Notebookcheck Logo
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)

The best compact smartphone for photography - Vivo X200 Pro Mini review

This little one is record-breakingly bright.

A global launch of the mini flagship phone in 2025 could become a problem for the Galaxy S25. Vivo's compact high-end phone shows what is possible—especially in the field of photography. Extremely slim bezels, a large Sony sensor, an XXL battery and fast charging are just some of the highlights on offer.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Daisy Dickson) Published 🇩🇪 🇫🇷 ...
5G Android Smartphone Touchscreen

Verdict on the Vivo X200 Pro Mini

If you prefer compact smartphones, the X200 Pro Mini offers a more flagship feel than most other manufacturers. In terms of performance and battery life, you won't have to make any compromises with the small Vivo phone, and buyers of the Mini model also get the best of the best when it comes to displays. Not even the actual flagship X200 Pro achieved values of over 4,500 cd/m² in the practical APL18 test.

Even the X200 Pro Mini's camera system lacks any real points of criticism, although its periscope effects are somewhat weaker than those on its big brother due to the phone's slim and compact design. During everyday use, however, the Vivo phone still boasts excellent photo quality—its main camera with the large Sony sensor in particular has nothing to hide from any current high-end smartphone.

Unfortunately, the X200 Pro Mini isn't the perfect version of a compact flagship smartphone either, as the Vivo phone has been stripped of too many premium features (USB 3.2, ultrasonic sensor, ...) and its SoC being throttled is anything but optimal. How serious these deficits are during everyday use has to be weighed up individually. Having said that, the limitations our Chinese version faces (no Band 20, ...) should no longer be a problem when it's available globally.

Pros

+ bright LTPO panel
+ high performance
+ high-quality and compact case
+ powerful main camera
+ long runtimes

Cons

- no eSIM support
- only USB 2.0
- only available as an import device
- high SoC throttling
- no update guarantee

Price and availability

In China, the Vivo X200 Pro Mini with 12 GB RAM and 256 GB flash storage is sold for 4,699 Yuan (approx. $650). Via our lender Trading Shenzhen, you can import the phone for $730.04. As Vivo has yet to announce a global launch, we can't give you any further information on the device's pricing.

Possible alternatives compared

Image
Model / Review
Price
Weight
Drive
Display
1.
87.2%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400 ⎘
ARM Immortalis-G925 MC12 ⎘
16 GB Memory, 512 GB 
Amazon:
1. $12.99
YOUULAR [3 Pack Privacy Scre...
2. $11.98
TNKISRY Cover for Vivo X200 ...
3. $10.52
[4 Pack] for Vivo X200 Pro M...
List Price: 700€
187 g512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.31"
2640x1216
461 PPI
AMOLED
2.
90% v7 (old)
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400 ⎘
Samsung Xclipse 940 ⎘
8 GB Memory, 256 GB 
Amazon: $745.09
List Price: 899€
167 g256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.20"
2340x1080
416 PPI
Dynamic AMOLED 2X
3.
85.7%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4 ⎘
ARM Mali-G715 MP7 ⎘
16 GB Memory, 128 GB 
Amazon:
1. $999.00
Google Pixel 9 Pro - Unlocke...
2. $1,799.00
Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold - Un...
3. $799.00
Google Pixel 9 - Unlocked An...
199 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.30"
2856x1280
495 PPI
OLED
4.
88.4%
Xiaomi 15
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite ⎘
Qualcomm Adreno 830 ⎘
12 GB Memory, 512 GB 
Amazon:
1. $7.99
Suttkue for Xiaomi 15 Screen...
2. $19.98
for Xiaomi Charger 120W Hype...
3. $209.00
Xiaomi Watch S4 Smartwatch w...
List Price: 760€
191 g512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.36"
2670x1200
460 PPI
OLED
5.
89% v7 (old)
Sony Xperia 5 V
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 ⎘
Qualcomm Adreno 740 ⎘
8 GB Memory, 128 GB 
Amazon: $575.00
List Price: 999€
182 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.10"
2520x1080
449 PPI
OLED

In contrast to the X100 series, Vivo is launching a compact version of its current flagship phone, the X200 Pro, this year. The little Mini version uses flagship hardware including a Zeiss triple camera in a compact size so that fans of smaller smartphones will hardly have to make any compromises.

If you would like to call the X200 Pro Mini your own, then you'll currently have to import the small flagship from Vivo. However, there are currently indications of a global launch, although an exact date is still pending.

Specifications of the Vivo X200 Pro Mini

Vivo X200 Pro Mini (X200 Series)
Processor
Mediatek Dimensity 9400 8 x 2 - 3.6 GHz, Cortex-X925, X4, A720
Graphics adapter
Memory
16 GB 
Display
6.31 inch 19.5:9, 2640 x 1216 pixel 461 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 512 GB 
, 457 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: USB Type C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, IR Blaster, OTG, Miracast
Networking
Wi-Fi 7 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz be = Wi-Fi 7), Bluetooth 5.4, 2G GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz; 3G WCDMA: B1/B2/B4/B5/B6/B8/B19; 4G TD-LTE: B34/B38/B39/B40/B41; 4G FDD-LTE: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B18/B19/B26/B28A/B66; 5G: n1/n3/n5/n8/n28A/n38/n40/n41/n77/n78, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.2 x 150.8 x 71.8 ( = 0.32 x 5.94 x 2.83 in)
Battery
5700 mAh Silicon-Carbon
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 15
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.6, 23 mmm, OIS) + 50 MPix (3x optical zoom, f/2.6, 70 mm, OIS) + 50 MPix (f/2.0, 15 mm)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.0, 20 mm)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, USB cable, case, ColorOS, 12 Months Warranty, DRM Widevine L1, HDR: Dolby Vision, HLG, HDR10, HDR10+; Bluetooth Audio Codecs: SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, LDAC, LC3, Opus; GNSS: GPS (L1, L5), Glonass (L1), BeiDou (B1, B1C, B2a), Galileo (E1, E5a), QZSS, fanless, waterproof
Weight
187 g ( = 6.6 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 115 g ( = 4.06 oz / 0.25 pounds)
Price
700 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case - Compact smartphone with an IP69 rating

The Mini model not only features the same design language of the X200 Pro, but also the same high IP69 certification. This makes its case waterproof and dustproof and, in theory, you could even clean it with a high-pressure water jet. With a screen diagonal of 6.31 inches, the X200 Pro Mini is slightly larger than an Apple iPhone 16. Its weight of 187 grams is also remarkably low considering the large capacity of its battery.

Those interested in the compact flagship cell phone can choose between four color variants, which all have a frosted glass back. This means that grease residue from fingers shouldn't be a problem during everyday use. The manufacturer hasn't revealed which protective glass is used on the front and back.

The bezels around the 6.31-inch AMOLED panel are kept nice and thin, which gives the Mini model a very efficient display-to-surface ratio of over 91%. Its build quality is also first-class and the built-in buttons sit firmly in its metal frame.

Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review (image source: Marcus Herbrich)

Size comparison

154 mm / 6.06 in 68 mm / 2.68 in 8.6 mm / 0.3386 in 182 g0.4012 lbs152.8 mm / 6.02 in 72 mm / 2.83 in 8.5 mm / 0.3346 in 199 g0.4387 lbs152.3 mm / 6 in 71.2 mm / 2.8 in 8.08 mm / 0.3181 in 191 g0.4211 lbs150.8 mm / 5.94 in 71.8 mm / 2.83 in 8.2 mm / 0.3228 in 187 g0.4123 lbs147 mm / 5.79 in 70.6 mm / 2.78 in 7.6 mm / 0.2992 in 167 g0.3682 lbs148 mm / 5.83 in 105 mm / 4.13 in 1 mm / 0.03937 in 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

Connectivity - The compact phone only has USB 2.0

The small flagship from the Chinese manufacturer offers very good connectivity overall, including Bluetooth 5.4, an IR blaster, Miracast and NFC, but the X200 Pro Mini doesn't draw on the full range that it could—it lacks eSIM support or storage expansion, an ultra-wideband chip or even the fast USB 3.2 port its big brother has. The latter in particular is a limitation that's difficult to understand from our point of view. This means that the Mini model has to do without wired image output and make do with slow data transfer.

Left case side
Left case side
Right case side (buttons)
Right case side (buttons)
Bottom case side (speaker, microphone, USB port, microphone, SIM slot)
Bottom case side (speaker, microphone, USB port, microphone, SIM slot)
Top case side
Top case side

Software - The Vivo X200 Pro Mini with Android 15

The X200 Pro Mini—which has so far only been presented for China—uses version 5 of the company's own OriginOS, which is based on Android 15 and supports a variety of languages. How long Vivo intends to support its compact flagship phone with updates has so far not been communicated. In the past, Vivo's software supply has been limited to three major Android versions and three years of security patches, which isn't very long compared to a Pixel 9 Pro or Galaxy S24. At the time of our test, the latest patches were dated December 2024.

Vivo's "Atomic Island" is inspired by Apple's Dynamic Island, alongside the phone's numerous AI functions. It displays real-time information, such as music playback or incoming calls, in a screen area around the punch-hole. There is no Google Play Store installed straight out of the box, but Google apps are available via the in-house V-Appstore and once installed, the Play Store can be used without any problems.

With the release of a global version for Europe, the Mini model will be delivered with Funtouch OS, just like the X200 Pro. The latter doesn't look as modern, but unlike the Chinese version, no Chinese services are pre-installed and Google applications can be used ex works.

Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review

Sustainability

No sustainability information is available for the X200 Pro Mini—it seems Vivo still has some catching up to do in this respect. The materials used and their recycled content have not been communicated transparently at all. It is also almost impossible to check whether the user can repair the device themselves.

The phone's packaging is likely plastic-free and was printed with inks based on soybean oil. However, the Vivo smartphone itself uses plastic materials for transportation (foil, shell).

Communication and GNSS - The compact Android phone with WiFi 7

Within home Wi-Fi networks, the X200 Pro Mini offers the best of the best standard in the shape of current WiFi 7, but the top-of-the-range phone can't use the 6 GHz channel. This means that only the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges were used to establish a connection in our test using our reference router. However, this doesn't necessarily have to be the case with a global version of the device. Using the Asus ROG Rapture GT AXE11000, the X200 Pro Mini nevertheless revealed high and relatively constant transfer rates—measuring over 1,800 MBit/s at peak data reception.

In addition to its fast Wi-Fi, the Vivo phone uses the 5G standard, but only supports 17 LTE bands. As the Chinese versions generally have reduced frequency coverage, this shortcoming will not come to bear in a global version of the phone. Our CN version also doesn't support access to band 20 in the 4G network. The version with satellite communication is also probably only available for the Chinese market.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Average Wi-Fi 7
  (556 - 1806, n=59)
1015 MBit/s +36%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Wi-Fi 6E
958 (934min - 976max) MBit/s +28%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Wi-Fi 7
955 (858min - 990max) MBit/s +28%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Wi-Fi 6E
913 (688min - 994max) MBit/s +22%
Xiaomi 15
Wi-Fi 7
876 (445min - 968max) MBit/s +17%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Wi-Fi 7
748 (603min, 622.14P1 - 825max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone
  (49.8 - 1806, n=181, last 2 years)
728 MBit/s -3%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Wi-Fi 7
1698 (1563min, 1566.48P1 - 1809max) MBit/s
Average Wi-Fi 7
  (565 - 1875, n=59)
1014 MBit/s -40%
Xiaomi 15
Wi-Fi 7
871 (785min - 951max) MBit/s -49%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Wi-Fi 6E
838 (818min - 850max) MBit/s -51%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Wi-Fi 7
795 (680min - 916max) MBit/s -53%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Wi-Fi 6E
774 (699min - 820max) MBit/s -54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (52 - 1857, n=181, last 2 years)
735 MBit/s -57%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Wi-Fi 7
1830 (1666min - 1889max) MBit/s
Average Wi-Fi 7
  (563 - 1945, n=46)
1527 MBit/s
Xiaomi 15
Wi-Fi 7
1386 (628min - 1900max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone
  (508 - 1945, n=82, last 2 years)
1382 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Xiaomi 15
Wi-Fi 7
1793 (1671min - 1841max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Wi-Fi 7
1602 (1387min - 1829max) MBit/s
Average Wi-Fi 7
  (451 - 1864, n=46)
1515 MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone
  (451 - 1864, n=82, last 2 years)
1393 MBit/s
05010015020025030035040045050055060065070075080085090095010001050110011501200125013001350140014501500155016001650170017501800Tooltip
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit AXE11000: Ø748 (603-825)
Samsung Galaxy S24 Wi-Fi 6E; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø913 (688-994)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive AXE11000: Ø1698 (1563-1809)
Samsung Galaxy S24 Wi-Fi 6E; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø772 (699-820)
Location services outdoors
Location services outdoors
Location services indoors
Location services indoors

We took a closer look at the X200 Pro Mini's location services compared to the Garmin Venu 2 by taking them both with us on a bike ride. The Vivo phone uses dual-band GNSS to determine its position with an accuracy of around 1 to 2 meters.

The total distance determined by us on the Vivo smartphone was very similar to the Garmin smartwatch and only minor inaccuracies could be seen in the detailed route. Overall, the X200 Pro is very accurate and ideally suited for everyday navigation tasks.

Garmin Venu 2
Garmin Venu 2
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Vivo X200 Pro Mini

Telephone functions and call quality - The Vivo X200 Pro Mini with dual-SIM support

The two microphones installed into the phone provide a pleasant call experience. Voice reproduction via the earphones is very clear and sufficiently loud. Similar to Samsung, an AI assistant can be used for conversations on request—for example for translations or summaries.

The compact flagship phone features fully-fledged dual-SIM support with two nano-SIM card slots and in the 5G network. We couldn't find an option to integrate an eSIM into the system in the device's system settings.

Cameras - The small smartphone with big photo qualities

Selfie on the Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Selfie on the Vivo X200 Pro Mini

On the front, the X200 Pro Mini has a 32-MPix lens with good photo quality—but Vivo has done without pixel binning and an autofocus. Nevertheless, selfies look rich in detail and feature a decent exposure, and you can even take videos at 60 frames per second and in UHD.

Still, a real highlight of the compact flagship phone is its camera system on the back—specifically the main camera which uses a Sony LYT-818. It not only features a particularly fast f/1.57 lens, but also a large sensor for a compact smartphone at 1/1.28 inches. By comparison, a Galaxy S24 uses a significantly smaller 1/1.56-inch sensor.

Standard mode (right) vs, ZEISS mode (left)

The phone's 50 MPix lens has OIS and a Zeiss T* coating. The T* stands for "Transmission Layer" and is intended to increase the transmission of visible light. This not only improves color quality, but also reduces reflectivity. During everyday use, the X200 Pro Mini boasts very good HDR calculation, which means that its dynamic range and exposure are usually really good. However, if you don't prefer oversaturated colors, then you should change from the standard mode to the more neutral ZEISS mode. Its photo quality in low light is also impressive for this product class.

0.6x
0.6x
1x
1x
2x
2x
3x
3x
5x
5x
10x
10x
100x (max)
100x (max)

Main camera aside, however, the Mini model has to accept some minor compromises compared to the X200 Pro. Its periscope telephoto lens including OIS doesn't have a resolution of 200 MPix, but only 50 MPix, and can only access a triple lossless zoom. Nevertheless, the compact smartphone delivers really good quality for the ranges between 2x and 10x that are predominantly used in everyday life. Even its digital 100x zoom is almost astonishingly detailed.

According to the data sheet, the phone's ultra-wide-angle lens should be identical to that of its big brother. The 50 MPix lens showed a lot of detail and good sharpness in our test photos and is one of the best of its kind.

The X200 Pro Mini also has a lot to offer when recording videos. Moving images support HDR at 4K60, LOG and can be recorded at up to 120fps in UHD quality. A Pro video mode is also on board. Lenses can be changed during recording when shooting in 4K30 and the color temperature is very well adjusted.

Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review

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.

Main cameraMain cameraLow lightUltra-wide angle

We analyzed the main camera's color depiction in comparison to the actual reference colors under controlled lighting conditions. The 50 MP lens revealed some brightening and oversaturation when depicting the ColorChecker Passport, particularly in the green and brown tones. Thankfully, however, the X200 Pro Mini only showed a few outliers in terms of color fidelity (>10).

ColorChecker
10 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
9 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
16.1 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
11 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
14.1 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X200 Pro Mini: 9.34 ∆E min: 2.46 - max: 16.09 ∆E
ColorChecker
30 ∆E
54.9 ∆E
40.3 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
43.5 ∆E
52.1 ∆E
53.9 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
41.7 ∆E
26.3 ∆E
62.2 ∆E
65.4 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
41.1 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
76.9 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
88.8 ∆E
70.3 ∆E
52 ∆E
35.4 ∆E
21.9 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X200 Pro Mini: 45.87 ∆E min: 12.81 - max: 88.82 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - The Galaxy S25 competitor with a power supply unit

The phone's scope of delivery includes a modular 90-watt fast-charging power supply, a protective cover, a data/charging cable (USB-A to USB-C), a SIM pin and a quick start guide. A screen protector is also installed on its screen, which Vivo says has been specially optimized for fingerprint recognition. Our loaner Trading Shenzhen has added an EU adapter for the charger and a USB OTG adapter to the scope of delivery of our Chinese version.

Our imported device comes with a 12-month warranty. In the event of a warranty claim, Trading Shenzhen offers the option of sending the smartphone to a German shipping address.

Input devices and operation - The Vivo X200 Pro Mini with Face Unlock

Thanks to the phone's compact design, the position of the buttons feels very ergonomic and their good pressure points allow for precise operation. Inputs on its 6.31-inch AMOLED display are also accurate. Thanks to its high refresh rate of up to 120 Hz, the mini flagship runs smoothly during everyday use and animations appear smooth. Haptic feedback provided by a vibration motor is just as important for everyday use. In the case of the X200 Pro Mini, this is precise and conveys a high-quality feel.

Unfortunately, the small flagship doesn't use the new 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor that the X200 Pro features, and you can instead "only" use an optical fingerprint sensor to unlock the phone biometrically. Nevertheless, the Vivo phone reliably unlocked the display during our test. You can also make use of less secure 2D facial recognition, which is based on a FaceUnlock function using the front camera.

Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review
Vivo X200 Pro Mini smartphone review

Display - The compact smartphone with OLED

The OLED display is based on an RG/BG sub-pixel matrix consisting of one red, one blue and one green light-emitting diode each
The OLED display is based on an RG/BG sub-pixel matrix consisting of one red, one blue and one green light-emitting diode each

The X200 Pro Mini uses a 6.31-inch OLED panel that dynamically adjusts its frame rate from 1 Hz to 120 Hz based on LTPO technology. Thanks to its high 1,216p resolution of 461 PPI, the panel looks nice and sharp and has been certified twice by TÜV Rheinland (flicker-free, low blue light content).

While our measurement on a white background resulted in a peak brightness of "only" 1,863 cd/m², we achieved an incredible 4,526 cd/m² when displaying the APL18 pattern that is more relevant for everyday use. This is outstanding and corresponds to the phone's advertised peak brightness of 4,500 nits. First-class HDR effects are therefore guaranteed on the HDR10+ certified AMOLED display.

1862
cd/m²
1843
cd/m²
1818
cd/m²
1794
cd/m²
1764
cd/m²
1802
cd/m²
1822
cd/m²
1864
cd/m²
1785
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 1864 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1817.1 cd/m² Minimum: 1.86 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 1764 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.84 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.83
ΔE Greyscale 1.2 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.239
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
AMOLED, 2640x1216, 6.3"
Samsung Galaxy S24
Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 2340x1080, 6.2"
Google Pixel 9 Pro
OLED, 2856x1280, 6.3"
Xiaomi 15
OLED, 2670x1200, 6.4"
Sony Xperia 5 V
OLED, 2520x1080, 6.1"
Screen
-111%
2%
-52%
-57%
Brightness middle
1764
1349
-24%
2083
18%
1021
-42%
889
-50%
Brightness
1817
1369
-25%
2016
11%
1018
-44%
898
-51%
Brightness Distribution
95
97
2%
84
-12%
98
3%
97
2%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.84
3.3
-293%
0.7
17%
1.3
-55%
1.4
-67%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
1.53
5
-227%
2
-31%
2.9
-90%
4.5
-194%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.2
2.4
-100%
1.1
8%
2.2
-83%
1
17%
Gamma
2.239 98%
1.97 112%
2.22 99%
2.25 98%
2.23 99%
CCT
6646 98%
6635 98%
6560 99%
6658 98%
6456 101%

* ... smaller is better

As is typical for OLEDs, PWM modulation is used to control the screen's brightness, which shows itself in the shape of a flickering display. According to Vivo, a form of eye protection is implemented in the X200 Pro Mini using a high PWM dimming frequency of 2,160 Hz. Our display measurement resulted in around 490 Hz.

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 361 Hz
Amplitude: 19 %

The display backlight flickers at 361 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 361 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8354 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

minimum brightness
minimum brightness
25% brightness
25% brightness
50% brightness
50% brightness
75% brightness
75% brightness
100% brightness
100% brightness

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

ColorOS' color display settings are extensive. There are three color profiles to choose from, in which you can additionally set the color temperature.

We used the Calman analysis software to examine deviations in its color calibration. The DeltaE values we measured for the individual colors as well as for greyscale are extremely low.

Color accuracy (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Color accuracy (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: P3)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: P3)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Color saturation (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)
Color saturation (profile: professional, target color space: sRGB)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
1.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.7 ms rise
↘ 0.9 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. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.8 ms rise
↘ 0.9 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 (32.1 ms).

Outdoors, the X200 Pro Mini makes a very strong impression. Thanks to its impressive brightness, the display's content should always be very easy to see in direct sunlight in the summer as well as in the winter. We also have nothing to criticize in terms of its viewing angle stability. The OLED panel's colors remain stable even when tilted.

Performance - The compact Android phone with a high-end chip

If you want one of the best SoCs currently available in a smartphone, then the compact Vivo phone is the right choice for you. With its peak clock speed of 3.65 GHz, the Dimensity 9400 used in the X200 Pro Mini couldn't quite match the Geekbench values of a Snapdragon 8 Elite in the Xiaomi 15, but the Vivo phone still has plenty of power. The MediaTek chipset was particularly impressive in the AI benchmarks, relegating the competition to the back of the pack.

Geekbench 6.4
Single-Core
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
3001 Points +16%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (2589 - 2748, n=3)
2647 Points +2%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
2589 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
2045 Points -21%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
2006 Points -23%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1971 Points -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (196 - 3479, n=206, last 2 years)
1611 Points -38%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
9202 Points +14%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
8078 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (7480 - 8574, n=3)
8044 Points 0%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
6456 Points -20%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
5198 Points -36%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
4820 Points -40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (830 - 10401, n=206, last 2 years)
4637 Points -43%
Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
2173 Points +4%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
2084 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (1838 - 2084, n=3)
1973 Points -5%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1553 Points -25%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1497 Points -28%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1372 Points -34%
Average of class Smartphone
  (145 - 2437, n=152, last 2 years)
1138 Points -45%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
7733 Points +5%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
7398 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (5870 - 8126, n=3)
7131 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
5561 Points -25%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
4998 Points -32%
Average of class Smartphone
  (550 - 8816, n=152, last 2 years)
3874 Points -48%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
3787 Points -49%
Antutu v10 - Total Score
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
2677100 Points +10%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (2374537 - 2705165, n=3)
2503068 Points +3%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
2429503 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1616403 Points -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (142748 - 3015111, n=146, last 2 years)
1340846 Points -45%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1139380 Points -53%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
19192 Points +18%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
17763 Points +10%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
16216 Points
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
15925 Points -2%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (12314 - 16216, n=3)
14793 Points -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4507 - 27169, n=193, last 2 years)
14307 Points -12%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
11823 Points -27%
CrossMark - Overall
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
1718 Points +7%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
1599 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (1145 - 1663, n=3)
1469 Points -8%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1256 Points -21%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1170 Points -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (187 - 2674, n=150, last 2 years)
1036 Points -35%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1021 Points -36%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (10697 - 12594, n=3)
11413 Points +4%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
11031 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
10948 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
9287 Points -15%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
8863 Points -19%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
7716 Points -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1196 - 14066, n=155, last 2 years)
7039 Points -36%
System
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
16439 Points +15%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
14618 Points +2%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (12891 - 16162, n=3)
14452 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
14406 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
14303 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (2368 - 20776, n=155, last 2 years)
10846 Points -24%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
8029 Points -44%
Memory
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
16961 Points +79%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (9432 - 13673, n=3)
10856 Points +15%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
10197 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
10193 Points +8%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
9463 Points
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
9266 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (962 - 20652, n=155, last 2 years)
7895 Points -17%
Graphics
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (51898 - 56004, n=3)
53547 Points +2%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
52738 Points
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
44189 Points -16%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
26783 Points -49%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
26141 Points -50%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
23041 Points -56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1046 - 384996, n=155, last 2 years)
22719 Points -57%
Web
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (1923 - 2183, n=3)
2038 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
2009 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1908 Points -5%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1879 Points -6%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1743 Points -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (858 - 2363, n=155, last 2 years)
1634 Points -19%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
1202 Points -40%
UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
78695 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (75143 - 81594, n=3)
78477 Points 0%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
36578 Points -54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1267 - 81594, n=146, last 2 years)
18603 Points -76%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
18154 Points -77%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
16413 Points -79%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
11574 Points -85%
AImark - Score v3.x
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
52274 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (51509 - 52884, n=3)
52222 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 307528, n=130, last 2 years)
27843 Points -47%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
1790 Points -97%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1160 Points -98%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1146 Points -98%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1134 Points -98%
Geekbench AI
Quantized TensorFlow NNAPI 1.2
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (12898 - 13084, n=2)
12991 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
12898 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (123 - 13084, n=55, last 2 years)
1868 Points -86%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
1096 Points -92%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
1080 Points -92%
Half Precision TensorFlow NNAPI 1.2
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (9184 - 9453, n=2)
9319 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
9184 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (51 - 9453, n=55, last 2 years)
1148 Points -87%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
491 Points -95%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
324 Points -96%
Single Precision TensorFlow NNAPI 1.2
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (1433 - 1501, n=2)
1467 Points +2%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
1433 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (51 - 2472, n=55, last 2 years)
508 Points -65%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
500 Points -65%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
283 Points -80%
AI Benchmark
Score V5
Average of class Smartphone
  (46.4 - 3334, n=38, last 2 years)
972 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192
182 Points
Score V6
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Mediatek Dimensity 9400, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 16384
10783 Points
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
  (9873 - 10783, n=2)
10328 Points -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68.9 - 12578, n=54, last 2 years)
4386 Points -59%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Google Tensor G4, Mali-G715 MP7, 16384
1112 Points -90%
Xiaomi 15
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 12288
991 Points -91%

The Immortalis-G925 GPU unit installed in the Dimensity 9400 works with 12 cores inside the X200 Pro Mini. Compared to a Xiaomi 15 with the Adreno 830, the Vivo phone's scores in the GFXBench and 3DMark tests were slightly lower. However, the former showed that even very demanding games should run at almost 50fps on the Vivo phone in 4K resolution—or at least some of the time.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
6076 Points
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
5845 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3933 Points -35%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3627 Points -40%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2605 Points -57%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
5995 Points +1%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
5923 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3902 Points -34%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3667 Points -38%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2547 Points -57%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
24960 Points +12%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
22342 Points
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13993 Points -37%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
12652 Points -43%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9476 Points -58%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
Points
3DMark / Solar Bay Score
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
10764 Points +5%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
10278 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
6649 Points -35%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points -100%
3DMark / Solar Bay Unlimited Score
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
11649 Points +12%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
10432 Points
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
6673 Points -36%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points -100%
3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Unlimited Score
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
2298 Points
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
2258 Points -2%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1026 Points -55%
3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Score
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
2365 Points
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
2362 Points 0%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1001 Points -58%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps 0%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps 0%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
119 fps -1%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
718 fps +14%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
628 fps
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
476 fps -24%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
415 fps -34%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
403 fps -36%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps 0%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps -1%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
119 fps -1%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
451 fps
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
423 fps -6%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
302 fps -33%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
289 fps -36%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
245 fps -46%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
104 fps -13%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
308 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
307 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
214 fps -30%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
205 fps -33%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
165 fps -46%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
105 fps -12%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps -16%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
54 fps -55%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
192 fps +22%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
157 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
131 fps -17%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
118 fps -25%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
85 fps -46%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
115 fps +6%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
109 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
105 fps -4%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps -20%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
47 fps -57%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
100 fps +45%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
69 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
69 fps
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
61 fps -12%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps -36%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps -1%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
118 fps -2%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
77 fps -36%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
274 fps +6%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
258 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
153 fps -41%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
140 fps -46%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps -54%
GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
47 fps +2%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
46 fps
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
32 fps -30%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps -35%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
20 fps -57%

The X200 Pro Mini performed well when it came to its browser speed, and its benchmark results were good. Websites are loaded quickly during everyday use and can be scrolled through smoothly.

Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total Score
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (167.1 - 234, n=3)
206 Points +23%
Xiaomi 15 (Chrome 131.0.6778.104)
191.986 Points +15%
Sony Xperia 5 V (Chrome 117.0.5938.60)
179.212 Points +7%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini (Chrome 133)
167.122 Points
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=159, last 2 years)
140.6 Points -16%
Samsung Galaxy S24 (Chrome 122)
128.638 Points -23%
Google Pixel 9 Pro (Chrome 131.0.6778.81)
108.429 Points -35%
Speedometer 3.0 - Score
Xiaomi 15 (Chrome 131.0.6778.104)
23.5 runs/min +57%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (15 - 17.7, n=3)
16.3 runs/min +9%
Google Pixel 9 Pro (Chrome 131.0.6778.81)
15.8 runs/min +5%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini (Chrome 133)
15 runs/min
Average of class Smartphone (1.03 - 34, n=103, last 2 years)
12.8 runs/min -15%
WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (147 - 225, n=3)
182.7 Points +4%
Samsung Galaxy S24 (Chrome 122)
176 Points 0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini (Chrome 133)
176 Points
Sony Xperia 5 V (Chrome 117.0.5938.60)
171 Points -3%
Xiaomi 15 (Chrome 131.0.6778.104)
168 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 273, n=153, last 2 years)
131.9 Points -25%
Google Pixel 9 Pro (Chrome 131.0.6778.81)
106 Points -40%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 15 (Chrome 131.0.6778.104)
78653 Points +38%
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (56843 - 86943, n=3)
68258 Points +20%
Samsung Galaxy S24 (Chrome 122)
63748 Points +12%
Sony Xperia 5 V (Chrome 117.0.5938.60)
61881 Points +9%
Google Pixel 9 Pro (Chrome 131.0.6778.81)
60566 Points +7%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini (Chrome 133)
56843 Points
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=205, last 2 years)
44496 Points -22%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=162, last 2 years)
1325 ms * -101%
Sony Xperia 5 V (Chrome 117.0.5938.60)
705.9 ms * -7%
Google Pixel 9 Pro (Chrome 131.0.6778.81)
699 ms * -6%
Samsung Galaxy S24 (Chrome 122)
662.3 ms * -0%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini (Chrome 133)
660.34 ms *
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (432 - 660, n=3)
572 ms * +13%
Xiaomi 15 (Chrome 131.0.6778.104)
454.4 ms * +31%

* ... smaller is better

When it comes to storage speed, the phone's UFS 4.0 storage delivers outstanding performance. Its AndroBench values were very good, especially when writing and reading small data blocks.

Vivo X200 Pro MiniSamsung Galaxy S24Google Pixel 9 ProXiaomi 15Sony Xperia 5 VAverage 512 GB UFS 4.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-26%
-57%
-4%
-26%
1%
-33%
Sequential Read 256KB
3804.53
3701.23
-3%
1717.9
-55%
3934.92
3%
1812.23
-52%
Sequential Write 256KB
3384.34
1435.39
-58%
253.53
-93%
3889.06
15%
1331.81
-61%
Random Read 4KB
302.11
373.12
24%
218.41
-28%
296.95
-2%
359.71
19%
Random Write 4KB
532.65
175.98
-67%
261.55
-51%
360.36
-32%
473.91
-11%

Games - The Vivo phone manages 120fps

Due to its suboptimal cooling (see "Emissions" section), the X200 Pro Mini is by no means a perfect phone for gamers, but you can still run current games at a low level of detail using its native 120 Hz refresh rate.

During our test, we achieved the aforementioned 120 frames per second when playing the shooter PUBG Mobile with low graphics settings using GameBench. There weren't any notable drops in its frame rate. The demanding Genshin Impact ran just as well at 60fps with the best graphics—that's as good as it gets on Android at the moment.

Geshin Impact
Geshin Impact
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
0102030405060708090100110120Tooltip
Vivo X200 Pro Mini; Genshin Impact: Ø60.3 (55-61)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini; PUBG Mobile; Smooth: Ø119.1 (116-121)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini; PUBG Mobile; HD: Ø59.7 (52-61)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini; PUBG Mobile; Ultra HD: Ø39.8 (38-41)

Emissions - The Vivo X200 Pro Mini with powerful sound

Temperature

The pronounced temperature increase of the Dimensity 9400 caused the X200 Pro Mini to significantly throttle the system during the Wild Life stress tests of 3DMark. We measured a reduction of around 40 to 50 percent. This means that the compact flagship performs slightly better than its big brother, but worse than a Xiaomi 15. During a one-hour load phase with the Burnout benchmark, we noted a peak temperature of almost 46 °C in the camera area.

Max. Load
 44.7 °C
112 F
45 °C
113 F
40.6 °C
105 F
 
 45.6 °C
114 F
44.4 °C
112 F
41.2 °C
106 F
 
 45.9 °C
115 F
44.1 °C
111 F
41 °C
106 F
 
Maximum: 45.9 °C = 115 F
Average: 43.6 °C = 110 F
39.7 °C
103 F
41.6 °C
107 F
37.7 °C
100 F
39.2 °C
103 F
42.8 °C
109 F
40 °C
104 F
40.4 °C
105 F
43.6 °C
110 F
40 °C
104 F
Maximum: 43.6 °C = 110 F
Average: 40.6 °C = 105 F
Power Supply (max.)  43.2 °C = 110 F | Room Temperature 20.2 °C = 68 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Steel Nomad stress test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
75.5 % +68%
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67.6 % +50%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
66.3 % +47%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
52 % +16%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
45 %
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
69.3 % +43%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
68.7 % +42%
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
57 % +18%
Sony Xperia 5 V
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
51.3 % +6%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
48.4 %
Solar Bay Stress Test Stability
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
66.9 % +10%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
60.7 %
Samsung Galaxy S24
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
57.9 % -5%
Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability
Google Pixel 9 Pro
Mali-G715 MP7, Tensor G4, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
77.3 % +26%
Xiaomi 15
Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
69.5 % +14%
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
61.2 %
0102030405060708090100110120130Tooltip
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø24.2 (16.7-34.4)
Xiaomi 15 Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø29 (26.2-38.2)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø62.4 (47.5-105.6)
Xiaomi 15 Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø101.2 (87.7-132.2)
Xiaomi 15 Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø117.4 (98.5-139.4)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Solar Bay Stress Test Stability; 1.0.11.1: Ø25 (21.3-35)
Xiaomi 15 Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Solar Bay Stress Test Stability; 1.0.11.1: Ø27.8 (24.8-37.1)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability; 1.1.1.3: Ø13.1 (10.8-17.6)
Xiaomi 15 Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability; 1.1.1.3: Ø13.8 (12.2-17.6)

Speakers

The X200 Pro Mini's stereo speakers boast a pleasant sound and some light bass. However, its undulating presentation of mids and highs in the Pink Noise test was less than ideal. Nevertheless, for a compact smartphone, the Vivo phone's sound has a good depth.

If you want external sound output, you can use its wired USB port or wireless Bluetooth 5.4. The latter supports a decent number of codecs.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.542.42539.436.23136.329.94033.532.45037.736.8632729.78023.429.310022.736.212519.243.616020.953.120019.658.625017.259.231516.860.640015.258.750016.163.363020.867.780020.668.9100018.570.7125016.773.5160018.275.3200015.977.225001577.8315017.972.1400020.864.6500021.268.5630019.372.7800020.475.11000018.577.31250016.272.51600016.261.5SPL30.985.7N1.463.4median 18.5median 68.5Delta1.96.8334230.933.519.43327.335.4374026.937.31938.418.439.11542.116.152.715.953.114.258.912.163.11463.714.773.11577.513.781.714.18113.676.513.174.912.876.113.378.713.477.813.879.81478.314.178.113.575.813.774.513.670.713.165.92689.90.785.5median 13.8median 75.80.77.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X200 Pro MiniSony Xperia 5 V
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% 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 12%, average was 36%, 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%

Sony Xperia 5 V audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 18% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

Battery life - The small phone with a big battery

In contrast to a Galaxy S24 (5,700 mAh), the X200 Pro Mini has a much larger 5,700 mAh battery that can be charged via USB-C at up to 90 watts. The energy storage device (21.78 Wh, 3.82 V) can also be charged wirelessly at a maximum of 30 watts. During our test, we noted a charging time of around 40 minutes.

At 1.6 watts, the X200 Pro Mini's power consumption in idle mode isn't very efficient. There is certainly room for some optimization here, although you do have to take into account the Vivo phone's bright display.

Power consumption

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.6 / 1.6 / 2.5 Watt
Load midlight 8.9 / 11.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
5700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S24
4000 mAh
Google Pixel 9 Pro
4700 mAh
Xiaomi 15
5400 mAh
Sony Xperia 5 V
5000 mAh
Average Mediatek Dimensity 9400
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
2%
5%
24%
18%
11%
5%
Idle Minimum *
0.6
0.42
30%
0.59
2%
0.5
17%
0.79
-32%
0.543 ?(0.43 - 0.6, n=3)
9%
Idle Average *
1.6
0.93
42%
1.1
31%
1.11
31%
1.08
32%
1.387 ?(0.8 - 1.76, n=3)
13%
Idle Maximum *
2.5
1.07
57%
1.2
52%
1.13
55%
1.12
55%
1.743 ?(0.9 - 2.5, n=3)
30%
Load Average *
8.9
15.43
-73%
7.15
20%
8.91
-0%
7.93
11%
Load Maximum *
11.2
16.51
-47%
20.37
-82%
9.3
17%
8.78
22%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

01234567891011Tooltip
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Mediatek Dimensity 9400; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø7.81 (0.633-11.3)
Xiaomi 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø5 (0.695-9.3)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Mediatek Dimensity 9400; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.251 (0.533-3.22)
Xiaomi 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.681 (0.615-1.184)

Power consumption: GFXbench (150 cd/m²)

01234567891011Tooltip
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Mediatek Dimensity 9400; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø11.3 (11.2-11.3)
Xiaomi 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.27 (9.11-9.3)
Vivo X200 Pro Mini Mediatek Dimensity 9400; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.251 (0.533-3.22)
Xiaomi 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.681 (0.615-1.184)

Runtimes

A large battery capacity helps the Vivo phone achieve very good runtimes. Our values with an adjusted display brightness (150 cd/m²) provide the best comparability, as they are the same for all test devices. Here, the X200 Pro Mini only stopped working after more than 19 hours when surfing using Wi-Fi, and its endurance for endless video playback without Wi-Fi was similarly strong at 35 hours. It should be mentioned that when its battery level is low (2 percent), all applications are automatically closed and the X200 Pro Mini goes into standby mode. Overall, the WLAN modem seems to consume quite a lot of power.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
53h 31min
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 133)
19h 13min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
34h 58min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 47min
Vivo X200 Pro Mini
5700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S24
4000 mAh
Google Pixel 9 Pro
4700 mAh
Xiaomi 15
5400 mAh
Sony Xperia 5 V
5000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-30%
-12%
16%
1%
Reader / Idle
3211
2398
-25%
3759
17%
2788
-13%
H.264
2098
1227
-42%
1784
-15%
1493
-29%
WiFi v1.3
1153
880
-24%
1017
-12%
1367
19%
952
-17%
Load
227
159
-30%
326
44%
371
63%

Notebookcheck total rating

Vivo's X200 Pro manages to create a real flagship feeling inside a compact smartphone. The Mini model is closer to the "original" than many other manufacturers, especially when it comes to its cameras.

Vivo X200 Pro Mini - 02/19/2025 v8
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
91%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
95%
Connectivity
66 / 69 → 95%
Weight
90%
Battery
92%
Display
93%
Games Performance
34 / 55 → 62%
Application Performance
74 / 85 → 87%
AI Performance
79%
Temperature
85%
Noise
100%
Audio
78 / 90 → 87%
Camera
85%
Average
69%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average
CO2 Emissions
No Data
Materials
50%
Packaging
50%
Power Use
95.7%
Repairability
35%
Software Updates
50%
Recycle Logo Total Sustainability Score: 46.8%

Transparency

The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. 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. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. 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.

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
Mail Logo
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > The best compact smartphone for photography - Vivo X200 Pro Mini review
Marcus Herbrich, 2025-02-24 (Update: 2025-02-24)

OSZAR »