Sharp Aquos R9 vs Vivo X300 Ultra

The Sharp Aquos R9 (2024) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7+ Gen 3, while the Vivo X300 Ultra (2026) runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; launch prices were $599 and $950. By overall MobileRank rating, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads — 91/100 vs 68/100 (a 23-point difference). Key differences: the Vivo X300 Ultra has the bigger battery (7000 mAh vs 5000); the main camera is 50 MP vs 200 MP; the Vivo X300 Ultra is faster in AnTuTu (4,247,433 vs 1,660,924); the Sharp Aquos R9 is noticeably lighter (195g vs 230g).

The Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 by 23 points (91/100 vs 68/100).

Profile comparison

Category scores

Sharp Aquos R9

Performance 74
Display 90
Camera 60
Battery 52
Portability 52
Value for money 50

Vivo X300 Ultra

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

What makes Sharp Aquos R9 better?

  • Higher refresh rate: 240Hz vs 120Hz
  • Lighter: 195g vs 230g
  • Cheaper at launch: $599 vs $950

  • Better display (90/100 vs 89/100)
  • Better portability (52/100 vs 39/100)

What makes Vivo X300 Ultra better?

  • Higher AnTuTu: 4247433 vs 1660924
  • Better Geekbench Single: 3639 vs 1860
  • Better Geekbench Multi: 11047 vs 5045
  • Bigger battery: 7000 vs 5000 mAh
  • Better main camera: 200MP vs 50MP

  • Higher performance (99/100 vs 74/100)
  • Better camera (96/100 vs 60/100)
  • Longer battery life (85/100 vs 52/100)

Comparison verdict

Comparing the Sharp Aquos R9 vs the Vivo X300 Ultra, the Vivo X300 Ultra scores 23 points higher (91/100 vs 68/100). In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (99/100 vs 74/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (96/100 vs 60/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra leads (85/100 vs 52/100). Value score: Sharp Aquos R9 — 50/100, 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 notably outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (99/100 vs 74/100). In the "display" category, the Sharp Aquos R9 and the Vivo X300 Ultra are nearly equal (90/100 vs 89/100). In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (96/100 vs 60/100). In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (85/100 vs 52/100). In the "portability" category, the Sharp Aquos R9 is a bit better (52/100 vs 39/100).

Sharp Aquos R9: The Sharp Aquos R9 is a better fit for active users.
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 Sharp Aquos R9 Vivo X300 Ultra
Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 7+ Gen 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
AnTuTu 1660924 4247433
Geekbench Single 1860 3639
Geekbench Multi 5045 11047
Display 6.5" PRO IGZO LTPO OLED 6.8" LTPO OLED
Resolution 1080x2340 3168x1440
Refresh rate 240 Hz 120 Hz
Battery 5000 mAh 7000 mAh
Charging — 100W
Wireless charging 0W 40W
DXOMark (camera) — 170
Main camera 50 MP 200 MP
Ultrawide 50 MP 50 MP
Telephoto 0 MP 200 MP
Front camera 50 MP 32 MP
RAM 12GB 12GB / 16GB
Storage 256GB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB
OS Android 14 Android 16
Brightness (peak) 2000 nits —
NFC yes yes
Protection IP68 IP69
Dimensions 156.0×75.0×8.9 mm 163.0×76.8×8.2 mm
Weight 195 g 230 g
Launch price $599 $950

Camera comparison

Sharp Aquos R9

  • Main: 50MP f/1.9
  • Ultrawide: 50MP
  • Front: 50MP
60
camera

Vivo X300 Ultra

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

Display comparison

Sharp Aquos R9

  • 6.5" PRO IGZO LTPO OLED
  • Resolution: 1080x2340
  • Refresh rate: 240 Hz
90
display

Vivo X300 Ultra

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

Battery and charging

Sharp Aquos R9

  • 5000 mAh
  • No wireless charging
52
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 Sharp Aquos R9 and Vivo X300 Ultra, covering their specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Sharp Aquos R9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 7+ Gen 3
68/100
1660924 AnTuTu
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5
91/100 +60.9%
4247433 AnTuTu

Vivo X300 Ultra leads Sharp Aquos R9 by 60.9% in our overall performance rating.

Benchmarks

Launch prices and where to check today's

Sharp Aquos R9

$599

Vivo X300 Ultra

$950

Launch price difference: $351. Sharp Aquos R9 was $351 cheaper at launch.

Detailed category analysis

performance

In the "performance" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra notably outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (99/100 vs 74/100).

display

In the "display" category, the Sharp Aquos R9 and the Vivo X300 Ultra are nearly equal (90/100 vs 89/100).

camera

In the "camera" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (96/100 vs 60/100).

battery

In the "battery" category, the Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 (85/100 vs 52/100).

portability

In the "portability" category, the Sharp Aquos R9 is a bit better (52/100 vs 39/100).

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: the Sharp Aquos R9 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra significantly outperforms the Sharp Aquos R9 by 23 points (91/100 vs 68/100).

What is the rating of the Sharp Aquos R9 and the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Sharp Aquos R9 has a MobileRank rating of 68/100, the Vivo X300 Ultra — 91/100.

Which has the better camera: the Sharp Aquos R9 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on camera score (96/100 vs 60/100).

Which is more powerful: the Sharp Aquos R9 or the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Vivo X300 Ultra leads on performance (99/100 vs 74/100).

Should you choose the Sharp Aquos R9 over the Vivo X300 Ultra?

The Sharp Aquos R9 is a better fit for active users. 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.