Vivo V60 VS Vivo Y400 4G

Both the Vivo V60 and Vivo Y400 4G share an IP68 waterproof rating, meaning neither will struggle with rain, splashes, or accidental drops in water. Where they differ is the certified submersion depth: the Y400 4G is rated to 2 m versus the V60's 1.5 m. In practice, both ratings are more than sufficient for everyday mishaps, but the Y400 4G offers a modest extra margin for more demanding water exposure scenarios.

On physical form, the V60 has a clear ergonomic edge. At 192 g and 7.5 mm thick, it is noticeably lighter and slimmer than the Y400 4G, which weighs 198 g and measures 7.9 mm in thickness. That 6 g weight difference and 0.4 mm reduction in thickness may seem small on paper, but translate to a more comfortable feel during extended single-hand use. The V60 is also slightly taller and wider, yet its lower overall volume (94.42 cm³ vs 96.55 cm³) confirms it makes more efficient use of its footprint.

In summary, this group is closely contested. The V60 holds the advantage in portability — it is the leaner, slimmer device. The Y400 4G counters with a slightly deeper water resistance rating, though the real-world gap between 1.5 m and 2 m is minimal for most users. Buyers who prioritize a sleeker profile will prefer the V60; those who want the extra water protection assurance may lean toward the Y400 4G.

The foundation is identical: both phones use an OLED/AMOLED panel with a 120Hz refresh rate and a 1080p resolution, ensuring smooth scrolling and vivid, high-contrast visuals on either device. The V60's larger 6.77″ screen versus the Y400 4G's 6.67″ is a minor difference in hand, but the extra canvas is a genuine plus for media consumption and multitasking. Pixel density is effectively a wash — 388 ppi vs 395 ppi — both well above the threshold where individual pixels become imperceptible to the naked eye.

Brightness is where the V60 pulls ahead decisively. Its 1500 nits typical brightness outpaces the Y400 4G's 1200 nits by a meaningful 25%, which translates directly to better legibility under bright sunlight or in high-glare environments. The V60 also ships with branded damage-resistant glass, adding a layer of scratch and impact protection the Y400 4G lacks entirely — a tangible long-term durability advantage.

The Y400 4G strikes back with two software-level display features: HDR10 support for richer, more accurate color and contrast when streaming compatible content, and an Always-On Display for glanceable notifications without waking the screen. These are useful perks, but for users who spend time outdoors or want physical screen protection, the V60's brightness and glass durability carry more weight. Overall, the V60 holds the edge in display practicality, while the Y400 4G appeals more to media enthusiasts who prioritize HDR content and ambient display convenience.

The chipset gap here is substantial. The V60 runs on the Snapdragon 7 Gen 4, built on a modern 4 nm process, while the Y400 4G relies on the Snapdragon 685 at 6 nm. A smaller semiconductor node generally means greater power efficiency and thermal headroom, allowing the V60 to sustain demanding workloads — intensive gaming sessions, heavy multitasking, video editing — without throttling as quickly. The practical gap widens further when you factor in RAM: the V60's 16 GB at 4200 MHz (DDR5) dwarfs the Y400 4G's 8 GB at 2133 MHz (DDR4). More RAM means more apps stay resident in memory, reducing reload times, and the faster DDR5 speeds feed the CPU data significantly quicker.

Memory bandwidth reinforces the same story — the V60's 33.6 GB/s is nearly double the Y400 4G's 17 GB/s, which directly benefits graphics-intensive tasks and fast data throughput. Storage follows suit: 512 GB vs 256 GB gives V60 owners far more room for apps, media, and local files without worrying about management. The one raw number where the Y400 4G lists higher is GPU clock speed (1260 MHz vs 1000 MHz), though this single metric does not offset the V60's broader architectural and bandwidth advantages.

The verdict in this category is unambiguous: the V60 holds a commanding performance advantage across nearly every meaningful dimension — chipset efficiency, RAM capacity, memory speed, bandwidth, and storage. The Y400 4G is capable for everyday tasks, but users who demand sustained performance, fluid multitasking, or future-proofing should clearly favour the V60.

The rear camera systems reveal a significant gap in versatility. The V60 fields a triple-lens setup — 50 MP + 50 MP + 8 MP — compared to the Y400 4G's dual-lens 50 MP + 2 MP configuration. That second 50 MP sensor on the V60, paired with 3x optical zoom, means genuinely usable telephoto shots without digital degradation, while the Y400 4G offers no optical zoom at all, relying entirely on cropping. The 2 MP secondary sensor on the Y400 4G is also a minimal depth-assist camera rather than a meaningful imaging addition. Beyond lens count, the V60 includes optical image stabilization (OIS), which reduces blur in low-light photography and smooths out handheld video — an omission that noticeably impacts the Y400 4G in challenging shooting conditions.

Video capabilities diverge sharply as well. The V60 records at 4K (2160p) at 30 fps, while the Y400 4G tops out at 1080p at 30 fps — a full resolution tier below. For users who shoot video for social media, travel documentation, or casual filmmaking, this is a meaningful real-world difference in output quality. The V60 also carries a 4-LED flash array versus a single LED on the Y400 4G, contributing to more even, powerful illumination in dark environments.

Up front, the contrast is equally stark: the V60's 50 MP selfie camera vastly outresolves the Y400 4G's 8 MP unit, offering considerably more detail and cropping flexibility for portrait and video call use. Across every camera dimension — rear versatility, zoom, stabilization, video resolution, and selfie quality — the V60 holds a clear and comprehensive advantage. The Y400 4G covers basic photography needs, but for anyone who values camera capability, the V60 is the decisive choice.

This is a rare category where the comparison ends before it begins. Both the Vivo V60 and Vivo Y400 4G run Android 15 and share an absolutely identical feature set across every tracked specification — from privacy controls like location and camera/microphone permissions, to productivity features like split-screen, Picture-in-Picture, and widgets. Neither receives direct OS updates, and neither supports features like Wi-Fi password sharing or focus modes.

The shared software experience is genuinely well-rounded. Both devices offer on-device machine learning, dynamic theming, offline voice recognition, and Live Text — a capable set of modern Android features that covers privacy, customization, and productivity bases for the vast majority of users. The absence of any differentiator here, in either direction, means software preference will play no role in choosing between these two phones.

The verdict for this group is a complete tie. Every OS feature present on one device is equally present on the other, and every limitation is shared identically. Prospective buyers should look to other specification groups to inform their decision, as the operating system experience will be indistinguishable between the two.

Battery capacity favors the V60 in a meaningful way. Its 6500 mAh cell edges out the Y400 4G's 6000 mAh by 500 mAh — roughly an 8% larger reserve. While neither phone will struggle to last a full day, that extra capacity on the V60 provides a more comfortable buffer for heavy users who push their device through long commutes, travel days, or extended screen-on sessions without access to a charger.

The charging speed gap is where the difference becomes more pronounced. The V60's 90W fast charging is more than double the Y400 4G's 44W. In practical terms, this means the V60 can recover a significant portion of its larger battery in a fraction of the time — critical for users who need a quick top-up before heading out. The Y400 4G's 44W is a respectable speed in its own right, but pairing a smaller battery with slower charging makes it the less convenient option when time is short.

Neither device supports wireless charging, and both share non-removable batteries — so those factors cancel out. Taken together, the V60 holds a clear advantage in this category: it stores more energy and replenishes it considerably faster, a combination that directly benefits endurance and daily convenience alike.

Audio is another category where both devices land in exactly the same place. The Vivo V60 and Vivo Y400 4G both feature stereo speakers — a genuine plus for media consumption, as dual-speaker setups deliver wider soundstage and better volume balance compared to single-speaker alternatives. Beyond that, the spec sheets are mirror images: neither phone includes a 3.5 mm headphone jack, meaning wired audio requires a USB-C adapter or a Bluetooth solution on both devices.

On the wireless audio front, neither phone supports high-fidelity codecs such as aptX, LDAC, or any of their variants. For most users streaming music at standard quality, this is unlikely to matter. However, audiophiles who invest in premium Bluetooth headphones and want to extract the best possible wireless audio quality will find both phones equally limited in this regard.

With every tracked spec identical across the board, this group is an unambiguous tie. Neither the V60 nor the Y400 4G offers any audio advantage over the other — the decision here comes down entirely to how much the shared stereo speaker setup and lack of a headphone jack align with a buyer's personal listening habits.

The most consequential differentiator in this category is cellular connectivity. The V60 supports 5G, while the Y400 4G is limited to 4G LTE — a distinction that matters not just for current network speeds, but for longevity. As 5G infrastructure continues to expand, the V60 is better positioned to remain relevant on faster networks over its lifespan. Complementing this, the V60 runs Bluetooth 5.4 versus the Y400 4G's Bluetooth 5.0, with the newer version offering improved connection stability, lower energy consumption, and better handling of multiple simultaneous device connections.

Another exclusive feature on the V60 is its infrared (IR) sensor, which allows the phone to function as a universal remote for TVs, air conditioners, and other compatible appliances — a practical convenience the Y400 4G simply cannot replicate. Everything else in this group is shared equally: both phones offer dual SIM slots, NFC for contactless payments, USB Type-C, GPS with Galileo support, a fingerprint scanner, gyroscope, and Wi-Fi 5 — a solid common baseline for everyday connectivity needs.

Across the three meaningful differentiators — 5G support, Bluetooth version, and the IR sensor — the V60 holds a clear and consistent advantage. None of these gaps are individually dramatic, but together they paint the V60 as the more future-ready and feature-complete device in terms of connectivity and hardware extras.

This is a slim category with only one meaningful point of difference. Both phones share a video light and neither features sapphire glass or an e-paper display — leaving the curved display on the Y400 4G as the sole distinguishing trait. A curved screen creates a more premium, edge-to-edge aesthetic and can feel sleeker in hand, but it also comes with practical trade-offs: curved edges are generally more vulnerable to cracking on impact and can introduce unintentional touch inputs along the sides.

The V60's flat display, by contrast, is typically easier to protect with standard screen protectors and cases, and avoids the edge-distortion that curved panels can produce with certain content. Whether the curve reads as a feature or a liability depends largely on personal preference and usage habits — neither choice is objectively superior based on the provided data alone.

Given how narrow this category is, it amounts to a near tie with a stylistic distinction. Users who value a more sculpted, premium look will appreciate the Y400 4G's curved screen; those who prioritize practical screen protection and flat-display usability will find the V60's approach more straightforward. Neither phone holds a functional advantage here that would meaningfully influence a purchase decision.