Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.1 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2015-09-03 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.06 x 3.00 x 0.44 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.31 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black, Gray and White | Black |
| Plastic | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| -- | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | -- |
| 515 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.5 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 MSM8992 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Hexa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 418 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 8.82 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 128 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 10.02 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/2.00 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.42 inches (1/2.4") 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 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.34 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.3 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a little bit better than Moto X Pure Edition (2015), getting an 80.1 score against 74.1. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro body is newer, but much heavier and extremely thicker than the Moto X Pure Edition (2015). Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a little bit better hardware performance than Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because it has 1 GB more RAM and a larger number of cores.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit better looking screen than Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because although it has a little bit smaller display, and they both have exactly the same 1440 x 2560px resolution, the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro also counts with a bit greater screen pixels density.
The Moto X Pure Edition (2015) captures a lot better pictures and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a lot smaller camera aperture which is worse for low light photography, it also counts with a way higher (4K) video quality, a bigger back-facing camera sensor capturing more light and vivid colors and a much better 21 MP resolution back facing camera.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bigger memory capacity for games and applications than Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015), and although they both have equal internal memory capacity, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a SD card slot that holds up to 512 GB. Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a much better battery duration than Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because it has a 50% more battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.