Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 77 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | HTC |
| Android 14 | -- |
| 2024-04-03 | 2017-02-21 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.39 x 3.14 x 0.31 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 6.00 ounces |
| Black and White | 16 777 216 |
| -- | Aluminum and Glass |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 749.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | S-LCD 5 |
| 414 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 8.5 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro-AB chipset |
| processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 6.3 | 8.91 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 16.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | 0.43 inches (1/2.3") 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 | 1920 x 1080 (120 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 12.87 | 9.9 |
| 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 and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3000mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 7.36 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a bit better than HTC U Ultra, with a 77.8 score against 77. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro's body is noticeably newer and notably thinner than HTC U Ultra's, but it is also extremely heavier. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much better screen than HTC U Ultra, because although it has a little inferior amount of pixels per screen inch, it also counts with a higher 2200 x 2480 resolution and a lot larger screen.
The HTC U Ultra counts with a really superior hardware performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a lower amount of RAM memory and a lower number of cores (although they are faster). Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a lot better camera than HTC U Ultra, because it has a back camera with much more MP, a lot larger sensor taking way higher quality pictures and videos, a lot better 7680x4320 video resolution and a larger aperture for better photography in poorly lited environments.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a much bigger memory for applications and games than HTC U Ultra, because although it has no external memory slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a superior battery lifetime than HTC U Ultra, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity instead of 3000mAh.
Although vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than HTC U Ultra, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the HTC U Ultra. If you want to save some dollars, you can buy HTC U Ultra, and give up a couple features, but you'll get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.