Vivo T4 Pro VS Vivo T4 Ultra 5G

At first glance, the Vivo T4 Pro and Vivo T4 Ultra appear nearly identical in design: both weigh exactly 192 g, share the same 7.5 mm thickness, and neither offers a rugged build or foldable form factor. However, the T4 Ultra is marginally more compact — 160.6 × 75 mm versus the T4 Pro's 163.5 × 77 mm — resulting in a slightly smaller overall volume. In practice, this difference is subtle but can make the T4 Ultra feel a touch easier to grip and pocket, especially for users with smaller hands.

The most meaningful distinction in this group is water protection. The T4 Pro carries an IP68 rating, meaning it is fully waterproof and can withstand submersion in fresh water — typically up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes. The T4 Ultra, by contrast, is rated IP64, which only guarantees protection against water splashes from any direction, not submersion. This is a real-world gap: the T4 Pro can survive an accidental drop in a sink or pool, while the T4 Ultra can handle rain or a spilled drink but little more.

Overall, the Vivo T4 Pro holds a clear edge in this category. The superior IP68 waterproofing is a practically significant advantage that the T4 Ultra's marginally more compact footprint does not offset — particularly for users who prioritize durability and peace of mind in wet environments.

Both phones use OLED/AMOLED panels with a 120Hz refresh rate, so the baseline experience — fluid scrolling, deep blacks, vibrant colors — is shared. The critical split, however, is sharpness. The Vivo T4 Ultra packs a 1260 × 2800 px resolution into its 6.67″ screen, yielding a pixel density of 460 ppi. The Vivo T4 Pro stretches a larger 6.77″ panel but at only 1080 × 2392 px and 388 ppi. That 72 ppi gap is perceptible — fine text, detailed photos, and high-resolution video will render noticeably crisper on the T4 Ultra despite its smaller canvas.

The T4 Pro fights back on content quality and durability. Its support for both HDR10 and HDR10+ means compatible streaming content can dynamically adapt brightness and contrast scene by scene — an advantage the T4 Ultra lacks entirely with no HDR support listed. Additionally, the T4 Pro features branded damage-resistant glass, offering meaningful scratch and drop protection that the T4 Ultra does not provide. The T4 Ultra counters with an Always-On Display, a convenience feature that lets users glance at time and notifications without waking the screen.

Neither phone dominates outright, but the deciding factor hinges on use case. For media consumption, the T4 Pro's HDR10+ support and tougher glass make it the more well-rounded choice. For those who prioritize raw visual fidelity in everyday use, the T4 Ultra's significantly sharper 460 ppi display is the standout. On balance, the T4 Ultra holds a narrow edge in display quality, while the T4 Pro offers a more durable and HDR-capable viewing experience.

The chipset divide here is substantial. The Vivo T4 Pro runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4, a capable mid-range processor, while the Vivo T4 Ultra is powered by the MediaTek Dimensity 9300 Plus, a flagship-tier chip. This gap shows up clearly in the raw numbers: the T4 Ultra's prime core clocks in at 3.4 GHz versus the T4 Pro's 2.8 GHz, and its GPU runs at 1300 MHz compared to 1000 MHz. For everyday tasks the difference may be imperceptible, but in sustained gaming, AI processing, and heavy multitasking, the T4 Ultra's headroom is meaningfully greater.

Where the T4 Ultra's advantage becomes most striking is memory bandwidth. Its 76.8 GB/s maximum memory bandwidth is more than double the T4 Pro's 33.6 GB/s — a figure that directly affects how quickly the CPU and GPU can feed on data. Faster bandwidth translates to snappier texture loading in games, quicker photo processing, and more responsive multitasking. The T4 Ultra also pairs this with faster 4800 MHz RAM versus 4200 MHz on the T4 Pro, and doubles the base storage to 512 GB, which is a practical advantage for users who store large media libraries or games locally.

The Vivo T4 Ultra holds a commanding edge in performance. Both phones share the same RAM capacity, semiconductor node, and architectural approach, but the Dimensity 9300 Plus outclasses the Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 at virtually every measurable level — faster clocks, a stronger GPU, far greater memory bandwidth, and more storage. For users who push their phones hard, the T4 Ultra is the clear choice in this category.

On the surface, these two camera systems look nearly identical — both feature a triple-lens rear setup with matching 50 MP primary and 50 MP secondary sensors, the same 32 MP front camera, OIS, phase-detection autofocus, and 4K 30fps video. The divergence lies in the details. The tertiary lens tells a clear story: the Vivo T4 Pro uses a modest 2 MP sensor for its third camera, which in practice contributes little beyond depth assist. The Vivo T4 Ultra steps this up to 8 MP, a meaningfully more capable sensor that can resolve actual detail rather than serving as a near-symbolic third lens.

The focal length range further separates them. The T4 Ultra spans 23 mm to 85 mm, giving it a wider ultra-wide view and a longer telephoto reach compared to the T4 Pro's 26 mm to 73 mm range. In real shooting scenarios, that wider 23 mm end is noticeably more useful for architecture, landscapes, and tight interior spaces, while the extended 85 mm reach provides slightly more compression and working distance for portraits. Both phones share the same 3x optical zoom, so mid-range reach is equivalent.

The Vivo T4 Ultra holds the edge in cameras. The substantially higher-resolution third lens and the broader focal range offer tangibly more versatility, while the rest of the feature set — manual controls, OIS, autofocus capabilities, and video specs — is a wash between the two. For users who rely heavily on their phone camera across a variety of scenarios, the T4 Ultra's system is the more capable one based strictly on these specs.

This is a rare case where the comparison yields a definitive tie. The Vivo T4 Pro and Vivo T4 Ultra run identical software configurations across every single spec provided — both ship with Android 15, share the same privacy controls, productivity features, and system capabilities, with not one differentiating data point between them.

The shared feature set is well-rounded. Both phones include meaningful privacy tools such as camera and microphone access controls, location permissions management, and app tracking blocks. On the usability side, split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, dynamic theming, offline voice recognition, and on-device machine learning are all present on both devices. Neither phone receives direct OS updates nor supports Wi-Fi password sharing — notable absences that apply equally to both.

For this category, the verdict is a complete tie. A buyer's software experience will be identical regardless of which device they choose, so the operating system should carry zero weight in the decision between these two phones.

Battery capacity is where the Vivo T4 Pro reclaims a decisive advantage. Its 6500 mAh cell is 1000 mAh larger than the 5500 mAh unit in the Vivo T4 Ultra — a difference of roughly 18%. In practical terms, that gap typically translates to several additional hours of screen-on time, making the T4 Pro a notably stronger companion for heavy users, travelers, or anyone who goes long stretches without access to a charger.

Where the two phones converge is on charging. Both support 90W fast charging and ship with a charger included — meaning the T4 Pro's larger battery does not come at the cost of slower top-ups. Neither phone offers wireless charging, so that consideration is off the table for both buyers equally.

The Vivo T4 Pro wins this category clearly. A larger battery with identical charging speed is an unambiguous advantage — you get more capacity and lose nothing in replenishment time. For users who rank battery endurance highly, this is one of the T4 Pro's strongest selling points in the overall comparison.

Audio is another category that ends in a dead heat. The Vivo T4 Pro and Vivo T4 Ultra share an identical audio profile: both feature stereo speakers, omit a 3.5 mm headphone jack, lack any high-resolution Bluetooth codec support — no aptX, aptX HD, LDAC, or any variant — and neither includes an FM radio.

The absence of advanced Bluetooth audio codecs is worth noting for wired and wireless audio enthusiasts alike. Without LDAC or aptX HD, neither phone can transmit lossless or high-resolution audio over Bluetooth, capping wireless listening quality at standard SBC or AAC levels. Paired with the missing headphone jack, users who prioritize audio fidelity will need to rely on USB-C DAC adapters or Bluetooth headphones that do not demand premium codec support.

This category is a complete tie. Every spec is identical across both devices, so audio hardware plays no role in differentiating them. The decision for audiophiles and casual listeners alike comes down to the same accessories and the same limitations, whichever phone they choose.

Across the vast majority of connectivity specs, these two phones are indistinguishable. Both support 5G, Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.4, NFC, dual SIM, USB Type-C, and an identical sensor suite including GPS, gyroscope, accelerometer, compass, and Galileo support. For day-to-day connectivity needs — mobile data, wireless networking, contactless payments, and location accuracy — users will have precisely the same experience on either device.

The sole differentiator in this entire category is the infrared sensor, present on the Vivo T4 Pro but absent on the Vivo T4 Ultra. An IR blaster lets the phone function as a universal remote control for TVs, air conditioners, set-top boxes, and other consumer electronics — a niche but genuinely useful feature for users who want to consolidate their remote controls into a single device. It adds no bulk and costs nothing in daily use, so its absence on the T4 Ultra is a straightforward omission.

The Vivo T4 Pro takes a narrow edge here purely on account of its infrared sensor. The rest of the connectivity stack is a complete tie, so whether this tilt the scales meaningfully depends entirely on whether IR remote functionality matters to the buyer. For most users it is a bonus; for a subset — particularly in markets where IR blasters remain popular — it is a genuine differentiator worth factoring in.

The miscellaneous category offers nothing to separate these two phones. The Vivo T4 Pro and Vivo T4 Ultra match on every spec listed: both include a video light, and neither features a sapphire glass display, a curved screen, or an e-paper panel.

This is a complete tie. With only four data points in this group — and all four identical — there is no basis for preferring one device over the other here. Buyers should look to the other specification categories to inform their decision.