Vivo X300 vs X200 Pro
88
out of 100
VS
84
out of 100
Here we compared two flagship smartphones: the 6.31-inch Vivo X300 (with MediaTek Dimensity 9500) that was released on October 13, 2025, against the Vivo X200 Pro, which is powered by MediaTek Dimensity 9400 and came out 1 year before. On this page, you will find tests, full specs, strengths, and weaknesses of each of the devices.
Select the amount of RAM to evaluate performance and value for money more precisely
Key differences
Reasons to consider the Vivo X300
- Shows 14% longer battery life (28:23 vs 24:55 hours)
- Delivers 31% higher peak brightness (2658 against 2030 nits)
- Newer Bluetooth version (v6.0)
- 18% better performance in AnTuTu Benchmark (3330K versus 2825K)
- The phone is 1 year newer
- Faster storage type - UFS 4.1 versus UFS 4.0
- Weighs 38 grams less
- 19% faster in single-core GeekBench 6 test: 3204 and 2686 points
Reasons to consider the Vivo X200 Pro
- The rear camera has a 3.7x optical zoom
- Has a 0.47 inch larger screen size
Review
Display
Screen quality, color accuracy, brightness
Camera
Photo and video recording quality
Performance
CPU and memory performance (apps, system)
Gaming
Capabilities for playing modern games
Battery
Battery life, charging type and speed
Connectivity
Networks, ports, data transmission
Scores with a red asterisk (*) are approximate and may change in the future as we gather more data.
Select your primary usage scenario to get a more accurate NanoReview Score
Value for money (Beta)
Tests and specifications
Comparison table of technical specifications and testsDisplay
| Type | AMOLED | AMOLED |
| Size | 6.31 inches | 6.78 inches |
| Resolution | 1216 x 2640 pixels | 1260 x 2800 pixels |
| Aspect ratio | 19.5:9 | 20:9 |
| PPI | 460 ppi | 452 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz |
| Adaptive refresh rate | Yes (1-120 Hz) | Yes (1-120 Hz) |
| Max rated brightness | 2000 nits | 2000 nits |
| Max rated brightness in HDR | 4500 nits | 4500 nits |
| HDR support | Yes, Dolby Vision | Yes, Dolby Vision |
| Touch sampling rate | 300 Hz | 300 Hz |
| Screen protection | Reinforced Glass | Armor Glass |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 90.3% | 90.1% |
| Display features | - DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC Dimming |
- DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC Dimming |
| RGB color space | 99.8% | - |
| PWM | 360 Hz | - |
| Response time | 1 ms | - |
| Contrast | ∞ Infinity | - |
Screen space comparison
X200 Pro
6.78″ (20:9 ratio) = 17.2 in2
Vivo X300
6.31″ (19.5:9 ratio) = 15.1 in2
~13% more screen space
Peak brightness test (auto)
Design and build
| Height | 150.57 mm (5.93 inches) | 162.36 mm (6.39 inches) |
| Width | 71.92 mm (2.83 inches) | 75.92 mm (2.99 inches) |
| Thickness | 7.95 mm (0.31 inches) | 8.49 mm (0.33 inches) |
| Weight | 190 g (6.7 oz) | 228 g (8.04 oz) |
| Waterproof | IP69 | IP69 |
| Advanced cooling | Vapor chamber | Vapor chamber |
| Rear material | Glass | Glass |
| Frame material | Metal | Metal |
| Colors | Black, Blue, Red, Pink, Purple | White, Black, Gray, Blue |
| Fingerprint scanner | Yes, in-display | Yes, in-display |
| Repairability | Good (3/5) | - |
| Drop resistance | Very good (B) · 180 drops | - |
Screen-to-body ratio
Performance
| Chipset | MediaTek Dimensity 9500 | MediaTek Dimensity 9400 |
| Max clock | 4210 MHz | 3620 MHz |
| CPU cores | 8 (1 + 3 + 4) | 8 (1 + 3 + 4) |
| Architecture | - 4 cores at 2.7 GHz: C1-Pro - 3 cores at 3.5 GHz: C1-Premium - 1 core at 4.21 GHz: C1-Ultra |
- 4 cores at 2.4 GHz: Cortex-A720 - 3 cores at 3.3 GHz: Cortex-X4 - 1 core at 3.62 GHz: Cortex-X925 |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 12 MB |
| Manufacturing | TSMC | TSMC |
| Lithography process | 3 nanometers | 3 nanometers |
| Neural processor (NPU) | MediaTek NPU 990 | MediaTek NPU 890 |
| Graphics | Mali-G1 Ultra MP12 | Immortalis-G925 MC12 |
| GPU shading units | 1536 | 1536 |
| GPU clock | 1716 MHz | 1612 MHz |
| FLOPS | ~5271.5 GFLOPS | ~4952.1 GFLOPS |
Benchmarks
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
Compute Score (GPU)
| Compute Score (GPU) | 25501 | 21444 |
| Single-core score | 3204 | 2686 |
| Multi-core score | 9874 | 8366 |
AnTuTu Benchmark 11
| CPU | 981387 | 900074 |
| GPU | 1256247 | 972096 |
| Memory | 364630 | 345330 |
| UX | 728537 | 607687 |
| Total score | 3330801 | 2825187 |
| Samples | [25 tests] | [22 tests] |
3DMark Steel Nomad Light
| Stability | 57% | 61% |
| Graphics test | 23 FPS | 18 FPS |
| Graphics score | 3119 | 2371 |
3DMark Solar Bay
| Graphics test | 49 FPS | 40 FPS |
| Section 1 | 56 FPS | 44 FPS |
| Section 2 | 48 FPS | 41 FPS |
| Section 3 | 42 FPS | 34 FPS |
| Graphics score | 12817 | 10432 |
3DMark Wild Life Extreme
| Stability | - | 65% |
| Graphics test | - | 36 FPS |
| Graphics score | - | 6122 |
PCMark 3.0
| Web score | 14375 | 13701 |
| Video editing | 5995 | 5803 |
| Photo editing | 34571 | 35653 |
| Data manipulation | 12159 | 13567 |
| Writing score | 22695 | 23556 |
AnTuTu 11 Ranking List (53rd and 123rd place)
Recent User Tests
Vivo X300
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-09-20 (Forgolka) | AnTuTu 12 | 3407758 |
| 📘 2026-09-19 (Niranjan M) | AnTuTu 12 | 3402395 |
| 📘 2026-09-16 (Asura) | CPU Throttle | 70% |
| 📘 2026-09-07 (Asura) | CPU Throttle | 63% |
| 📘 2026-09-05 (Asura) | AnTuTu 12 | 3745245 |
Vivo X200 Pro
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-09-12 (Oussama barhmate) | AnTuTu 12 | 3135000 |
| 📘 2026-08-01 -> Dlack | AnTuTu 11 | 2847396 |
| 📘 2026-08-01 (Dlack) | AnTuTu 11 | 2847396 |
| 📘 2026-07-31 (Xarvis) | Geekbench 6 GPU | 23591 |
| 📘 2026-07-31 (Xarvis) | Geekbench 6 CPU | 2432 / 8113 |
Memory
| RAM size | 12 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |
| Memory clock | 5333 MHz | 5333 MHz |
| Channels | 4 | 4 |
| Storage size | 256 GB | 256 GB |
| Storage type | UFS 4.1 | UFS 4.0 |
| Memory card | No | No |
Software
| Operating system | Android 16 | Android 15 (Can be upgraded to Android 16) |
| ROM | OriginOS 6 | Funtouch OS 16 |
| OS updates | 5 years | 3 years |
| Security updates | - | 3 years |
Battery
| Capacity | 6040 mAh | 6000 mAh |
| Max charge power | 90 W | 90 W |
| Battery type | Silicon-Carbon (Si/C) | Silicon-Carbon (Si/C) |
| Replaceable | No | No |
| Wireless charging | Yes (40 W) | Yes (30 W) |
| Reverse charging | Yes, (wireless) | Yes |
| Bypass charging | Yes | Yes |
| Fast charging | Yes (67% in 30 min) | Yes (73% in 30 min) |
| Full charging time | 0:48 hr | 0:46 hr |
| Battery cycles | 1200 cycles | - |
| Web browsing | 12:36 hr | 12:47 hr |
| Watching video | 20:41 hr | 16:41 hr |
| Gaming | 07:52 hr | 07:44 hr |
| Standby | 107 hr | 85 hr |
General battery life
Smartphones With Long Battery Life (#81st place)
Main camera
| Matrix | 200 megapixels | 50 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 16320 x 12288 | 8192 x 6144 |
| Zoom | Optical, 3x | Optical, 3.7x |
| Flash | Dual LED | Dual LED |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| 8K video recording | No | Up to 30FPS |
| 4K video recording | Up to 120FPS | Up to 120FPS |
| 1080p video recording | Up to 60FPS | Up to 60FPS |
| Slow motion | 240 FPS (1080p) | 240 FPS (1080p) |
| Angle of widest lens | 119° | 119° |
| Lenses | 1) Standard: 200 MP 2) Telephoto: 50 MP 3) Ultrawide: 50 MP |
1) Standard: 50 MP 2) Telephoto: 200 MP 3) Ultrawide: 50 MP |
| Camera features | - Bokeh mode - Pro mode |
- Bokeh mode - Pro mode |
| Image resolution | 200 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/1.68 | f/1.6 |
| Focal length | 23 mm | 23 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung ISOCELL HPB | Sony LYT-818 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.4" (≈ 0.71 inch) | 1/1.28" (≈ 0.78 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.56 micron | 1.22 micron |
| Autofocus | Laser autofocus | Laser autofocus |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 200 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.6 | f/2.7 |
| Focal length | 70 mm | 85 mm |
| Sensor | Sony LYT-602 | Samsung ISOCELL HP9 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.95" (≈ 0.51 inch) | 1/1.4" (≈ 0.71 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.8 micron | 0.56 micron |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.0 | f/2.0 |
| Focal length | 15 mm | 15 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung S5KJN1 | Samsung S5KJN1 |
| Sensor size | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.64 micron | 0.64 micron |
| Stabilization | Digital | Digital |
Selfie camera
| Megapixels | 50 megapixels | 32 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 8192 x 6144 | 6528 x 4896 |
| Aperture | f/2.0 | f/2.0 |
| Focal length | 20 mm | 20 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung S5KJN1 | Samsung S5KKD1 |
| Sensor size | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) | 1/3.42" (≈ 0.29 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.64 micron | 0.64 micron |
| Autofocus | Phase autofocus | No |
| Stabilization | Digital | Digital |
| Video resolution | 2160p (4K) at 60 FPS | 2160p (4K) at 60 FPS |
| Depth sensor (TOF 3D) | No | No |
Connectivity
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 7 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be) | Wi-Fi 7 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be) |
| Wi-Fi features | - Dual Band - Wi-Fi MiMO - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot - Wi-Fi Display |
- Dual Band - Wi-Fi MiMO - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot - Wi-Fi Display |
| Bluetooth version | 6.0 | 5.4 |
| Bluetooth features | LE | LE |
| USB type | USB Type-C | USB Type-C |
| USB version | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| USB features | - Charging - USB-Storage mode - OTG |
- Charging - USB-Storage mode - OTG |
| DisplayPort | Yes | Yes |
| GPS | GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC | GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC |
| NFC* | Yes | Yes |
| Infrared port | Yes | Yes |
| Number of SIM* | 2 | 2 |
| Type of SIM card | Nano | Nano |
| Multi SIM mode | Standby | Standby |
| eSIM support* | Yes | Yes |
| Hybrid slot | No | No |
| 5G support | Yes | Yes |
Sound
| Speakers | Stereo | Stereo |
| Headphone audio jack | No | No |
| FM radio | No | No |
| Dolby Atmos | No | No |
Speakers test
Max loudness
Other
| Category | Flagship | Flagship |
| Announced | October 2025 | October 2024 |
| Release date | October 2025 | October 2024 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $847 |
| Successor | - | - Vivo X300 Pro |
| Sensors | - Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
- Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
| Bundled charger | Not included | Yes, 90 W |
Further details
Notes on X200 Pro:
- The black model is thinner (8.2 mm) and lighter (223g).
*Disclaimer! NFC, GSM network support, and some other specs can be different depending on the country.
Conclusion
These smartphones have a lot in common, but we would recommend the Vivo X300. It has a better performance, gaming, battery life, design, and sound.
Cast your vote
Total votes: 218
Related comparisons
3.
Vivo X300 vs Vivo X300 Pro (3)