Samsung Galaxy S9+ vs Vivo X300 Pro

The Samsung Galaxy S9+ (2018) runs on the Samsung Exynos 9810, while the Vivo X300 Pro (2025) runs on the Dimensity 9500; launch prices were $840 and $899. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo X300 Pro leads — 88/100 vs 36/100 (a 52-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo X300 Pro has the bigger battery (6510 mAh vs 3500); the main camera is 12 MP vs 200 MP; the Vivo X300 Pro is faster in AnTuTu (3,326,259 vs 594,285); the Samsung Galaxy S9+ is noticeably lighter (189g vs 226g).

The Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ by 52 points (88/100 vs 36/100).

Profile comparison

Category scores

Samsung Galaxy S9+

Performance 43
Display 66
Camera 15
Battery 19
Portability 60
Value for money 0

Vivo X300 Pro

Performance 94
Display 84
Camera 96
Battery 81
Portability 43
Value for money 88

What makes Samsung Galaxy S9+ better?

  • Lighter: 189g vs 226g
  • Cheaper at launch: $840 vs $899

  • Better portability (60/100 vs 43/100)

What makes Vivo X300 Pro better?

  • Higher AnTuTu: 3326259 vs 594285
  • Better Geekbench Single: 3293 vs 744
  • Better Geekbench Multi: 10243 vs 1863
  • Bigger battery: 6510 vs 3500 mAh
  • Faster charging: 90W vs 15W
  • Better main camera: 200MP vs 12MP
  • Higher refresh rate: 120Hz vs 60Hz
  • Faster wireless charging: 40W vs 10W

  • Higher performance (94/100 vs 43/100)
  • Better camera (96/100 vs 15/100)
  • Longer battery life (81/100 vs 19/100)
  • Better display (84/100 vs 66/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Samsung Galaxy S9+ vs the Vivo X300 Pro, the Vivo X300 Pro scores 52 points higher (88/100 vs 36/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Pro leads (94/100 vs 43/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro leads (96/100 vs 15/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro leads (81/100 vs 19/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy S9+ — 0/100, Vivo X300 Pro — 88/100; 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 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (94/100 vs 43/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Pro notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (84/100 vs 66/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (96/100 vs 15/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (81/100 vs 19/100). In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy S9+ notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Pro (60/100 vs 43/100).

Vivo X300 Pro: The Vivo X300 Pro 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 S9+ Vivo X300 Pro
Processor Samsung Exynos 9810 Dimensity 9500
AnTuTu 594285 3326259
Geekbench Single 744 3293
Geekbench Multi 1863 10243
Display 6.2" Super AMOLED 6.8" AMOLED
Resolution 2960x1440 1260x2800
Refresh rate 60 Hz 120 Hz
Battery 3500 mAh 6510 mAh
Charging 15W 90W
Wireless charging 10W 40W
DXOMark (camera) — 171
Main camera 12 MP 200 MP
Ultrawide 0 MP 50 MP
Telephoto 12 MP 50 MP
Front camera 8 MP 32 MP
RAM 6GB 12GB / 16GB
Storage 64GB / 128GB / 256GB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
OS Android 8.0 Android 16
Brightness (peak) — 4500 nits
NFC yes yes
Protection IP68 IP68
Dimensions 158.1×73.8×8.5 mm 161.2×75.5×8.0 mm
Weight 189 g 226 g
Launch price $840 $899

Camera comparison

Samsung Galaxy S9+

  • Main: 12MP f/1.5
  • Telephoto: 12MP
  • Front: 8MP
15
camera

Vivo X300 Pro

  • Main: 200MP f/1.57
  • Ultrawide: 50MP
  • Telephoto: 50MP
  • Front: 32MP
96
camera

Display comparison

Samsung Galaxy S9+

  • 6.2" Super AMOLED
  • Resolution: 2960x1440
  • Refresh rate: 60 Hz
66
display

Vivo X300 Pro

  • 6.8" AMOLED
  • Resolution: 1260x2800
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz
84
display

Battery and charging

Samsung Galaxy S9+

  • 3500 mAh
  • Wired: 15W
  • Wireless: 10W
19
battery

Vivo X300 Pro

  • 6510 mAh
  • NanoReview test: web browsing 13:30 hrs, total 24:37 hrs
  • Wired: 90W
  • Wireless: 40W
81
battery

Overall performance score

We compared Samsung Galaxy S9+ and Vivo X300 Pro, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Exynos 9810
36/100
594285 AnTuTu
Vivo X300 Pro Dimensity 9500
88/100 +82.1%
3326259 AnTuTu

Vivo X300 Pro leads Samsung Galaxy S9+ by 82.1% in our overall performance rating.

Benchmarks

Launch prices and where to check today's

Samsung Galaxy S9+

$840

Vivo X300 Pro

$899

Launch price difference: $59. Samsung Galaxy S9+ was $59 cheaper at launch.

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (94/100 vs 43/100).

display

In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Pro notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (84/100 vs 66/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (96/100 vs 15/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ (81/100 vs 19/100).

portability

In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy S9+ notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Pro (60/100 vs 43/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy S9+ or the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy S9+ by 52 points (88/100 vs 36/100).

What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy S9+ and the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Samsung Galaxy S9+ has a MobileRank rating of 36/100, the Vivo X300 Pro — 88/100.

Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy S9+ or the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro leads on camera score (96/100 vs 15/100).

Which is more powerful: the Samsung Galaxy S9+ or the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro leads on performance (94/100 vs 43/100).

Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy S9+ over the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro is a better fit for gamers and power users, mobile photography enthusiasts, those who care about battery life, budget-conscious buyers.