Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 vs Vivo X300 Pro

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 (2025) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, while the Vivo X300 Pro (2025) runs on the Dimensity 9500; launch prices were $1999 and $899. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo X300 Pro leads — 88/100 vs 75/100 (a 13-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo X300 Pro has the bigger battery (6510 mAh vs 4400); the Vivo X300 Pro is faster in AnTuTu (3,326,259 vs 3,065,623); per DXOMark lab testing, the Vivo X300 Pro has the stronger camera (171 vs 145); the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 is thinner (4.2mm vs 8.0mm).

The Vivo X300 Pro is noticeably better than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 — the overall rating gap is 13 points.

Profile comparison

Category scores

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7

Performance 91
Display 78
Camera 76
Battery 39
Portability 66
Value for money 58

Vivo X300 Pro

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

What makes Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 better?

  • Lighter: 215g vs 226g

  • Better portability (66/100 vs 43/100)

What makes Vivo X300 Pro better?

  • Higher AnTuTu: 3326259 vs 3065623
  • Better Geekbench Single: 3293 vs 2910
  • Better Geekbench Multi: 10243 vs 9174
  • Bigger battery: 6510 vs 4400 mAh
  • Faster charging: 90W vs 25W
  • Faster wireless charging: 40W vs 15W
  • Cheaper at launch: $899 vs $1999

  • Higher performance (94/100 vs 91/100)
  • Better camera (96/100 vs 76/100)
  • Longer battery life (81/100 vs 39/100)
  • Better display (84/100 vs 78/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 vs the Vivo X300 Pro, the Vivo X300 Pro scores 13 points higher (88/100 vs 75/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro leads (96/100 vs 76/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro leads (81/100 vs 39/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 — 58/100, 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 and the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 are nearly equal (94/100 vs 91/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Pro is a bit better (84/100 vs 78/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 (96/100 vs 76/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 (81/100 vs 39/100). In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Pro (66/100 vs 43/100).

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7: The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 is a better fit for gamers and power users.
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 Z Fold7 Vivo X300 Pro
Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Dimensity 9500
AnTuTu 3065623 3326259
Geekbench Single 2910 3293
Geekbench Multi 9174 10243
Display 8.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X 6.8" AMOLED
Resolution 2184x1968 1260x2800
Refresh rate 120 Hz 120 Hz
Battery 4400 mAh 6510 mAh
Charging 25W 90W
Wireless charging 15W 40W
DXOMark (camera) 145 171
Main camera 200 MP 200 MP
Ultrawide 12 MP 50 MP
Telephoto 10 MP 50 MP
Front camera 10 MP 32 MP
RAM 12GB / 16GB 12GB / 16GB
Storage 256GB / 512GB / 1TB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
OS Android 16 / One UI 8 Android 16
Brightness (peak) 2600 nits 4500 nits
NFC yes yes
Protection IP48 IP68
Dimensions 158.4×143.2×4.2 mm 161.2×75.5×8.0 mm
Weight 215 g 226 g
Launch price $1999 $899

Camera comparison

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7

  • Main: 200MP f/1.7
  • Ultrawide: 12MP
  • Telephoto: 10MP
  • Front: 10MP
76
camera

Vivo X300 Pro

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

Display comparison

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7

  • 8.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X
  • Resolution: 2184x1968
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz
78
display

Vivo X300 Pro

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

Battery and charging

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7

  • 4400 mAh
  • Wired: 25W
  • Wireless: 15W
39
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 Z Fold7 and Vivo X300 Pro, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite
75/100
3065623 AnTuTu
Vivo X300 Pro Dimensity 9500
88/100 +7.8%
3326259 AnTuTu

Vivo X300 Pro leads Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 by 7.8% in our overall performance rating.

Benchmarks

Launch prices and where to check today's

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7

$1999

Vivo X300 Pro

$899

Launch price difference: $1100. Vivo X300 Pro was $1100 cheaper at launch.

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Pro and the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 are nearly equal (94/100 vs 91/100).

display

In the "display" category, the Vivo X300 Pro is a bit better (84/100 vs 78/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Pro notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 (96/100 vs 76/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Pro significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 (81/100 vs 39/100).

portability

In the "portability" category, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 notably outperforms the Vivo X300 Pro (66/100 vs 43/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 or the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro is noticeably better than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 — the overall rating gap is 13 points.

What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 and the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 has a MobileRank rating of 75/100, the Vivo X300 Pro — 88/100.

Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 or the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Vivo X300 Pro leads on camera score (96/100 vs 76/100).

Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 over the Vivo X300 Pro?

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 is a better fit for gamers and power users. 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.