Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.2 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 9.0 Pie | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2019-02-07 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.18 x 2.96 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.07 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black and White | Black |
| Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 3) and Plastic | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 135.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.2 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2270 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | -- |
| 405 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 SDM632 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 250, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 506 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 8.91 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 11.74 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| -- | 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 (120 fps) (HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 9.46 | 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 | |
| 3000mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.2 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| -- | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a score of 80.1, which is just a bit better than Moto G7's 75.2 overall score. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro body is newer than Moto G7's, but it is a lot thicker and incredibly heavier. Both phones in our current comparison come with Android OS (operating system), but the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has the previous 8.0 Oreo version and Moto G7 has Android 9.0 Pie.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit more powerful processing unit than Moto G7. Both of them have 8 cpu cores and the same RAM amount. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a much better looking display than Moto G7, because although it has a bit smaller display, it also counts with a higher 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution and a greater display density.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with as much memory to store more apps and games as the Moto G7, they have an external memory card slot that allows a maximum of 512 GB and the same 64 GB internal storage. The Motorola Moto G7 takes much better photographs and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier diafragm aperture which is not so good for shooting images or video in poorly lited situations, and they both have a same resolution back facing camera, the Motorola Moto G7 also counts with a much higher (4K) video quality.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a superior battery life than Moto G7, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity.
Although Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it is way more expensive than the Moto G7, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Moto G7. So if you want that extra features, you can buy the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but if you don't you can save some money and buy the Moto G7, resigning some specifications.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.