Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 82.9 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | Android 11, 10 |
| 2020-04-04 | 2020-08-20 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 5.67 x 2.73 x 0.32 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 5.04 ounces |
| Black | Just black |
| Plastic | Plastic and Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 349.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 5.8 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| -- | OLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 444 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G SM7150-AA chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 470, 64-bit, 8 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 618 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/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm 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 | 3140mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 5.12 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.1 |
| 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 4a has a score of 82.9, which is a little bit better than Galaxy XCover FieldPro's general score of 80.1. Both phones in this review come with Android operating system, but Google Pixel 4a has the older 11 version and Galaxy XCover FieldPro has Android 8.0 Oreo. Although the Google Pixel 4a and Galaxy XCover FieldPro were only released with a couple months difference, the Google Pixel 4a is notably lighter and noticeably thinner.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features just a bit better screen than Google Pixel 4a, because although it has a little smaller screen, it also counts with a better screen pixels density and a higher resolution of 1440 x 2560px. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a little better hardware performance than Google Pixel 4a, although it has less RAM, they both have 8 cpu cores.
Google Pixel 4a has a very superior camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not good for shooting photos and/or video in poorly lited environments, and they both have the same sensor size, the Google Pixel 4a also counts with a way higher video definition and a back camera with a better 12.2 MP resolution.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has more storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Google Pixel 4a, because although it has 0 less internal storage capacity, it also counts with an external memory card slot that supports up to 512 GB. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a superior battery lifetime than Google Pixel 4a, because it has a 4500mAh battery size.
Despite of being the best phone in this comparison, Google Pixel 4a is also very cheap compared to the other ones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.