Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 83.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | -- |
| 2024-04-03 | 2019-03-15 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.24 x 2.93 x 0.30 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 5.86 ounces |
| Black and White | Black, Blue, Coral and White |
| -- | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 202.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 6.4 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 403 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9610 chipset |
| processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 6.3 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 14.14 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 25.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | 27.00mm focal length |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor |
| 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 12.87 | 10.12 |
| 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, Dual SIM |
| 10.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 7.36 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| 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 |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
Galaxy A50 has a global score of 83.8, which is a bit better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro's 77.8 general score. Despite of the fact Galaxy A50 is incredibly older and way thicker than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, it's body is still extremely lighter. Galaxy A50 counts with a much better performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has less RAM, they both have a Octa-Core CPU.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much sharper display than Galaxy A50, because it has a just a little better pixels count per screen inch, a larger display and a much higher resolution of 2200 x 2480. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro captures much better pictures and videos than Galaxy A50, and although they both have a F1.7 diafragm aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a lot better video quality, a much bigger camera sensor which offers a much higher photo and video quality and a camera in the back with a way higher resolution.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a lot bigger storage for applications and games than Samsung Galaxy A50, because although it has no slot for an SD memory card, it also counts with 384 GB more internal storage capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much longer battery duration than Samsung Galaxy A50, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity instead of 4000mAh.
Samsung Galaxy A50 not only is the best phones between the ones we are comparing here, but it's also a bargain compared to others, which makes it a great choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.