Durability

Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 share a similar build quality as both devices are constructed with plastic materials. In this instance, as both phones employ the same build material, it results in a tie in terms of build quality. The overall durability and resilience of the devices would likely be comparable, and any distinctions would likely arise from additional design features or engineering considerations beyond the basic material used. Therefore, the build quality comparison between the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 becomes a neutral factor due to their shared use of plastic.

Both of devices share a common feature in their covers, making their build quality comparable. The utilization of the same material underscores their uniformity in terms of both aesthetics and durability, leaving consumers to make their choices based on other distinguishing features or preferences in the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58.

Visual Quality

In terms of visual quality performance, the Teclast M50 Pro with its ~224 pixels per inch (ppi), is in direct competition with the Vivo Y58, which boasts an even higher ppi of ~393. The Vivo Y58 gains an advantage in this comparison, as the higher ppi number signifies a more densely packed arrangement of pixels within a one inch square on its display.

This increased pixel density results in a sharper, more detailed visual experience. Pixels per inch (ppi) is a metric that quantifies the pixel density on a screen, and a higher ppi generally translates to a clearer display. In the case of the Vivo Y58, its elevated ppi of ~393 indicates a superior capacity to render images, text, and videos with increased clarity, making it more adept at providing users with a visually striking and clear display compared to the Teclast M50 Pro.

In the realm of display panel technology, the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 share a common ground, both featuring IPS LCD screens. IPS LCD brings forth advantages such as wide viewing angles, accurate color reproduction, and enhanced visibility. The identical utilization of IPS LCD in both devices ensures that users can expect a consistent and reliable visual experience. This similarity becomes particularly notable in scenarios where display technology plays a pivotal role, providing users with a comparable and satisfactory viewing experience on both the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58.

When considering the refresh rate feature, the Teclast M50 Pro boasts a 60Hz refresh rate, while the Vivo Y58 takes the experience to the next level with an impressive 120Hz refresh rate. Measured in hertz (Hz), the refresh rate indicates how many times a display refreshes per second. A higher refresh rate enhances visual experiences by contributing to smoother on screen motion, particularly beneficial for gaming and dynamic content. This elevated refresh rate not only minimizes motion blur but also grants a significant competitive advantage in gaming, where swift and precise visual feedback is crucial for an immersive and responsive user experience.

Connectivity Features

Comparing Vivo Y58 that which is only features by 4G network connectivity, to the Teclast M50 Pro that already equipped with 5G capabilities, highlights a significant performance difference, with the latter inherently faster than Vivo Y58. The inclusion of 5G technology in the Teclast M50 Pro positions it as a more advanced and future proof device, offering users faster data speeds and improved connectivity in the swiftly evolving landscape of network technologies. In contrast, the limited 4G network support in Vivo Y58 may result in comparatively slower data transfer rates. Consequently the Teclast M50 Pro emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing swift and efficient mobile connectivity experiences over the limitations of Vivo Y58.

Concerning Wi-Fi sector technology, Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 are on the same level, featuring with the Wi-Fi 5 technology. This similarity in wireless capabilities results in a tie when comparing their Wi-Fi technology. Both devices deliver similar performance in terms of data transfer speeds, connectivity, and efficiency. In this scenario, neither Teclast M50 Pro nor Vivo Y58 holds a distinct advantage over the other, as they share the same technological foundation in the realm of wireless connectivity.

Next, in the Bluetooth technology sector, the Teclast M50 Pro equipped with Bluetooth 5.0, while the Vivo Y58 comes with more latest Bluetooth 5.1 technology. In this scenario, Vivo Y58 holds a technological advantage by adopting the more recent Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth 5.1 brings improvements in terms of enhanced services, better connection performance, and increased accuracy in device positioning. Therefore, the integration of Bluetooth 5.1 in the Vivo Y58 positions it as the superior choice in Bluetooth technology, offering users a more advanced experience when compared with the Teclast M50 Pro.

From the NFC technology perspective, Teclast M50 Pro lacks the NFC feature, while the Vivo Y58 comes equipped with it, making the Vivo Y58 notably superior. The NFC (Near Field Communication) is a wireless technology facilitating smooth data transfer between devices in close proximity. The absence of NFC in the Teclast M50 Pro restricts its capabilities for convenient applications like quick file sharing, contactless payments, and seamless connectivity with other NFC enabled devices. Conversely, the inclusion of NFC in the Vivo Y58 enhances its versatility, providing users with an extended range of applications.

RAM & Storage

In this RAM comparison, our focus is specifically on evaluating the performance of the highest variant RAM option available for both devices. By narrowing the scope to the top tier RAM configurations, we aim to provide a targeted analysis of the devices capabilities in terms of memory capacity and speed. This approach allows for a more direct and relevant assessment, particularly for users who prioritize and invest in the most robust RAM configurations offered by each device.

Considering the specification data, the Teclast M50 Pro is equipped with 8GB of RAM, while the Vivo Y58 offers a range of 8GB. Ultimately, both devices share an equivalent RAM configuration, resulting in a tie between them. A substantial RAM amount is advantageous for device performance, enabling smoother multitasking and efficient handling of memory intensive tasks. With ample RAM, applications can run concurrently without experiencing slowdowns or performance bottlenecks. This becomes particularly beneficial for users who engage in activities such as gaming, video editing, or running multiple applications simultaneously.

Similar to our approach in comparing RAM, we focus exclusively on evaluating the highest variant of internal memory available for both devices. This targeted comparison ensures a comprehensive analysis of the devices storage capabilities by considering their top tier configurations. By concentrating on the highest internal memory variants, we provide users with insights relevant to those seeking maximum storage capacity and performance. This approach acknowledges that consumers who opt for the highest memory configurations prioritize ample storage for various applications, multimedia content, and files.

Referring to the specification data, Teclast M50 Pro emerges as the superior choice over Vivo Y58, evident in its internal memory configuration of 256GB, surpassing the 128GB range offered by the latter. The advantage of having a larger internal memory becomes apparent as it allows users to store a greater volume of data, including apps, photos, videos, and files. This expanded storage capacity is particularly advantageous for users with extensive multimedia libraries, those engaged in content creation, or those who require ample space for various applications. Teclast M50 Pro higher internal memory range positions it as a more suitable option for individuals seeking a device with generous storage capabilities, accommodating diverse needs and ensuring a smoother user experience.

Highlighting a notable distinction, the Vivo Y58 introduces an interesting feature by incorporating external memory expansion, a capability notably absent in the Teclast M50 Pro. This feature proves advantageous for users seeking enhanced storage flexibility. With external memory expansion, Vivo Y58 users can easily amplify their device storage by adding a compatible external memory card. This becomes particularly beneficial for individuals who require additional space for storing diverse data, be it large files, multimedia content, or extra applications. The external memory expansion feature empowers users to tailor and expand their storage capacity based on their evolving needs, offering a practical solution for those with dynamic or expanding data requirements.

Gaming Experience

Within the domain of gaming experience comparisons, evaluating performance by individual devices on a global scale becomes a more viable approach, given the inherent challenges associated with directly comparing devices side by side based solely on CPU and GPU specifications. The complexity, nuanced software optimizations, and diverse user preferences make a comprehensive side by side comparison using hardware specifications alone a difficult task. Relying solely on such technical data may lead to ambiguous or misrepresented results. Therefore, focusing on the overall performance of individual devices can provides a more holistic perspective.

First, The Teclast M50 Pro boasts a formidable combination of the Unisoc T616 processor and Mali-G57, making it a compelling choice for gamers within the mid-tier market segment. While it may not reach the extremes of flagship performance, the Unisoc T616 and Mali-G57 collaboration ensures a commendable gaming experience. This smartphone caters well to the demands of the middle class gaming community, striking a balance between affordability and performance. The CPU and GPU specifications allows the Teclast M50 Pro to proficiently handle graphic intensive tasks at mid to high presets, providing users with a satisfying and immersive gaming performance without stretching the boundaries of budget constraints.

Next, Vivo Y58 features a balanced hardware configuration, incorporating the Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 processor and Adreno 613. Positioned as a device catering to the middle-class gaming segment, this combination allows for a satisfactory gaming experience at mid-level presets. While it may not compete with flagship devices in terms of extreme graphics performance, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 and Adreno 613 tandem enables the Vivo Y58 to proficiently handle gaming tasks at mid to high graphic presets. Overall, the device delivers a commendable performance, ensuring users a smooth and enjoyable experience across various gaming scenarios, striking a practical balance between performance and affordability.

Reflecting the hardware performance specifications, both the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 may showcase real life performance results that are either side by side or nearly identical. While not perfectly identical, the subtle differences between the two devices may not significantly impact the overall gaming experience. The closely matched specifications suggest that users can expect a similar level of performance from both devices in terms of gaming. Whether navigating through graphics intensive games or engaging in casual gaming experiences, the overall gaming performance of the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 is likely to be comparable.

For an optimal gaming experience, the Teclast M50 Pro distinguishes itself with its notably larger 10.1" screen, surpassing the Vivo Y58, which features a comparatively smaller 6.72" display. The discrepancy in screen size proves to be a significant factor, exerting a substantial impact on the gaming experience of these devices. A larger screen not only affords gamers a more expansive and immersive field of view, enhancing the appreciation of in game details and environments, but it also proves crucial in games that demand precision and swift reactions. Furthermore, the larger screen contributes to an even more immersive gaming atmosphere, ultimately elevating the overall enjoyment of the gaming experience.

Discussing screen refresh time, which can be crucial for gaming, the Teclast M50 Pro boasts a 60Hz refresh rate, while the Vivo Y58 takes it up a notch with an impressive 120Hz capability. This distinction places the Vivo Y58 in a more advantageous position, promising enhanced gaming performance for users. The elevated refresh rate ensures smoother transitions between frames, reducing motion blur and delivering a visually immersive gaming experience. Consequently, it is particularly beneficial for fast paced gaming styles.

Camera Features

When it comes to the main camera features, both the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 share a common ground, utilizing a Dual Setup. The similarity in their camera configurations suggests that the two devices offer a comparable photography experience. So, in this case, the outcome is a tie, as both the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 provide similar main camera capabilities, making it a matter of user preference and other device features when choosing between the two.

Transitioning to main camera resolution, the Teclast M50 Pro introduces a 13 MP camera, while the Vivo Y58 boasts an impressive 50 MP. In this aspect, the Vivo Y58 holds the edge, as its larger megapixel count surpasses that of the Teclast M50 Pro. The significance of a higher megapixel count lies in its ability to capture more intricate details and offer heightened clarity in images. A larger resolution facilitates extensive cropping and zooming capabilities without compromising on the quality of the captured content.

This advantage becomes particularly pronounced in scenarios where users prioritize precision and intricate detailing in their shots. While it's essential to consider other factors for a comprehensive evaluation of camera performance, a higher megapixel count, as evident in the Vivo Y58, often indicates a camera potential for delivering visually superior and finely detailed photographs.

When discussing front camera features, the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 appear to be on par, as both devices feature a Single Setup camera configuration. This similarity results in a tie when considering the basic front camera setup. However, it's crucial to note that the differentiation may lie in specific features unique to each devices camera system. Examining additional specifications, such as sensor quality, image processing capabilities, and any specialized features, will likely reveal distinctions that can influence the overall performance and user experience of the front cameras on the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58. While they share a common Single Setup, the truth may be in the details when comparing the specific attributes that contribute to the overall imaging capabilities of these devices.

Inspecting the front camera specifications, it appears that the Vivo Y58 holds a distinct advantage over the Teclast M50 Pro. The Vivo Y58 boasts a larger 8 MP front camera, while the Teclast M50 Pro features a 5 MP front camera. In the realm of photography, a larger megapixel count is generally considered better as it translates to higher image resolution. More megapixels mean the camera can capture finer details and produce sharper images. For front facing cameras, this becomes particularly crucial in the context of selfies, where users often desire clear and detailed self portraits. The larger megapixel count on the Vivo Y58 provides a potential for more clarity, allowing users to capture more intricate facial features and nuances in their selfies, thus contributing to an overall enhanced imaging experience.

Sadly, the both of Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 are lack Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) feature in the video recording sector, leaving them with standard video recording capabilities. OIS is crucial for video recording as it helps mitigate the effects of hand movements, shakes, and vibrations, ensuring that the captured footage remains smooth and stable. Without OIS, videos recorded on devices like the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 may suffer from noticeable jitteriness, particularly in situations where the camera is handheld or subject to external movements. The absence of OIS limits the devices ability to deliver professionally looking and steady video content, which can be a significant consideration for users who prioritize high quality video recording in various environments.

Battery Endurance

Assessment of battery capacity performance between the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58 is currently impeded due to a shortage of data. The absence of comprehensive information prevents an accurate comparison at this point. Patience is advised as we await the completion of data collection, which is crucial for a thorough evaluation of the two devices. Only with a comprehensive dataset can a final and informed judgment be made regarding the battery capabilities of the Teclast M50 Pro and Vivo Y58, allowing consumers to make well-informed decisions based on reliable information.

Due to the information regarding the fast charging feature is still unknown. A complete dataset is essential for evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of the fast charging technology in question. By patiently awaiting the full set of data, we can gain a more accurate understanding of the device's charging capabilities, enabling a more informed and nuanced assessment of its overall charging performance.

Security Features

At the security features, it becomes evident that the Teclast M50 Pro falls short in comparison to the Vivo Y58. The Teclast M50 Pro lacks any dedicated biometric sensor, a notable distinction from the Vivo Y58, where a dedicated biometric sensor is present. This disparity underscores that, in terms of security, the Vivo Y58 holds a distinct advantage over the Teclast M50 Pro. The absence of a dedicated biometric sensor on the Teclast M50 Pro emphasizes the Vivo Y58 superior security features, offering users a more advanced and secure means of device access and authentication.