Conclusion on the Vivo X300 FE
Vivo demonstrates that, with just a few minor compromises, it’s possible to bring the price of a smartphone well below 1,000 euros without sacrificing that high-end feel. The X300 FE is compact yet features a massive battery with an endurance that puts many significantly more expensive phones to shame.
The camera system features slightly smaller sensors than the manufacturer’s top-of-the-line models, but some of these are actually more light-sensitive than those in the larger models and delivered very good image quality in our review. It also comes with high-end accessories like the Zeiss super-telephoto lens.
While the Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 isn't quite a top-of-the-line SoC, it's more than sufficient for the vast majority of tasks. The high-quality build and fast charging are additional pluses, as are the fast storage and the generous 12 GB of RAM.
The only thing you’ll have to do without is a high-speed USB port, but the long update window makes up for it.
Pros
Cons
Price and Availability
In the US, you will have to look for an import version of the Vivo X300 FE as the phone is not being sold there officially.
In many other parts of the world, the phone is available for around US$ 1,100.
- $14.99QUIETIP Magnetic Case for vivo X300 FE with Screen Protector,[Compatible with MagSafe] Translucent Matte Drop Protection Cover,Black
- $963.30Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, Unlocked Android Smartphone, 256GB, Privacy Display, Galaxy AI, AI Camera, Super Fast Charging 3.0, Durable Battery, 2026, US 1 Year Warranty, Sky Blue
- $869.73Samsung Galaxy S26, Unlocked Android Smartphone, 512GB, Powerful Processor, Galaxy AI, Immersive Viewing, Durable Battery, 2026, US 1 Year Warranty, Black
Table of Contents
- Conclusion on the Vivo X300 FE
- Specifications
- Case and Features – High Quality thanks to Metal and Glass
- Communication and Usability – Lightning-Fast Wi-Fi on the China Phone
- Software and Sustainability – Updates like Samsung's
- Cameras – They live up to their Name
- Display – HDR and high PWM Frequency
- Performance, emissions, and battery life — Not quite top-tier, but very fast
- Notebookcheck Overall Rating
- A Comparison of Possible Alternatives
Specifications
Case and Features – High Quality thanks to Metal and Glass
Visually, the Vivo X300 FE differs significantly from its larger siblings: The camera module is housed in an oval-framed strip that spans the entire width of the body, rather than in a round module like on the larger X300 models. This design is reminiscent of Google’s Pixel smartphones. The Zeiss branding makes it clear that high-quality optics are built into the device.
Purple and dark gray are the color options; internationally, a green version is also available. The back is made of matte glass and, combined with a metal frame, gives it a very high-quality look. The phone is very sturdily built and did not bend during our test. Narrow bezels around the display give the phone a modern look.
Weighing just over 190 grams, the Vivo X300 FE is lightweight, yet it offers IP68/IP69 protection against water and dust.
Unfortunately, it lacks the fast USB 3.2 port found on the top-of-the-line models; this model only features USB 2.0. It comes with 512 GB of storage and 12 GB of RAM; internationally, a model with 256 GB of storage is also available.
Communication and Usability – Lightning-Fast Wi-Fi on the China Phone
The phone supports a wide range of 4G and 5G frequencies, allowing you to connect to a cellular network almost anywhere in the world.
It features fast Wi-Fi 7, and our Asus RT-BE96U router connects to the phone using this very fast Wi-Fi standard. This enables speeds of up to 1,958 Mbit/s. That’s more than enough for fast home networks, and the connection proved very stable in our test.
The screen displays up to 120 frames per second and the touchscreen is precise and highly responsive, offering a smooth gliding experience for your finger.
The fingerprint reader is hidden relatively high up behind the screen. It responds very quickly to a finger placed on it and unlocks the phone instantly. Face recognition can also be used to unlock the phone.
| Networking | |
| Vivo X300 FE | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Google Pixel 10a | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Oppo Find X9s Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| OnePlus 15T | |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
Software and Sustainability – Updates like Samsung's
The security patches date from May 2026 and are updated approximately every two months. With a good internet connection, the system completes updates within a few minutes.
The manufacturer promises seven years of update support, as well as five new versions of Android. This is a very long update period that can rival that of Apple or Samsung.
The packaging is plastic-free, but otherwise there is little information about the smartphone’s sustainability.
Cameras – They live up to their Name
The main camera offers 50 megapixels and a very high light sensitivity of f/1.57. It is based on the Sony IMX921 sensor and delivers high-quality images with sharp detail and accurate reproduction of difficult colors such as red or yellow. Even fine details are clearly visible.
The telephoto camera offers a 3x optical zoom; however, since its focal length is already twice that of the standard camera, this results in a hybrid zoom of up to 6x magnification. Images look very appealing up to 10x zoom; beyond that, AI takes over the post-processing up to 100x, which leads to imprecise results. Nevertheless, this feature works well as a substitute for binoculars, for example.
The 8-megapixel wide-angle camera takes decent snapshots, though it lacks precision in the details.
A 50-megapixel camera is available for selfies. Self-portraits appear detailed, and the dynamic range is acceptable.
Image comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Hauptkamera PflanzeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low LightUltraweitwinkel
Display – HDR and high PWM Frequency
The Vivo X300 FE features a bright screen, though it can't quite keep up with the best phones.
Nevertheless, it offers HDR support, accurate color reproduction, and a high PWM rate of over 360 Hz, which can be an advantage for people who are sensitive to it.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 1096 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 0.62 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.72}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.97}
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
CCT: 6573 K
| Vivo X300 FE AMOLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | Google Pixel 10a pOLED, 2424x1080, 6.3" | Oppo Find X9s Pro LTPO OLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy S26 Dynamic AMOLED 2XDynamic AMOLED 2X, 8 Bit color depth, 2340x1080, 6.3" | OnePlus 15T OLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 45% | -17% | 30% | 18% | |
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 2035 | 3050 50% | 1769 -13% | 2645 30% | 1745 -14% |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 2100 | 2925 39% | 1688 -20% | 2730 30% | 3125 49% |
| Response Times | 1% | -102% | 16% | -292% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 1.3 ? | 1.42 ? -9% | 3.1 ? -138% | 0.62 ? 52% | 12.4 ? -854% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 1.1 ? | 1.07 ? 3% | 3 ? -173% | 1.32 ? -20% | 1.2 ? -9% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 360.9 | 240 | 167.1 | 240 | 120.7 |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 16 | 14.71 8% | 15 6% | 13.6 15% | 18 -13% |
| Screen | -34% | -121% | -81% | -118% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1096 | 2205 101% | 1133 3% | 1341 22% | 1119 2% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1063 | 1108 4% | 1337 26% | 1101 4% | |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 92 | 96 4% | 96 4% | 96 4% | |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.62 | 1.4 -126% | 2.29 -269% | 2.4 -287% | 2.22 -258% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.53 | 2.3 -50% | 5.32 -248% | 4 -161% | 5.18 -239% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1 | 1.6 -60% | 3.2 -220% | 1.9 -90% | 3.2 -220% |
| Gamma | 2.24 98% | 2.23 99% | 2.229 99% | 2.06 107% | 2.243 98% |
| CCT | 6573 99% | 6715 97% | 7113 91% | 6497 100% | 7147 91% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 4% /
-5% | -80% /
-97% | -12% /
-34% | -131% /
-141% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 360.9 Hz Amplitude: 16 % |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 360.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 360.9 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7769 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Series of measurements with a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (Although the amplitude curve at minimum brightness appears flat, this is due to the scaling. The info box shows a magnified version of the amplitude at minimum brightness.)
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 5 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 1.3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.7 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31 ms). | ||
Performance, emissions, and battery life — Not quite top-tier, but very fast
The Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 can't quite keep up with Qualcomm's elite models or the MediaTek Dimensity 9500, but it’s still a very powerful SoC that can handle the vast majority of tasks with ease.
Thanks to the very fast UFS 4.1 storage, data transfers are speedy and load times are short.
The maximum temperature under prolonged load is 116.06 °F (46.7 °C), which is noticeable and can become problematic. The SoC throttles after prolonged use, resulting in a power loss of about 30%.
The speaker on the bottom edge is supplemented by the earpiece and doesn’t reach very high volumes. The sound is well-balanced overall, and it’s perfectly fine for listening to pop songs.
The battery, with a capacity of 6,500 mAh, is generously sized but can’t compete with a OnePlus 15T, which offers an additional 1,000 mAh.
Accordingly, the battery life of 24:45 hours in our Wi-Fi test is good, but not outstanding. The Vivo X300 FE offers fast charging at up to 90 watts and even wireless charging at up to 40 watts.
| Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total | |
| Vivo X300 FE | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| OnePlus 15T | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 (180.6 - 322, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (60.2 - 423, n=126, last 2 years) | |
| Vivo X300 FE | Google Pixel 10a | Oppo Find X9s Pro | Samsung Galaxy S26 | OnePlus 15T | Average 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -42% | -25% | -22% | 29% | -2% | -34% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 3752.1 | 1689.27 -55% | 3375.6 -10% | 3923.49 5% | 4115.87 10% | 3645 ? -3% | 2258 ? -40% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 3222.5 | 826.38 -74% | 1987.03 -38% | 2718.09 -16% | 4076.12 26% | 3185 ? -1% | 1942 ? -40% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 421.6 | 326.53 -23% | 434.19 3% | 418.42 -1% | 578.74 37% | 414 ? -2% | 312 ? -26% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 508.6 | 430.37 -15% | 239.9 -53% | 124.05 -76% | 721.05 42% | 496 ? -2% | 363 ? -29% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.7 °C / 116 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.7 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
3DMark Stress Tests
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Oppo Find X9s Pro | |
| Google Pixel 10a | |
| OnePlus 15T | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Vivo X300 FE | |
| Google Pixel 10a | |
| Oppo Find X9s Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| OnePlus 15T | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Vivo X300 FE | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Vivo X300 FE | |
| Google Pixel 10a | |
| Oppo Find X9s Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
Vivo X300 FE audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy S26 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
| Vivo X300 FE 6500 mAh | Google Pixel 10a 5100 mAh | Oppo Find X9s Pro 7025 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S26 4300 mAh | OnePlus 15T 7500 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | -19% | 10% | -29% | 38% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 24.8 | 20 -19% | 27.3 10% | 17.7 -29% | 34.3 38% |
| Reader / Idle (h) | 51 | ||||
| H.264 (h) | 28.7 | ||||
| Load (h) | 3.2 |
Notebookcheck Overall Rating
The Vivo X300 FE is compact and quite affordable for a high-end phone.
It offers a wealth of features, long battery life, and excellent cameras.
Vivo X300 FE
- 07/06/2026 v8
Florian Schmitt
Total Sustainability Score: A Comparison of Possible Alternatives
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 86%  | Vivo X300 FE Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 829 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 899€ | 190.2 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.31" 2640x1216 461 PPI AMOLED |
2. 85.3%  | Google Pixel 10a Google Tensor G4 ⎘ ARM Mali-G715 MP7 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 128 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: List Price: 549€ | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.30" 2424x1080 421 PPI pOLED |
3. 87%  | Oppo Find X9s Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: 1. $10.80 linsuyu Case Compatible with... 2. $13.99 TNKISRY Screen Guard for Opp... 3. $10.80 Jiajihua Case Compatible wit... List Price: 800€ | 198 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.32" 2640x1216 460 PPI LTPO OLED |
4. 88.3%  | Samsung Galaxy S26 Samsung Exynos 2600 ⎘ Samsung Xclipse 960 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 999€ | 167 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.30" 2340x1080 409 PPI Dynamic AMOLED 2XDynamic AMOLED 2X, 8 Bit color depth |
5. 86%  | OnePlus 15T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: 1. $989.34 Samsung Galaxy S26+, Unlocke... 2. $499.00 Google Pixel 10a - 30+ Hours... 3. $268.99 OnePlus 10T, 128GB + 8GB RAM... List Price: 600€ | 194 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.32" 2640x1216 460 PPI OLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was freely purchased by the author at his/her own expense. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Add as a preferred source on Google
