Vivo T4 Pro VS Vivo T4 Ultra 5G (256GB / 8GB RAM)

At first glance, the two phones 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. The meaningful physical difference lies in footprint — the Vivo T4 Pro is slightly taller (163.5 mm) and wider (77 mm), giving it a larger overall volume of 94.42 cm³ compared to the T4 Ultra's more compact 90.34 cm³ (75 mm wide, 160.6 mm tall). In practice, this makes the T4 Ultra marginally easier to grip and pocket, a small but real ergonomic advantage for users with smaller hands.

The most consequential design difference, however, is water protection. The T4 Pro carries an IP68 rating, meaning it can withstand continuous submersion in water — typically up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes. The T4 Ultra is rated only IP64, which covers dust resistance and protection against water splashes from any direction, but offers no submersion protection whatsoever. This is not a minor distinction: drop the T4 Ultra in a sink or puddle and you are taking a genuine risk; the same scenario with the T4 Pro is covered.

Overall, the Vivo T4 Pro holds a clear edge in this category. It sacrifices a negligible amount of compactness but delivers significantly stronger water protection — a spec that has direct, real-world consequences for durability and peace of mind.

Both phones use OLED/AMOLED panels with a 120Hz refresh rate, so the baseline experience — deep blacks, vibrant colors, smooth scrolling — is shared. Where they diverge sharply is sharpness. The T4 Ultra's 460 ppi pixel density, driven by its 1260 x 2800 resolution, is substantially crisper than the T4 Pro's 388 ppi at 1080 x 2392. That 72 ppi gap is visible in fine text, detailed images, and video — the T4 Ultra's screen will appear noticeably more refined at normal viewing distances, despite its slightly smaller 6.67″ panel versus the T4 Pro's 6.77″.

HDR support flips the advantage back toward the T4 Pro. It supports both HDR10 and HDR10+, which means compatible streaming content — Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime — is rendered with wider dynamic range and better highlight/shadow detail. The T4 Ultra supports neither, so HDR content will be tone-mapped down to standard dynamic range, losing that visual depth. Conversely, the T4 Ultra offers an Always-On Display, a convenience feature the T4 Pro lacks, letting users glance at time and notifications without waking the screen.

The T4 Pro also includes branded damage-resistant glass while the T4 Ultra does not, adding a layer of physical durability to its screen. On balance, this category is a genuine trade-off: the T4 Ultra wins on raw sharpness, but the T4 Pro holds the edge for multimedia quality and screen durability. Users who prioritize visual fidelity when streaming content or who want a more resilient display will find the T4 Pro more compelling; those who value pixel-dense clarity for everyday use will lean toward the T4 Ultra.

The chipset gap here is significant. The T4 Ultra runs on the Mediatek Dimensity 9300 Plus, a flagship-tier SoC, while the T4 Pro uses the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4, a capable but upper-mid-range chip. This difference manifests most clearly in raw throughput: the T4 Ultra's maximum memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s is more than double the T4 Pro's 33.6 GB/s. In practice, that means the T4 Ultra can feed its CPU and GPU with data far more rapidly — a direct benefit for gaming, video processing, and any task that saturates memory pipelines. Its CPU prime core also clocks higher at 3.4 GHz versus 2.8 GHz on the T4 Pro, and its GPU runs at 1300 MHz compared to 1000 MHz, pointing to a meaningful lead in both single-core and graphics-intensive workloads.

The T4 Pro counters with more RAM — 12 GB versus 8 GB — and faster RAM speed at 4200 MHz is actually outpaced by the T4 Ultra's 4800 MHz, so the T4 Pro's RAM advantage is limited to capacity alone. More RAM helps with heavy multitasking and keeping more apps suspended in the background, which is a real-world convenience, but it does not offset the T4 Ultra's fundamental compute advantage. One notable data point: the T4 Pro supports multithreading while the T4 Ultra does not, which could marginally benefit CPU-bound workloads that explicitly distribute across threads — though this is a narrow scenario in typical smartphone use.

The T4 Ultra holds a clear performance edge in this category. Its flagship chipset, superior memory bandwidth, higher GPU clock, and faster RAM collectively point to a device that will handle demanding workloads — sustained gaming, AI tasks, video rendering — with more headroom. The T4 Pro's extra RAM is a practical advantage for multitaskers, but it does not close the gap established by the Dimensity 9300 Plus.

The two camera systems are remarkably similar at the headline level — both feature a triple rear setup with matching 50 + 50 MP primary and secondary lenses, a 32 MP front camera, OIS, 4K 30fps video, and identical manual controls. The real differentiation sits in the details. The T4 Ultra's third lens comes in at 8 MP with an f/2.2 aperture, a meaningful step up from the T4 Pro's 2 MP at f/2.4 — a 2MP depth or macro sensor contributes very little to actual image quality, whereas 8MP with a wider aperture can capture usable shots in its own right.

Focal range tells a similar story. The T4 Ultra spans 23 mm to 85 mm, offering a slightly wider field of view on the short end and meaningfully more reach on the long end. The T4 Pro covers 26 mm to 73 mm, which is a narrower compositional window at both extremes. For users who shoot architecture, landscapes, or portraits, that extra reach and wider angle on the Ultra translates directly into more flexibility without cropping or repositioning. The T4 Pro does edge out the Ultra on main lens aperture — f/1.8 versus f/1.9 — which is a marginal low-light advantage, but not a decisive one.

The T4 Ultra takes the edge in this category. Its more capable third lens and broader focal range give it a more versatile and well-rounded camera system. The T4 Pro's slightly wider main aperture is the only counter, and it is too small a gap to shift the overall balance.

This is the rare category where the comparison ends before it begins. Every single operating system feature listed is identical across both devices — both run Android 15, both carry the same privacy controls, productivity tools, and accessibility features, and neither receives direct OS updates. There are no differentiators to weigh.

This is a complete tie. Users can expect an identical software experience on both phones, and the OS should play no role whatsoever in deciding between them.

Charging infrastructure is identical: both phones support 90W fast charging, come bundled with a charger, and lack wireless charging. Where they part ways is capacity. The T4 Pro packs a 6500 mAh battery versus the T4 Ultra's 5500 mAh — a 1000 mAh difference, which represents roughly an 18% larger reservoir of energy. For a typical user, that gap can translate to several additional hours of screen-on time or the difference between comfortably making it through a long day and needing a top-up by evening.

The shared 90W charging speed means the T4 Ultra, with its smaller cell, will actually reach full charge faster in absolute terms — a minor convenience trade-off. But for most users, raw endurance matters more than charge time, especially since both phones refill quickly regardless. Neither device offers wireless charging, so that convenience is off the table for both.

The Vivo T4 Pro holds a clear edge here. A larger battery with equivalent charging speed is a straightforward win for longevity — heavy users, travelers, or anyone who frequently goes long stretches without access to a charger will appreciate the T4 Pro's extra capacity.

Audio is another category where the two phones are perfectly matched. Both feature stereo speakers, omit a 3.5 mm headphone jack, and support none of the high-resolution Bluetooth audio codecs — no aptX, no LDAC, no aptX Adaptive or Lossless. Users who rely on wired headphones will need an adapter on either device, and audiophiles hoping for lossless wireless audio will find neither phone accommodating.

This is a complete tie. Audio hardware and features are identical across both phones and should carry no weight in the buying decision.

Across the vast majority of connectivity specs, these two phones are identical: both support 5G, Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.4, NFC, dual SIM, USB Type-C, and the same suite of sensors including GPS, gyroscope, compass, and accelerometer. The shared Bluetooth 5.4 standard ensures modern range and stability for wireless peripherals on both devices, and Wi-Fi 6 support means neither will be a bottleneck on a fast home or office network.

The sole differentiator in this category is the infrared sensor present on the T4 Pro and absent on the T4 Ultra. 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 to consolidate their devices. It costs nothing in everyday use and adds tangible convenience in the right context.

The Vivo T4 Pro takes a narrow edge here purely by virtue of the IR blaster. It is not a dealbreaker feature for most buyers, but it represents a functional addition the T4 Ultra simply does not offer, making this category a minor but clear win for the T4 Pro.

Every spec in this group is identical between the two phones — both have a video light, and neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display. There is nothing to differentiate here, and this category should have no bearing on the buying decision. A complete tie.