Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.7 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2019-05-15 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.30 x 2.80 x 0.34 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.35 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Blue and Brown | Black |
| Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass) and Plastic | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| -- | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2520 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | -- |
| 435 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.2 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9609 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 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 |
| Mali-G72 MP3 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.18 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 14.14 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 48.00 MP + 25.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 0.5 inches (1/2") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 11.55 | 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 | |
| 3500mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 5.44 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0, 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
Motorola One Vision has a score of 80.7, which is just a bit better than Galaxy XCover FieldPro's 80.1 global score. Although the Motorola One Vision is older than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, it's design is noticeably lighter and extremely thinner. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bit better looking display than Motorola One Vision, because although it has a bit smaller display, it also counts with a higher number of pixels per inch in the display and a slightly higher resolution of 1440 x 2560px.
The Motorola One Vision features much more memory capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have a SD extension slot that supports up to 512 GB, the Motorola One Vision also has 128 GB internal memory capacity. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little faster processor than Motorola One Vision. They have the same number of cores and 4 GB of RAM.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with better battery performance than Motorola One Vision, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity. The Motorola One Vision counts with a greater camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller camera aperture which is not nice for taking photographs or video in poorly lited situations, it also counts with a camera in the back with way more mega pixels, a way higher video quality and a way larger camera sensor capturing lot better quality videos and pictures.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.