Vivo Y58

Vivo Y58

Dual Setup

199 gram

6000 mAh

Android 14

6.72" (Inch)

8GB RAM

Nokia G400

Nokia G400

Triple Setup

198 gram

5000 mAh

Android 12

6.58" (Inch)

4GB RAM

Announced

Date

June 2024

August 2022

Official announcement date only, not the date for product release.

Model Detail

GTIN / MPN

Unknown

N1530DL

Product identifier details, such as a unique serial number, build number, or model ID.

Platform

OS

Android 14

Android 12

Operating system type (OS) and version number.

Firmware

FuntouchOS 14

Android Stock UI

Specific firmware name used on the device.

Network

Bands

2G / 3G / 4G / 5G

2G / 3G / 4G / 5G

Available mobile network support options.

SIM

Single / Dual Nano SIM

Dual SIM, Nano SIM

Type and support for Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) feature.

Score

100
100

Mobile network functionality is an important feature that must be available on modern devices. This feature enables users to use a SIM card to access online networks, facilitating connections between individuals. Good mobile networks must have a fast connection, use the latest technology, and adopt extra features to support the needs of users.

In our matrix calculation, we calculate the mobile network score using a technology adoption approach. If a device offers more complete features on the network bands and uses extra features on the SIM card function, it will receive a higher score. A higher score on this segment will provide a faster and more flexible experience when using the mobile network function.

Connectivity

WLAN

Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, Dual Band

Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n/ac, Dual Band

Available enabled features on wireless internet network connection hardware.

Bluetooth

5.1, A2DP, LE

5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive

Version and features of Bluetooth hardware.

USB

USB Type-C

USB Type-C

Type of connectivity port hardware.

Score

90
80

Similar to the mobile network function, the connectivity feature is also an important feature for modern devices. With this feature, devices can connect to other supporting gadgets, such as internet routers, computers, speakers, wearable devices, and others.

Good connectivity features on devices must adopt all the latest wireless connection technologies available. This ability allows devices to make more connections to other devices using the latest Bluetooth technology with lower latency and achieve faster internet connection from the WLAN network.

In this situation, we use a calculation methodology with a technology approach. If a device supports more features on the WLAN function, uses the latest Bluetooth version, and has a modern universal connection port, we can assign a high score to the device. This means that a higher score will bring a more flexible user experience in terms of connectivity.

Body & Design

Dimension

165.7 x 76 x 8 mm

166.4 x 76.7 x 8.8 mm

Dimensions of the device in millimeters (Height x Width x Length).

Weight

199 g

198 g

Weight of the device in grams.

Material

Plastic, IP64 Rated

Aluminum

Type of main body materials and any extra features if available.

Color Options

Green, Blue

Gray

Official available body color options.

Score

100
85

The body material is an important consideration for users who want a premium device or need the device for long term use. Therefore, the device must have a good and strong body material component.

In this segmentation, we measure the body and design score using a quality and variety color approach. If a device uses good materials like aluminum and stainless steel, the score will be higher than a device that adopts plastic as the main body material component. If a device uses a more premium body material component and also provides extra protection from water and dust damage, the score will be even higher.

However, we do not include body dimensions and weight information in our matrix calculation because these factors are subjective and can vary from user to user. Some users may prefer larger and bolder devices, while others may prefer smaller and lighter ones. Therefore, we do not include this information in the score calculation.

Performance

CPU

Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 2

Qualcomm Snapdragon 480+

Chipset (CPU) hardware name and series.

GPU

Adreno 613

Adreno 619

Graphic (GPU) hardware name and series.

Score

100
95

The chipset performance on a device is a vital aspect that concerns most people. This is reasonable because most users want a device that can process tasks quickly. The CPU and GPU are the main components that affect performance.

The CPU processes tasks, and the GPU renders images. Both are related to providing the best experience for users. The better the CPU, the more efficient the device will be in terms of battery consumption, because the best CPU is smarter and more advanced in handling system logic.

We calculate the matrix for this segmentation using a performance result approach, where the data is obtained from several benchmark tools. This is done to bring more relevance to the actual data from the performance score. Additionally, the latest chipset model is not always better than the older chipset model because we use an overall performance approach that calculates based on real performance and not just based on the chipset model.

The total score is calculated from the combination of the CPU and GPU scores. The higher the score, the faster and smoother the processing will be for the user's needs.

Memory

RAM

8GB

4GB

Amount of random access memory (RAM) in size capacity.

Internal

128GB

64GB

Total amount of internal memory storage capacity.

External

MicroSDXC

MicroSDXC

Type of third party memory expansion feature, if available.

Score

100
95

Besides the chipset, memory is also an important component that users must consider when purchasing a device, as it is closely related to the device's performance.

For instance, multitasking is a simple example that highlights the importance of memory performance. If the RAM storage is insufficient, the user may not be able to run several apps simultaneously, and if the RAM runs out, the apps may crash, which can cause the device to reboot automatically.

Moreover, modern apps require large RAM usage to run smoothly, making the RAM sector a crucial factor in our matrix calculation score. We can say that 65% of the score comes from the RAM performance.

We also consider the internal storage when calculating our score. A larger internal storage size will result in a higher score, as the internal storage is crucial for multimedia purposes, among others. Therefore, we pay more attention to this sector.

However, we do not include external storage in our matrix score calculation because several modern users prefer to use cloud storage services instead of physical expansion memory. Furthermore, cloud storage services offer many benefits such as ease of use, safety, and lower cost, as opposed to buying external memory expansion, which is more expensive and less safe.

Screen & Display

Size

6.72"

6.58"

Screen size in inches.

Panel

IPS LCD

IPS LCD

Type of display panel hardware.

Resolution

1080 x 2408 pixels

1080 x 2408 pixels

Screen resolution in pixels.

Other

~393 ppi density, 120Hz

20:9 ratio, (~401 ppi density), 120Hz, Corning Gorilla Glass 3

Any extra display and screen features if available.

Score

90
90

To ensure the best user experience while using a device, the display and screen sector must be given special attention by the user. This is because the display and screen sector is the first thing that users see on their device, and high definition images on the display screen will enhance the user experience.

A good display screen hardware and software can greatly enhance activities such as navigating, using apps and games, and enjoying entertainment content on the device. When measuring the quality of a display panel, we look at the technology used, screen resolution, and extra features such as screen refresh rate, PPI, and screen protector. However, screen size is not included in our calculation matrix because it is relative and difficult to quantify.

A higher score on the display and screen segmentation means that the device will have excellent visual quality and provide the user with the best experience for any image or visual activity.

Battery

Type

Li-Po

Li-Po

Type of battery model.

Capacity

6000 mAh

5000 mAh

Battery capacity in milliampere hours (mAh).

Feature

Fast charging 44W

Fast charging 20W

Any extra features related to the power sector, if available.

Charger Model

USB Type-C

USB Type-C

Charging method and type of charger port model.

Score

100
100

A good device is one that can last all day. Modern devices can typically endure for more than 20 hours under normal use, although some may only last for 16 to 18 hours. Therefore, if you want a device with a good battery life, you should pay attention to the battery segmentation on the device.

To help users determine how good the battery sector is on a device, we calculate a score using several metrics. First, we calculate the battery capacity and also consider battery features such as whether it supports fast charging or not.

We also factor in the charger method support to create a score. If the device supports multiple charge methods, such as wireless charging, we give it a higher score in the battery segmentation. However, we do not include battery type information in our matrix calculation because it is unnecessary.

It's important to note that a higher score on the battery segmentation does not necessarily mean that the device will have better battery endurance life than other devices. Although it is usually the case, our score is not based solely on battery life but also on the advanced battery features and support available on the device.

Camera

Rear

Dual Setup

Triple Setup

Total number of rear cameras.

+

(Main) 50 MP, f/1.8, PDAF

(Main) 48 MP, f/1.8, PDAF

Details of the main camera unit.

+

(Depth) 2 MP, f/2.4

(Ultrawide) 5 MP, f/2.2, 115˚

Details of the secondary camera unit, if available.

+

-

(Depth) 2 MP, f/2.4

Details of the third camera unit, if available.

+

-

-

Details of the fourth camera unit, if available.

Front

Single Setup

Single Setup

Total front camera number, if available.

+

8 MP, f/2.1

16 MP

Details of the main front camera unit, if available.

+

-

-

Details of the secondary front camera unit, if available.

Feature

Video Recording 1080p@30fps

Video Recording 1080p@30fps

Available video recording support and features.

Score

85
90

The camera feature is a brilliant thing that modern devices offer. With this feature, we can capture any moment as quickly as possible and share the result directly on social media to show others the interesting moments we capture.

Generally, modern devices come equipped with a single camera, while others have more than one camera setup. This is amazing because with a variety of camera lens styles on a single device, we can take photos in multiple styles, including portrait photos, landscape photos, or take photos of faraway objects using zoom cameras.

A good camera feature should produce high quality, clear images with low noise and offer multiple lens styles. You can determine the quality of the camera feature by looking at the score on the camera segmentation. If the score is high, that means the camera feature on that device is brilliant and very good.

For the matrix calculation, we not only consider individual camera specifications but also combine all information data. We consider how many camera lenses are available on the device, how good the main camera features are for both rear and front cameras, and how good the camera can be used for recording video. All of these factors directly impact the matrix calculation score.

Audio & Sound

Type

Loudspeaker

Loudspeaker

Primary sound system type.

Extras

3.5mm jack, Stereo Speaker

3.5mm jack

Extra sound system features.

Score

100
95

For those who love listening to music, watching movies, and playing competitive online games on their device, it's important to pay attention to the audio and sound quality. Not all modern devices have good audio and sound quality, with many only being average.

To determine the quality of audio and sound, you can check the score we have calculated for this segmentation. Our matrix calculation is based on available features, such as the presence of a 3.5mm jack and stereo speaker support. If a device has these extra features, it will receive a higher score. Additionally, we may give extra points if the device collaborates with popular and trusted sound system makers, as this ensures a higher quality of sound.

Sensor

Biometric

Fingerprint (at the side)

Fingerprint (at the side)

Biometric security hardware model, if available.

GPS

Yes, A-GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO

Yes, A-GPS, GALILEO

Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware support and features.

NFC

Yes

Yes

Near Field Communication (NFC) function support.

Other

Accelerometer, Gyro, Proximity, Compass

Accelerometer, Gyro, Proximity, Compass, Barometer

Available sensor hardware type and function.

Score

100
100

Sensors are an essential part of modern devices, providing various functionalities such as security, utility, payment, navigation, and specialized features for specific situations. A good device should have complete sensor features to fully meet the user's needs. While most modern devices have all standard sensor features, some devices have more complete sensor features than others.

To assess the quality of a device's sensor features, we calculate a score that takes into account all sensor information. However, we focus on two key sensor features, that are common security sensor and the NFC sensor. These are industry standards for all modern devices and play a critical role in ensuring security and convenience for the user.

The score resulting from the matrix calculation reflects how good a device is in terms of sensor features. A higher score indicates that the device has more complete sensor features and is more flexible in use. This, in turn, makes the user happier with the device.

Price

USD

~ $220

~ $260

Price in US dollars (USD).

EUR

~ €210

~ €250

Price in Euros (EUR).

Comparison Breakdown

Durability

The build quality of the Nokia G400 surpasses that of the Vivo Y58, owing to the difference in their construction materials. The Nokia G400 features an aluminum structure body, which generally offers a more robust and premium feel compared to the plastic build of the Vivo Y58. The aluminum constructions tend to provide a sturdier and more durable build, suggesting a higher resistance to physical impacts and wear over time. In contrast, plastic, while lightweight, may be perceived as less resilient in terms of structural integrity. Thus, from a general perspective, the Nokia G400 aluminum build contributes to an overall better built device compared to the Vivo Y58 plastic construction.

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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400.

In terms of screen protection performance, the Vivo Y58 appears rather basic as it notably lacks screen protection glass. On the contrary, the Nokia G400 distinguishes itself with the inclusion of scratch-resistant glass, making it a more advanced choice in this aspect. The presence of scratch-resistant glass on the Nokia G400 not only safeguards the screen against daily wear and tear but also provides a crucial layer of defense against accidental scratches and impacts. This feature significantly enhances the device's durability and longevity, offering users peace of mind and a more resilient smartphone experience.

Visual Quality

In terms of visual quality performance, the Vivo Y58 with its ~393 pixels per inch (ppi), is in direct competition with the Nokia G400, which boasts an even higher ppi of ~401. The Nokia G400 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 Nokia G400, its elevated ppi of ~401 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 Vivo Y58.

In the realm of display panel technology, the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400.

From the screen refresh rate features, the Vivo Y58 and the Nokia G400 align with their 120Hz screen refresh rates. This commonality suggests that both devices deliver a comparable level of smoothness and responsiveness in visual interactions. The refresh rate, measured in hertz (Hz), determines how frequently a display refreshes per second, playing a pivotal role in optimizing the user experience, particularly during activities such as scrolling or gaming. In this comparison, the Vivo Y58 and the Nokia G400 find themselves in a tie, providing users with an equally display performance.

Connectivity Features

If we compare the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400, both are supported by 5G networks, their performance in this aspect will be a tie. The absence of a distinction in their network support positions the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 on equal footing, making the performance in this regard identical. Users seeking advanced 5G connectivity features can find both devices to be equally capable, offering a comparable experience in terms of network performance.

Concerning Wi-Fi sector technology, Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 nor Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 both come equipped with Bluetooth 5.1 technology. This condition results in a tie for both devices, as they use the same Bluetooth version. So, in terms of Bluetooth connectivity, there is no distinct advantage between the Vivo Y58 and the Nokia G400, as they offer comparable features and performance within the realm of Bluetooth technology.

Now, Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 stand on equal ground as both incorporate NFC technology, this results in a draw between the two. NFC (Near Field Communication) is a wireless communication technology that enables the seamless exchange of data between devices in close proximity, typically within a few centimeters. It finds application in various scenarios, from mobile payments to instant data transfer, making it a valuable feature for modern smartphones.

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, Vivo Y58 boasts 8GB of RAM, surpassing Nokia G400 offering 4GB RAM. In this scenario, Vivo Y58 holds a distinct advantage due to its larger RAM capacity. A greater RAM amount is beneficial for multitasking and handling resource intensive applications. With more RAM, the device can efficiently manage multiple tasks simultaneously, leading to smoother performance and faster responsiveness. This translates into a superior user experience, especially for those who engage in demanding tasks or run numerous apps concurrently.

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, Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice over Nokia G400, evident in its internal memory configuration of 128GB, surpassing the 64GB 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. Vivo Y58 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.

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 Vivo Y58 boasts a formidable combination of the Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 processor and Adreno 613, making it a compelling choice for gamers within the mid-tier market segment. While it may not reach the extremes of flagship performance, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 and Adreno 613 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 Vivo Y58 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, Nokia G400 is equipped with entry-level hardware, featuring the Qualcomm Snapdragon 480+ processor and Adreno 619. While not tailored for hardcore gaming enthusiasts, this device still holds its ground for casual gaming experiences. The combination of the Qualcomm Snapdragon 480+ and Adreno 619 allows the Nokia G400 to handle less graphics intensive games smoothly and efficiently. However, its technical specifications suggest that it might struggle with the demands of high-end, resource intensive gaming. Nevertheless, for users looking for a budget friendly smartphone that can handle everyday tasks and provide a decent gaming experience at lower to mid-level graphic settings, the Nokia G400 remains a viable and cost effective option.

Move to RAM specification hardware, the comparison between Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 suggests that the former may offer a superior performance due to its larger RAM capacity. A larger RAM amount contributes significantly to the overall performance of a mobile device, particularly in the context of gaming. RAM functions as the temporary storage space for active applications, including games. With a greater RAM capacity, a device like Vivo Y58 can efficiently handle and store more game related data, reducing the likelihood of slowdowns, lags, or interruptions during gameplay. This is crucial for demanding games that require quick data access and smooth transitions. In essence, a larger RAM capacity allows for better and smoother gameplay.

When it comes to optimizing the gaming experience on mobile phones, screen size plays a crucial role in determining visual clarity and immersion. In the context of the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400, the Vivo Y58 boasts a slightly larger 6.72" screen compared to the Nokia G400 is 6.58" display. This slight difference in size can contribute to a more immersive gaming experience for users. A larger screen provides a more expansive field of view, allowing gamers to perceive in game details with greater clarity and precision. This enhanced visibility becomes particularly important in fast paced games where quick reactions are essential. Additionally, a larger screen can make gaming sessions more enjoyable by offering a more engaging and immersive visual experience.

Considering the screen refresh rate for gaming experience, both the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 stand on equal footing with identical 120Hz screen refresh time features. This parity in refresh rates implies that both devices offer the same level of performance in this aspect, resulting in a tie between them. The 120Hz refresh rate shared by Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 ensures smoother transitions between frames, reducing motion blur and contributing to an enhanced gaming experience. As neither device holds a distinct advantage in this particular feature, users can expect a comparable and satisfactory gaming performance from both the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400, making the choice between them more dependent on other factors.

Camera Features

Vivo Y58 appears to be in for some tough competition from the Nokia G400. While the Vivo Y58 settles for a Dual Setup, the Nokia G400 takes things up a notch with its impressive Triple Setup arrangement. With more lenses features at its disposal, the Nokia G400 promises a richer and more diverse set of features for photography enthusiasts. This expanded camera system likely incorporates various focal lengths and capabilities, giving users a more advanced and versatile tool for capturing moments. In comparison, the Vivo Y58 Dual Setup appears comparatively limited, placing the Nokia G400 in a favorable position for those who prioritize a more comprehensive main camera experience.

Navigating the landscape of main camera resolution, the Vivo Y58 emerges as a standout against the Nokia G400, showcasing an impressive 50 MP camera, while the Nokia G400 only comes with 48 MP. Higher megapixel counts typically correlate with finer details and heightened clarity in captured images. This increased resolution opens up possibilities for more extensive cropping and zooming without sacrificing image quality, a significant boon for photography enthusiasts keen on capturing intricate details.

Furthermore, elevated megapixel counts contribute to heightened performance in well lit conditions, yielding sharp and vibrant images. While it's crucial to acknowledge that megapixels alone do not determine camera quality, a larger count, exemplified in the Vivo Y58, often signals a camera potential for delivering visually stunning and meticulously detailed photographs.

When discussing front camera features, the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400. 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 Nokia G400 holds a distinct advantage over the Vivo Y58. The Nokia G400 boasts a larger 16 MP front camera, while the Vivo Y58 features a 8 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 Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 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 Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 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

Comes to the battery power, it becomes evident that the Vivo Y58 surpasses the Nokia G400. The Vivo Y58 boasts a substantial 6000 mAh battery, while the Nokia G400 falls slightly behind with a 5000 mAh capacity. This discrepancy in battery size positions the Vivo Y58 as the more potent device in terms of power. With a higher milliampere-hour rating, the Vivo Y58 is poised to deliver extended usage and endurance, providing users with a more robust and long lasting battery performance compared to the Nokia G400.

In a positive turn of events, both the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400 come equipped with fast charging features. However, upon closer inspection, the Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice. While the Nokia G400 offers a respectable 20W Fast Charging, the Vivo Y58 outpaces it with a more robust Fast Charging 44W capability. This discrepancy in charging speeds positions the Vivo Y58 as the frontrunner in terms of battery charging time. The faster charging rate of the Vivo Y58 provides users with a swifter and more efficient charging experience, making it the preferred option for those seeking rapid battery replenishment without compromising on performance.

Security Features

Luckly, users can find satisfaction in both the Vivo Y58 and Nokia G400, as both devices are equipped with dedicated biometric sensors. This inclusion enhances the security features of both devices, providing users with a robust means of safeguarding their data and device access. Having a dedicated biometric sensor, offers users a more secure and convenient method of authentication. The uniqueness and precision of biometric data make it challenging for unauthorized users to gain access, contributing to an overall heightened level of security. This not only protects sensitive information but also enhances the user experience by providing a swift and personalized means of unlocking and accessing the device.

Advantages

Pros list

No notable advantages found on this device

  • Full 5G network support
  • High quality build materials
  • Multiple rear camera options
  • NFC capability
  • Large RAM capacity
  • Large internal memory
  • Expandable storage with external memory card
  • Fast charging feature
  • Dedicated biometric sensor
  • Stereo speaker function

No notable advantages found on this device

  • Full 5G network support
  • High quality build materials
  • Multiple rear camera options
  • NFC capability
  • Expandable storage with external memory card
  • Fast charging feature
  • Dedicated biometric sensor

Disadvantages

Cons list

No significant disadvantage features found on this device

  • Average WLAN connection speed
  • Uses old Bluetooth version

No significant disadvantage features found on this device

  • Relatively small RAM capacity
  • Relatively small internal memory capacity
  • Average WLAN connection speed
  • Uses old Bluetooth version

Benchmark

Point Result

Vivo Y58

Build Quality : 100
Display : 90
Camera : 85
Performance : 100
Memory : 100
Network : 100
Connectivity : 90
Battery : 100
Sensor : 100
Audio : 100

Nokia G400

Build Quality : 85
Display : 90
Camera : 90
Performance : 95
Memory : 95
Network : 100
Connectivity : 80
Battery : 100
Sensor : 100
Audio : 95

Final Score

/ 1000

/ 1000

The total score is calculated based on all segmentation scores, and the maximum score is 1000. The total score reflects the overall quality of the device. If a device has a higher total score than its competitors, it is considered better overall.

However, a high total score does not necessarily mean that the device is excellent in all segmentation scores. If you are looking for a device with specific features, it is best to look at the score for that particular segmentation to make an informed decision.

Based on our calculation matrix, the best device overall on this comparison page is :

The Winner is :

Vivo Y58

Vivo Y58

After comparing the specifications data above, we can confidently say that Vivo Y58 has better overall performance than Nokia G400, based on the final score data.

The Winner is :

Both are Winner!

After comparing the specifications data above, we can conclude that Vivo Y58 has a very similar overall performance to Nokia G400, based on the final score data.

The Winner is :

Nokia G400

Nokia G400

After comparing the specifications data above, we can confidently say that Nokia G400 has better overall performance than Vivo Y58, based on the final score data.

[*] This means that there are multiple series numbers (GTIN/MPN) associated with this product.

Prices listed are for reference only and may not reflect the actual market price. Additionally, the price of the product may vary between different countries.

It's important to note that it may not always be 100% correct. Factors such as missing information from the manufacturer or third-party sources, differences in how information is reported, and human error during data collection can impact accuracy.

May Your Lucky Day

Other Popular Comparison From Both Devices :

Vivo Y58

Vivo Y58

Amazon
Nokia G400

Nokia G400

Amazon