Samsung Galaxy A35 vs Vivo X300 Ultra
The Samsung Galaxy A35 (2024) runs on the Samsung Exynos 1380, while the Vivo X300 Ultra (2026) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; launch prices were $399 and $950. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads — 91/100 vs 50/100 (a 41-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo X300 Ultra has the bigger battery (7000 mAh vs 5000); the main camera is 50 MP vs 200 MP; the Vivo X300 Ultra is faster in AnTuTu (4,247,433 vs 739,266); the Samsung Galaxy A35 is noticeably lighter (209g vs 230g).
Profile comparison
Category scores
Samsung Galaxy A35
Vivo X300 Ultra
What makes Samsung Galaxy A35 better?
- Lighter: 209g vs 230g
- Cheaper at launch: $399 vs $950
- Better portability (51/100 vs 39/100)
What makes Vivo X300 Ultra better?
- Higher AnTuTu: 4247433 vs 739266
- Better Geekbench Single: 3639 vs 900
- Better Geekbench Multi: 11047 vs 2800
- Bigger battery: 7000 vs 5000 mAh
- Faster charging: 100W vs 25W
- Better main camera: 200MP vs 50MP
- Higher performance (99/100 vs 52/100)
- Better camera (96/100 vs 34/100)
- Longer battery life (85/100 vs 44/100)
- Better display (89/100 vs 79/100)
Comparison verdict
Comparing the Samsung Galaxy A35 vs the Vivo X300 Ultra, the Vivo X300 Ultra scores 41 points higher (91/100 vs 50/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (99/100 vs 52/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (96/100 vs 34/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (85/100 vs 44/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy A35 — 28/100, Vivo X300 Ultra — 94/100; 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 Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (99/100 vs 52/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra is a bit better (89/100 vs 79/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (96/100 vs 34/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (85/100 vs 44/100). In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy A35 is a bit better (51/100 vs 39/100).
Specs comparison
| Specification | Samsung Galaxy A35 | Vivo X300 Ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Samsung Exynos 1380 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 | |
| AnTuTu | 739266 | 4247433 | |
| Geekbench Single | 900 | 3639 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 2800 | 11047 | |
| Display | 6.6" Super AMOLED | 6.8" LTPO OLED | |
| Resolution | 2340x1080 | 3168x1440 | |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz | |
| Battery | 5000 mAh | 7000 mAh | |
| Charging | 25W | 100W | |
| Wireless charging | 0W | 40W | |
| DXOMark (camera) | — | 170 | |
| Main camera | 50 MP | 200 MP | |
| Ultrawide | 8 MP | 50 MP | |
| Telephoto | 0 MP | 200 MP | |
| Front camera | 13 MP | 32 MP | |
| RAM | 6GB / 8GB | 12GB / 16GB | |
| Storage | 128GB / 256GB | 256GB / 512GB / 1TB | |
| OS | Android 14 / One UI 6.1 | Android 16 | |
| Brightness (peak) | 1000 nits | — | |
| NFC | yes | yes | |
| Protection | IP67 | IP69 | |
| Dimensions | 161.7×78.0×8.2 mm | 163.0×76.8×8.2 mm | |
| Weight | 209 g | 230 g | |
| Launch price | $399 | $950 |
Camera comparison
Samsung Galaxy A35
- Main: 50MP f/1.8
- Ultrawide: 8MP
- Front: 13MP
Vivo X300 Ultra
- Main: 200MP f/1.6
- Ultrawide: 50MP
- Telephoto: 200MP
- Front: 32MP
Display comparison
Samsung Galaxy A35
- 6.6" Super AMOLED
- Resolution: 2340x1080
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Vivo X300 Ultra
- 6.8" LTPO OLED
- Resolution: 3168x1440
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Battery and charging
Samsung Galaxy A35
- 5000 mAh
- Wired: 25W
- No wireless charging
Vivo X300 Ultra
- 7000 mAh
- NanoReview test: web browsing 10:18 hrs, total 29:11 hrs
- Wired: 100W
- Wireless: 40W
Overall performance score
We compared Samsung Galaxy A35 and Vivo X300 Ultra, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vivo X300 Ultra leads Samsung Galaxy A35 by 82.6% in our overall performance rating.
Benchmarks
Launch prices and where to check today's
Launch price difference: $551. Samsung Galaxy A35 was $551 cheaper at launch.
Detailed category analysis
performance
In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (99/100 vs 52/100).
display
In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra is a bit better (89/100 vs 79/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (96/100 vs 34/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 (85/100 vs 44/100).
portability
In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy A35 is a bit better (51/100 vs 39/100).
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy A35 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?
The Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A35 by 41 points (91/100 vs 50/100).
What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy A35 and the Vivo X300 Ultra?
The Samsung Galaxy A35 has a MobileRank rating of 50/100, the Vivo X300 Ultra — 91/100.
Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy A35 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?
The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on camera score (96/100 vs 34/100).
Which is more powerful: the Samsung Galaxy A35 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?
The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on performance (99/100 vs 52/100).
Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy A35 over the Vivo X300 Ultra?
The Vivo X300 Ultra is a better fit for gamers and power users, mobile photography enthusiasts, those who care about battery life, budget-conscious buyers.