Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 81.3 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| LG | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2018-06-08 | 2020-04-04 |
| 5.97 x 2.97 x 0.29 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.57 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black and Gray | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 261.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2880 x 1440 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| P-OLED | -- |
| 537 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.8 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 385, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2800 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 630 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.63 | 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 | |
| 16.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.60 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 30.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.32 inches (1/3.09") 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 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.01 | 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 | |
| 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.28 | 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 |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
LG V35 ThinQ is just a bit better than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, having an 81.3 score against 80.1. Despite of the fact that the LG V35 ThinQ is older than the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, it's design is incredibly thinner and lighter. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bit more vivid display than LG V35 ThinQ, because although it has a little smaller screen and a quite lower resolution of 1440 x 2560px, it also counts with a just a bit better pixel density.
LG V35 ThinQ has a superior storage to install applications and games than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have the same 64 GB internal storage capacity, the LG V35 ThinQ also has a SD extension slot that admits a maximum of 1,95 TB. The LG V35 ThinQ features a bit more powerful processing unit than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have the same number of cores, the LG V35 ThinQ also has a higher amount of RAM memory.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has longer battery lifetime than LG V35 ThinQ, because it has a 36% more battery size. LG V35 ThinQ captures much better pictures and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller diafragm aperture which is not nice for low light photography and videos and a tinier camera sensor which provides a lower image and video quality, it also counts with a way higher (4K) video resolution and a lot more megapixels camera in the back.
LG V35 ThinQ is not only the best phones of the ones in this comparison, but it's also a bargain compared to the other ones, making this phone a great choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.