Oppo Reno7 Lite vs Vivo iQOO Z7
The Oppo Reno7 Lite (2022) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, while the Vivo iQOO Z7 (2023) runs on the MediaTek Dimensity 920. Both devices score the same overall rating of 50/100. Key differences: the Vivo iQOO Z7 is faster in AnTuTu (750,481 vs 592,015); the Oppo Reno7 Lite has NFC for contactless payments, the Vivo iQOO Z7 doesn't.
Profile comparison
Category scores
Oppo Reno7 Lite
Vivo iQOO Z7
What makes Oppo Reno7 Lite better?
- Better display (84/100 vs 69/100)
- Better portability (80/100 vs 77/100)
What makes Vivo iQOO Z7 better?
- Higher AnTuTu: 750481 vs 592015
- Better Geekbench Single: 936 vs 905
- Better Geekbench Multi: 2318 vs 2101
- Faster charging: 44W vs 33W
- Higher performance (51/100 vs 46/100)
- Longer battery life (38/100 vs 35/100)
Comparison verdict
The Oppo Reno7 Lite and the Vivo iQOO Z7 received the same MobileRank rating — 50/100. In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO Z7 is a bit better (51/100 vs 46/100). In the "display" category, the Oppo Reno7 Lite notably outperforms the Vivo iQOO Z7 (84/100 vs 69/100). In the "camera" category, both devices are on the same level — 40/100. In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO Z7 and the Oppo Reno7 Lite are nearly equal (38/100 vs 35/100). In the "portability" category, the Oppo Reno7 Lite and the Vivo iQOO Z7 are nearly equal (80/100 vs 77/100).
Specs comparison
| Specification | Oppo Reno7 Lite | Vivo iQOO Z7 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G | MediaTek Dimensity 920 | |
| AnTuTu | 592015 | 750481 | |
| Geekbench Single | 905 | 936 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 2101 | 2318 | |
| Display | 6.4" AMOLED | 6.4" AMOLED | |
| Resolution | 1080x2400 | 1080x2400 | |
| Refresh rate | — | 90 Hz | |
| Battery | 4500 mAh | 4500 mAh | |
| Charging | 33W | 44W | |
| Main camera | 64 MP | 64 MP | |
| Front camera | 16 MP | 16 MP | |
| RAM | 8GB | 6GB / 8GB | |
| Storage | 128GB | 128GB | |
| OS | Android 11, ColorOS 12 | Android 13, Funtouch 13 | |
| Brightness (peak) | 600 nits | 1300 nits | |
| NFC | yes | no | |
| Protection | IPX4 | IP54 | |
| Dimensions | 159.9×73.2×7.5 mm | 158.9×73.5×7.8 mm | |
| Weight | 173 g | 173 g | |
| Launch price | — | — |
Camera comparison
Oppo Reno7 Lite
- Main: 64MP f/1.7
- Front: 16MP
Vivo iQOO Z7
- Main: 64MP
- Front: 16MP
Display comparison
Oppo Reno7 Lite
- 6.4" AMOLED
- Resolution: 1080x2400
- Refresh rate: —
Vivo iQOO Z7
- 6.4" AMOLED
- Resolution: 1080x2400
- Refresh rate: 90 Hz
Battery and charging
Oppo Reno7 Lite
- 4500 mAh
- Wired: 33W
- No wireless charging
Vivo iQOO Z7
- 4500 mAh
- Wired: 44W
- No wireless charging
Overall performance score
We compared Oppo Reno7 Lite and Vivo iQOO Z7, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vivo iQOO Z7 leads Oppo Reno7 Lite by 21.1% in our overall performance rating.
Benchmarks
Detailed category analysis
performance
In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO Z7 is a bit better (51/100 vs 46/100).
display
In the "display" category, the Oppo Reno7 Lite notably outperforms the Vivo iQOO Z7 (84/100 vs 69/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, both devices are on the same level — 40/100.
battery
In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO Z7 and the Oppo Reno7 Lite are nearly equal (38/100 vs 35/100).
portability
In the "portability" category, the Oppo Reno7 Lite and the Vivo iQOO Z7 are nearly equal (80/100 vs 77/100).
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: the Oppo Reno7 Lite or the Vivo iQOO Z7?
Both devices scored 50/100. The choice depends on your priorities: if performance matters more — go with the Vivo iQOO Z7 (51/100 vs 46/100).
What is the rating of the Oppo Reno7 Lite and the Vivo iQOO Z7?
The Oppo Reno7 Lite has a MobileRank rating of 50/100, the Vivo iQOO Z7 — 50/100.
Which is more powerful: the Oppo Reno7 Lite or the Vivo iQOO Z7?
The Vivo iQOO Z7 leads on performance (51/100 vs 46/100).
Should you choose the Oppo Reno7 Lite over the Vivo iQOO Z7?
Neither model stands out enough to recommend it for a specific use case: the clearest difference is display — better on the Oppo Reno7 Lite (84/100 vs 69/100).