Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 81.6 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2017-10-19 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 5.74 x 2.74 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 5.04 ounces |
| Black | Black, Blue and White |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 129.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 5 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) |
| -- | AMOLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 441 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 MSM8998 chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 280, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2350 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 540 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 10.1 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.38 inches (1/2.6") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 9.79 |
| 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, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 2700mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 4.64 |
| 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 Google Pixel 2 has an overall score of 81.6, which is a bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro's general score of 80.1. Despite of the fact that Google Pixel 2 is notably older than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, it's design is much lighter and thinner. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features just a bit better hardware performance than Google Pixel 2. They have the same number of cores and the same RAM memory amount.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit sharper display than Google Pixel 2, because it has a better resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels, a higher screen density and a little bigger display. The Google Pixel 2 shoots a lot better videos and photos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier camera sensor shooting worse quality videos and photographs and a smaller diafragm aperture which is not favorable for shooting photos or video in poorly lited situations, it also counts with a back facing camera with a higher 12.2 megapixels resolution and a much higher 3840x2160 video resolution.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has more storage for games and applications than Google Pixel 2, because although it has just 64 GB internal memory capacity, it also counts with a slot for an SD memory card that supports up to 512 GB. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a much longer battery life than Google Pixel 2, because it has a 67 percent more battery capacity.
Despite of being the best phone between the ones we are comparing here, Google Pixel 2 is also very cheap compared to the other ones, making this phone a great choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.