vivo X200 Ultra vs Xiaomi 14 Ultra: A Head-to-Head Flagship Battle
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing raw performance and sustained gaming, the vivo X200 Ultra emerges as the winner. Its Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset, built on a 3nm process, delivers a noticeable advantage. However, the Xiaomi 14 Ultra offers a compelling package with faster wireless charging and a slightly more refined software experience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo X200 Ultra | Xiaomi 14 Ultra |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 42, 48, 66 - International |
| 5G bands | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 48, 66, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 89 SA/NSA | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 48, 66, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2025, April 21 | 2024, February 22 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, April 29 | Available. Released 2024, February 22 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Shield Glass), glass back or silicone polymer back (eco leather), titanium frame (grade 5) or aluminum alloy frame |
| Dimensions | 163.1 x 76.8 x 8.7 mm (6.42 x 3.02 x 0.34 in) | 161.4 x 75.3 x 9.2 mm (6.35 x 2.96 x 0.36 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 229 g or 232 g (8.08 oz) | 219.8 / 224.4 / 229.5 g (7.76 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Armor glass | Xiaomi Shield Glass |
| Resolution | 1440 x 3168 pixels (~510 ppi density) | 1440 x 3200 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~522 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.82 inches, 113.0 cm2 (~90.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.73 inches, 108.9 cm2 (~89.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | LTPO AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 2160Hz PWM, Dolby Vision, HDR Vivid, 4500 nits (peak) | LTPO AMOLED, 68B colors, 120Hz, 1920Hz PWM, Dolby Vision, HDR10+, 1000 nits (typ), 3000 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x4.32 GHz Oryon V2 Phoenix L + 6x3.53 GHz Oryon V2 Phoenix M) | Octa-core (1x3.3 GHz Cortex-X4 & 3x3.2 GHz Cortex-A720 & 2x3.0 GHz Cortex-A720 & 2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A520) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8750-AB Snapdragon 8 Elite (3 nm) | Qualcomm SM8650-AB Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 830 | Adreno 750 |
| OS | Android 15, OriginOS 5 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, HyperOS |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM, 1TB 16GB RAM | 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM, 1TB 16GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Laser AF, color spectrum sensor, Zeiss optics, Zeiss T* lens coating, LED flash, panorama, HDR, 3D LUT import | Laser AF, color spectrum sensor, Leica lenses, Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama, 67mm filter ring holder (optional) |
| Quad | - | 50 MP, f/1.6-f/4.0, 23mm (wide), 1.0"-type, 1.6µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 50 MP, f/1.8, 75mm (telephoto), 1/2.51", 0.7µm, dual pixel PDAF (10cm - ∞), OIS, 3.2x optical zoom 50 MP, f/2.5, 120mm (periscope telephoto), 1/2.51", 0.7µm, dual pixel PDAF (30cm - ∞), OIS, 5x optical zoom 50 MP, f/1.8, 12mm, 122˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.51", 0.7µm, dual pixel PDAF TOF 3D, (depth) |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.7, 35mm (wide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, dual pixel PDAF, gimbal OIS 200 MP, f/2.3, 85mm (periscope telephoto), 1/1.4", 0.56µm, multi-directional PDAF, OIS, 3.7x optical zoom, macro 3.4:1 (optional add-on zoom lens: f/2.3, 200mm, 2.35x optical zoom, Zeiss optics) 50 MP, f/2.0, 14mm, 116˚ (ultrawide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS | - |
| Video | 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60/120fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps, gyro-EIS, Dolby Vision HDR, 10-bit Log, HDR10+ | 8K@24/30fps, 4K@24/30/60/120fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240/480/960/1920fps, gyro-EIS, Dolby Vision HDR 10-bit rec. (4K@60fps, 1080p) |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR, panorama |
| Single | 50 MP, f/2.5, 24mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, AF | 32 MP, f/2.0, 22mm (wide), 1/3.14", 0.7µm |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, aptX Lossless, LHDC 5 | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, LHDC |
| Infrared port | Yes | Yes |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), BDS (B1I+B1c+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5), GLONASS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1I+B1c+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5), NavIC (L5) |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.2, OTG, DisplayPort | USB Type-C 3.2 Gen 2, DisplayPort, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6/7, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e/7, tri-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, ultrasonic), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, proximity, gyro, compass, barometer |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 90W wired, PD, PPS, QC, UFCS 40W wireless Reverse wired Reverse wireless | 90W wired, PD3.0, QC4, 100% in 33 min 80W wireless, 100% in 46 min 10W reverse wireless |
| Type | Si/C Li-Ion 6000 mAh | Market-dependent versions:· 5000 mAh (Global)· 5300 mAh (China only) |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, Silver, Red | Black, Blue, White, Titanium Gray |
| Models | V2454A, V2454DA | 24031PN0DC, 24030PN60G |
| Price | About 780 EUR | € 663.14 |
| SAR | - | 0.83 W/kg (head) 0.82 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.00 W/kg (head) 1.00 W/kg (body) |
vivo X200 Ultra
- Superior chipset performance with Snapdragon 8 Elite
- Longer battery life in active use
- Brighter display for outdoor visibility
- Slower wireless charging compared to Xiaomi
- Software experience may be less refined than Xiaomi
Xiaomi 14 Ultra
- Faster wireless charging (80W)
- Potentially more polished software experience
- Strong camera system with versatile lens options
- Slightly lower peak display brightness
- Less efficient chipset leading to shorter battery life
Display Comparison
The vivo X200 Ultra boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1816 nits compared to the Xiaomi 14 Ultra’s 1281 nits. This translates to superior visibility in direct sunlight. While both likely employ LTPO technology for adaptive refresh rates, the higher peak brightness of the X200 Ultra provides a more vibrant and engaging viewing experience. The impact of this difference is most noticeable when viewing HDR content or using the phone outdoors.
Camera Comparison
While detailed camera analysis requires dedicated image samples, the underlying hardware suggests a competitive landscape. Both phones are expected to feature large sensors and advanced image processing. However, without specific sensor size data, it's difficult to definitively declare a winner. The Xiaomi 14 Ultra’s reputation for computational photography and versatile lens options (often including a variable aperture) is a strong point. The X200 Ultra will likely focus on maximizing the potential of its primary sensor with the Snapdragon 8 Elite’s ISP capabilities.
Performance
The core differentiator lies in the chipsets. The vivo X200 Ultra’s Snapdragon 8 Elite (3nm) utilizes a unique Oryon V2 Phoenix core configuration (2x4.32 GHz + 6x3.53 GHz), designed for peak performance. The Xiaomi 14 Ultra’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (4nm) employs a more traditional Cortex-X4 based architecture (1x3.3 GHz + 3x3.2 GHz + 2x3.0 GHz + 2x2.3 GHz). The 3nm process of the Snapdragon 8 Elite offers improved power efficiency and thermal headroom, potentially leading to less throttling during extended gaming sessions. While the Gen 3 is powerful, the Elite’s architecture and process node give the X200 Ultra an edge in sustained performance.
Battery Life
The vivo X200 Ultra demonstrates superior battery endurance with a 13:36h active use score, compared to the Xiaomi 14 Ultra’s 11:25h. This difference, despite the Xiaomi’s slightly larger battery capacity (implied, as mAh is not provided), is likely attributable to the more efficient 3nm Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset. The X200 Ultra supports 90W wired charging, while the Xiaomi 14 Ultra also offers 90W wired charging, reaching 100% in 33 minutes. However, the Xiaomi 14 Ultra boasts faster 80W wireless charging (46 minutes to full) compared to the X200 Ultra’s 40W wireless charging.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X200 Ultra if you demand the absolute best in processing power for demanding tasks like video editing, high-end gaming, and multitasking. Its superior chipset and active use battery life make it ideal for power users. Buy the Xiaomi 14 Ultra if you prioritize a well-rounded experience with a focus on camera versatility, faster wireless charging, and a potentially more polished software ecosystem.