Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 81.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | |
| Android 14 | Android 5.1, 5.0 |
| 2024-04-03 | 2014-10-15 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.27 x 3.27 x 0.40 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 6.49 ounces |
| Black and White | Blue and White |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 1019.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 6 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 490 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | Capacitive, Multi-touch |
| 10.5 | 9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 805 APQ8084 chipset |
| processor | Krait 450 (Quad-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 3 GB (800 MHz) RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Adreno 420 (500 MHz) GPU |
| 6.3 | 9.54 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 17.6 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 13.00 MP + 2.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/2.00 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | -- |
| 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video | -- |
| 12.87 | 9.46 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA, HSUPA, EDGE, GPRS and GSM |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 7.1 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3220mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| -- | 330 hours standby time 24 hours talk time |
| 7.36 | 5.2 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 4.1 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | -- |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Google Nexus 6 is a bit better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, with a overall score of 81.1 against 77.8. These devices work with Android operating system, but the Google Nexus 6 has older 5.1 version while vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14. Google Nexus 6's design is lighter than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but it is incredibly thicker and was released 10 years before.
Google Nexus 6 counts with a way better performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, because although it has an inferior number of cores (although they are faster) and 13 GB lesser RAM, it also counts with an additional graphics processing unit. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a better display than Google Nexus 6, because although it has a just a bit inferior pixels quantity in each inch in the display, it also counts with a really larger screen and a better 2200 x 2480 resolution.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a very superior storage to install games and applications than Google Nexus 6, because it has 512 GB internal storage capacity. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a very superior battery life than Google Nexus 6, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity against 3220mAh. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro shoots a lot better photographs and videos than Google Nexus 6, because it has a way higher 7680x4320 video definition, a camera in the back with way more megapixels and a larger aperture to take better low-light captures.
Despite of being the best phone in this comparison, Google Nexus 6 is also a bargain compared to others.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.