Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.5 | 81 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 11, 10 |
| 2016-09-01 | 2020-01-31 |
| 6.04 x 2.96 x 0.20 inches | 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches |
| 4.80 ounces | 7.76 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | Black |
| Aluminum | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 284.00 | $ 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 13.00 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 |
| 9.57 | 9.79 |
| 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, Dual SIM |
| 6.3 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2600mAh Battery | 4050mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.56 | 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
Galaxy XCover Pro has a global score of 81, which is a bit better than the Motorola Moto Z's general score of 74.5. Even though Galaxy XCover Pro is incredibly newer than the Motorola Moto Z, it is incredibly thicker and notably heavier. Both phones in this review work with Android operating system, but the Galaxy XCover Pro has 11 version and Motorola Moto Z has Android 8.0 Oreo.
Moto Z counts with a bit more vivid display than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a bit smaller display, it also counts with a better screen density and a better 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution. Galaxy XCover Pro features a bit more powerful processor than Motorola Moto Z, and although they both have the same RAM memory amount, the Galaxy XCover Pro also has 4 more CPU cores.
The Motorola Moto Z has a little bit better storage for games and applications than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has just 32 GB internal storage, it also counts with a slot for an SD memory card that holds up to 1,95 TB. The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro counts with a slightly better camera than Motorola Moto Z, and although they both have the same (Full HD) video quality and the same 30 fps video frame rates, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro also has a larger diafragm aperture for better images and video in low light situations and a camera with much more mega-pixels.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro has a very superior battery duration than Moto Z, because it has a 56 percent more battery size.
Galaxy XCover Pro costs a lot more than the Moto Z, but it's still a convenient choice, because you can get a lot more features for that extra money.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.