Huawei Pura 80 Ultra VS Vivo X300

Both the Huawei Pura 80 Ultra and the Vivo X300 are non-foldable slabs with waterproof builds, but their physical footprints differ meaningfully. The Pura 80 Ultra is notably larger — 163 × 76.1 mm versus the X300's 150.6 × 71.9 mm — and that size gap translates into a 102.96 cm³ volume compared to just 86.63 cm³ for the X300. In practice, the X300 will feel noticeably more compact and easier to pocket or handle one-handed.

The weight difference reinforces this advantage: the X300 comes in at 190 g, while the Pura 80 Ultra tips the scale at 233.5 g — a 43.5 g gap that is significant for day-to-day comfort, particularly during extended use. Both phones share near-identical thinness (8.3 mm vs 8 mm), so the thickness experience is essentially the same in hand.

On water resistance, both phones are rated waterproof, but the X300 holds a IP69 certification versus the Pura 80 Ultra's IP68. IP69 adds protection against high-pressure, high-temperature water jets — a meaningful step up for users who might expose the device to more demanding conditions, not just submersion. Overall, the Vivo X300 holds a clear design edge: it is lighter, more compact, and carries a higher ingress protection rating.

The screen experience on these two phones diverges most sharply in size. The Pura 80 Ultra sports a 6.8″ OLED panel, while the X300 measures 6.31″ — a gap large enough to matter for media consumption and multitasking, where the Pura 80 Ultra's extra real estate gives it a tangible edge. Remarkably, despite the size difference, both panels land at virtually identical pixel densities (459 ppi vs 460 ppi), meaning sharpness is essentially indistinguishable to the human eye on either device.

Where the X300 punches back is in HDR support: it covers both HDR10 and HDR10+, while the Pura 80 Ultra supports neither. For users who stream HDR content from compatible platforms, this means the X300 can render a wider dynamic range with greater highlight and shadow detail — a real, visible difference when watching supported video. The Pura 80 Ultra's absence of any HDR standard is a notable omission at this tier.

Performance-oriented specs — 120Hz refresh rate and 300Hz touch sampling — are identical on both phones, so scrolling smoothness and touch responsiveness are on equal footing. The Pura 80 Ultra does add branded damage-resistant glass, which the X300 lacks, offering better scratch and drop protection for the screen. Ultimately, the two phones trade blows: the Pura 80 Ultra wins on screen size and glass protection, but the Vivo X300 holds a meaningful advantage for video-focused users thanks to its HDR10+ support.

The raw performance gap between these two phones is substantial. The Vivo X300's MediaTek Dimensity 9500 is built on a cutting-edge 3 nm process, compared to the Pura 80 Ultra's HiSilicon Kirin 9010 at 7 nm. That two-generation manufacturing gap has cascading effects: smaller transistors mean more efficient power use, lower heat output, and greater computational density. It shows directly in the AnTuTu scores — the X300 posts an extraordinary 4,011,900 against the Pura 80 Ultra's 1,160,268, a difference of roughly 3.5x that places these chips in entirely different performance tiers.

The architectural advantages compound further when looking at memory and cache. The X300's RAM operates at 5333 MHz versus 2750 MHz on the Pura 80 Ultra, and its memory bandwidth reaches 85.3 GB/s compared to just 44 GB/s — meaning data moves between the processor and RAM nearly twice as fast. Combined with a 16 MB L3 cache on the X300 versus only 4 MB on the Pura 80 Ultra, the X300 handles large, complex workloads — AI tasks, video editing, gaming — with far less bottlenecking.

Both phones match on storage (1024 GB) and RAM (16 GB), so everyday multitasking capacity looks equivalent on paper. However, the X300's faster memory subsystem means those 16 GB are utilized far more efficiently under load. The Vivo X300 holds an unambiguous and decisive performance advantage across every meaningful silicon metric in this group.

The camera systems here reflect two distinct philosophies. The Vivo X300 leads with a dominant 200 MP primary sensor, giving it exceptional detail capture and flexible cropping potential, while the Pura 80 Ultra counters with a four-lens array (50+50+40+12.5 MP) that prioritizes versatility across focal lengths. The most striking divergence, however, is in optical zoom: the Pura 80 Ultra reaches 9.4x optical zoom versus just 3x on the X300 — a gap that makes the Pura 80 Ultra far more capable for distant subjects, whether in sports, wildlife, or architecture photography.

Video shooters will find the X300 more compelling for fast-action capture, as it records 4K at 60 fps compared to the Pura 80 Ultra's 30 fps ceiling at the same resolution — a meaningful difference for smooth motion footage. On the selfie side, the X300's 50 MP front camera dwarfs the Pura 80 Ultra's 13 MP, which matters for users who prioritize high-resolution self-portraits or video calls. The Pura 80 Ultra does retain manual shutter speed control, which the X300 lacks — a small but notable advantage for photographers who prefer full manual command.

Shared fundamentals are strong on both devices: OIS, phase-detection and laser autofocus, RAW shooting, slow-motion, and HDR mode are all present. The verdict ultimately depends on use case — the Pura 80 Ultra holds a clear edge for telephoto and multi-focal versatility, while the Vivo X300 leads on primary sensor resolution, 4K 60fps video, and selfie quality. Neither dominates outright, but users who frequently shoot at distance will find the Pura 80 Ultra's zoom advantage hard to overlook.

Across every operating system feature captured in this data set, the Huawei Pura 80 Ultra and the Vivo X300 are in complete lockstep. Both offer the full suite of modern software conveniences: dark mode, split-screen multitasking, customizable notifications, widgets, voice commands, and theme customization are all present on each device.

Privacy-conscious users will find that both phones provide camera and microphone privacy controls, device tracking, and child lock functionality — covering the essentials for family use and personal security alike. Neither phone receives direct OS updates, and neither can function as a PC replacement, so both share the same limitations on the software side as well.

With no differentiating data point in this entire group, the verdict is a complete tie. Based strictly on the provided specs, the OS feature set offers no basis to prefer one device over the other.

Raw capacity favors the Vivo X300, whose 6040 mAh cell edges out the Pura 80 Ultra's already generous 5700 mAh. The 340 mAh difference is modest in isolation, but combined with the X300's more efficient 3 nm chipset (established in the Performance group), it suggests the X300 is likely to stretch that capacity further in practice. Wired charging tells a similar story in reverse — the Pura 80 Ultra's 100W wired speed slightly outpaces the X300's 90W, meaning it will recover from a depleted battery marginally faster when plugged in.

Wireless charging is where the gap widens more meaningfully. The Pura 80 Ultra supports 80W wireless charging versus just 40W on the X300 — twice the speed — making cable-free top-ups far less of a compromise on the Pura 80 Ultra. It also adds reverse wireless charging, allowing it to act as a charging pad for accessories like earbuds or a smartwatch, a feature the X300 entirely lacks.

Choosing between them comes down to priorities. The X300 offers a slightly larger battery for longer endurance between charges, while the Pura 80 Ultra delivers a substantially faster and more versatile wireless charging experience. On balance, the Pura 80 Ultra holds the broader battery ecosystem advantage thanks to its superior wireless charging speed and reverse charging capability, even if the X300 wins narrowly on raw capacity.

Neither phone includes a 3.5mm headphone jack, so wireless audio is the primary listening mode for both. The core differentiator here is Bluetooth codec support, and each phone backs a different standard. The Pura 80 Ultra supports LDAC, Sony's high-resolution wireless codec that transmits up to three times more data than standard Bluetooth audio — making it the go-to choice for users with LDAC-compatible headphones who want the closest approximation to lossless wireless sound. The X300 takes the Qualcomm route instead, offering both aptX and aptX HD, the latter of which also targets high-resolution wireless audio with low latency, and is widely supported across a broad range of premium headphones and earbuds.

In practical terms, the ″right″ codec depends entirely on the headphones the user owns. LDAC and aptX HD are both high-fidelity wireless standards — neither is categorically superior in real-world listening — but they are incompatible with each other, meaning the phone's codec only matters if the paired headphones support the same standard. Both phones share stereo speakers and the absence of a radio, so there is no differentiation on those fronts.

The result is a contextual tie: the Pura 80 Ultra is the better match for Sony and LDAC ecosystem users, while the Vivo X300 serves aptX HD headphone owners equally well. Based strictly on the provided specs, neither phone holds a universal audio advantage over the other.

Wireless connectivity is nearly identical between these two phones — both support 5G, Wi-Fi 7, NFC, and dual SIM, covering all the modern essentials. The X300 does pull ahead on Bluetooth 5.4 versus the Pura 80 Ultra's 5.2, a newer revision that brings improved connection efficiency and better handling of multiple simultaneous audio streams — a meaningful but incremental upgrade for users with modern Bluetooth peripherals. The X300 also steps up to USB 3.2 against the Pura 80 Ultra's USB 3.1, translating to faster wired data transfers when moving large files like videos to a computer.

The Pura 80 Ultra, however, holds two exclusive features that are genuinely impactful in the right context. Its emergency SOS via satellite capability allows distress signals to be sent without any cellular or Wi-Fi coverage — a potentially life-saving feature for travelers, hikers, or anyone venturing into remote areas. It also includes a barometer, useful for weather tracking and altitude sensing, which the X300 omits entirely. Both phones share a solid sensor array otherwise, including gyroscope, accelerometer, compass, IR sensor, and GPS with Galileo support.

The connectivity trade-off here is meaningful on both sides. The X300 offers incrementally newer short-range wireless and data transfer standards, while the Pura 80 Ultra adds safety-critical functionality that has no equivalent on the X300. For most urban users the gap will feel minor, but for those who spend time off-grid, the Pura 80 Ultra's satellite SOS alone tips the balance decisively in its favor within this group.

The miscellaneous feature set for these two phones is identical across every data point provided. Both include a video light, and neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display. With no differentiating spec in this group, the comparison yields a complete tie — this category offers no basis to prefer one device over the other.