Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 77 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | HTC |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2017-02-21 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.39 x 3.14 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.00 ounces |
| Black | 16 777 216 |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 749.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| -- | S-LCD 5 |
| 576 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.5 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro-AB chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.45 | 8.91 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 11.74 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 16.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.43 inches (1/2.3") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1920 x 1080 (120 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 9.9 |
| 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 |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 3000mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is slightly better than the HTC U Ultra, getting an 80.1 score against 77. Even though the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is extremely newer than the HTC U Ultra, it's extremely heavier and extremely thicker. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little more vivid display than HTC U Ultra, because although it has a little smaller screen, and they both have an equal 1440 x 2560 resolution, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also counts with a bit greater amount of pixels per display inch.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a bit better processing power than HTC U Ultra, and although they both have 4 GB of RAM, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a larger number of faster cores. HTC U Ultra captures much clearer videos and photos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not nice for capturing photos and video in low-light situations, and they both have a camera in the back with a 12 mega pixels resolution, the HTC U Ultra also counts with a way better 3840x2160 video quality and a bigger back-facing camera sensor.
The HTC U Ultra features a way bigger memory capacity for applications, games, photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have the same 64 GB internal memory capacity, the HTC U Ultra also has a slot for an external memory card that admits a maximum of 1,95 TB. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a superior battery performance than HTC U Ultra, because it has a 50 percent more battery capacity.
Although Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it is a lot more expensive than HTC U Ultra, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as the HTC U Ultra. If you are trying to save a few dollars, you can get HTC U Ultra, letting go some specs and features, but you will get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.