Vivo Y300 Pro Plus VS Xiaomi 15 Ultra

In terms of physical footprint, both phones are remarkably similar in height and width, but the Xiaomi 15 Ultra is notably thicker at 9.4 mm versus the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus at 7.9 mm. That 1.5 mm difference is perceptible in daily handling — the Vivo sits more comfortably in a pocket and feels slimmer in the hand. The weight gap reinforces this: at 229 g, the Xiaomi 15 Ultra is 30 g heavier than the Vivo's 199 g, a difference most users will notice during extended one-handed use or long calls.

Where the Xiaomi 15 Ultra justifies its added bulk is in water protection. Its IP68 rating means it can withstand submersion in fresh water up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes, making it genuinely waterproof. The Vivo Y300 Pro Plus carries an IP64 rating, which only guarantees protection against water splashes and dust — not submersion. For users who frequently use their phone near pools, in rain, or in humid environments, this is a meaningful real-world distinction, not a paper specification.

Neither device has a rugged build or foldable form factor, so those dimensions are a wash. Overall, the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus has a clear edge in ergonomics — it is lighter and slimmer — while the Xiaomi 15 Ultra holds a significant advantage in environmental durability. The right choice depends on whether portability or water resilience matters more to the buyer.

Both phones use an OLED/AMOLED panel with a 120Hz refresh rate and Always-On Display support, so the baseline experience — smooth scrolling, deep blacks, good contrast — is shared. The screens are also nearly identical in size, with the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus at 6.77″ and the Xiaomi 15 Ultra at 6.73″, making that dimension essentially a non-factor.

The sharpness gap, however, is substantial. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra's 1440 x 3200 px resolution yields a pixel density of 522 ppi, compared to the Vivo's 1080 x 2392 px at 388 ppi. At typical viewing distances, 388 ppi is already sharp enough that most users won't perceive individual pixels — but the Xiaomi's display will render noticeably finer text, crisper UI elements, and more detail in photos and video. For users who consume a lot of media or use their phone for detailed photo editing, this is a tangible difference.

The Xiaomi 15 Ultra also holds a commanding lead in HDR support, covering HDR10, HDR10+, and Dolby Vision — the full suite of major standards. The Vivo Y300 Pro Plus supports none of them, meaning it cannot render the expanded color and contrast range that streaming platforms like Netflix or Amazon Prime serve to compatible devices. Taken together, the Xiaomi 15 Ultra has a clear display advantage, driven by superior resolution and comprehensive HDR coverage.

The chipset divide here is not a subtle one. The Vivo Y300 Pro Plus runs on the Snapdragon 7s Gen 3, a mid-range chip built on a 4 nm process, while the Xiaomi 15 Ultra houses the Snapdragon 8 Elite, Qualcomm's flagship silicon on a 3 nm node. The Geekbench 6 scores make the gap concrete: the Xiaomi achieves a multi-core score of 10,059 versus the Vivo's 3,239 — roughly three times the sustained CPU throughput. In single-core performance, the Xiaomi's 3,234 dwarfs the Vivo's 1,162, meaning even single-threaded tasks like app launches and UI responsiveness are significantly faster on the Xiaomi.

The GPU story is equally one-sided. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra's Adreno 830 carries 1,536 shading units against the Vivo's Adreno 710 with just 128 — a twelvefold difference. Combined with a memory bandwidth of 85.1 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, the Xiaomi is in an entirely different class for graphics-intensive workloads: high-fidelity gaming, video rendering, and computational photography all benefit directly from this headroom. The Vivo's GPU is competent for casual gaming and everyday tasks, but it cannot compete at the demanding end of the spectrum.

On memory and storage, the Xiaomi again leads — 16 GB of RAM at 5300 MHz and 1 TB of internal storage versus the Vivo's 12 GB at 3200 MHz and 512 GB. Faster RAM directly feeds the faster chip, reducing bottlenecks in multitasking. The conclusion is unambiguous: the Xiaomi 15 Ultra holds an overwhelming performance advantage across every measurable dimension in this category.

The rear camera systems tell very different stories. The Vivo Y300 Pro Plus offers a dual-lens setup led by a 50 MP main sensor, while the Xiaomi 15 Ultra fields a four-lens array with a 200 MP primary sensor backed by three additional 50 MP lenses. More impactful than the raw megapixel count is the Xiaomi's 4.3x optical zoom — the Vivo has none, meaning any zoom on the Vivo is purely digital and degrades image quality. For users who frequently shoot distant subjects, events, or portraits at a distance, the absence of optical zoom on the Vivo is a practical limitation every single day.

Video capabilities follow the same pattern. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra records up to 4320p (8K) at 30 fps with full HDR10 and Dolby Vision recording support, while the Vivo tops out at 2160p (4K) at 30 fps with no HDR recording standard supported. For videographers or content creators, the Xiaomi's output is richer in dynamic range and future-proof for high-end displays. The Xiaomi also adds RAW shooting, manual shutter speed, laser autofocus, and 360° panorama — features absent on the Vivo that collectively make it a more capable tool for users who want hands-on control over their shots.

The front cameras are identical at 32 MP with the same aperture, and both share a solid common baseline: OIS, phase-detection autofocus, slow-motion, HDR mode, and a full suite of manual controls for ISO, focus, white balance, and exposure. These shared features mean the Vivo is a capable everyday shooter. However, the Xiaomi 15 Ultra holds an unambiguous and comprehensive camera advantage, particularly for telephoto, video quality, and advanced shooting flexibility.

Across the entire operating system feature set provided, these two phones are remarkably aligned. Both ship with Android 15 and share an extensive list of capabilities: dark mode, dynamic theming, split-screen multitasking, picture-in-picture, customizable notifications, on-device machine learning, and a full suite of privacy controls covering location, camera, and microphone access. For the vast majority of daily software interactions, users of either device will find an essentially identical experience.

The sole differentiator in this category is focus modes, which the Xiaomi 15 Ultra supports and the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus does not. Focus modes allow users to define activity-based profiles that restrict notifications and app access — useful for work, sleep, or deep concentration sessions. It is a quality-of-life feature rather than a fundamental capability, but for users who rely on structured digital boundaries throughout their day, its absence on the Vivo is a minor but genuine gap.

Neither device receives direct OS updates, meaning both depend on their respective manufacturers for Android patches and upgrades. Given how closely matched the two are, this category is essentially a tie, with the Xiaomi 15 Ultra holding only a marginal edge due to focus mode support.

Battery capacity is where the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus reclaims ground lost in earlier categories. Its 7300 mAh cell is a genuinely large battery — 1300 mAh more than the Xiaomi 15 Ultra's already-respectable 6000 mAh. Raw capacity directly translates to time between charges, and a 22% larger battery is a meaningful advantage for heavy users, frequent travelers, or anyone who struggles to reach a charger by end of day. It is worth noting that the Xiaomi's more power-hungry flagship chip and higher-resolution display will draw more current, which somewhat narrows the real-world gap — but on capacity alone, the Vivo has a clear lead.

Wired charging speed is identical at 90W for both devices, so replenishment from a cable is equally fast. The meaningful divergence is wireless charging: the Xiaomi 15 Ultra supports it, the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus does not. Wireless charging is a genuine convenience feature — charging pads on desks, nightstands, and in cars eliminate the need to plug in repeatedly throughout the day. Its absence on the Vivo is a practical limitation for users who have built wireless charging into their routine.

This category produces a split verdict. The Vivo Y300 Pro Plus has the edge in raw endurance thanks to its significantly larger battery, while the Xiaomi 15 Ultra offers greater charging flexibility through wireless support. Which advantage matters more depends entirely on the user's lifestyle — those prioritizing all-day unplugged use will prefer the Vivo, while those who value charging convenience will lean toward the Xiaomi.

Neither phone includes a 3.5 mm headphone jack, so both users are committed to wireless or USB-C audio. On the wireless codec front, the two devices share a strong common foundation — aptX, aptX HD, and aptX Adaptive are all present on both, covering high-quality Bluetooth audio for the majority of compatible headphones on the market. For most wireless listening scenarios, the experience will be comparable.

Where the Xiaomi 15 Ultra pulls ahead is in the two codecs the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus lacks: LDAC and aptX Lossless. LDAC, developed by Sony, transmits audio at up to three times the bitrate of standard Bluetooth, making it the preferred codec for audiophiles using high-resolution wireless headphones. aptX Lossless goes further still, enabling bit-for-bit CD-quality transmission over Bluetooth when conditions allow. Together, these additions make the Xiaomi meaningfully more capable for users who invest in premium wireless audio gear.

The other notable gap is speaker configuration. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra features stereo speakers, while the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus does not — relying instead on a single speaker. For media consumption, video calls, and casual listening without headphones, stereo output creates a wider, more immersive soundstage that a mono speaker simply cannot replicate. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra has a clear audio advantage, excelling in both speaker hardware and high-fidelity wireless codec support.

Wireless connectivity is one of the starkest generational gaps in this comparison. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra supports Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) and Wi-Fi 6E in addition to earlier standards, while the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus tops out at Wi-Fi 6. Wi-Fi 7 delivers substantially higher throughput and lower latency, particularly in congested environments — and the peak download speed figures reflect this directly: 10,000 Mbits/s on the Xiaomi versus 2,900 Mbits/s on the Vivo. Similarly, the Xiaomi's Bluetooth 6 is a full generation ahead of the Vivo's Bluetooth 5.2, bringing improvements in connection reliability, precision ranging, and energy efficiency. Its USB 3.2 port also enables vastly faster wired data transfers compared to the Vivo's USB 2.0 — a meaningful difference for anyone who transfers large files like 4K video directly to a computer.

Two Xiaomi-exclusive features stand out beyond raw speeds. Emergency SOS via satellite allows the device to send distress signals without any cellular or Wi-Fi coverage — a potentially life-saving capability in remote or disaster scenarios that the Vivo simply cannot match. A built-in barometer adds environmental sensing useful for navigation, weather awareness, and altitude tracking, rounding out a more complete sensor suite.

Shared ground includes 5G, NFC, dual-SIM, USB-C, GPS, compass, gyroscope, accelerometer, infrared sensor, and fingerprint scanner — so everyday connectivity needs are well covered on both devices. Still, the Xiaomi 15 Ultra holds a commanding advantage in this category, outpacing the Vivo across Wi-Fi generation, Bluetooth version, USB speed, peak download throughput, and safety features.

The miscellaneous feature set for these two devices is completely identical across every data point provided. Both include a video light, and neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper secondary panel. There is simply no differentiator to analyze here.

This category is an unambiguous tie — no advantage can be assigned to either the Vivo Y300 Pro Plus or the Xiaomi 15 Ultra based on the available specs.