Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 82.5 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2017-10-19 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.22 x 3.02 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.17 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black and White | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 152.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2880 x 1440 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| P-OLED | -- |
| 537 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.7 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 MSM8998 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 280, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2350 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 540 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 10.1 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.38 inches (1/2.6") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 9.79 | 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 | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3520mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 5.52 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Google Pixel 2 XL has a score of 82.5, which is just a bit better than the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro's general score of 80.1. The Google Pixel 2 XL design is notably thinner and way lighter than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, although it was released many years before. Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a little bit better screen than Google Pixel 2 XL, because although it has a quite lower 1440 x 2560px resolution and a quite smaller display, it also counts with a bit higher quantity of pixels in each display inch.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit more powerful processing unit than Google Pixel 2 XL. Both of them have a 4 GB RAM memory and the same number of cores. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a quite bigger storage for applications and games than Google Pixel 2 XL, because although it has just 64 GB internal memory, it also counts with an external SD slot that allows up to 512 GB.
The Google Pixel 2 XL shoots greater photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not good for low light captures and video and a smaller sensor taking less light and duller colors, it also counts with a lot better video definition and a more mega-pixels camera in the back.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro features better battery life than Google Pixel 2 XL, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity.
Even being the best phone of the ones we compare here, the Google Pixel 2 XL is also by far the cheapest one.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.