CMF Phone 2 Pro VS Vivo Y400 4G

The most consequential difference in this group is water protection. The CMF Phone 2 Pro carries an IP54 rating, meaning it can handle splashes and light rain from any direction — adequate for everyday accidents but not submersion. The Vivo Y400 4G steps up significantly with an IP68 rating, which certifies it against dust ingress and sustained immersion in water. In practical terms, the Vivo can survive a drop in a sink or pool; the CMF cannot. For users who are near water frequently or simply want greater peace of mind, this is a meaningful real-world advantage for the Vivo.

On physical form, the two phones are closely matched but with a notable distinction in weight. The CMF Phone 2 Pro comes in at 185 g versus the Vivo's 198 g — a 13 g difference that is perceptible during prolonged one-handed use or when carried in a shirt pocket. The CMF is also marginally thinner at 7.8 mm versus 7.9 mm, though that gap is negligible in practice. The Vivo is slightly more compact in footprint (narrower and shorter), giving it a marginally smaller volume, but both phones occupy essentially the same size category.

Overall, the Vivo Y400 4G holds a clear edge in this group, primarily due to its superior IP68 protection — a spec that directly translates to durability and long-term reliability in real-world conditions. The CMF Phone 2 Pro counters with a lighter, slightly slimmer build, which may appeal to users who prioritize comfort in hand over ruggedness. Neither device has a rugged build or a foldable form factor, so outside of those two trade-offs, they are closely matched on design.

Both phones share the same panel technology, resolution class, and 120Hz refresh rate, so the real battle here comes down to brightness, screen protection, and HDR support. The Vivo Y400 4G pulls ahead on brightness with a 1200 nits typical output versus the CMF Phone 2 Pro's 800 nits — a 50% difference that is genuinely noticeable in direct sunlight. Outdoor readability is one of the most practical day-to-day display metrics, and the Vivo's advantage here is substantial.

The CMF Phone 2 Pro strikes back on two fronts. First, it comes with branded damage-resistant glass — the Vivo does not — which matters for long-term screen survivability against drops and scratches. Second, the CMF supports HDR10+, the dynamic metadata upgrade over standard HDR10, meaning compatible streaming content will adapt tone-mapping scene by scene for more accurate highlights and shadows. The Vivo is limited to HDR10 only. At 6.77 inches, the CMF also has a larger canvas, though the Vivo's slightly higher pixel density (395 ppi vs 388 ppi) keeps both panels effectively indistinguishable to the naked eye in sharpness.

This group ends in a genuine split: the Vivo wins decisively for outdoor use thanks to its superior brightness, while the CMF holds an edge for durability and premium HDR content playback. Users who spend a lot of time outside in bright conditions will favor the Vivo; those who stream HDR content frequently or are concerned about screen longevity will find the CMF's package more compelling.

The chipset gap here is substantial and unambiguous. The CMF Phone 2 Pro runs on the MediaTek Dimensity 7300, built on a 4nm process, while the Vivo Y400 4G uses the Snapdragon 685, a 6nm chip. That two-generation manufacturing advantage translates directly into better power efficiency — the CMF can deliver more compute per milliwatt, which benefits both sustained performance and battery endurance under load. The Geekbench 6 scores make the performance delta impossible to ignore: the CMF posts a multi-core score of 2874 versus the Vivo's 1510, and a single-core score of 1007 against just 473. That is roughly double the CPU throughput across the board, a gap that users will feel in app launch times, multitasking, and anything computationally intensive.

Memory architecture further widens the divide. The CMF's RAM runs at 6400 MHz DDR5, compared to the Vivo's 2133 MHz DDR4 — nearly three times the memory bandwidth. Faster RAM means the processor spends less time waiting on data, which amplifies the CPU advantage in real-world workloads like gaming, video editing, and running multiple apps simultaneously. Both phones ship with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, so on paper they look equivalent — but the underlying memory quality is in a different league.

The CMF Phone 2 Pro is the unambiguous winner in this group, and it is not particularly close. The Vivo Y400 4G's Snapdragon 685 is a competent chip for light everyday tasks, but users who care about performance headroom, app responsiveness, or longevity as software demands grow will find the CMF's Dimensity 7300 a significantly more capable platform.

The camera systems diverge in meaningful ways despite sharing a similar starting point. Both lead with a 50MP primary sensor, but the CMF Phone 2 Pro adds a second 50MP lens alongside an 8MP shooter — effectively a triple-camera system with genuine depth and versatility. The Vivo Y400 4G pairs its 50MP main with a 2MP secondary lens, which in practice offers very limited utility. More importantly, the CMF includes optical image stabilization (OIS) while the Vivo does not — a hardware difference that directly affects sharpness in low light and smoothness in handheld video, neither of which can be fully compensated by software.

Video capability is another area where the gap is clear. The CMF records up to 4K at 30fps, while the Vivo tops out at 1080p at 30fps. For anyone who wants to capture high-resolution footage — whether for travel, events, or content creation — this is a significant ceiling difference. The CMF also offers 2x optical zoom, whereas the Vivo has none, meaning the Vivo relies entirely on digital cropping when zooming in, with the resulting quality loss that entails. On the front, the CMF's 16MP selfie camera is a substantial step up from the Vivo's 8MP, which matters for video calls and selfie clarity.

Across virtually every camera metric that affects real-world output quality, the CMF Phone 2 Pro holds a clear and decisive advantage — better zoom, stabilization, video resolution, front camera resolution, and a more capable multi-lens configuration. The Vivo Y400 4G covers the basics but lacks the hardware depth to compete in this category.

This is a rare case of a complete tie. Both the CMF Phone 2 Pro and the Vivo Y400 4G launch on Android 15 and share an identical feature set across every single tracked specification in this group — from privacy controls and dynamic theming to split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, on-device machine learning, and battery health monitoring. There are no differentiators here whatsoever.

It is worth noting what both phones share in equal measure: a solid, modern privacy toolkit including location controls, camera and microphone permission management, and app tracking blocks. Neither device receives direct OS updates from Google, meaning updates are filtered through their respective manufacturers, which can affect update timeliness and longevity — but again, this applies equally to both.

Based strictly on the provided data, this group is a dead heat. Neither phone holds any software advantage over the other, and a buyer's decision in this category will come down entirely to factors outside this spec group.

Battery is one area where the Vivo Y400 4G holds a genuine and practical advantage. Its 6000 mAh cell is 20% larger than the CMF Phone 2 Pro's 5000 mAh — a difference that, all else being equal, translates to noticeably longer time between charges. For heavy users, commuters, or anyone who regularly ends the day with a near-empty phone, that extra 1000 mAh provides a meaningful buffer that is difficult to dismiss.

The Vivo also charges faster at 44W versus the CMF's 33W. Combined with the larger battery, this means the Vivo not only lasts longer but can replenish its bigger reserve more quickly — a doubly useful combination. Neither phone supports wireless charging, so cable charging is the only option for both.

The Vivo Y400 4G is the clear winner in this group on both capacity and charging speed. It is worth contextualizing this alongside the Performance group findings — the Vivo's less efficient 6nm chipset may consume more power under load, which narrows the real-world gap somewhat. But based strictly on the battery specifications provided, the Vivo holds an unambiguous edge for users who prioritize endurance.

Audio is a lean category for both phones, but one differentiator stands out: the Vivo Y400 4G has stereo speakers, while the CMF Phone 2 Pro does not. Stereo output means sound comes from two separate drivers, creating a wider, more immersive soundstage for media consumption, gaming, and speakerphone calls. On a mono-speaker device like the CMF, all audio is channeled through a single point — functional, but noticeably flatter when watching videos or playing games without headphones.

Beyond that single distinction, both phones are evenly matched — and equally limited. Neither offers a 3.5mm headphone jack, so wired audio requires an adapter or USB-C headphones. Neither supports advanced Bluetooth audio codecs like aptX or LDAC, which means high-fidelity wireless audio enthusiasts will find both devices lacking. There is no FM radio on either phone.

The Vivo Y400 4G takes this group by virtue of its stereo speaker setup — a straightforward win for anyone who regularly listens to media out loud. It is a modest but real advantage in a category where the CMF Phone 2 Pro offers nothing to differentiate itself.

The connectivity gap between these two phones is wide and consequential. The CMF Phone 2 Pro supports 5G, while the Vivo Y400 4G is limited to 4G LTE — a fundamental difference in network capability that affects not just current speeds but future-proofing as 5G coverage continues to expand. The download speed figures underscore this starkly: the CMF is rated at 3270 Mbps versus the Vivo's 390 Mbps down and a notably asymmetric 150 Mbps upload. Even in areas where 5G isn't yet available, the CMF's modem architecture positions it for significantly faster throughput wherever the network supports it.

Wi-Fi tells a similar story. The CMF includes Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) support alongside Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 4, bringing lower latency, better performance in congested environments, and improved efficiency on compatible routers. The Vivo tops out at Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac), which is still capable but lacks these gains. The CMF also edges ahead on Bluetooth 5.3 versus the Vivo's 5.0 — a newer version that offers improved connection stability and efficiency, particularly relevant for wireless audio and peripherals. Additionally, the CMF includes an external memory slot for expandable storage, a feature the Vivo omits entirely.

The CMF Phone 2 Pro is the decisive winner in this group, outclassing the Vivo across cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth generations while adding expandable storage on top. Both phones share NFC, dual-SIM, USB-C, and the same sensor suite, but the CMF's connectivity stack is simply a generation ahead in nearly every dimension that matters for long-term usability.

This is a thin category with only one meaningful differentiator: the Vivo Y400 4G features a curved display, while the CMF Phone 2 Pro has a flat screen. Curved displays wrap slightly at the edges, lending a more premium, sculpted aesthetic and a smoother in-hand feel along the sides. The trade-off is that curved edges can make screen protectors harder to fit precisely and may introduce accidental touch inputs at the bezels — preferences here are genuinely subjective.

Both phones share a video light and neither features sapphire glass or an e-paper display, so those points cancel out entirely. The curved versus flat distinction is the only functional takeaway from this group.

Given that design preference around curved displays is largely personal, this group is effectively a marginal edge for the Vivo for users who associate curved screens with a premium feel — but it is not a decisive advantage by any objective measure. Buyers indifferent to display curvature will find nothing else to separate the two phones here.