Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.4 | 94.6 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 10 | Android 11, 10 |
| 2020-07-24 | 2020-09-18 |
| 6.24 x 2.87 x 0.32 inches | 6.27 x 5.05 x 0.27 inches |
| 6.40 ounces | 9.95 ounces |
| Alpha grey | Mystic black and Mystic bronze |
| Aluminum and Glass | Aluminum and Glass |
| -- | $ 1930.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.6 inches | 7.6 inches |
| 2376 x 1080 pixels | 2208 x 1768 pixels |
| AMOLED | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 395 pixels per inch | 372 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ SM8250-AB chipset |
| Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3100 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Adreno 620 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.81 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 13.3 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 48.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP |
| f/1.60 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | 0.57 inches (1/1.76") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 11.22 | 10.45 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 10.7 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4315mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.16 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Z Fold 2 is much better than vivo X50 Pro, getting a 94.6 score against 75.4. These phones work with Android OS, but Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a more recent 11 version while vivo X50 Pro has Android 10 version, providing a couple nice extra features and enhanced performance. Galaxy Z Fold 2's construction is notably heavier but somewhat thinner than vivo X50 Pro, and they were released with only a few months difference.
Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a screen that's very similar to the vivo X50 Pro one, because although the Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a bit less pixels per inch of display, it also counts with a higher 1768 x 2208px resolution and a bigger screen. The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2 counts with as much storage to install applications and games as the vivo X50 Pro, they have equal internal memory capacity.
The Galaxy Z Fold 2 has just a little better hardware performance than vivo X50 Pro, and although they both have a Octa-Core CPU, the Galaxy Z Fold 2 also has a greater amount of RAM. The vivo X50 Pro shoots slightly better pictures and videos than Galaxy Z Fold 2, because although it has a much tinier back camera sensor providing a way lower image quality and worse video frame rates, and they both have the same 3840x2160 video definition, the vivo X50 Pro also counts with a back-facing camera with a way better 48 mega-pixels resolution and a bigger camera aperture for better photography and video in low-light environments.
The Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a bit superior battery life than vivo X50 Pro, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity against 4315mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.