparing, Galaxy Z Flip is also a bargain compared to others.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.