Vivo T4 5G VS Vivo T4R

Both phones share nearly identical footprints — almost the same height and width — so in-hand feel and pocket presence are virtually indistinguishable at a glance. The real differences emerge when you look closer. The Vivo T4R is noticeably lighter at 183.5 g versus the T4 5G's 199 g, a 15.5 g gap that is genuinely perceptible during extended one-handed use or long calls. It is also slimmer at 7.4 mm compared to 7.9 mm, which, combined with the lower weight, gives the T4R a more premium, refined feel in the hand despite both being mid-range devices.

The more consequential difference is water protection. The T4 5G carries an IP65 rating, meaning it can resist water jets but is not rated for submersion — a solid standard for surviving rain or accidental splashes. The T4R steps up to IP68, which certifies it against sustained submersion in fresh water. In practical terms, IP68 offers genuine peace of mind in scenarios like pool-side use or a drop in a sink, while IP65 is best understood as splash-proof rather than waterproof.

Neither device has a rugged build or a foldable form factor, so those are non-factors here. Overall, the Vivo T4R holds a clear design edge: it is lighter, thinner, more compact by volume, and offers meaningfully superior water protection with its IP68 rating — making it the stronger choice for users who prioritize build quality and durability within this spec group.

On paper, these two displays are twins. Both pack a 6.77″ OLED/AMOLED panel with an identical 1080 x 2392 px resolution, 388 ppi pixel density, and a 120Hz refresh rate. That means color reproduction, brightness, contrast, and scrolling smoothness will feel effectively the same in daily use — users switching between the two would be hard-pressed to notice any visual difference.

The only separating factor in this category is screen protection: the Vivo T4 5G ships with branded damage-resistant glass, while the T4R does not. This matters more than it might seem — purpose-built protective glass significantly reduces the risk of scratches from keys or grit in a pocket, and offers better resilience against drop-induced cracks compared to standard glass. It is a tangible, long-term durability advantage that affects the display's real-world longevity.

Neither device supports HDR10, HDR10+, or Dolby Vision, so high dynamic range content from streaming platforms will not render at its peak quality on either phone — that is a shared limitation worth noting. Overall, the display specs are a near-total draw, with the Vivo T4 5G earning a narrow edge solely due to its damage-resistant glass, which adds meaningful protection to an otherwise identical screen experience.

The foundation is strikingly similar: both phones use a 4nm chip, ship with 12GB of DDR5 RAM and 256GB of storage, and share an identical maximum memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. For everyday tasks — app switching, social media, streaming — users of either device will experience comparable responsiveness. The architectural divide, however, lies in the silicon itself: the T4 5G runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 with an Adreno 710 GPU, while the T4R is powered by the MediaTek Dimensity 7400 paired with a Mali G615 MC2.

Digging into the CPU configuration, the T4R's cluster peaks at 2.6 GHz on its performance cores versus the T4 5G's 2.5 GHz — a marginal difference on its own. More notable is the RAM speed discrepancy: the T4R's memory runs at 6400 MHz compared to the T4 5G's 3200 MHz. Despite both sharing the same maximum bandwidth ceiling, faster RAM speed can reduce latency in memory-intensive workloads. GPU clock speeds are essentially a dead heat at 1050 MHz and 1047 MHz respectively, so graphics-heavy tasks like gaming should feel comparable on both.

Taken together, this is a close contest. The T4R holds a slight edge in raw CPU clock speed and RAM frequency, while both chips trade blows at the GPU level and share the same memory architecture limits. Neither device has a decisive, across-the-board performance advantage based strictly on the provided data — making this category effectively a near-tie, with the Vivo T4R holding a marginal lead on paper.

Rarely does a camera comparison yield results this uniform. The rear systems on both phones are, for all practical purposes, identical: a 50 MP + 2 MP dual-camera setup with matching apertures, OIS, phase-detection autofocus, 4K/30fps video recording, and the same suite of manual controls. Even the feature checklist — slow-motion, HDR mode, panorama, continuous autofocus during video — mirrors perfectly. Users can expect the same rear camera experience regardless of which device they choose.

The sole differentiator across the entire camera spec set is the front-facing aperture. The Vivo T4 5G offers a f/2.0 selfie lens, while the T4R comes in at f/2.45. A wider aperture lets in more light, which translates directly to brighter, less noisy selfies in dim conditions — indoor evenings, restaurants, or low-light social settings. It is a subtle but real advantage for users who frequently use the front camera.

Given that every other camera attribute is shared between the two, the front aperture gap is the only basis for differentiation here. The Vivo T4 5G takes a narrow edge in this category purely on the strength of its wider f/2.0 selfie aperture — a meaningful perk for selfie-focused users, though the overall camera experience remains essentially equivalent across both devices.

This is the most clear-cut category in the entire comparison: both phones run Android 15 and share an absolutely identical feature set across every single operating system specification provided. Privacy controls, multitasking capabilities, personalization options, accessibility tools — the list is a perfect match with no exceptions.

Worth highlighting as shared strengths: both devices support split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, dynamic theming, on-device machine learning, and offline voice recognition — a well-rounded Android 15 experience that covers the needs of most users. On the flip side, neither phone receives direct OS updates from Google, meaning software patches and version upgrades are filtered through Vivo first, which can introduce delays. This is a shared limitation that prospective buyers should factor into long-term ownership considerations.

With zero divergence across the entire spec set, this category is an absolute tie. No edge can be awarded to either the Vivo T4 5G or the Vivo T4R — the software experience they deliver is, based strictly on the provided data, one and the same.

Battery is where the Vivo T4 5G asserts its most commanding advantage in this entire comparison. Its 7300 mAh cell dwarfs the T4R's 5700 mAh — a 1600 mAh gap that is far from trivial. In real-world terms, that difference can translate to several additional hours of screen-on time, making the T4 5G a notably stronger choice for heavy users, frequent travelers, or anyone who cannot always reach a charger by end of day.

The charging equation complicates the picture somewhat. The T4 5G supports 90W fast charging, while the T4R tops out at 44W. The T4 5G's faster charger helps offset the larger battery's longer fill time, meaning despite carrying significantly more capacity, it does not necessarily spend dramatically more time tethered to a wall. The T4R, with its smaller battery and slower charger, sits in a less optimal position on both fronts — it stores less energy and replenishes it more slowly.

Neither device offers wireless charging, so that is a shared gap to note. Overall, the Vivo T4 5G wins this category decisively — a much larger battery paired with meaningfully faster charging is an unambiguous advantage for endurance-focused users, and there is no offsetting factor on the T4R's side to close that gap.

Audio is a short but pointed comparison. Both phones drop the 3.5mm headphone jack and neither supports advanced Bluetooth audio codecs like aptX or LDAC, meaning wired listeners will need an adapter and wireless audiophiles get no lossless codec support on either device. The shared limitations are notable, but they cancel each other out.

The single differentiator is significant for media consumption: the Vivo T4R features stereo speakers, while the T4 5G does not. Stereo output creates a genuine sense of spatial width when watching videos, playing games, or listening to music without headphones — content feels more immersive and directional compared to the flat, mono output of a single-speaker setup. For anyone who regularly uses their phone as a portable media device, this is a meaningful quality-of-life advantage.

The Vivo T4R takes a clear win here on the strength of its stereo speakers alone. It is the only hardware audio differentiator in this category, but it is one that has a direct, noticeable impact on everyday listening — making the T4R the more capable device for out-loud audio enjoyment.

Across the broad connectivity landscape, these two phones are well-matched. Both support 5G, Wi-Fi 6, dual SIM, USB Type-C, fingerprint scanning, and GPS with Galileo support. Neither offers NFC — a shared omission worth flagging for users who rely on contactless payments — and both are capped at USB 2.0, which limits wired data transfer speeds equally. The fundamentals of day-to-day connectivity are essentially equivalent.

Two features separate them. The Vivo T4R edges ahead with Bluetooth 5.4 versus the T4 5G's 5.2 — a newer version that brings improvements in connection efficiency and stability, particularly relevant for wireless audio and peripheral pairing. Going the other way, the Vivo T4 5G includes an infrared sensor that the T4R lacks entirely. An IR blaster lets the phone act as a universal remote for TVs, air conditioners, and other home appliances — a niche but genuinely useful feature for users who want that convenience built into their device.

This category ends in a functional trade-off rather than a clear winner. The T4R's newer Bluetooth version benefits everyday wireless use, while the T4 5G's infrared sensor serves a specific but practical use case that the T4R simply cannot replicate. Which advantage matters more comes down entirely to the individual user's priorities — making this category a contextual tie with no universal edge to award.

The miscellaneous spec group offers nothing to differentiate the two devices. Every attribute listed — including the presence of a video light and the absence of sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display — is identical across the Vivo T4 5G and the Vivo T4R.

This is a complete tie by every available measure in this category. No edge can be assigned to either device, and no purchasing decision should be influenced by these specs alone.