Samsung Galaxy A52 vs Vivo X300 Ultra

The Samsung Galaxy A52 (2021) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, while the Vivo X300 Ultra (2026) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; launch prices were $400 and $950. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads — 91/100 vs 46/100 (a 45-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo X300 Ultra has the bigger battery (7000 mAh vs 4500); the main camera is 64 MP vs 200 MP; the Vivo X300 Ultra is faster in AnTuTu (4,247,433 vs 517,460); the Samsung Galaxy A52 is noticeably lighter (189g vs 230g).

The Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 by 45 points (91/100 vs 46/100).

Profile comparison

Category scores

Samsung Galaxy A52

Performance 41
Display 68
Camera 45
Battery 39
Portability 61
Value for money 20

Vivo X300 Ultra

Performance 99
Display 89
Camera 96
Battery 85
Portability 39
Value for money 94

What makes Samsung Galaxy A52 better?

  • Lighter: 189g vs 230g
  • Cheaper at launch: $400 vs $950

  • Better portability (61/100 vs 39/100)

What makes Vivo X300 Ultra better?

  • Higher AnTuTu: 4247433 vs 517460
  • Better Geekbench Single: 3639 vs 746
  • Better Geekbench Multi: 11047 vs 1762
  • Bigger battery: 7000 vs 4500 mAh
  • Better main camera: 200MP vs 64MP
  • Higher refresh rate: 120Hz vs 90Hz

  • Higher performance (99/100 vs 41/100)
  • Better camera (96/100 vs 45/100)
  • Longer battery life (85/100 vs 39/100)
  • Better display (89/100 vs 68/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Samsung Galaxy A52 vs the Vivo X300 Ultra, the Vivo X300 Ultra scores 45 points higher (91/100 vs 46/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (99/100 vs 41/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (96/100 vs 45/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (85/100 vs 39/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy A52 — 20/100, 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 A52 (99/100 vs 41/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (89/100 vs 68/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (96/100 vs 45/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (85/100 vs 39/100). In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy A52 notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Ultra (61/100 vs 39/100).

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.

Specs comparison

Specification Samsung Galaxy A52 Vivo X300 Ultra
Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
AnTuTu 517460 4247433
Geekbench Single 746 3639
Geekbench Multi 1762 11047
Display 6.5" AMOLED 6.8" LTPO OLED
Resolution — 3168x1440
Refresh rate 90 Hz 120 Hz
Battery 4500 mAh 7000 mAh
Charging — 100W
Wireless charging 0W 40W
DXOMark (camera) — 170
Main camera 64 MP 200 MP
Ultrawide 0 MP 50 MP
Telephoto 0 MP 200 MP
Front camera 32 MP 32 MP
RAM 4GB / 6GB / 8GB 12GB / 16GB
Storage 128GB / 256GB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
OS — Android 16
Brightness (peak) 800 nits —
NFC yes yes
Protection IP67 IP69
Dimensions 159.9×75.1×8.4 mm 163.0×76.8×8.2 mm
Weight 189 g 230 g
Launch price $400 $950

Camera comparison

Samsung Galaxy A52

  • Main: 64MP
  • Front: 32MP
45
camera

Vivo X300 Ultra

  • Main: 200MP f/1.6
  • Ultrawide: 50MP
  • Telephoto: 200MP
  • Front: 32MP
96
camera

Display comparison

Samsung Galaxy A52

  • 6.5" AMOLED
  • Refresh rate: 90 Hz
68
display

Vivo X300 Ultra

  • 6.8" LTPO OLED
  • Resolution: 3168x1440
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz
89
display

Battery and charging

Samsung Galaxy A52

  • 4500 mAh
  • No wireless charging
39
battery

Vivo X300 Ultra

  • 7000 mAh
  • NanoReview test: web browsing 10:18 hrs, total 29:11 hrs
  • Wired: 100W
  • Wireless: 40W
85
battery

Overall performance score

We compared Samsung Galaxy A52 and Vivo X300 Ultra, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Samsung Galaxy A52 Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G
46/100
517460 AnTuTu
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
91/100 +87.8%
4247433 AnTuTu

Vivo X300 Ultra leads Samsung Galaxy A52 by 87.8% in our overall performance rating.

Benchmarks

Launch prices and where to check today's

Samsung Galaxy A52

$400

Vivo X300 Ultra

$950

Launch price difference: $550. Samsung Galaxy A52 was $550 cheaper at launch.

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (99/100 vs 41/100).

display

In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (89/100 vs 68/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (96/100 vs 45/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 (85/100 vs 39/100).

portability

In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy A52 notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Ultra (61/100 vs 39/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy A52 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy A52 by 45 points (91/100 vs 46/100).

What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy A52 and the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Samsung Galaxy A52 has a MobileRank rating of 46/100, the Vivo X300 Ultra — 91/100.

Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy A52 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on camera score (96/100 vs 45/100).

Which is more powerful: the Samsung Galaxy A52 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on performance (99/100 vs 41/100).

Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy A52 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.