Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 80.7 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2018-10-18 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.22 x 3.02 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.49 ounces |
| Black | Black, Pink and White |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 194.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6.3 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2960 x 1440 pixels |
| -- | Super AMOLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 522 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.7 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 385, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2500 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 630 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.36 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 28.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") 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 | 3430mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.32 | 5.44 |
| 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
Google Pixel 3 XL has a general score of 80.7, which is a bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro's global score of 80.1. Google Pixel 3 XL is an older device than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but it's much thinner and extremely lighter anyway. Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a little faster processor than Google Pixel 3 XL. Both of them have a Octa-Core processing unit and a 4 GB RAM memory.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bit more vivid screen than Google Pixel 3 XL, because although it has a quite smaller display and a bit lower resolution of 1440 x 2560, it also counts with a quite higher pixels density. Google Pixel 3 XL takes a lot better videos and photos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier camera aperture which is worse for low light photography and video, and they both have a 0.39 inches sensor, the Google Pixel 3 XL also counts with a back-facing camera with more mega-pixels and a much better video quality.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a much better storage capacity for games and applications than Google Pixel 3 XL, and although they both have equal internal storage, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has an external SD slot that allows up to 512 GB. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with greater battery duration than Google Pixel 3 XL, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity.
Even being the best phone between the ones we are comparing, the Google Pixel 3 XL is also a bargain compared to others, making this phone a great choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.