Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 79.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | Android 5.1 |
| 2024-04-03 | 2015-08-13 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.03 x 3.00 x 0.30 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 6.03 ounces |
| Black and White | Black, Gold, Gray and White |
| -- | Glass; metal |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 415.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | Capacitive, Multi-touch |
| 10.5 | 9.4 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Exynos 7 Octa 7420 chipset |
| processor | ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Single-Core 2100 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | ARM Mali-T760 MP8 GPU |
| 6.3 | 8.46 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 17.6 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 16.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.90 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | 28.00mm focal length |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | 0.38 inches (1/2.6") 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 | 2560 x 1440 (60 fps) (Quad HD / 2K) slow motion video |
| 12.87 | 10.01 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), HSPA, HSUPA, EDGE, GPRS, GSM and CDMA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 6.8 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| -- | 336 hours standby time 22 hours talk time |
| 7.36 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | -- |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy Note 5 is just a bit better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, having a 79.3 score against 77.8. Both phones we are comparing here use Android OS (operating system), but the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 has the older 5.1 version and vivo X Fold 3 Pro has Android 14 version. Samsung Galaxy Note 5's construction is a lot lighter than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, but it's extremely thicker and was released 9 years before.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a better looking display than Galaxy Note 5, because although it has a little worse screen density, it also counts with a lot larger display and a higher 2200 x 2480 resolution. The Samsung Galaxy Note 5 counts with an extremely better processor than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has 12 GB lesser RAM memory and an inferior number of cores (although faster).
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much bigger storage for applications, games, photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy Note 5, because it has more internal storage. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro shoots way better photographs and videos than Samsung Galaxy Note 5, because it has a back-facing camera with a way better resolution, a way higher 7680x4320 video definition, a bigger aperture for better low light photos and video and a way bigger sensor capturing much better quality photographs and videos.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a really longer battery lifetime than Samsung Galaxy Note 5, because it has 5700mAh of battery capacity against 3000mAh.
In addition to being the best phone of the ones we are comparing here, Samsung Galaxy Note 5 is also by far the cheapest one, making it an easy decision.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.