Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.4 | 81 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 11, 10 |
| 2016-10-04 | 2020-01-31 |
| 6.16 x 3.01 x 0.28 inches | 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches |
| 5.82 ounces | 7.76 ounces |
| Black, Gold, Gray and White | Black |
| Glass and Metal | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 280.00 | $ 421.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.3 inches |
| 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | IPS LCD |
| 401 pixels per inch | 409 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 8953 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9611 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 506 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9.09 | 9.27 |
| 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 | 25.00 MP + 13.00 MP |
| f/2.00 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 |
| 1280 x 720 (120 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (480 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 9.68 | 9.79 |
| 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, Dual SIM |
| 6.1 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3510mAh Battery | 4050mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 5.44 | 6 |
| 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, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro has a general score of 81, which is slightly better than Moto Z Play's overall score of 74.4. Both of these phones use Android OS (Operating System), but Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro has older 11 version and Moto Z Play has Android 8.0 Oreo version. Although the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is way newer than the Moto Z Play, it is notably thicker and incredibly heavier.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro counts with a slightly better looking screen than Moto Z Play, because it has a slightly higher 1080 x 2340 resolution, a little bigger screen and a just a bit higher pixel quantity per inch of display. Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro features a bit better CPU than Moto Z Play, and although they both have 8 processing cores, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro also has a larger amount of RAM.
Motorola Moto Z Play counts with just a bit bigger memory for apps and games than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has just 32 GB internal storage capacity, it also counts with a slot for an external memory card that allows a maximum of 1,95 TB. The Galaxy XCover Pro has superior battery lifetime than Moto Z Play, because it has a 15% bigger battery size.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro takes slightly better pictures and videos than Moto Z Play, and although they both have the same video frame rate and the same 1920x1080 video quality, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro also has a camera in the back with a lot higher 25 mega-pixels resolution and a larger camera aperture for better images in low light environments.
Galaxy XCover Pro costs a lot more money than the Motorola Moto Z Play, but you can get a better phone for that extra dollars.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.