Google Pixel 11 Pro Fold vs Oppo Reno13 Pro
Which one should you buy?
Who leads where?
- DisplayGoogle Pixel 11 Pro Fold
- PerformanceGoogle Pixel 11 Pro Fold
- DesignOppo Reno13 Pro
Wins are counted from the official values in the table below; the BUY / CONSIDER / WAIT call comes from each product's own decision box. We do not predict prices.
 GoogleGoogle Pixel 11 Pro FoldNo reviews yet |  OppoOppo Reno13 ProNo reviews yet | |
|---|---|---|
| Key Differences | ||
| Processor | Google Tensor G6 | Dimensity 8350 |
| Screen Size | 8.0" | 6.83" |
| Main Camera | 48 MP | 50 MP |
| Battery | 4806 mAh | 5640 mAh |
| Fast Charging | 30 W | — |
| Display | ||
| Size | 8.0" | 6.83" |
| Panel | Katlanabilir LTPO OLED | AMOLED |
| Resolution | 2076x2152 | 1272x2800 |
| Refresh Rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz |
| Peak Brightness | 3600 nit | 1200 nit |
| Performance | ||
| Chipset | Google Tensor G6 | Dimensity 8350 |
| Graphics Processor | PowerVR CXTP-48-1536 | ARM G615-MC6, 1303MHz |
| RAM | 16 GB | 12 GB |
| Storage | 256 GB | 256 GB |
| Storage type | UFS 4.0 | LPDDR5X@4266MHz 4 x 16 bits + UFS 3.1 |
| Manufacturing Technology | 3 nm | — |
| Camera | ||
| Main Camera | 48 MP | 50 MP |
| Main Aperture | f/1.7 | f/1.8 |
| Ultra Wide | 10.5 MP | 8 MP |
| Telephoto | 10.8 MP 5x 112mm | — |
| Telephoto Resolution | — | 50 MP |
| Front Camera | 10 MP | 50 MP |
| Battery and Charging | ||
| Capacity | 4806 mAh | 5640 mAh |
| Wired Charging | 30 W | — |
| Wireless Charging Support | Yes | — |
| Design | ||
| Weight | 239 g | 195 g |
| Thickness | 10.1 mm | 7.55 mm |
| Frame | Aluminum | — |
| Back Surface | Gorilla Glass Victus 2 | — |
| Connectivity | ||
| 5G | Yes | Yes |
| SIM | Nano SIM + eSIM | Dual Nano-SIM |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi 7 | — |
| Bluetooth | 6.0 | 5.4 |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Durability and security | ||
| IP Certification | IP68 | — |
| Biyometrik | In-Screen Fingerprint | — |
| Software | ||
| Operating System | Android | — |
| Version | Android 17 | — |
| Multimedia and ports | ||
| Speaker | Stereo | — |
| Headphone jack | — | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.2 | Type-C |
The two products are level on the compared specs.
This table is based on manufacturers official specifications. Winning on paper does not always mean a difference in everyday use.