Oppo A5 Pro (Global) (128GB / 6GB RAM) VS Vivo Y31 Pro 5G

Both phones share a broadly similar physical footprint, but the Oppo A5 Pro is notably more compact in hand: at 194 g and 7.8 mm thick, it is 14 grams lighter and 0.3 mm slimmer than the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G, which weighs 208 g and measures 8.1 mm in thickness. That difference may sound small on paper, but over a full day of use it translates to a meaningfully less fatiguing grip, especially for one-handed use or extended browsing sessions.

Where the gap becomes more decisive is water protection. The Oppo A5 Pro carries an IP68 rating, meaning it is fully waterproof and can withstand submersion in up to 1.5 metres of fresh water for 30 minutes. The Vivo Y31 Pro 5G is rated only IP64, which certifies splash and dust resistance but offers no protection against submersion whatsoever. For users who work outdoors, exercise, or simply want peace of mind near water, this is a substantial real-world advantage for the Oppo.

Neither device has a rugged build or a foldable form factor, so those traits are a wash. Overall, the Oppo A5 Pro holds a clear edge in this category: it is lighter, thinner, and meaningfully better protected against water ingress — three design qualities that directly affect daily usability and long-term durability.

On paper, both screens look similar — same LCD IPS panel type, nearly identical sizes (6.67″ vs 6.72″), and a matching 120Hz refresh rate that delivers smooth scrolling and animations on both devices. In day-to-day use, that shared refresh rate means neither phone feels sluggish compared to the other when navigating the UI.

The critical differentiator is sharpness. The Vivo Y31 Pro 5G renders at 1080 x 2408 px with a pixel density of 393 ppi, while the Oppo A5 Pro tops out at 720 x 1604 px and just 264 ppi. That is nearly a 50% gap in pixel density — clearly visible when reading small text, viewing detailed photos, or watching video content. The Vivo's full-HD+ panel will look perceptibly crisper at normal viewing distances, whereas the Oppo's HD+ resolution can show softness on a 6.67″ panel. The Vivo also includes branded damage-resistant glass, adding a layer of scratch and impact protection that the Oppo lacks entirely.

The verdict here is unambiguous: the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G holds a clear display advantage. Its significantly higher resolution and protective glass coating make it the stronger choice for anyone who prioritizes screen quality and longevity.

The silicon gap between these two devices is substantial. The Vivo Y31 Pro 5G runs on the MediaTek Dimensity 7300, built on a 4 nm process, while the Oppo A5 Pro uses the Dimensity 6300 on a 6 nm node. A smaller fabrication process generally means better power efficiency and thermal performance — the Vivo's chip can sustain higher workloads while generating less heat. The real-world benchmark gap confirms this: the Vivo scores 2932 multi-core and 1026 single-core on Geekbench 6, versus the Oppo's 2012 and 782 respectively. That roughly 45% multi-core lead translates to noticeably snappier app launches, smoother multitasking, and more headroom for demanding games.

Memory tells a similar story. The Vivo ships with 8GB of DDR5 RAM running at 6400 MHz and 256GB of internal storage, compared to the Oppo's 6GB of DDR4 RAM at 2133 MHz and 128GB of storage. DDR5 at that clock speed offers dramatically higher memory bandwidth, which benefits GPU-intensive tasks and keeps more apps alive in the background. The Vivo's GPU also runs at a higher clock speed (1047 MHz vs 950 MHz), reinforcing its graphics edge.

Across every measurable performance dimension — CPU throughput, GPU speed, RAM capacity, memory bandwidth, and storage — the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G holds a clear and consistent advantage. For users who game, multitask heavily, or simply want a device that stays responsive over years of use, the Vivo is the stronger performer by a meaningful margin.

Rarely does a camera comparison land this evenly, but the provided specs leave no room for ambiguity: the Oppo A5 Pro and the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G are identical across every single camera specification in this dataset. Both feature a 50 MP + 2 MP dual rear camera setup, an 8 MP front shooter, and the same autofocus suite — phase-detection and touch autofocus for stills, continuous autofocus during video. Neither offers optical image stabilization or optical zoom.

The manual controls available on both are also matched point for point: manual ISO, manual exposure, manual focus, manual white balance, HDR mode, slow-motion recording, serial shot, and in-camera panorama. Neither device shoots RAW files or supports HDR10/Dolby Vision video recording, which places both squarely in the mainstream, point-and-shoot tier of camera capability rather than the enthusiast segment.

Based strictly on the provided specifications, this category is a complete tie. Camera performance in practice can still diverge due to image processing software and the underlying chipset's ISP — but those factors fall outside the scope of the data here. On paper, neither phone offers a camera advantage over the other.

Much like the camera category, the operating system specs for these two devices are a mirror image of each other. Both ship with Android 15 and share an identical feature set across every tracked dimension — from privacy tools like location controls and camera/microphone permissions, to productivity features like split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, widgets, and full-page screenshots. Neither device receives direct OS updates, which is worth noting for long-term software support expectations.

On the privacy front, both phones offer the same meaningful set of modern Android protections — app tracking blocks, clipboard warnings, and on-device machine learning — while equally lacking cross-site tracking prevention and Mail Privacy Protection. Neither advantage nor gap exists between them here.

The conclusion is straightforward: this is a complete tie. Every feature present on one device is present on the other, and every omission is shared equally. OS experience will differ in practice only due to each brand's custom Android skin layered on top — but that distinction is not reflected in the provided data, so neither phone earns an edge in this category.

Battery capacity is where the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G reclaims some ground. Its 6500 mAh cell holds a meaningful 700 mAh advantage over the Oppo A5 Pro's 5800 mAh battery — roughly a 12% larger reservoir. In practical terms, that gap can translate to an extra hour or more of screen-on time during a heavy usage day, or simply greater confidence heading into the evening without reaching for a charger.

Charging speeds are effectively identical — 45W on the Oppo versus 44W on the Vivo — a 1W difference that will produce no perceptible real-world gap in charge times. Both phones include a charger in the box and support fast charging, so the out-of-box experience is the same. Neither device offers wireless charging, which is typical at this price tier.

The edge here goes to the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G, solely on the strength of its larger battery. With charging parity essentially confirmed, the bigger cell is an unambiguous advantage for endurance-focused users — and it comes without any charging speed trade-off.

Audio is another category where these two devices are inseparable. Both the Oppo A5 Pro and the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G feature stereo speakers, which is a genuine quality-of-life upgrade over mono setups — delivering wider soundstage and better channel separation when watching videos or listening to music without headphones.

For wireless audio, neither phone supports any high-quality Bluetooth codec — no aptX, aptX HD, LDAC, or their variants. This means users pairing premium wireless headphones will be limited to standard SBC or AAC transmission, which can introduce compression artifacts at higher volumes. Both devices are equally affected by this limitation, so it creates no differentiation between them.

With every tracked spec identical, this category is a complete tie. Users who prioritize audio fidelity through wired or wireless headphones should be aware that neither device caters to that use case based on the available data — but for everyday speaker use, both are equally equipped.

The connectivity foundations are well-matched: both phones support 5G, dual SIM, Wi-Fi 5, USB Type-C, expandable storage, a fingerprint scanner, and GPS with Galileo support. Download speeds are virtually identical at 3300 vs 3270 Mbits/s — a negligible real-world difference. Where things diverge, however, are in a handful of features that matter depending on how you use your phone.

The Oppo A5 Pro includes NFC while the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G does not. For users in markets where contactless payments, transit cards, or NFC-based device pairing are part of daily life, this is a significant omission on the Vivo's part. Conversely, the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G counters with a gyroscope and an infrared sensor, both absent on the Oppo. The gyroscope enables more accurate motion-based gaming and AR applications, while the infrared sensor lets the phone function as a universal remote for TVs and appliances — a niche but genuinely useful everyday convenience.

This category comes down to use-case priorities. The Oppo's NFC advantage is broader and more universally impactful in day-to-day life, while the Vivo's gyroscope and IR blaster appeal to more specific users. The Bluetooth 5.4 on the Vivo versus 5.3 on the Oppo is a marginal difference unlikely to be felt in practice. Overall, the Oppo edges ahead for most users thanks to NFC, but the Vivo is the stronger pick for mobile gamers or those who value a built-in remote.

The miscellaneous specs for these two devices are, once again, identical across every tracked point. Both the Oppo A5 Pro and the Vivo Y31 Pro 5G include a video light, and neither features a sapphire glass display, curved screen, or e-paper display — all of which are premium or niche characteristics not expected at this market segment.

This category is a complete tie based on the provided data. No differentiator exists between the two phones here, and none of the shared specs represent a meaningful advantage or limitation for either device in isolation.