Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 73.5 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| HTC | Samsung |
| Android 5.0 | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2015-06-03 | 2020-04-04 |
| 5.94 x 2.83 x 0.38 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.47 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Gold and Gray | Black |
| Plastic; metal | Plastic |
| $ 249.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.2 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | -- |
| 565 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| Capacitive, Multi-touch | No touch screen |
| 9.6 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| MediaTek Helio X10 MT6795 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Single-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB (933 MHz) RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| PowerVR G6200 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 8.46 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSD, microSDHC, microSDXC (up to 2 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 12.84 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 20.00 MP + 4.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/2.20 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 27.80mm focal length | -- |
| 0.42 inches (1/2.4") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 8.58 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE (4G), HSPA, HSUPA, EDGE, GPRS and GSM | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.5 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2840mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 598 hours standby time 23.3 hours talk time | -- |
| 4.8 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a little bit better than the HTC One ME, with an 80.1 score against 73.5. Even though the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is extremely newer than HTC One ME, it's noticeably heavier and way thicker. Both of these phones use Android OS (Operating System), but the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a more recent 8.0 Oreo version while HTC One ME has Android 5.0, providing the user a couple additional features.
The HTC One ME has a little sharper display than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a bit worse pixels density, and they both have the same 2560 x 1440 resolution, the HTC One ME also counts with a little bit bigger display. The HTC One ME has a little bit better storage capacity to install games and applications than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has less internal storage capacity, it also counts with a slot for an SD memory card that admits up to 2 TB.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a superior processing power than HTC One ME, because it has more cpu cores and 1 GB more RAM. HTC One ME counts with a little bit better camera than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a much smaller diafragm aperture which is not good for low-light photos and videos, it also counts with a way higher 3840x2160 video quality, a bigger camera sensor taking better quality photographs and videos and a much more MP camera in the back.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a very superior battery duration than HTC One ME, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity against 2840mAh.
Although Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it is way more expensive than HTC One ME, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the HTC One ME. If you prefer to save some money, you can buy HTC One ME, and give up some specs and features, but you'll get the most out of your savings.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.