Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 75.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | -- |
| 2024-04-03 | 2016-06-10 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 5.86 x 2.95 x 0.39 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 6.53 ounces |
| Black and White | Camo green, Sandy gold and Titanium gray |
| -- | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 247.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | 500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 9.3 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset |
| processor | Kryo, 64-bit, 14 nm (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 6.3 | 8.91 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 32 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 200 GB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 8.56 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") 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 | 9.46 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | -- |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | HSPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 3 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4000mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 7.36 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a general score of 77.8, which is just a bit better than Galaxy S7 Active's global score of 75.8. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a much newer and noticeably thinner cellphone than the Galaxy S7 Active, but it is also heavier. Samsung Galaxy S7 Active has a much powerful processing unit than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has an inferior number of cores (although they are faster) and a lower amount of RAM memory.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much better display than Galaxy S7 Active, because although it has a way lower pixel density, it also counts with a way bigger display, a lot brighter display and a higher resolution of 2200 x 2480 pixels. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a much better camera than Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, and although they both have a F1.7 diafragm aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a much more megapixels back-facing camera and a way higher 7680x4320 video resolution.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro features a lot bigger memory capacity to store more games and applications than Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, because although it has no external SD slot, it also counts with 480 GB more internal storage capacity. The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a superior battery lifetime than Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, because it has a 43 percent greater battery size.
Although vivo X Fold 3 Pro is a better device, it is way more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as Samsung Galaxy S7 Active. If you are trying to save some dollars, you can buy the Samsung Galaxy S7 Active, letting go some specs and features, but you will get the most with your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.