Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 81.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | LG |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2018-06-08 |
| 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 | Black and Gray |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 261.00 |
| 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 | 8.8 |
| 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 2800 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 630 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.63 |
| 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 | 16.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.60 aperture |
| -- | 30.00mm focal length |
| 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 |
| -- | 1920 x 1080 (240 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 10.01 |
| 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, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The LG V35 ThinQ is a bit better than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, getting a general score of 81.3 against 80.1. LG V35 ThinQ is an older cellphone than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but LG made it way thinner and way lighter anyway. The LG V35 ThinQ has a bit more powerful CPU than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have 8 cpu cores, the LG V35 ThinQ also has a greater amount of RAM memory.
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little sharper display than LG V35 ThinQ, because although it has a bit smaller display and a bit worse 1440 x 2560px resolution, it also counts with a quite better screen pixels density. LG V35 ThinQ features a way bigger memory capacity to install games and applications than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have the same 64 GB internal memory, the LG V35 ThinQ also has a SD memory card expansion slot that holds up to 1,95 TB.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with better battery lifetime than LG V35 ThinQ, because it has a 4500mAh battery size instead of 3300mAh. LG V35 ThinQ shoots a lot better pictures and videos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller camera sensor capturing less light and dull colors and a smaller aperture which is not favorable for capturing photos and/or video in low-light situations, it also counts with a camera with a much better resolution and a lot better (4K) video quality.
Despite of being the best phone in our comparison, the LG V35 ThinQ is also very cheap compared to the other devices, which makes this phone an obvious call.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.