Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 81.9 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2019-10-24 | 2020-04-04 |
| 5.79 x 2.71 x 0.32 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.71 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Clearly white, Just black and Oh so orange | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 339.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2280 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| OLED | -- |
| 443 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.4 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SM8150 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.63 | 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/1.70 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 | |
| 2800mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 4.8 | 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 Google Pixel 4 has a score of 81.9, which is slightly better than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro's overall score of 80.1. Google Pixel 4 is a noticeably thinner and much lighter cellphone than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, although both of them were released with only a couple months difference.
The Google Pixel 4 has a bit more powerful processor than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have a Octa-Core CPU, the Google Pixel 4 also has more RAM memory. Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit sharper screen than Google Pixel 4, because although it has a little bit smaller display, it also counts with more pixels per inch in the screen and a higher resolution of 1440 x 2560px.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a very superior storage capacity for games and applications than Google Pixel 4, and although they both have equal internal memory capacity, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a slot for external memory cards that holds a maximum of 512 GB. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a way better battery duration than Google Pixel 4, because it has a 4500mAh battery size.
The Google Pixel 4 shoots way better photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not good for taking pictures and video in low-light environments, and they both have a same size back-facing camera sensor, the Google Pixel 4 also counts with a back-facing camera with a higher 12.2 MP resolution and a way higher video definition.
Despite of being the best phone of the ones in this comparison, the Google Pixel 4 is also very cheap compared to the other phones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.