Apple iPhone 16e vs Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
The Apple iPhone 16e (2025) runs on the Apple A18, while the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (2025) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; launch prices were $599 and $2899. By overall MobileRank rating, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads — 69/100 vs 56/100 (a 13-point difference). Key differences: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold has the bigger battery (5600 mAh vs 3279); the main camera is 48 MP vs 200 MP; the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is faster in AnTuTu (2,926,532 vs 1,972,476); the Apple iPhone 16e is noticeably lighter (167g vs 309g).
Profile comparison
Category scores
Apple iPhone 16e
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
What makes Apple iPhone 16e better?
- Better Geekbench Single: 3254 vs 3013
- Lighter: 167g vs 309g
- Cheaper at launch: $599 vs $2899
- Better portability (80/100 vs 20/100)
What makes Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold better?
- Higher AnTuTu: 2926532 vs 1972476
- Better Geekbench Multi: 9287 vs 8070
- Bigger battery: 5600 vs 3279 mAh
- Faster charging: 45W vs 20W
- Better main camera: 200MP vs 48MP
- Higher refresh rate: 120Hz vs 60Hz
- Faster wireless charging: 15W vs 7W
- Higher performance (90/100 vs 85/100)
- Better camera (52/100 vs 30/100)
- Longer battery life (63/100 vs 19/100)
- Better display (70/100 vs 61/100)
Comparison verdict
Comparing the Apple iPhone 16e vs the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold scores 13 points higher (69/100 vs 56/100). In the "camera" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads (52/100 vs 30/100). In the "battery" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads (63/100 vs 19/100). Value score: Apple iPhone 16e — 26/100, Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — 46/100; it shows how far a model sits above or below the usual level for its price, and is not part of the overall rating. In the "performance" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a bit better (90/100 vs 85/100). In the "display" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a bit better (70/100 vs 61/100). In the "camera" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold notably outperforms the Apple iPhone 16e (52/100 vs 30/100). In the "battery" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold significantly outperforms the Apple iPhone 16e (63/100 vs 19/100). In the "portability" category, the Apple iPhone 16e significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (80/100 vs 20/100).
Specs comparison
| Specification | Apple iPhone 16e | Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Apple A18 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite | |
| AnTuTu | 1972476 | 2926532 | |
| Geekbench Single | 3254 | 3013 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 8070 | 9287 | |
| Display | 6.1" OLED | 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X | |
| Resolution | 2532x1170 | 2160x1584 | |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 120 Hz | |
| Battery | 3279 mAh | 5600 mAh | |
| Charging | 20W | 45W | |
| Wireless charging | 7W | 15W | |
| Main camera | 48 MP | 200 MP | |
| Ultrawide | 0 MP | 12 MP | |
| Telephoto | 0 MP | 10 MP | |
| Front camera | 12 MP | 10 MP | |
| RAM | 8GB | 16GB | |
| Storage | 128GB / 256GB / 512GB | 512GB | |
| OS | iOS 18 | Android 16 / One UI 8 | |
| Brightness (peak) | 1200 nits | 2600 nits | |
| NFC | yes | yes | |
| Protection | IP68 | IP48 | |
| Dimensions | 146.7×71.5×7.8 mm | 159.2×75.0×12.9 mm | |
| Weight | 167 g | 309 g | |
| Launch price | $599 | $2899 |
Camera comparison
Apple iPhone 16e
- Main: 48MP f/1.6
- Front: 12MP
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- Main: 200MP f/1.7
- Ultrawide: 12MP
- Telephoto: 10MP
- Front: 10MP
Display comparison
Apple iPhone 16e
- 6.1" OLED
- Resolution: 2532x1170
- Refresh rate: 60 Hz
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X
- Resolution: 2160x1584
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Battery and charging
Apple iPhone 16e
- 3279 mAh
- Wired: 20W
- Wireless: 7W
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- 5600 mAh
- Wired: 45W
- Wireless: 15W
Overall performance score
We compared Apple iPhone 16e and Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads Apple iPhone 16e by 32.6% in our overall performance rating.
Benchmarks
Launch prices and where to check today's
Launch price difference: $2300. Apple iPhone 16e was $2300 cheaper at launch.
Detailed category analysis
performance
In the "performance" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a bit better (90/100 vs 85/100).
display
In the "display" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a bit better (70/100 vs 61/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold notably outperforms the Apple iPhone 16e (52/100 vs 30/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold significantly outperforms the Apple iPhone 16e (63/100 vs 19/100).
portability
In the "portability" category, the Apple iPhone 16e significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (80/100 vs 20/100).
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: the Apple iPhone 16e or the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold?
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is noticeably better than the Apple iPhone 16e — the overall rating gap is 13 points.
What is the rating of the Apple iPhone 16e and the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold?
The Apple iPhone 16e has a MobileRank rating of 56/100, the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — 69/100.
Which has the better camera: the Apple iPhone 16e or the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold?
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads on camera score (52/100 vs 30/100).
Which is more powerful: the Apple iPhone 16e or the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold?
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold leads on performance (90/100 vs 85/100).
Should you choose the Apple iPhone 16e over the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold?
The Apple iPhone 16e is a better fit for gamers and power users. The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a better fit for gamers and power users.