Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 87 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2020-10-02 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.66 x 2.86 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.77 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Blush gold, Liquid mercury and Polished graphite | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) | Plastic |
| $ 1400.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.2 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2142 x 876 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| OLED | -- |
| 373 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 7.9 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 620 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 13.3 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 48.00 MP + 20.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 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 |
| 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 11.55 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2800mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 4.8 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Motorola razr (2020) has a score of 87, which is a little bit better than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro's overall score of 80.1. The Motorola razr (2020) is a much lighter and way thinner phone than the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, even when both of them were released with only a couple of months difference. Both phones in this comparison review include Android OS, but Motorola razr (2020) has 11 version while Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has Android 8.0 Oreo.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a processing unit that is very similar to Motorola razr (2020)'s processing unit, and although the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a lower amount of RAM, they both have the same number of cores. Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a sharper display than Motorola razr (2020), because although it has a little smaller screen, it also counts with way more pixels per display inch and a better resolution of 1440 x 2560px.
Motorola razr (2020) features more memory capacity for apps and games than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has no external memory slot, it also counts with 192 GB more internal storage. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a superior battery performance than Motorola razr (2020), because it has a 4500mAh battery size.
Motorola razr (2020) captures way better photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture, it also counts with a camera with a much higher 48 MP resolution, a way bigger back-facing camera sensor capturing much higher quality photos and videos and a much better (4K) video quality.
The Motorola razr (2020) costs more than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but you can get a better phone for that few extra dollars.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.