Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold vs Vivo iQOO 15

The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (2025) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, while the Vivo iQOO 15 (2025) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; launch prices were $2899 and $599. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo iQOO 15 leads — 86/100 vs 69/100 (a 17-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo iQOO 15 has the bigger battery (7000 mAh vs 5600); the main camera is 200 MP vs 50 MP; the Vivo iQOO 15 is faster in AnTuTu (3,758,268 vs 2,926,532); the Vivo iQOO 15 is noticeably lighter (215g vs 309g).

The Vivo iQOO 15 is noticeably better than the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — the overall rating gap is 17 points.

Profile comparison

Category scores

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold

Performance 90
Display 70
Camera 52
Battery 63
Portability 20
Value for money 46

Vivo iQOO 15

Performance 94
Display 99
Camera 78
Battery 85
Portability 48
Value for money 86

What makes Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold better?

  • Better main camera: 200MP vs 50MP

  • Overall rating 69/100

What makes Vivo iQOO 15 better?

  • Higher AnTuTu: 3758268 vs 2926532
  • Bigger battery: 7000 vs 5600 mAh
  • Faster charging: 100W vs 45W
  • Higher refresh rate: 144Hz vs 120Hz
  • Faster wireless charging: 40W vs 15W
  • Lighter: 215g vs 309g
  • Cheaper at launch: $599 vs $2899

  • Higher performance (94/100 vs 90/100)
  • Better camera (78/100 vs 52/100)
  • Longer battery life (85/100 vs 63/100)
  • Better display (99/100 vs 70/100)
  • Better portability (48/100 vs 20/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold vs the Vivo iQOO 15, the Vivo iQOO 15 scores 17 points higher (86/100 vs 69/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 leads (78/100 vs 52/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 leads (85/100 vs 63/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — 46/100, Vivo iQOO 15 — 86/100; 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 iQOO 15 and the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold are nearly equal (94/100 vs 90/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (99/100 vs 70/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (78/100 vs 52/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (85/100 vs 63/100). In the "portability" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (48/100 vs 20/100).

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold: The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a better fit for gamers and power users.
Vivo iQOO 15: The Vivo iQOO 15 is a better fit for gamers and power users, those who care about battery life, budget-conscious buyers.

Specs comparison

Specification Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold Vivo iQOO 15
Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite
AnTuTu 2926532 3758268
Geekbench Single 3013 3013
Geekbench Multi 9287 9287
Display 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X 6.8" LTPO AMOLED
Resolution 2160x1584 1440x3168
Refresh rate 120 Hz 144 Hz
Battery 5600 mAh 7000 mAh
Charging 45W 100W
Wireless charging 15W 40W
Main camera 200 MP 50 MP
Ultrawide 12 MP 50 MP
Telephoto 10 MP 50 MP
Front camera 10 MP 32 MP
RAM 16GB 12GB / 16GB
Storage 512GB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
OS Android 16 / One UI 8 Android 16
Brightness (peak) 2600 nits 6000 nits
NFC yes yes
Protection IP48 IP68
Dimensions 159.2×75.0×12.9 mm 163.7×76.8×8.1 mm
Weight 309 g 215 g
Launch price $2899 $599

Camera comparison

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold

  • Main: 200MP f/1.7
  • Ultrawide: 12MP
  • Telephoto: 10MP
  • Front: 10MP
52
camera

Vivo iQOO 15

  • Main: 50MP f/1.9
  • Ultrawide: 50MP
  • Telephoto: 50MP
  • Front: 32MP
78
camera

Display comparison

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold

  • 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X
  • Resolution: 2160x1584
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz
70
display

Vivo iQOO 15

  • 6.8" LTPO AMOLED
  • Resolution: 1440x3168
  • Refresh rate: 144 Hz
99
display

Battery and charging

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold

  • 5600 mAh
  • Wired: 45W
  • Wireless: 15W
63
battery

Vivo iQOO 15

  • 7000 mAh
  • NanoReview test: web browsing 18:52 hrs, total 39:26 hrs
  • Wired: 100W
  • Wireless: 40W
85
battery

Overall performance score

We compared Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold and Vivo iQOO 15, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite
69/100
2926532 AnTuTu
Vivo iQOO 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite
86/100 +22.1%
3758268 AnTuTu

Vivo iQOO 15 leads Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold by 22.1% in our overall performance rating.

Benchmarks

Launch prices and where to check today's

Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold

$2899

Vivo iQOO 15

$599

Launch price difference: $2300. Vivo iQOO 15 was $2300 cheaper at launch.

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 and the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold are nearly equal (94/100 vs 90/100).

display

In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (99/100 vs 70/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (78/100 vs 52/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (85/100 vs 63/100).

portability

In the "portability" category, the Vivo iQOO 15 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (48/100 vs 20/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold or the Vivo iQOO 15?

The Vivo iQOO 15 is noticeably better than the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — the overall rating gap is 17 points.

What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold and the Vivo iQOO 15?

The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold has a MobileRank rating of 69/100, the Vivo iQOO 15 — 86/100.

Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold or the Vivo iQOO 15?

The Vivo iQOO 15 leads on camera score (78/100 vs 52/100).

Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold over the Vivo iQOO 15?

The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a better fit for gamers and power users. The Vivo iQOO 15 is a better fit for gamers and power users, those who care about battery life, budget-conscious buyers.