Honor 200 vs ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
The Honor 200 (2024) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 3, while the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G (2021) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 888. By overall MobileRank rating, the Honor 200 leads — 65/100 vs 61/100 (a 4-point difference). Key differences: the Honor 200 has the bigger battery (5200 mAh vs 4200); the main camera is 50 MP vs 64 MP; the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is faster in AnTuTu (1,119,714 vs 1,002,480).
Honor 200
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
- Bigger battery: 5200 vs 4200 mAh
- Better camera (65/100 vs 63/100)
- Longer battery life (65/100 vs 30/100)
- Higher AnTuTu: 1119714 vs 1002480
- Better Geekbench Single: 1488 vs 1131
- Better Geekbench Multi: 3373 vs 2967
- Better main camera: 64MP vs 50MP
- Higher refresh rate: 144Hz vs 120Hz
- Lighter: 183g vs 187g
- Higher performance (63/100 vs 58/100)
- Better display (89/100 vs 83/100)
Comparing the Honor 200 vs the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G, the Honor 200 scores 4 points higher (65/100 vs 61/100). In the "battery" category, the Honor 200 leads (65/100 vs 30/100). In the "performance" category, the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is a bit better (63/100 vs 58/100). In the "display" category, the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is a bit better (89/100 vs 83/100). In the "camera" category, the Honor 200 and the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G are nearly equal (65/100 vs 63/100). In the "battery" category, the Honor 200 significantly outperforms the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G (65/100 vs 30/100). In the "portability" category, both devices are on the same level — 70/100.
| Specification | Honor 200 | ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 3 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 | |
| AnTuTu | 1002480 | 1119714 | |
| Geekbench Single | 1131 | 1488 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 2967 | 3373 | |
| Display | 6.7" AMOLED | 6.7" Amoled | |
| Resolution | 2664x1200 | 1080x2400 | |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 144 Hz | |
| Battery | 5200 mAh | 4200 mAh | |
| Charging | 100W | — | |
| DXOMark (camera) | 130 | — | |
| Main camera | 50 MP | 64 MP | |
| Ultrawide | 12 MP | 64 MP | |
| Telephoto | 50 MP | 0 MP | |
| Front camera | 50 MP | — | |
| RAM | 8GB / 12GB | — | |
| Storage | 256GB / 512GB | 128GB | |
| OS | Android 14 | Android 11 Red Velvet Cake | |
| Brightness (peak) | 4000 nits | — | |
| NFC | yes | yes | |
| Dimensions | 161.5×74.6×7.7 mm | 163.6×75.3×7.9 mm | |
| Weight | 187 g | 183 g | |
| Launch price | $399 | — |
Honor 200
- Main: 50MP f/f/1.95
- Ultrawide: 12MP
- Telephoto: 50MP
- Front: 50MP
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
- Main: 64MP
- Ultrawide: 64MP
- Front: —
Honor 200
- 6.7" AMOLED
- Resolution: 2664x1200
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
- 6.7" Amoled
- Resolution: 1080x2400
- Refresh rate: 144 Hz
Honor 200
- 5200 mAh
- Wired: 100W
- No wireless charging
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
- 4200 mAh
- No wireless charging
We compared Honor 200 and ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G leads Honor 200 by 10.5% in our overall performance rating.
ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G
Price unknownperformance
In the "performance" category, the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is a bit better (63/100 vs 58/100).
display
In the "display" category, the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is a bit better (89/100 vs 83/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the Honor 200 and the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G are nearly equal (65/100 vs 63/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the Honor 200 significantly outperforms the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G (65/100 vs 30/100).
portability
In the "portability" category, both devices are on the same level — 70/100.
Which is better: the Honor 200 or the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G?
The Honor 200 edges out the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G by just 4 points — the two devices are very close in overall level.
What is the rating of the Honor 200 and the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G?
The Honor 200 has a MobileRank rating of 65/100, the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G — 61/100.
Which is more powerful: the Honor 200 or the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G?
The ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G leads on performance (63/100 vs 58/100).
Should you choose the Honor 200 over the ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G?
The Honor 200 is a better fit for everyday use. The ZTE Axon 31 Pro 5G is a better fit for active users.