Vivo Beats Apple in Under-Display Fingerprint Test?

Updated 4 November 2026 · Standard formula, shown below

Yes, in the specific test of under-display fingerprint scanning speed and accuracy, Vivo has demonstrated a clear lead over Apple, but this comparison requires important context: Apple does not currently use under-display fingerprint technology in any iPhone, relying instead on Face ID. Vivo, as a pioneer in this technology, has shipped multiple generations of under-display optical and ultrasonic sensors, with recent models showing faster unlock times and larger scanning areas than any Face ID-equipped iPhone can match for biometric authentication.

The Test That Started the Comparison

The comparison gained traction from independent speed tests conducted by tech reviewers and YouTube channels. These tests typically measure the time from screen wake to successful unlock, using a stopwatch or high-speed camera. In these head-to-head trials, Vivo’s flagship models, such as the X90 Pro+ or X Fold2, consistently unlock in 0.2 to 0.3 seconds, while the iPhone 14 Pro or 15 Pro’s Face ID takes roughly 0.5 to 0.8 seconds, especially when the phone is lying flat on a table or the face is partially covered. The Vivo sensor also works with wet or dirty fingers, a scenario where Face ID fails entirely.

Why Apple Skipped Under-Display Fingerprints

Apple introduced Face ID with the iPhone X in 2017, removing the Touch ID home button. The company has not returned to fingerprint scanning on any iPhone since. Apple’s stated reasons include security (Face ID has a lower false-positive rate than Touch ID) and user experience (no physical button allows for a larger display). However, industry analysts point to supply chain and patent considerations, as well as Apple’s investment in the TrueDepth camera system, which powers Animoji and AR features. Under-display fingerprint technology, especially the optical type used by Vivo, is generally considered less secure than Face ID’s 3D mapping, though ultrasonic sensors like those from Qualcomm approach comparable security.

How Under-Display Fingerprint Scanners Work

There are two main types of under-display fingerprint sensors:

Optical scanners (used by Vivo and most Android phones): They shine a bright light through the OLED screen onto your finger. The reflected light is captured by a tiny camera beneath the display. The image is compared to the stored fingerprint template. These are fast and cheap but can be fooled by a high-resolution photo of a fingerprint.
Ultrasonic scanners (used by Samsung’s Galaxy S series and some Vivo models): They emit ultrasonic sound waves that bounce off the ridges and valleys of your fingerprint. This creates a 3D map, which is more secure and works even with wet or greasy fingers. They are slower but more reliable.

Real-World Speed and Accuracy Differences

In practice, the speed difference is noticeable but not dramatic. Vivo’s latest ultrasonic sensors (e.g., in the X100 Ultra) claim a 0.2-second unlock, while optical sensors in mid-range Vivo phones take about 0.3-0.4 seconds. Face ID on an iPhone 15 Pro takes about 0.5 seconds when the phone is held at eye level, but it can take 1-2 seconds if you need to adjust the phone’s angle or if the lighting is poor. Accuracy also differs: optical sensors fail roughly 1 in 50 attempts with dry or worn fingers, while ultrasonic sensors fail about 1 in 100. Face ID fails about 1 in 1,000,000 for a random person, but it fails more often in real-world conditions (sunglasses, masks, low light) than the official statistic suggests.

Security and Safety Considerations

For everyday use, both Face ID and under-display fingerprints are secure enough for unlocking your phone and authorizing payments. However, there are important differences:

Fingerprint sensors (optical and ultrasonic) can be fooled by a good 3D-printed fake finger, though this requires physical access to your fingerprint. Ultrasonic sensors are much harder to fool than optical ones.
Face ID can be fooled by an identical twin or a very close relative. It also fails with a mask, though Apple added a mask-unlock feature in iOS 15.4 that uses the eye region.
Legal implications: In many jurisdictions, you can be compelled to unlock your phone with your fingerprint (since it’s considered physical evidence), but not with your face or a PIN (since those are considered testimony). This is a privacy consideration some users weigh.

Why Vivo Leads in This Specific Area

Vivo has invested heavily in under-display fingerprint technology since 2018, when it released the first commercial phone with an optical sensor (the X20 Plus UD). The company has iterated rapidly, shrinking the sensor size, increasing the scanning area, and improving the algorithms. Vivo also partners with sensor makers like Goodix and Qualcomm to push the technology forward. Apple, by contrast, has not released a single under-display fingerprint product, so it is not competing in this space. The test results are therefore less a “Vivo vs. Apple” competition and more a demonstration of what is possible when a manufacturer prioritizes this feature.

Choosing Between Face ID and Under-Display Fingerprint

If you are deciding between an iPhone and a Vivo (or another Android phone with under-display fingerprint), consider these factors:

Speed: If you want the fastest unlock, Vivo’s ultrasonic sensors are currently the quickest. Face ID is slower, especially when the phone is on a desk.
Convenience: Fingerprint sensors work with gloves (if the gloves are thin) and in any lighting. Face ID requires you to look at the phone, which is awkward in meetings or in bed.
Security: Face ID is statistically more secure against random attempts, but both are fine for normal use. If you are a high-profile target, neither is foolproof.
Ecosystem: Apple’s Face ID integrates with Apple Pay, password autofill, and app logins seamlessly. Vivo’s fingerprint does the same within Android, but some apps still rely on the app’s own biometric API, which can be slower.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Apple have any under-display fingerprint phone?

No. As of 2025, Apple has not released any iPhone with an under-display fingerprint sensor. All iPhones since 2017 use Face ID for biometric authentication. There are rumors about Apple returning to Touch ID under the display, but they have not materialized.

Is Vivo’s fingerprint scanner faster than Face ID?

In independent speed tests, yes. Vivo’s latest ultrasonic sensors unlock in about 0.2 seconds, while Face ID takes about 0.5 seconds on average. The gap is smaller when the iPhone is held at the optimal angle, but Vivo still wins in most real-world scenarios.

Can under-display fingerprint scanners be fooled by a photo?

Optical scanners can sometimes be fooled by a high-resolution photo of your fingerprint, especially if the photo is printed on a transparent film. Ultrasonic scanners are much harder to fool because they read the 3D structure of the finger, not just a 2D image. Both are more secure than a simple PIN.

Why doesn’t Apple use under-display fingerprint technology?

Apple has not officially explained, but analysts believe it is due to their investment in Face ID, security considerations (Face ID has a lower false-acceptance rate), and the difficulty of integrating a fingerprint sensor without compromising the display quality. Apple also tends to wait for technology to mature before adopting it.

Is under-display fingerprint technology safe for your eyes?

Yes. The light emitted by optical sensors is a brief, low-intensity flash that is not harmful to the eyes. It is similar to the flash on a camera. Ultrasonic sensors emit no visible light at all. There is no evidence that using these scanners causes eye damage.

Method: the standard formula for this calculation, rounded as each result states. See how the calculators work or report an error.