Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 89 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2020-10-15 | 2020-04-04 |
| 5.70 x 2.77 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.33 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Just black and Sorta sage | Black |
| Aluminum and Aluminum | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 548.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| OLED | -- |
| 430 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.2 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 620 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.45 | 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/1.70 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 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.23 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, 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 |
| 10.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4080mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 6 | 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 5 is better than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, having a overall score of 89 against 80.1. Even though the Google Pixel 5 and Galaxy XCover FieldPro were released only 6 months apart, the Google Pixel 5 is incredibly thinner and a lot lighter. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little bit better looking screen than Google Pixel 5, because although it has a quite smaller screen, it also counts with more pixels per inch of display and a higher 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bigger storage for applications and games than Google Pixel 5, because although it has only 64 GB internal storage capacity, it also counts with an external memory card slot that holds up to 512 GB. Google Pixel 5 and Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro count with extremely similar CPUs, and although the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has 4 GB lesser RAM memory, they both have 8 cores.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit longer battery lifetime than Google Pixel 5, because it has a 10 percent larger battery capacity. The Google Pixel 5 takes greater photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture, and they both have a same size back-facing camera sensor, the Google Pixel 5 also counts with a more mega-pixels back facing camera and a way better 3840x2160 (4K) video resolution.
In addition to being the best phone in this comparison, Google Pixel 5 is also by far the cheapest, making this phone a great choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.