Vivo V60 VS Vivo V60e

In terms of design, the Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e are remarkably close siblings. Both share identical dimensions — 163.5 × 77 × 7.5 mm — and the same resulting volume, meaning they occupy exactly the same footprint in your hand or pocket. Neither device can be folded, and neither is built to a ruggedized standard, so both are conventional slab-style smartphones in that regard.

The only measurable difference between the two is weight: the V60 comes in at 192 g versus the V60e's 190 g — a gap of just 2 grams. In practice, this difference is imperceptible during everyday use and should carry no weight (pun intended) in a purchase decision.

On water resistance, both phones are equally matched with a full IP68 certification and a waterproof depth rating of 1.5 m, offering meaningful real-world protection against submersion — useful for rain, splashes, or accidental drops in shallow water. Overall, this category is effectively a tie: the two devices are virtually indistinguishable from a design and build standpoint.

The foundation of both displays is identical: a 6.77″ OLED/AMOLED panel running at 1080 × 2392 px and 388 ppi, with a 120Hz refresh rate and branded damage-resistant glass. At this size and pixel density, sharpness is genuinely excellent for everyday use — text is crisp, images are detailed, and the 120Hz cadence ensures smooth scrolling and responsive touch interactions across both devices.

Where the two diverge is in brightness and HDR support. The Vivo V60e edges ahead with a peak typical brightness of 1600 nits versus the V60's 1500 nits — a 100-nit advantage that translates to modestly better legibility under direct sunlight. More significantly, the V60e adds support for HDR10 and HDR10+, standards that enable richer contrast and a wider dynamic range when streaming compatible content on platforms like YouTube or Amazon Prime Video. The V60 supports neither, meaning it will display the same content with less tonal depth.

The Vivo V60e holds a clear edge in this category. The brightness difference alone is modest, but the addition of HDR10 and HDR10+ support is a meaningful upgrade for anyone who regularly consumes streaming media — making the V60e the stronger choice for display quality.

These two phones are powered by very different mid-range chipsets. The Vivo V60 runs on the Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4, featuring a tri-cluster CPU architecture with a peak core at 2.8 GHz, while the Vivo V60e uses the MediaTek Dimensity 7360, a dual-cluster design topping out at 2.5 GHz. Both are etched on a 4 nm process and support big.LITTLE efficiency scheduling, but the Snapdragon 7 Gen 4's higher peak clock speed and more sophisticated cluster layout give the V60 an advantage in sustained CPU-intensive workloads like gaming and video rendering.

On memory, the picture is more nuanced. The V60 offers substantially more — 16 GB of RAM and 512 GB of storage versus the V60e's 12 GB and 256 GB — which means better multitasking headroom and far more space for apps, photos, and media without relying on cloud storage. The V60e counters with a faster RAM bus at 6400 MHz compared to the V60's 4200 MHz, which can improve memory throughput in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. However, having 4 extra gigabytes of RAM is a more broadly impactful advantage than bus speed alone. The GPU clock speeds are essentially equivalent at 1000 vs. 1047 MHz, so graphics performance is unlikely to differ meaningfully in practice.

The Vivo V60 wins this category. Its stronger chipset, significantly more RAM, and double the internal storage make it the more capable and future-proof performer — advantages that matter across everyday multitasking, long-term app retention, and demanding workloads alike.

The rear camera systems take strikingly different approaches. The Vivo V60 deploys a triple-lens setup — 50 + 50 + 8 MP — with a 3x optical zoom lens in the mix, making it a more versatile shooter across different focal lengths. The Vivo V60e, by contrast, goes dual-lens but leads with a headline-grabbing 200 MP primary sensor paired with an 8 MP secondary. That 200 MP count enables very high-resolution captures and aggressive pixel-binning for improved low-light output, but without any optical zoom, framing distant subjects means falling back on digital zoom — which degrades image quality. For users who shoot a variety of scenes, the V60's optical zoom is a more practical and consistently reliable capability.

A less obvious but notable hardware difference is the flash: the V60 packs 4 LED flash units versus the V60e's single LED, which translates to more even, powerful illumination in low-light scenarios — a real-world advantage for indoor or nighttime photography. On the front, both phones field a 50 MP selfie camera with nearly identical apertures, so self-portrait quality should be on par between the two.

Shared across both devices are OIS, phase-detection autofocus, continuous autofocus during video, slow-motion recording, HDR mode, and a comprehensive manual controls suite — so neither phone feels lacking in features. The verdict, however, favors the Vivo V60: the combination of a third camera lens, true 3x optical zoom, and a stronger flash array makes it the more capable and flexible imaging system for most shooting situations.

Both the Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e ship with Android 15 and an identical software feature set — every single spec in this category is a match. From privacy controls like location and camera/microphone permissions to productivity tools like split-screen, Picture-in-Picture, and full-page screenshots, the experience on both devices is functionally indistinguishable. Neither receives direct OS updates, so both users will depend on Vivo's own update rollout cadence for future Android versions.

Notably, both phones include on-device machine learning, offline voice recognition, dynamic theming, and Live Text — a well-rounded feature set that covers the core expectations of a modern Android experience. The absence of focus modes and Wi-Fi password sharing applies equally to both, and neither limitation tips the scale in favor of one device over the other.

This category is a complete tie. There is no software-based reason to choose one over the other — buyers should look entirely to hardware differences to make their decision.

Battery is another category where the two phones are perfectly matched. Both the Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e carry a 6500 mAh cell — a generously large capacity that comfortably sits above the mid-range norm, and one that should support well over a full day of heavy use for most people. Pair that with 90W fast charging on both devices, and topping up from low battery becomes a quick affair rather than an overnight commitment.

Neither phone offers wireless charging or reverse wireless charging, and neither has a removable battery — limitations that apply equally to both and are common at this segment. These omissions do not differentiate the two in any meaningful way.

This is a complete tie. With identical battery capacity and identical charging speeds, there is no distinction to draw here — prospective buyers should weigh the differences identified in other specification groups to guide their choice.

Audio hardware is identical across both devices. The Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e each feature stereo speakers — a meaningful baseline that makes media consumption noticeably more immersive than a mono setup, with proper left-right channel separation for video and music playback. Neither phone includes a 3.5 mm headphone jack, so wired listening requires a USB-C adapter or a switch to wireless audio.

For Bluetooth audio enthusiasts, neither device supports high-resolution codecs like LDAC or aptX HD, which means wireless listening is capped at standard Bluetooth audio quality. This is a common trade-off at this segment, but worth noting for anyone who uses premium wireless headphones and cares about lossless-quality streaming over Bluetooth. No radio is available on either phone either.

Unsurprisingly, this category is a complete tie. The audio profile — stereo speakers, no headphone jack, no high-res Bluetooth codecs — is exactly the same on both phones, and plays no role in distinguishing one from the other.

Connectivity is another area where the Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e are mirror images of each other. Both support 5G, dual SIM, Wi-Fi 5, and Bluetooth 5.4 — the latter being a relatively current standard that brings improved connection stability and energy efficiency over older versions. NFC is present on both, enabling contactless payments and quick device pairing, while Galileo satellite support adds an extra layer of positioning accuracy on top of standard GPS.

A couple of shared inclusions worth highlighting: both phones carry an infrared sensor, which allows them to function as a universal remote for home appliances — a handy utility feature that is becoming less common even in mid-range devices. The sensor suite also covers the everyday essentials — gyroscope, accelerometer, compass — relevant for navigation, gaming, and motion-aware apps. On the flip side, neither device offers expandable storage, a barometer, or any form of satellite emergency SOS, and USB remains at version 2.0, meaning data transfer speeds are modest by modern standards.

This category is a complete tie. Every connectivity and feature spec is identical across both phones, with no differentiator to separate them. As with audio and software, the decision between these two comes down entirely to the hardware categories where they do diverge.

The miscellaneous specs for the Vivo V60 and Vivo V60e are, once again, identical. Both include a video light — a useful addition for content creators or anyone recording in dim environments, providing continuous illumination during video capture rather than the single-burst flash used for photos. Neither phone features a curved display, which keeps the screen edges straightforward to interact with and easier to protect with standard cases.

This category is a complete tie, with no differentiating factors to weigh. As a slim set of specs, it adds no new information to the broader comparison — buyers should continue to anchor their decision on the meaningful hardware distinctions identified in performance, cameras, and display.