Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 87.7 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | Android 10 |
| 2024-04-03 | 2020-09-11 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 7.51 ounces |
| Black and White | Black and White |
| -- | Plastic and Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED Plus |
| 414 pixels per inch | 385 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 8 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 SM7150-AA chipset |
| processor | Kryo 470, 64-bit, 8 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Adreno 618 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 | 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 | 0.57 inches (1/1.76") 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 | 11.88 |
| 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 M51 has a global score of 87.7, which is better than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro's general score of 77.8. Both devices in this comparison review include Android OS (Operating System), but the Galaxy M51 has an older 10 version and vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14 version. Galaxy M51 is a notably older and incredibly thicker cellphone than the vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but Samsung managed to make it a little bit lighter anyway.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a much sharper screen than Samsung Galaxy M51, because it has a lot higher 2200 x 2480px resolution, a bit more pixels per screen inch and a bigger display. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a very superior storage to store more games and applications than Samsung Galaxy M51, because although it has no slot for external memory cards, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage.
The Galaxy M51 has a way better performance than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has lesser RAM, they both have the same number of cores. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro captures just a bit better photographs and videos than Galaxy M51, because although it has a way worse resolution back-facing camera, it also counts with a lot higher 7680x4320 video quality, a larger diafragm aperture to capture better images and videos in poorly lited situations and a much bigger back-facing camera sensor providing a way better image quality.
Galaxy M51 counts with better battery lifetime than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, because it has 7000mAh of battery capacity against 5700mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.