Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold vs Vivo iQOO 16
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (2025) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, while the Vivo iQOO 16 (2026) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Extreme Gen 6; launch prices were $2899 and $840. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo iQOO 16 leads — 89/100 vs 69/100 (a 20-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo iQOO 16 has the bigger battery (8400 mAh vs 5600); the main camera is 200 MP vs 50 MP; the Vivo iQOO 16 is faster in AnTuTu (5,498,720 vs 2,926,532); the Vivo iQOO 16 is noticeably lighter (223g vs 309g).
Profile comparison
Category scores
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
Vivo iQOO 16
What makes Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold better?
- Better main camera: 200MP vs 50MP
- Overall rating 69/100
What makes Vivo iQOO 16 better?
- Higher AnTuTu: 5498720 vs 2926532
- Better Geekbench Single: 4327 vs 3013
- Better Geekbench Multi: 12873 vs 9287
- Bigger battery: 8400 vs 5600 mAh
- Faster charging: 100W vs 45W
- Higher refresh rate: 165Hz vs 120Hz
- Faster wireless charging: 40W vs 15W
- Lighter: 223g vs 309g
- Cheaper at launch: $840 vs $2899
- Higher performance (100/100 vs 90/100)
- Better camera (78/100 vs 52/100)
- Longer battery life (90/100 vs 63/100)
- Better display (99/100 vs 70/100)
- Better portability (42/100 vs 20/100)
Comparison verdict
Comparing the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold vs the Vivo iQOO 16, the Vivo iQOO 16 scores 20 points higher (89/100 vs 69/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 leads (100/100 vs 90/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 leads (78/100 vs 52/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 leads (90/100 vs 63/100). Value score: Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold — 46/100, Vivo iQOO 16 — 92/100; 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 16 is a bit better (100/100 vs 90/100). In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (99/100 vs 70/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (78/100 vs 52/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (90/100 vs 63/100). In the "portability" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (42/100 vs 20/100).
Specs comparison
| Specification | Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold | Vivo iQOO 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Extreme Gen 6 | |
| AnTuTu | 2926532 | 5498720 | |
| Geekbench Single | 3013 | 4327 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 9287 | 12873 | |
| Display | 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X | 6.8" AMOLED | |
| Resolution | 2160x1584 | 1440x3168 | |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 165 Hz | |
| Battery | 5600 mAh | 8400 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 17 | |
| Brightness (peak) | 2600 nits | 6000 nits | |
| NFC | yes | yes | |
| Protection | IP48 | IP68/IP69 | |
| Dimensions | 159.2×75.0×12.9 mm | 163.8×76.9×8.3 mm | |
| Weight | 309 g | 223 g | |
| Launch price | $2899 | $840 |
Camera comparison
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- Main: 200MP f/1.7
- Ultrawide: 12MP
- Telephoto: 10MP
- Front: 10MP
Vivo iQOO 16
- Main: 50MP f/1.7
- Ultrawide: 50MP
- Telephoto: 50MP
- Front: 32MP
Display comparison
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- 10.0" Dynamic AMOLED 2X
- Resolution: 2160x1584
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Vivo iQOO 16
- 6.8" AMOLED
- Resolution: 1440x3168
- Refresh rate: 165 Hz
Battery and charging
Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold
- 5600 mAh
- Wired: 45W
- Wireless: 15W
Vivo iQOO 16
- 8400 mAh
- Wired: 100W
- Wireless: 40W
Overall performance score
We compared Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold and Vivo iQOO 16, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vivo iQOO 16 leads Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold by 46.8% in our overall performance rating.
Benchmarks
Launch prices and where to check today's
Launch price difference: $2059. Vivo iQOO 16 was $2059 cheaper at launch.
Detailed category analysis
performance
In the "performance" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 is a bit better (100/100 vs 90/100).
display
In the "display" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (99/100 vs 70/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (78/100 vs 52/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (90/100 vs 63/100).
portability
In the "portability" category, the Vivo iQOO 16 notably outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (42/100 vs 20/100).
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold or the Vivo iQOO 16?
The Vivo iQOO 16 significantly outperforms the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold by 20 points (89/100 vs 69/100).
What is the rating of the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold and the Vivo iQOO 16?
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold has a MobileRank rating of 69/100, the Vivo iQOO 16 — 89/100.
Which has the better camera: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold or the Vivo iQOO 16?
The Vivo iQOO 16 leads on camera score (78/100 vs 52/100).
Which is more powerful: the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold or the Vivo iQOO 16?
The Vivo iQOO 16 leads on performance (100/100 vs 90/100).
Should you choose the Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold over the Vivo iQOO 16?
The Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold is a better fit for gamers and power users. The Vivo iQOO 16 is a better fit for gamers and power users, those who care about battery life, budget-conscious buyers.