Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 90.7 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | -- |
| 2024-04-03 | 2021-03-17 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 6.67 ounces |
| Black and White | -- |
| -- | Plastic |
| $ 1915.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 6.5 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2400 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 405 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 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G SM7225 chipset |
| processor | Kryo 570, 64-bit, 8 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Adreno 619 GPU |
| 6.3 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 15.42 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 64.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | 0.59 inches (1/1.7") 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 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 12.87 | 12.1 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 7.36 | 6.32 |
| 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 |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy A52 has an overall score of 90.7, which is much better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro's 77.8 score. Samsung Galaxy A52 is a older and thicker phone than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but Samsung could make it somewhat lighter anyway. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with an incredibly better looking display than Galaxy A52, because it has a just a little higher display pixels density, a lot better resolution of 2200 x 2480 pixels and a bigger display.
Galaxy A52 counts with a way better hardware performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a lower amount of RAM memory, they both have a Octa-Core processing unit. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a quite bigger memory capacity to store more apps and games than Samsung Galaxy A52, because although it has no slot for external memory cards, it also counts with 384 GB more internal storage.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with greater battery performance than Galaxy A52, because it has a 27% larger battery size. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro shoots just a bit better videos and photos than Galaxy A52, because although it has a back-facing camera with a way worse 50 mega-pixels resolution, it also counts with a larger camera aperture for better low-light photography, a much larger back camera sensor capturing more light and vivid colors and a way higher video definition.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.