The ZTE Blade V40 Pro and Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro 5G represent compelling options in the increasingly competitive sub-$300 smartphone market. Both aim to deliver 5G connectivity and a modern feature set without breaking the bank, but they take different approaches to achieving this goal. This comparison dives deep into their specifications to determine which device offers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro 5G emerges as the stronger choice. Its Snapdragon 695 chipset, built on a more efficient 6nm process, provides a noticeable performance advantage over the ZTE Blade V40 Pro’s Unisoc Tiger T618. While both offer fast charging, the Poco’s slightly faster full charge time and proven endurance rating give it an edge.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - Global |
| 4G bands | LTE | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41 - Global |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA - Global |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | - | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 40, 78 SA/NSA - India |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2022, March 01 | 2022, February 28 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, July 08 | Available. Released 2022, March 23 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 163.9 x 76.2 x 8.3 mm (6.45 x 3.00 x 0.33 in) | 164.2 x 76.1 x 8.1 mm (6.46 x 3.00 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 190 g (6.70 oz) | 205 g (7.23 oz) |
| | - | IP53, dust and splash resistant |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~86.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~86.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 700 nits, 1200 nits (peak) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 660 Gold & 6x1.7 GHz Kryo 660 Silver) |
| Chipset | Unisoc Tiger T618 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 695 5G (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali G52 MP2 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 11 | Android 11, MIUI 13 for POCO |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM | 64GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| | - | UFS 2.2 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 64 MP, (wide), PDAF
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Single | 16 MP | 16 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/3.06" 1.0µm |
| Triple | - | 108 MP, f/1.9, 26mm (wide), 1/1.52", 0.7µm, PDAF - Global version
64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 0.7µm, PDAF - India version
8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 1080p@30ps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR, panorama |
| Single | 16 MP | 16 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/3.06" 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| | - | 24-bit/192kHz audio |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | Yes | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Yes | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 65W wired, 50% in 15 min | 67W wired, PD3.0, QC3, 70% in 22 min, 100% in 41 min |
| Type | Li-Po 5100 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Dark Green, Iridescent White | Laser Black, Laser Blue, Poco Yellow |
| Models | - | 2201116PG |
| Price | About 350 EUR | € 160.40 / $ 419.99 / £ 255.00 / ₹ 12,940 |
| SAR | - | 1.06 W/kg (head) 1.09 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.60 W/kg (head) 0.96 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 119h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-26.8 LUFS (Good)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 335353 (v8), 384646 (v9)
GeekBench: 2063 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 17fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
ZTE Blade V40 Pro
- Extremely fast initial charging (50% in 15 mins)
- Potentially lower price point (depending on region)
- 5G connectivity
- Less efficient Unisoc chipset
- Limited information on display quality
- Uncertain camera performance
Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro 5G
- More efficient Snapdragon 695 chipset
- Proven 119-hour endurance rating
- Support for PD3.0 and QC3 charging standards
- Slightly slower initial charging compared to ZTE
- Full charge takes 41 minutes
- Camera details are limited
Display Comparison
Both devices share an 'Infinite' (nominal) contrast ratio, suggesting typical IPS LCD characteristics. However, detailed display specs like peak brightness, color gamut coverage, and refresh rate are missing for the ZTE Blade V40 Pro. The Poco X4 Pro 5G’s display, while also lacking detailed specs, benefits from Xiaomi’s established display calibration expertise. Without concrete data on the ZTE, the Poco likely offers a more refined visual experience, assuming similar panel quality.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack specific details regarding sensor size, aperture, or image stabilization. This makes a direct comparison difficult. However, Xiaomi generally invests more heavily in camera software and processing, suggesting the Poco X4 Pro 5G likely delivers more consistent and refined image quality. The absence of details on the ZTE Blade V40 Pro’s camera system raises concerns about its overall capabilities, especially in low-light conditions.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro 5G’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 (6nm) boasts a more modern architecture and a smaller fabrication process than the ZTE Blade V40 Pro’s Unisoc Tiger T618 (12nm). This translates to better power efficiency and, crucially, improved sustained performance. While both are octa-core CPUs, the Snapdragon 695’s Kryo 660 Gold cores, clocked at 2.2 GHz, offer a performance edge over the Cortex-A75 cores in the Unisoc chip, which are clocked at 2.0 GHz. The 6nm process also means less heat generation, potentially reducing throttling during extended gaming sessions.
Battery Life
The Poco X4 Pro 5G has an endurance rating of 119 hours, indicating solid battery life. While the ZTE Blade V40 Pro’s battery capacity is unknown, the charging speeds are a key differentiator. The ZTE boasts 65W wired charging, reaching 50% in 15 minutes, while the Poco X4 Pro 5G offers 67W charging with PD3.0 and QC3 support, taking 22 minutes to reach 70% and 41 minutes for a full charge. The Poco’s support for charging standards offers wider compatibility, and while the initial 50% charge is slower, the full charge time isn’t drastically different, and the 119-hour endurance rating suggests efficient power management.
Buying Guide
Buy the ZTE Blade V40 Pro if you prioritize extremely fast initial charging – reaching 50% in just 15 minutes is a significant convenience. Buy the Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro 5G if you value sustained performance, a more efficient chipset, and a slightly longer-lasting battery, making it better suited for gaming and demanding applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Unisoc Tiger T618 in the ZTE Blade V40 Pro struggle with graphically intensive games like PUBG Mobile?
The Unisoc Tiger T618 is a capable chipset for everyday tasks, but it will likely exhibit noticeable frame drops and require lower graphics settings in demanding games like PUBG Mobile. The Snapdragon 695 in the Poco X4 Pro 5G, with its more powerful GPU and efficient architecture, will provide a smoother gaming experience.
❓ How does the 67W charging on the Poco X4 Pro 5G compare to other phones in this price range?
67W charging is relatively fast for phones in the sub-$300 category. While some competitors offer similar wattage, the Poco X4 Pro 5G’s support for PD3.0 and QC3 charging standards ensures compatibility with a wider range of chargers and accessories. This provides greater flexibility for users.
❓ Is the lack of detailed camera specifications on the ZTE Blade V40 Pro a cause for concern?
Yes, the absence of information regarding sensor size, aperture, and image stabilization is concerning. In the smartphone market, camera performance is heavily reliant on these factors. Without this data, it's difficult to assess the ZTE Blade V40 Pro’s camera capabilities, and it likely lags behind the Poco X4 Pro 5G.
