Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| HTC | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2017-02-21 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.39 x 3.14 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.00 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 749.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| S-LCD 5 | -- |
| 515 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.5 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro-AB chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 8.91 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 14.66 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 16.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 0.43 inches (1/2.3") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (120 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 9.9 | 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 | |
| 3000mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.2 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | 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 U Ultra, having an 80.1 score against 77. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro's body is newer, but a lot heavier and way thicker than the HTC U Ultra. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit faster processor than HTC U Ultra, and although they both have a 4 GB RAM, the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a larger number of cores.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little more vivid screen than HTC U Ultra, because although it has a quite smaller display, and they both have the same exact resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also counts with a just a little greater quantity of pixels in each display inch.
The HTC U Ultra counts with a lot bigger storage capacity for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have exactly the same 64 GB internal memory, the HTC U Ultra also has a SD card slot that supports up to 1,95 TB. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a superior battery performance than HTC U Ultra, because it has a 4500mAh battery size instead of 3000mAh.
The HTC U Ultra has a much better camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not good for capturing photographs in poorly lited situations, and they both have a back facing camera with a 12 mega-pixels, the HTC U Ultra also counts with a way better 3840x2160 (4K) video definition and a bigger camera sensor providing a better image quality.
Although Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it costs a lot more than HTC U Ultra, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as the HTC U Ultra. If you prefer to save some money, you can buy HTC U Ultra, giving up a few features and specifications, but you will get the most with your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.