Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 87 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | Android 11, 10 |
| 2020-04-04 | 2020-10-02 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.66 x 2.86 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.77 ounces |
| Black | Blush gold, Liquid mercury and Polished graphite |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 1400.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6.2 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2142 x 876 pixels |
| -- | OLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 373 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 7.9 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 8 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 620 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 48.00 MP + 20.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| 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 |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (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 | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 2800mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 4.8 |
| 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 |
Comparison review
The Motorola razr (2020) is a bit better than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, with a global score of 87 against 80.1. Although the Motorola razr (2020) and the Galaxy XCover FieldPro were released with only 6 months difference, the Motorola razr (2020) is much lighter and incredibly thinner. Both devices in this review use Android OS (operating system), but Motorola razr (2020) has 11 version while Galaxy XCover FieldPro has Android 8.0 Oreo.
Motorola razr (2020)'s processing unit is just as good as the processing unit in Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although the Motorola razr (2020) has 4 GB more RAM, they both have a Octa-Core processing unit. The Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a brighter display than Motorola razr (2020), because although it has a quite smaller display, it also counts with a better 1440 x 2560px resolution and a way better display density.
The Motorola razr (2020) features a quite bigger storage capacity to install applications and games than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has no SD memory card expansion slot, it also counts with 192 GB more internal memory. Motorola razr (2020) features a way better camera than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier diafragm aperture which is not so good for low light captures and video, it also counts with a much larger camera sensor providing a way better image quality, a camera with way more mega pixels and a way better video quality.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a much better battery lifetime than Motorola razr (2020), because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity against 2800mAh.
The Motorola razr (2020) costs more than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, but it's still a good choice, because you can get a lot more for that extra money.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.