Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.4 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2017-06-29 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.15 x 3.00 x 0.24 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 5.11 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Gold, Gray and Silver | Black |
| Metal | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 200.00 | $ 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 626 8953 Pro chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 506 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.18 | 9.45 |
| 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 | |
| 12.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 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 |
| 720 x 480 (480 fps) slow motion video | -- |
| 9.46 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.2, EDR | 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 |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a score of 80.1, which is a little bit better than Moto Z2 Play's overall score of 77.4. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a newer phone than the Moto Z2 Play, but it is a lot thicker and extremely heavier. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has just a bit better performance than Moto Z2 Play. They have 4 GB of RAM and a Octa-Core CPU.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a brighter display than Moto Z2 Play, because although it has a quite smaller screen, it also counts with a better 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution and a higher screen pixel density. The Motorola Moto Z2 Play counts with much more storage capacity for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have the same internal storage capacity, the Motorola Moto Z2 Play also has a slot for external memory cards that allows up to 1,95 TB.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a much longer battery performance than Moto Z2 Play, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity. Motorola Moto Z2 Play features a much better camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller camera aperture, and they both have the same resolution back-facing camera, the Motorola Moto Z2 Play also counts with a way better 3840x2160 (4K) video quality.
Although Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it is way more expensive than the Motorola Moto Z2 Play, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as Motorola Moto Z2 Play. If you are trying to save some dollars, you can buy the Motorola Moto Z2 Play, letting go a few specs and features, but you'll get the most with your money.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.