Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 78.8 | 94.6 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 11 | Android 11, 10 |
| 2021-04-02 | 2020-09-18 |
| 6.24 x 2.88 x 0.30 inches | 6.27 x 5.05 x 0.27 inches |
| 6.31 ounces | 9.95 ounces |
| Midnight Black and Shimmer Blue | Mystic black and Mystic bronze |
| Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 6) and Plastic | Aluminum and Glass |
| Scratch-Resistant 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 |
| 8.2 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 SM8250-AC (7 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ SM8250-AB chipset |
| Kryo 585, 64-bit (Octa-Core 3200 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3100 MHz) processor |
| 12 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Adreno 650 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 9.9 | 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/1.80 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.5 inches (1/2") sensor | 0.57 inches (1/1.76") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 11.77 | 10.45 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 10.6 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4200mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.08 | 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 way better than vivo X60 Pro, having a score of 94.6 against 78.8. The Galaxy Z Fold 2 design is just a bit thinner but noticeably heavier than the vivo X60 Pro, and both were only released 7 months apart. Both of these phones use the same Android 11 OS (Operating System), so you shouldn't perceive any differences regarding that.
Vivo X60 Pro has just a bit better screen than Galaxy Z Fold 2, because although it has a bit lower 1080 x 2376 resolution and a little bit smaller screen, it also counts with a little higher pixels density. Vivo X60 Pro and Galaxy Z Fold 2 feature similar storage capacity for games and applications, both of them have the same 256 GB internal memory capacity.
The vivo X60 Pro has just a bit better hardware performance than Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2. They have a 12 GB RAM and the same number of cores. The vivo X60 Pro takes better photos and videos than Galaxy Z Fold 2, because although it has a smaller back-facing camera sensor shooting worse quality videos and images, and they both have the same video definition, a same size camera aperture and the same video frame rate, the vivo X60 Pro also counts with a camera with a lot higher resolution.
Galaxy Z Fold 2 has just a little bit longer battery duration than vivo X60 Pro, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity instead of 4200mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.