BeastCompare - Personal Tech Battles & Hardware Benchmarks
Home/Battles/Allview Viva C701 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
Lab Benchmark Battle

Allview Viva C701 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5

Direct side-by-side battle analyzing hardware specifications, benchmark percentiles, battery endurance, and category performance advantages.

Tablets & iPads Battle
Comparing 2 devicesSwipe across ⇄
Allview

Allview Viva C701

Allview Viva C701
74/ 100
Launch MSRPPricing on request
Samsung

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
83/ 100
Launch MSRP$1,849.99 USD
WHO WINS WHERE

WHY IS Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 BETTER THAN Allview Viva C701?

Tap an area on the radar to inspect category hardware facts

Allview Viva C701
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5Winner 🏆

BIGGEST HARDWARE DIFFERENCES

Margin Delta
SPEC FACTORAllview VivaSamsung GalaxyLEADER
Refresh Rate60Hz60Hz60Hz
Battery Capacity2,700 mAh4,400 mAh+4,400 mAh
Wired Fast ChargingStandardStandard25W
Main Camera SensorN/AN/A48 MP
Screen Display Size7"7.6"7.6"
Chassis Weight296g253g253g Lightest

Which Phone Should You Buy: Key Reasons & Hardware Advantages

Swipe across ⇄
Reasons to buy Allview Viva C701:
  • 7" display with 120Hz ProMotion refresh rate
Reasons to buy Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5:
  • 43g lighter chassis (253g) optimized for one-handed ergonomics
  • $8149.01 lower launch MSRP ($1849.99 vs $9999)
  • Larger 4,400 mAh battery capacity (+1,700 mAh more capacity)

How Do the Specifications Compare Side-by-Side?

Swipe across ⇄
SpecificationAllview Viva C701Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5
1. Key Hardware Specifications (Tablets & iPads)
osAndroid 5.1 (Lollipop)Android 13, up to 4 major upgrades
ram gb112
camerasmainmain, selfie
displayCapacitive touchscreen 7" (600 x 1024 pixels (~170 ppi pixel density)) 170 PPIFoldable Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 120Hz, HDR10+ 7.6" (1812x2176 pixels) 373 PPI
weight g296253
os version5.113
battery mah27004400
connectivitysim: No, usb: microUSB 2.0, wlan: Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, network: No cellular connectivity, bluetooth: No
release date2015-09-012023-07-01
storage options gb8256, 512, 1024
socSnapdragon 8 Gen 2
Launch MSRPPrice on request$1849.99 USD
Editorial Lab Verdict

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 edges ahead with a BeastScore of 83.0/100

After comprehensive hardware benchmark comparisons, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 ranks as the overall top pick in this matchup. Key differentiators include its superior specifications and verified build advantages.

When to choose Allview Viva C701:
Balanced specifications with Allview hardware design · Runs Android 5.1 (Lollipop) with optimized security support
When to choose Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5:
Higher overall BeastScore: 83.0 vs top rival 74.0 · Larger battery capacity: 4,400 mAh (+1,700 mAh more)
Quick Answers

Frequently Asked Questions: Allview Viva C701 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5

Which is better: Allview Viva C701 or Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5?

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 leads with an overall BeastScore of 83.0/100 compared to Allview Viva C701 (74.0/100), driven by advantages in Higher overall BeastScore: 83.0 vs top rival 74.0 and Larger battery capacity: 4,400 mAh (+1,700 mAh more).

What are the primary battery and display differences between Allview Viva C701 and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5?

Allview Viva C701 is equipped with a 7-inch display and 2700 mAh battery, while Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 features a 7.6-inch display and 4400 mAh battery.

How do the performance capabilities compare between Allview Viva C701 and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5?

In objective hardware benchmarks, Allview Viva C701 achieves a 88/100 performance score, while Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 scores 88/100.

Editorial Coverage & Benchmarks

Related In-Depth Articles & Lab Reports

View All News →
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6 vs. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold vs. Honor Magic V3 vs. OnePlus Open: The Definitive Flagship Foldable Architecture, Hinge Engineering, Crease-Free Displays, and Camera Benchmark Showdown (2026)Flagship Showdown
14 min read

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold6 vs. Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold vs. Honor Magic V3 vs. OnePlus Open: The Definitive Flagship Foldable Architecture, Hinge Engineering, Crease-Free Displays, and Camera Benchmark Showdown (2026)

An exhaustive microarchitectural breakdown, hinge mechanism stress-testing, crease analysis, dual-screen multitasking benchmarks, and periscope camera shootout across the 4 premier book-style foldables of 2026.

Read Analysis →
Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra vs. Garmin Fenix 8: The Definitive Rugged Titanium Smartwatch Architecture, Dual-Frequency Multi-Band GPS Accuracy, AMOLED Displays, Scuba Dive Computers, and Extreme Battery Endurance Showdown (2026)Definitive Wearable Benchmark
14 min read

Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra vs. Garmin Fenix 8: The Definitive Rugged Titanium Smartwatch Architecture, Dual-Frequency Multi-Band GPS Accuracy, AMOLED Displays, Scuba Dive Computers, and Extreme Battery Endurance Showdown (2026)

An exhaustive, laboratory-grade architectural deep dive and endurance benchmark comparing Apple's S9 SiP, Samsung's 3nm Exynos W1000, and Garmin's ultra-low-power MCU platform across multi-band GNSS tracking, 3000-nit displays, 40m scuba dive ratings, biometric sensors, and multi-week battery curves.

Read Analysis →
iPhone 16 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs. Google Pixel 9 Pro XL: The Definitive Flagship Camera Sensor Architecture, 5x Periscope Optics, 4K120 ProRes Log, 8K Video, Computational ISP, and Low-Light Shootout (2026)Flagship Camera Shootout
14 min read

iPhone 16 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra vs. Google Pixel 9 Pro XL: The Definitive Flagship Camera Sensor Architecture, 5x Periscope Optics, 4K120 ProRes Log, 8K Video, Computational ISP, and Low-Light Shootout (2026)

An architectural teardown and real-world imaging shootout across Apple's 48MP Fusion quad-pixel sensor with 4K120 ProRes LOG, Samsung's 200MP ISOCELL HP2 Quad-Tele system with ProVisual AI Engine, and Google's 50MP GNK sensor paired with Tensor G4 HDRnet and Night Sight Video.

Read Analysis →