Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.8 | 81 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 11, 10 |
| 2016-09-01 | 2020-01-31 |
| 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches | 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches |
| 5.75 ounces | 7.76 ounces |
| Black, Gold and Gray | Black |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 250.00 | $ 421.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.3 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | IPS LCD |
| 534 pixels per inch | 409 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9611 chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9 | 9.27 |
| 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 | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 13.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.25 inches (1/4") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (480 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 10.01 | 9.79 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 5.5 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3500mAh Battery | 4050mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 5.44 | 6 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Galaxy XCover Pro has a score of 81, which is just a bit better than Moto Z Force's global score of 75.8. Both phones in our current comparison include Android operating system, but Galaxy XCover Pro has an older 11 version and Moto Z Force has Android 7.0 Nougat version. Although the Galaxy XCover Pro is way newer than the Moto Z Force, it's way heavier and noticeably thicker.
The Moto Z Force features a bit more vivid screen than Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a little bit smaller display, it also counts with a higher 1440 x 2560 resolution and more pixels per screen inch. Moto Z Force features a much greater memory to store more games and applications than Galaxy XCover Pro, and although they both have equal 64 GB internal storage capacity, the Moto Z Force also has a SD memory slot that holds up to 1,95 TB.
The Galaxy XCover Pro has a little faster processor than Motorola Moto Z Force, and although they both have a 4 GB RAM, the Galaxy XCover Pro also has more cores. Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro counts with longer battery lifetime than Moto Z Force, because it has a 4050mAh battery size. Moto Z Force has a bit better camera than Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a lesser mega pixels resolution camera in the back and a tinier aperture which is not recommended for capturing photographs in poorly lited situations, it also counts with a way higher 3840x2160 (4K) video definition.
Although Galaxy XCover Pro is a better device, it is a lot more expensive than Motorola Moto Z Force, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Motorola Moto Z Force. So if you want that extra features and specs, you can buy the Galaxy XCover Pro, otherwise you can save some dollars and get the Motorola Moto Z Force, resigning some features and specs.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.