Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 80.7 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2019-05-15 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.30 x 2.80 x 0.34 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.35 ounces |
| Black | Blue and Brown |
| Plastic | Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass) and Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6.3 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2520 x 1080 pixels |
| -- | IPS LCD |
| 576 pixels per inch | 435 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9609 chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.18 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 11.74 | 14.14 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 48.00 MP + 25.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.5 inches (1/2") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 8.14 | 11.55 |
| 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 | 3500mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 5.44 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0, 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
The Motorola One Vision is a little bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, getting an 80.7 score against 80.1. The Motorola One Vision construction is a lot lighter and way thinner than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, despite of the fact that it was released only 11 months before. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit better hardware performance than Motorola One Vision. Both have 8 cores and 4 GB of RAM.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with just a bit better display than Motorola One Vision, because although it has a little bit smaller display, it also counts with a slightly higher 1440 x 2560 resolution and more pixels per display inch. Motorola One Vision features a lot better camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not recommended for taking images and videos in low light situations, it also counts with a camera with much more mega-pixels, a much higher (4K) video quality and a much bigger back camera sensor providing a much higher image quality.
Motorola One Vision has a way bigger memory for games and applications than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have a slot for an external memory card that supports up to 512 GB, the Motorola One Vision also has 128 GB internal memory. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro features improved battery life than Motorola One Vision, because it has a 4500mAh battery size.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.