Where they actually differ
The most decisive specs, ranked by how much they matter — before the full spec table.
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3S | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 90 Hz |
| Field of view | 96 ° | 120 ° |
| Eye tracking | false | true |
| Standalone | true | false |
Between the Quest 3S and XR-4, the Quest 3S comes out ahead in refresh rate / standalone, while the XR-4 wins on field of view / eye tracking. Overall, the Quest 3S scores 73 and the XR-4 scores 69.7 on our Mars Score.
Which should you buy?
The Quest 3S edges ahead on the Mars Score (73 vs 69.7), but the 3.3-point gap is small enough that the right pick comes down to which spec advantages matter to you.
Pick the Quest 3S 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. The single most decisive one: Refresh rate — 33.33% more. 120 Hz vs 90 Hz.
Pick the XR-4 if you care most about field of view / eye tracking. Its strongest claims are field of view, eye tracking. The single most decisive one: Field of view — 25.00% more. 120 ° vs 96 °.
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.
Which should you buy: Meta - Quest 3S or Varjo - XR-4?
Meta - Quest 3S leads the current Mars Score by 3.3 points.The more useful decision is the trade-off behind that result: compare refresh rate, field of view, standalone against the way you will actually use the product.
Choose Meta - Quest 3S if…
Meta - Quest 3S has the measurable edge on refresh rate hz, is standalone.
Choose Varjo - XR-4 if…
Varjo - XR-4 has the measurable edge on fov deg, has eye tracking.
This is a structured comparison of the published catalog values. It is not a claim of identical real-world performance across every workload; use the linked spec drill-downs and methodology page to inspect the inputs.
Why Meta - Quest 3S wins
- ▲Refresh rate — 33.33% more. 120 Hz vs 90 Hz.
- ▲Standalone: true (vs false).
Why Varjo - XR-4 wins
- ▲Field of view — 25.00% more. 120 ° vs 96 °.
- ▲Has Eye tracking.
Spec comparison
Display
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3S | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Resolution per eye | 1832x1920 | 3840x3744 |
| Refresh rateⓘ | 120 Hzlead | 90 Hz |
| Field of view | 96 ° | 120 °lead |
| Panelⓘ | LCD | Micro-OLEDlead |
Tracking & Audio
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3S | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Inside-out tracking | true | true |
| Eye tracking | false | truelead |
| Face tracking | false | false |
| Color passthrough | true | true |
Compute
| Spec | Meta - Quest 3S | Varjo - XR-4 |
|---|---|---|
| Standalone | truelead | false |
| Battery | 2.5 hlead | 0 h |