Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 77.4 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2017-06-29 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.15 x 3.00 x 0.24 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 5.11 ounces |
| Black | Gold, Gray and Silver |
| Plastic | Metal |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 200.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) |
| -- | Super AMOLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 401 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 626 8953 Pro chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 506 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.18 |
| 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 + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | -- |
| 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 720 x 480 (480 fps) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 9.46 |
| 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 Li - Ion Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.2, EDR |
| 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 |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is just a bit better than Moto Z2 Play, having a global score of 80.1 against 77.4. Even though the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is incredibly newer than the Moto Z2 Play, it is thicker and way heavier. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bit superior CPU than Moto Z2 Play. Both have 8 cpu cores and the same RAM amount.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a brighter display than Motorola Moto Z2 Play, because although it has a quite smaller display, it also counts with a higher 1440 x 2560 resolution and a greater display pixel density. Motorola Moto Z2 Play features a much better camera than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier camera aperture which is not so good for capturing photos or videos in low light situations, and they both have the same resolution back camera, the Motorola Moto Z2 Play also counts with a way better video quality.
Motorola Moto Z2 Play has a much better storage capacity for applications and games than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have exactly the same internal memory capacity, the Motorola Moto Z2 Play also has a slot for an SD memory card that admits up to 1,95 TB. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a very superior battery performance than Moto Z2 Play, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity instead of 3000mAh.
Although Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than Moto Z2 Play, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as Moto Z2 Play. So if you want that extra features, you can buy Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but if you don't you can save some dollars and get the Moto Z2 Play, resigning some specs and features.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.