Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.4 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2016-10-04 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.16 x 3.01 x 0.28 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.82 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black, Gold, Gray and White | Black |
| Glass and Metal | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 280.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Super AMOLED | -- |
| 401 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 8953 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 506 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.09 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 12.76 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 16.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/2.00 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 | -- |
| 9.68 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.1 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3510mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 5.44 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.0 | 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 Galaxy XCover FieldPro is just a bit better than the Moto Z Play, having a score of 80.1 against 74.4. Both devices in our current comparison have the same Android 8.0 Oreo OS (Operating System), so you shouldn't notice any difference regarding that. Galaxy XCover FieldPro's body is extremely newer, but heavier and way thicker than Moto Z Play.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit superior CPU than Moto Z Play, and although they both have 8 processing cores, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a higher amount of RAM memory. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a sharper display than Motorola Moto Z Play, because although it has a little bit smaller screen, it also counts with a higher resolution of 1440 x 2560 and more pixels per display inch.
The Moto Z Play features a bit more memory for games and applications than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has just 32 GB internal memory, it also counts with a slot for an SD memory card that supports up to 1,95 TB. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has greater battery life than Motorola Moto Z Play, because it has a 4500mAh battery size.
The Moto Z Play takes better videos and photos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a lot tinier aperture, it also counts with a much more mega pixels back camera and a much higher video resolution.
Although Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it costs a lot more than the Moto Z Play, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as Moto Z Play. If you are trying to save a few dollars, you can buy Moto Z Play, giving up some specs and features, but you will get the most with your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.