Compare Vivo X5Max vs Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime

Feature Comparison

  • Both Vivo X5Max and Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime have same Screen Size
  • Internal Storage of Vivo X5Max is the same as Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime
  • The RAM on Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime is 33.0% more
 
Vivo X5Max
We Love
Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
70 Value For Money Score
93 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
AMOLED LCD   
Pixel Density
400.5 PPI 401 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass 4   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Samsung Exynos   
Processor Speed
1.7GHz 1.6GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 615 Exynos 7870   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 405 Mali-T830   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 8MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Dual LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
- Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
Android (4.4) TouchWiz UI   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
153.9 x 78 x 4.75 151.5 x 74.9 x 8.1   
Weight
146 grams 169 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
White Gold, Black   
Build Material
Metal Metal Unibody   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
9.26GB 10.3GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 256GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2000mAh 3300mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- No   

Vivo X5Max vs Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime Specs

Specs
Vivo X5MaxSamsung Galaxy J7 Prime  
Screen Size 5.5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2000mAh3300mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP8MP  

Vivo X5Max Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Excellent display, very sharp at 401PPI
  • Decent 13MP rear camera with Full HD video recording
  • Sleek Metal design
The Bad
  • Below average battery life
  • Outdated Android 4.4 KitKat version
  • Lacks VoLTE support

Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Solid metal unibody construction makes it feel premium
  • Sharp display at 401PPI with Gorilla Glass prortection
  • Good battery life that should last through a day for most
  • Decent day-to-day performance
The Bad
  • Performance of the rear camera in low light conditions could be better
  • Lacks fast charging support
  • Rear camera is not capable of recording 4K videos

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Vivo X5Max with Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime. When you see Vivo X5Max Vs Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime comparison on Pricebaba, watch-out for the specifications of these phones and also the VFM score. With Pricebaba’s Value For Money Score, you can know how Vivo X5Max stands against Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime and which one you should buy. The best price of Vivo X5Max is currently Rs. 31,499. The lowest price for Samsung Galaxy J7 Prime is Rs. 16,543. The prices for both these products were updated February 26, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page