Vivo Y58

Vivo Y58

Dual Setup

199 gram

6000 mAh

Android 14

6.72" (Inch)

8GB RAM

Teclast T65 Max

Teclast T65 Max

Dual Setup

( ? )ram

10000 mAh

Android 14

12.95" (Inch)

8GB RAM

Announced

Date

June 2024

March 2024

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

Model Detail

GTIN / MPN

Unknown

Unknown

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

Platform

OS

Android 14

Android 14

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

Available mobile network support options.

SIM

Single / Dual Nano SIM

Single / Dual Nano SIM

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

Score

100
90

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 a/b/g/n/ac, Dual Band

Available enabled features on wireless internet network connection hardware.

Bluetooth

5.1, A2DP, LE

5.2, A2DP, LE

Version and features of Bluetooth hardware.

USB

USB Type-C

USB Type-C

Type of connectivity port hardware.

Score

90
90

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

( ? )

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

Weight

199 g

( ? )

Weight of the device in grams.

Material

Plastic, IP64 Rated

Plastic

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

Color Options

Green, Blue

Gray

Official available body color options.

Score

100
75

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

MediaTek Helio G99

Chipset (CPU) hardware name and series.

GPU

Adreno 613

Mali-G57 MC2

Graphic (GPU) hardware name and series.

Score

100
100

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

8GB

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

Internal

128GB

256GB

Total amount of internal memory storage capacity.

External

MicroSDXC

MicroSDXC

Type of third party memory expansion feature, if available.

Score

100
100

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"

12.95"

Screen size in inches.

Panel

IPS LCD

IPS LCD

Type of display panel hardware.

Resolution

1080 x 2408 pixels

1200 x 1920 pixels

Screen resolution in pixels.

Other

~393 ppi density, 120Hz

~175 ppi density

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

10000 mAh

Battery capacity in milliampere hours (mAh).

Feature

Fast charging 44W

Fast charging 18W

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

Dual Setup

Total number of rear cameras.

+

(Main) 50 MP, f/1.8, PDAF

(Main) 13 MP, AF

Details of the main camera unit.

+

(Depth) 2 MP, f/2.4

(Depth) 0.3 MP

Details of the secondary camera unit, if available.

+

-

-

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

8 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
85

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)

-

Biometric security hardware model, if available.

GPS

Yes, A-GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO

Yes, A-GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO

Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware support and features.

NFC

Yes

-

Near Field Communication (NFC) function support.

Other

Accelerometer, Gyro, Proximity, Compass

Accelerometer, Gyro, Compass

Available sensor hardware type and function.

Score

100
80

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

~ $210

Price in US dollars (USD).

EUR

~ €210

~ €200

Price in Euros (EUR).

Comparison Breakdown

Durability

Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max.

Visual Quality

In the domain of visual quality, the Vivo Y58 outshines the Teclast T65 Max, owing to its superior pixel density measured in pixels per inch (ppi). With an impressive ppi of ~393, the Vivo Y58 surpasses the Teclast T65 Max, which boasts ~175 ppi. the ppi is represents the number of pixels densely packed within a one inch square on a display.

A higher ppi indicates a more concentrated pixel arrangement, resulting in a sharper and more detailed visual experience. This characteristic proves especially advantageous for tasks such as reading text, viewing images, and watching videos. Consequently, the Vivo Y58 elevated ppi contributes to a visually appealing and clear display, ultimately enhancing the overall user experience in comparison to the Teclast T65 Max.

In the realm of display panel technology, the Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Teclast T65 Max.

When comparing the refresh rate time of the Vivo Y58 and the Teclast T65 Max, the Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice due to its maximum 120Hz refresh rate, surpassing the Teclast T65 Max with 60Hz refresh rate. The refresh rate refers to the number of times per second a display refreshes its image. A higher refresh rate results in smoother and more responsive visuals, particularly noticeable during activities like scrolling through content or playing fast paced games. The Vivo Y58 with 120Hz refresh rate ensures a more fluid and seamless user experience, reducing motion blur and enhancing the overall display quality. This feature not only contributes to a visually appealing interface but also elevates the device performance, making it more adept at handling dynamic content with precision and speed.

Connectivity Features

Comparing Vivo Y58 equipped with 5G features to Teclast T65 Max with only 4G capabilities highlights a distinct advantage for Vivo Y58. The incorporation of 5G technology positions Vivo Y58 as a more future proof device, offering faster data speeds and improved connectivity. In contrast, the limited 4G capabilities of Teclast T65 Max may result in a comparatively slower and less efficient network experience. Consequently in this context, Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior option, providing a more modern and technologically advanced mobile experience compared to Teclast T65 Max.

Concerning Wi-Fi sector technology, Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Teclast T65 Max 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 equipped with Bluetooth 5.1, while the Teclast T65 Max comes with more latest Bluetooth 5.2 technology. In this scenario, Teclast T65 Max holds a technological advantage by adopting the more recent Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth 5.2 brings improvements in terms of enhanced services, better connection performance, and increased accuracy in device positioning. Therefore, the integration of Bluetooth 5.2 in the Teclast T65 Max positions it as the superior choice in Bluetooth technology, offering users a more advanced experience when compared with the Vivo Y58.

Leveraging NFC technology, the Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice over the Teclast T65 Max due to its NFC functionality, a feature notably absent in the Teclast T65 Max. The NFC (Near Field Communication) are stands as a wireless technology facilitating swift and seamless data transfer between devices in close proximity. The absence of NFC in the Teclast T65 Max hampers its capacity for convenient interactions, whether it be quick file sharing, contactless payments, or efficient connectivity with other NFC enabled devices. In contrast, the inclusion of NFC in the Vivo Y58 enhances its versatility and practicality, providing users with a broader range of seamless 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 Vivo Y58 is equipped with 8GB of RAM, while the Teclast T65 Max 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.

Referencing the specifications, Vivo Y58 offers internal storage options ranging from 128GB, while Teclast T65 Max surpasses this with an impressive 256GB internal memory storage. The significant advantage of having a larger internal storage capacity is evident in Teclast T65 Max, allowing users to store a significantly greater amount of data, applications, and multimedia content. This extensive storage is especially beneficial for users engaged in activities such as high resolution video recording, photography, and downloading large applications or files. Teclast T65 Max stands out as a superior choice for individuals prioritizing extensive internal storage for their device.

Differing from the Vivo Y58, the Teclast T65 Max stands out by offering an extra feature external memory expansion option. This feature, notably absent in the Vivo Y58, proves to be quite beneficial for users seeking versatility and increased storage flexibility. With this capability, users can enhance the device existing storage by adding a compatible external memory card. It's particularly advantageous for individuals needing extra space to store large files, multimedia content, or additional applications, all without being confined to the limitations of the device internal storage. The external memory expansion feature empowers users to personalize and expand their storage capacity based on their evolving needs, providing a convenient 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 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, Teclast T65 Max features a balanced hardware configuration, incorporating the MediaTek Helio G99 processor and Mali-G57 MC2. 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 MediaTek Helio G99 and Mali-G57 MC2 tandem enables the Teclast T65 Max 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 Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max is likely to be comparable.

Achieving an optimal gaming experience, the comparison of screen sizes between the Vivo Y58 and the Teclast T65 Max may one of emerges as a crucial factor. The Vivo Y58, equipped with a 6.72" screen, is notably smaller than the Teclast T65 Max, which boasts a more generous 12.95" display. This substantial contrast in size is poised to exert a significant impact on the gaming experience. A larger screen, exemplified by the Teclast T65 Max, offers gamers a more expansive and immersive field of view, enhancing the appreciation of in-game details and facilitating improved navigation within virtual environments. This advantage becomes especially critical in gaming scenarios that require precision and swift reactions. Consequently, the Teclast T65 Max, with its larger screen size, is positioned to deliver a superior gaming experience by providing players with a more visually immersive and enjoyable platform.

Comparing the screen refresh rates for gaming experience, the Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice with its impressive 120Hz refresh rate, surpassing the Teclast T65 Max that only comes with 60Hz capability. The higher refresh rate of the Vivo Y58 translates to smoother motion and more responsive visuals during gaming sessions, providing a competitive edge for gamers. The 120Hz refresh rate allows for quicker updates of on screen content, reducing motion blur and enhancing the overall gaming performance. A higher refresh rate is crucial for delivering a more immersive and fluid gaming experience, particularly in fast paced games where quick reactions are essential.

Camera Features

When it comes to the main camera features, both the Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max provide similar main camera capabilities, making it a matter of user preference and other device features when choosing between the two.

Navigating the landscape of main camera resolution, the Vivo Y58 emerges as a standout against the Teclast T65 Max, showcasing an impressive 50 MP camera, while the Teclast T65 Max only comes with 13 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 Teclast T65 Max 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 Teclast T65 Max. 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.

When look on to front camera features of the Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max, a striking similarity becomes apparent, as both devices are equipped with an 8 MP front facing camera. This identical camera setup results in a tie when evaluating this specific aspect of the devices. While the resolution remains the same, it's important to note that factors such as sensor quality, image processing algorithms, and additional features can still contribute to nuanced differences in the overall front camera performance. However, in terms of the basic front camera megapixel count, the Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max stand on equal footing with an 8 MP configuration.

Sadly, the both of Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max 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 Teclast T65 Max 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

Substantial contrast in battery capacity between the Vivo Y58 and the Teclast T65 Max, with the Teclast T65 Max boasting an impressive 10000 mAh compared to the Vivo Y58 10000 mAh, significantly impacts their overall performance. In this scenario, the larger battery in the Teclast T65 Max proves advantageous for several reasons. A bigger battery translates to a higher energy reservoir, allowing the device to sustain prolonged usage without requiring frequent recharges. This is particularly beneficial for users who heavily rely on their smartphones throughout the day, ensuring that the Teclast T65 Max can provide a longer lasting and more dependable power supply.

In a positive turn of events, both the Vivo Y58 and Teclast T65 Max come equipped with fast charging features. However, upon closer inspection, the Vivo Y58 emerges as the superior choice. While the Teclast T65 Max offers a respectable 18W 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

At the security features, Vivo Y58 demonstrates superiority over Teclast T65 Max, primarily owing to its incorporation of a dedicated biometric sensor designed to enhance the device security. This contrasts sharply with Teclast T65 Max, which lacks a dedicated biometric sensor, resulting in all security measures remaining at a standard level. The absence of a specialized security sensor on Teclast T65 Max places it at a disadvantage, as Vivo Y58 provides users with an elevated and secure means of device access and authentication through its dedicated biometric feature.

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

  • Multiple rear camera options
  • Latest Bluetooth technology
  • Large RAM capacity
  • Large internal memory
  • Expandable storage with external memory card
  • Fast charging feature

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

  • Lacks 5G network support
  • Lacks NFC feature
  • Low quality body material used
  • No physical security sensor supported
  • Average WLAN connection speed

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

Teclast T65 Max

Build Quality : 75
Display : 90
Camera : 85
Performance : 100
Memory : 100
Network : 90
Connectivity : 90
Battery : 100
Sensor : 80
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 Teclast T65 Max, 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 Teclast T65 Max, based on the final score data.

The Winner is :

Teclast T65 Max

Teclast T65 Max

After comparing the specifications data above, we can confidently say that Teclast T65 Max 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
Teclast T65 Max

Teclast T65 Max

Amazon