Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 73.9 | 81 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 9.0 Pie | Android 11, 10 |
| 2019-09-16 | 2020-01-31 |
| 6.59 x 3.00 x 0.37 inches | 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches |
| 7.71 ounces | 7.76 ounces |
| Glowing night | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass | -- |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| -- | $ 421.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.9 inches | 6.3 inches |
| 2256 x 1080 pixels | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| P-OLED | IPS LCD |
| 362 pixels per inch | 409 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ SM8150-AC chipset | Samsung Exynos 9611 chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2960 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9.72 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 13.3 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 64.00 MP + 16.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 13.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.59 inches (1/1.7") sensor | 0.25 inches (1/4") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (480 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 12.1 | 9.79 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 4050mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 6 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is just a bit better than the vivo NEX 3, with a score of 81 against 73.9. Despite being the best phone in our current comparison, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro design is a little thicker and just a little heavier than the vivo NEX 3. Both phones in this comparison review work with Android operating system, but the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro has the older 11 version while vivo NEX 3 has Android 9.0 Pie.
The vivo NEX 3 has a little better processing power than Galaxy XCover Pro, and although they both have the same number of cores, the vivo NEX 3 also has 4 GB more RAM memory. The Galaxy XCover Pro features a bit better looking screen than vivo NEX 3, because although it has a bit smaller screen, it also counts with a quite better 1080 x 2340px resolution and a quite greater pixels number in each inch in the display.
The vivo NEX 3 shoots greater photos and videos than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not recommended for low-light photography, it also counts with a camera in the back with lot more mega-pixels, a lot larger camera sensor capturing more light and vivid colors and a much higher video quality.
The vivo NEX 3 features more memory capacity to store more apps and games than Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has no SD extension slot, it also counts with 256 GB internal memory. Vivo NEX 3 counts with just a bit longer battery duration than Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity against 4050mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.