Samsung Galaxy A16 vs vivo X500 Pro (V2622)
The two devices are level: each is ahead in 1 of the measured categories where they differ. Durability score: Samsung Galaxy A16 43/100, vivo X500 Pro (V2622) 43/100.
| Samsung Galaxy A16 | vivo X500 Pro (V2622) | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy class | B | A |
| Durability score | 43/100 | 43/100 |
| Device | smartphone | smartphone |
| Operating system | Android | Android |
| Battery endurance per charge | 45.2 h | 53.7 h |
| Battery lasts at least | 1,200 charge cycles | 1,200 charge cycles |
| Battery capacity | 4,860 mAh | 5,180 mAh |
| Drops survived without defect | 180 | 180 |
| Drop reliability class | B | B |
| Repairability index | 3.18/5 | 2.97/5 |
| Repairability class | C | C |
| OS updates for at least | 5 years | 5 years |
| Dust & water protection | IP54 | IP68 |
| Scratch resistance | Mohs 5 | Mohs 4 |
| User-replaceable battery | Yes | Yes |
| Foldable | No | No |
| Charging power | 10 W | 10 W |
| Charging port | USB-C | USB-C |
| Spare parts | priority parts listed | priority parts listed |
| Model numbers | SM-A165F/DSB | V2622 |
Highlighted cells are better on that measure. Source: EU energy label register (EPREL); values as declared by the suppliers.