Vivo X200 Ultra vs Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
87
out of 100
VS
77
out of 100
Here we compared two flagship smartphones: the 6.82-inch Vivo X200 Ultra (with Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite) that was released on April 21, 2025, against the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL, which is powered by Google Tensor G4 and came out 8 months 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 X200 Ultra
- 85% better performance in AnTuTu Benchmark (3092K versus 1672K)
- Comes with 940 mAh larger battery capacity: 6000 vs 5060 mAh
- Better camera quality (According to DxOMark rating)
- Shows 11% longer battery life (24:25 vs 21:55 hours)
- Newer Bluetooth version (v5.4)
- Supports higher wattage charging (90W versus 37W)
- Waterproof body (IP69 classification)
- Has 2 SIM card slots
- Has a built-in infrared port
Reasons to consider the Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
- Delivers 31% higher peak brightness (2364 against 1806 nits)
- The rear camera has a 5x optical zoom
- Has 33% more RAM: 16GB versus 12GB
- More recent OS version: Android 17 versus 16
- Ready for eSIM technology
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
Select your primary usage scenario to get a more accurate DeviceFacts Score
Value for money (Beta)
Tests and specifications
Comparison table of technical specifications and testsDisplay
| Type | AMOLED | OLED |
| Size | 6.82 inches | 6.8 inches |
| Resolution | 1440 x 3168 pixels | 1344 x 2992 pixels |
| Aspect ratio | 19.8:9 | 20:9 |
| PPI | 510 ppi | 486 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz |
| Adaptive refresh rate | Yes (1-120 Hz) | Yes (1-120 Hz) |
| Max rated brightness | 1800 nits | 3000 nits |
| Max rated brightness in HDR | 4500 nits | 2000 nits |
| HDR support | Yes, Dolby Vision | Yes, HDR10+ |
| Screen protection | Armor glass | Gorilla Glass Victus 2 |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 90.3% | 89.5% |
| Display features | - DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC Dimming |
- DCI-P3 - Always-On Display |
| RGB color space | 99.9% | 99% |
| PWM | 121 Hz | 240 Hz |
| Response time | 2 ms | 2 ms |
| Contrast | ∞ Infinity | ∞ Infinity |
Peak brightness test (auto)
Design and build
| Height | 163.14 mm (6.42 inches) | 162.8 mm (6.41 inches) |
| Width | 76.76 mm (3.02 inches) | 76.6 mm (3.02 inches) |
| Thickness | 8.69 mm (0.34 inches) | 8.5 mm (0.33 inches) |
| Weight | 229 g (8.08 oz) | 221 g (7.8 oz) |
| Waterproof | IP69 | IP68 |
| Advanced cooling | Vapor chamber | Vapor chamber |
| Rear material | Glass | Glass |
| Frame material | Metal | Metal |
| Colors | Black, Silver, Red | White, Black, Gray, Pink |
| Fingerprint scanner | Yes, in-display | Yes, in-display |
| Repairability | - | Good (3.34/5) |
| Drop resistance | - | Excellent (A) · 270 drops |
Screen-to-body ratio
Performance
| Chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite | Google Tensor G4 |
| Max clock | 4320 MHz | 3100 MHz |
| CPU cores | 8 (2 + 6) | 8 (1 + 3 + 4) |
| Architecture | - 6 cores at 3.53 GHz: Oryon (Phoenix M) - 2 cores at 4.32 GHz: Oryon (Phoenix L) |
- 4 cores at 1.92 GHz: Cortex-A520 - 3 cores at 2.6 GHz: Cortex-A720 - 1 core at 3.1 GHz: Cortex-X4 |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | - |
| Manufacturing | TSMC | Samsung |
| Lithography process | 3 nanometers | 4 nanometers |
| Neural processor (NPU) | Hexagon | Yes |
| Graphics | Adreno 830 | Mali-G715 MC7 |
| GPU shading units | 1536 | 896 |
| GPU clock | 1100 MHz | 940 MHz |
| FLOPS | ~3379.2 GFLOPS | ~1684.4 GFLOPS |
Benchmarks
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
Compute Score (GPU)
| Compute Score (GPU) | 24604 | 9185 |
| Single-core score | 2979 | 2001 |
| Multi-core score | 9353 | 4932 |
AnTuTu Benchmark 11
| CPU | 819790 | 622527 |
| GPU | 1185591 | 410009 |
| Memory | 429927 | 255927 |
| UX | 657032 | 384332 |
| Total score | 3092340 | 1672795 |
| Samples | [11 tests] | [6 tests] |
3DMark Steel Nomad Light
| Stability | 50% | - |
| Graphics test | 19 FPS | - |
| Graphics score | 2561 | - |
3DMark Solar Bay
| Graphics test | 45 FPS | - |
| Section 1 | 51 FPS | - |
| Section 2 | 46 FPS | - |
| Section 3 | 39 FPS | - |
| Graphics score | 11897 | - |
PCMark 3.0
| Web score | 15343 | - |
| Video editing | 7121 | - |
| Photo editing | 35679 | - |
| Data manipulation | 14476 | - |
| Writing score | 21329 | - |
AnTuTu 11 Ranking List (#97th place)
Recent User Tests
Vivo X200 Ultra
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-08-01 (Tt_murco730) | AnTuTu 11 | 3172230 |
| 📘 2026-06-07 (L_8888) | AnTuTu 11 | 3074394 |
| 📘 2026-06-02 (Obsessed) | AnTuTu 11 | 3179659 |
| 📘 2026-05-15 (Хзшник) | AnTuTu 11 | 3172230 |
| 📘 2026-03-29 (Tijet) | AnTuTu 11 | 3033519 |
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-08-27 (feraroof43) | AnTuTu 11 | 1626655 |
| 📘 2026-08-26 (Ark15) | Battery life | SOT 5:20 / 11:00 |
| 📘 2026-08-21 (Kazin) | AnTuTu 11 | 1723964 |
| 📘 2026-04-07 -> DeadlyKPSS | AnTuTu 11 | 1679233 |
| 📘 2026-03-29 (Actn) | AnTuTu 11 | 1585585 |
Memory
| RAM size | 12 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |
| Memory clock | 5300 MHz | - |
| Channels | 4 | 4 |
| Storage size | 256 GB | 128 GB |
| Storage type | UFS 4.1 | UFS 3.1 |
| Memory card | No | No |
Software
| Operating system | Android 15 (Can be upgraded to Android 16) | Android 14 (Can be upgraded to Android 17) |
| ROM | OriginOS 6 | Stock Android |
| OS updates | - | 7 years |
| Security updates | - | 7 years |
Battery
| Capacity | 6000 mAh | 5060 mAh |
| Max charge power | 90 W | 37 W |
| Battery type | Silicon-Carbon (Si/C) | Li-Ion |
| Replaceable | No | No |
| Wireless charging | Yes (40 W) | Yes (12 W) |
| Reverse charging | Yes | Yes, (wireless) |
| Bypass charging | Yes | - |
| Fast charging | Yes (64% in 30 min) | Yes (67% in 30 min) |
| Full charging time | 0:49 hr | 1:18 hr |
| Battery cycles | - | 1000 cycles |
| Web browsing | 12:14 hr | 11:42 hr |
| Watching video | 14:52 hr | 10:46 hr |
| Gaming | 06:38 hr | 05:57 hr |
| Standby | 95 hr | 92 hr |
General battery life
Main camera
| Matrix | 50 megapixels | 50 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 8192 x 6144 | 8160 x 6144 |
| Zoom | Optical, 3.7x | Optical, 5x |
| Flash | Dual LED | Dual LED |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| 8K video recording | Up to 30FPS | Up to 30FPS |
| 4K video recording | Up to 120FPS | Up to 60FPS |
| 1080p video recording | Up to 60FPS | Up to 60FPS |
| Slow motion | 240 FPS (1080p) | 240 FPS (1080p) |
| Angle of widest lens | 116° | 123° |
| Lenses | 1) Standard: 50 MP 2) Telephoto: 200 MP 3) Ultrawide: 50 MP |
1) Standard: 50 MP 2) Telephoto: 48 MP 3) Ultrawide: 48 MP |
| Camera features | - Bokeh mode - Pro mode - RAW support |
- Bokeh mode - Pro mode - RAW support |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/1.7 | f/1.7 |
| Focal length | 35 mm | 25 mm |
| Sensor | Sony LYT-818 | Samsung GN1 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.28" (≈ 0.78 inch) | 1/1.31" (≈ 0.76 inch) |
| Pixel size | 1.22 micron | 1.2 micron |
| Autofocus | Laser autofocus | Laser autofocus |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 200 MP | 48 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.3 | f/2.8 |
| Focal length | 85 mm | 113 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung ISOCELL HP9 | Samsung S5KGM5 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.4" (≈ 0.71 inch) | 1/2.55" (≈ 0.39 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.56 micron | 0.7 micron |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 48 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.0 | f/1.7 |
| Focal length | 14 mm | 12 mm |
| Sensor | Sony LYT-818 | Samsung S5KGM5 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.28" (≈ 0.78 inch) | 1/2.55" (≈ 0.39 inch) |
| Pixel size | 1.22 micron | 0.7 micron |
| Stabilization | Optical | Digital |
DxOMark main camera tests
Photo quality
Video quality
Generic main camera score
| Bokeh | 175 | 75 |
| Preview | - | 86 |
| Zoom | 159 | 155 |
| Samples | Photo samples of Vivo X200 Ultra from DxOMark | Photo samples of Google Pixel 9 Pro XL from DxOMark |
Selfie camera
| Megapixels | 50 megapixels | 42 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 8192 x 6144 | 3648 x 2736 |
| Aperture | f/2.5 | f/2.2 |
| Focal length | 24 mm | 17 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung ISOCELL JN1 | Sony IMX858 |
| Sensor size | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) | 1/2.51" (≈ 0.4 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.64 micron | 0.7 micron |
| Autofocus | Phase autofocus | Phase autofocus |
| 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 | 5.4 | 5.3 |
| 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 | GPS, GLONASS, Galileo |
| NFC* | Yes | Yes |
| Infrared port | Yes | No |
| Number of SIM* | 2 | 1 |
| Type of SIM card | Nano | Nano |
| Multi SIM mode | Standby | - |
| eSIM support* | No | Yes |
| Hybrid slot | No | No |
| 5G support | Yes | Yes |
Sound
| Speakers | Stereo | Stereo |
| Headphone audio jack | No | No |
| FM radio | No | No |
| Dolby Atmos | Yes | No |
Speakers test
Max loudness
Other
| Category | Flagship | Flagship |
| Announced | April 2025 | August 2024 |
| Release date | April 2025 | August 2024 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1099 | $1099 |
| Successor | - | - Google Pixel 10 Pro XL |
| SAR (head) | - | 0.99 W/kg |
| SAR (body) | - | 1.4 W/kg |
| Sensors | - Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
- Barometer - Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
| Bundled charger | Yes, 80 W | Not included |
*Disclaimer! NFC, GSM network support, and some other specs can be different depending on the country.
Conclusion
After analyzing all the data, we think that the Vivo X200 Ultra is definitely a better buy.
Cast your vote
Total votes: 22