Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 76.9 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Samsung |
| Android 10, 9.0 Pie | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2019-04-26 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.47 x 3.02 x 0.31 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.46 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Black, Blue, Pink and White | Black |
| Plastic | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 299.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2400 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Super AMOLED | -- |
| 393 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 675 SM6150 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 460, 64-bit, 11 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 612 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 | |
| 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") 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 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 3.52 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | 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
Galaxy XCover FieldPro is just a bit better than the Galaxy A70, with a general score of 80.1 against 76.9. Galaxy XCover FieldPro's design is newer, but way thicker and noticeably heavier than Galaxy A70. Both of these phones have Android OS (operating system), but Galaxy XCover FieldPro has 8.0 Oreo version and Galaxy A70 has Android 10.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with just a bit better processing power than Samsung Galaxy A70, although it has a smaller amount of RAM memory, they both have the same number of cores. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a brighter screen than Samsung Galaxy A70, because although it has a much smaller screen, it also counts with a better pixel density and a higher 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a lot better camera than Galaxy A70, and although they both have the same video frame rate and the same 1920x1080 (Full HD) video quality, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a larger sensor capturing better quality videos and photographs and a bigger camera aperture.
Samsung Galaxy A70 features a much bigger storage for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have a SD memory card expansion slot that holds a maximum of 512 GB, the Samsung Galaxy A70 also has 128 GB internal memory capacity. Samsung Galaxy A70 and Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro have extremely similar batteries performance.
Although Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it is way more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy A70, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as Samsung Galaxy A70. If you prefer to save a few dollars, you can get the Samsung Galaxy A70, and give up a couple features, but you'll get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.