Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 82.5 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | LG |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2020-04-04 | 2018-03-09 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 5.97 x 2.97 x 0.29 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 5.57 ounces |
| Black | 16 777 216 |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 930.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2880 x 1440 pixels |
| -- | P-OLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 537 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.7 |
| 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 2450 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 540 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 11.74 | 17.06 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 16.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.60 aperture |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.32 inches (1/3.09") 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 | 9.9 |
| 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 | 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.32 | 5.28 |
| 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, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
LG V30S ThinQ is just a bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, with an 82.5 score against 80.1. LG V30S ThinQ's design is way thinner and incredibly lighter than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, although it was released many years before. Both phones in our current comparison use the same Android 8.0 Oreo OS (operating system), so you shouldn't notice any differences regarding that.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a slightly better display than LG V30S ThinQ, because although it has a little smaller screen and a bit lower resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels, it also counts with a bit better display pixel density. The LG V30S ThinQ features a way bigger memory capacity to store more games and applications than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because it has 64 GB more internal storage capacity and an external memory slot that allows up to 1,95 TB.
LG V30S ThinQ's processor is just as good as Galaxy XCover FieldPro's processing unit, and although the LG V30S ThinQ has a greater amount of RAM, they both have 8 processing cores. LG V30S ThinQ captures a lot better pictures and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not favorable for shooting pictures and video in low-light environments and a smaller sensor taking less light and washed colors, it also counts with a way more MP camera and a much higher 3840x2160 (4K) video quality.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro features superior battery performance than LG V30S ThinQ, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity against 3300mAh.
Despite of being the best phone between the ones we are comparing, LG V30S ThinQ is also a bargain compared to the other phones, which makes it a no doubt choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.