Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 88.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | Android 11 |
| 2024-04-03 | 2021-02-22 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 7.69 ounces |
| Black and White | Laser Blue, Laser Green and Laser Grey |
| $ 1915.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2400 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED Plus |
| 414 pixels per inch | 393 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | 420 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 8.4 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Exynos 9825 chipset |
| processor | Cortex-A55, 7 nm (Quad-Core 2730 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | ARM Mali-G76 MP12 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 | -- |
| 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 | -- |
| 12.87 | 11.99 |
| 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 | 7000mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 7.36 | 8.32 |
| 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 |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Galaxy F62 has a score of 88.1, which is better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro's 77.8 general score. Both of these phones work with Android operating system, but the Galaxy F62 has 11 version while vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14. Galaxy F62's body is a little bit lighter than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but it is incredibly thicker and was released 3 years before.
The Galaxy F62 counts with a very superior processing power than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has lesser processing cores and lesser RAM memory. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much sharper display than Samsung Galaxy F62, because it has a larger display, a little better pixel amount per inch of screen, a lot brighter screen and a way better 2200 x 2480 resolution.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a better storage to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Galaxy F62, because although it has no SD memory slot, it also counts with 384 GB more internal memory capacity. The Galaxy F62 has greater battery lifetime than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, because it has 7000mAh of battery capacity instead of 5700mAh.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro takes clearer photos and videos than Galaxy F62, because although it has a back facing camera with way less mega-pixels, it also counts with a much better video definition, a lot bigger back-facing camera sensor capturing more light and vivid colors and a larger aperture to take better captures and videos in low light environments.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.