Between the Quest 3 and XR-4, the Quest 3 comes out ahead in refresh rate / standalone, while the XR-4 wins on field of view / eye tracking. Overall, the Quest 3 scores 72.9 and the XR-4 scores 68.3 on our Mars Score.
Which should you buy?
The Quest 3 edges ahead on the Mars Score (72.9 vs 68.3), but the 4.6-point gap is small enough that the right pick comes down to which spec advantages matter to you.
Pick the Quest 3 if the display is what you stare at all day — refresh rate, brightness, or sharpness is where the difference will be most visible. The biggest gaps in its favor are refresh rate, standalone.
Pick the XR-4 if you care most about field of view / eye tracking. Its strongest claims are field of view, eye tracking.
Both ship with comparable color passthrough, so those specs do not separate the two — focus on the differences below.
Bottom line: there is no wrong answer here — match the spec advantages to how you actually use the product. The Mars Score parity says both are well-rounded; the differences are about trade-offs, not quality.
Why Meta - Quest 3 wins
- ▲Refresh rate — 33.33% more. 120 Hz vs 90 Hz.
- ▲Standalone: true (vs false).
Why Varjo - XR-4 wins
- ▲Field of view — 9.09% more. 120 ° vs 110 °.
- ▲Has Eye tracking.
Spec comparison
Display
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3 | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Resolution per eye | 2064x2208 | 3840x3744 |
| Refresh rateⓘ | 120 Hzlead | 90 Hz |
| Field of view | 110 ° | 120 °lead |
| Panelⓘ | LCD | Micro-OLEDlead |
Tracking & Audio
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3 | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Inside-out tracking | true | true |
| Eye tracking | false | truelead |
| Face tracking | false | false |
| Color passthrough | true | true |
Compute
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3 | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Standalone | truelead | false |
| Battery | 2.2 hlead | 0 h |
Spec-level deep dives
More from the same brands
vsMars is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you. Learn more.