Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 89 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2020-10-15 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 5.70 x 2.77 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 5.33 ounces |
| Black | Just black and Sorta sage |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Aluminum |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 548.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| -- | OLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 430 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 8 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 620 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.45 |
| 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 |
| -- | 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 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1920 x 1080 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 10.23 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 4080mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.32 | 6 |
| 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 5 is much better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, with a general score of 89 against 80.1. Google Pixel 5's design is way lighter and extremely thinner than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, even though they were released only a couple of months apart. Google Pixel 5's CPU is just as good as Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro's CPU, and although the Google Pixel 5 has more RAM, they both have 8 processing cores.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little more vivid display than Google Pixel 5, because although it has a quite smaller display, it also counts with a greater pixel density and a better resolution of 1440 x 2560. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a better storage capacity to store more games and applications than Google Pixel 5, because although it has only 64 GB internal memory, it also counts with a slot for SD memory cards that allows a maximum of 512 GB.
Google Pixel 5 features a very superior camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture, and they both have the same camera sensor size, the Google Pixel 5 also counts with a way better video quality and a back camera with more MP. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features just a little better battery duration than Google Pixel 5, because it has a 10 percent larger battery size.
Even being the best phone of the ones we are comparing here, Google Pixel 5 is also a lot cheaper, which makes it an easy decision.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.