Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.7 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2018-10-18 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.22 x 3.02 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.49 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black, Pink and White | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 194.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2960 x 1440 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Super AMOLED | -- |
| 522 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.7 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 385, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2500 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 630 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.36 | 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 | |
| 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 28.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") 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, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3430mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.44 | 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
Google Pixel 3 XL is a little bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, having an 80.7 score against 80.1. Although Google Pixel 3 XL is older than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, it's body is thinner and a lot lighter. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit more vivid screen than Google Pixel 3 XL, because although it has a bit smaller display and a little lower resolution of 1440 x 2560px, it also counts with a little bit more pixels per display inch.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a much greater storage capacity to store more games and applications than Google Pixel 3 XL, and although they both have equal internal storage, the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a slot for an SD memory card that admits a maximum of 512 GB. Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit better CPU than Google Pixel 3 XL. They have a 4 GB RAM memory and 8 cores.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has better battery lifetime than Google Pixel 3 XL, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity. Google Pixel 3 XL shoots way better photographs and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is worse for low-light captures and video, and they both have a 0.39 inches camera sensor, the Google Pixel 3 XL also counts with a more MP back-facing camera and a much higher video quality.
Even being the best phone of the ones we compare here, the Google Pixel 3 XL is also very cheap compared to the other devices.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.