Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 91.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | Android 12, 11 |
| 2024-04-03 | 2021-03-19 |
| 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 and Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 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 (8 nm) 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 5G has a score of 91.3, which is better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro's general score of 77.8. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G's body is somewhat lighter than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but it is thicker and was released many years before. These devices use Android OS (Operating System), but the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G has older 12 version while vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14.
The Galaxy A52 5G has a very superior processing power than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a smaller amount of RAM memory, they both have 8 cores. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much more vibrant screen than Galaxy A52 5G, because it has a just a little more pixels per inch in the screen, a much better resolution of 2200 x 2480 and a bigger screen.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a greater storage to install applications and games than Samsung Galaxy A52 5G, because although it has no external memory card slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal memory capacity. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro captures clearer photographs and videos than Samsung Galaxy A52 5G, because although it has a way lower resolution back-facing camera, it also counts with a way larger camera sensor, a bigger aperture and a lot better 7680x4320 video quality.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with greater battery duration than Galaxy A52 5G, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.