Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 84.5 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Apple | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2018-09-21 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.20 x 3.05 x 0.30 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 7.34 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Gold, Silver and Space gray | Black |
| Glass and Stainless steel | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 1099.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.5 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2688 x 1242 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| OLED | -- |
| 456 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| 625 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Apple A12 Bionic APL1W81 (7 nm) chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| 64-bit Vortex and Tempest, 64-bit (Hexa-Core 2490 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Apple 4-core GPU GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 10.26 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 7.7 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 7.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.12 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3179mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.2 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Apple iPhone XS Max has a global score of 84.5, which is a bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro's 80.1 global score. The Apple iPhone XS Max is an older cellphone than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but Apple made it much thinner and somewhat lighter anyway. The Apple iPhone XS Max has a bit better processing unit than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has 2 lesser and slower cores, and they both have 4 GB of RAM memory, the Apple iPhone XS Max also counts with a 64 bits processor.
IPhone XS Max and Galaxy XCover FieldPro both feature incredibly similar displays, because although the Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a lot smaller screen, it also counts with a better pixels density and a quite better 1440 x 2560 resolution. Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a way bigger storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Apple iPhone XS Max, and although they both have equal internal storage capacity, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has an external memory card slot that supports up to 512 GB.
IPhone XS Max counts with a lot better camera than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not nice for capturing images and videos in low-light environments, and they both have a same size back camera sensor and a back facing camera with a 12 mega-pixels resolution, the iPhone XS Max also counts with a lot better video resolution.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a really longer battery life than Apple iPhone XS Max, because it has a 4500mAh battery size against 3179mAh.
Despite of being the best phone in our current comparison, Apple iPhone XS Max is also the cheapest one.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.