Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 76.4 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Nokia |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | -- |
| 2020-04-04 | 2019-03-03 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.10 x 2.95 x 0.31 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.07 ounces |
| Black | Blue |
| Plastic | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | $ 699.00 |
| 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 | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 10.1 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 20.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 28.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 8.14 | 9.68 |
| 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 | 3320mAh 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 |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a little bit better than the Nokia 9 PureView, with an 80.1 score against 76.4. Although the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is newer than the Nokia 9 PureView, it is much heavier and noticeably thicker. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a slightly better looking display than Nokia 9 PureView, because although it has a little bit smaller screen and a little worse resolution of 1440 x 2560, it also counts with a bit more pixels per screen inch.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a quite bigger storage to store more apps and games than Nokia 9 PureView, because although it has only 64 GB internal storage, it also counts with a slot for SD memory cards that admits up to 512 GB. The Nokia 9 PureView features just a bit better performance than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have 8 CPU cores, the Nokia 9 PureView also has more RAM.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro features superior battery performance than Nokia 9 PureView, because it has a 36% greater battery capacity. The Nokia 9 PureView shoots much better videos and photos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier diafragm aperture and a smaller back camera sensor capturing less light and duller colors, and they both have a same resolution back camera, the Nokia 9 PureView also counts with a way higher video quality.
Although Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than the Nokia 9 PureView, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Nokia 9 PureView. If you are trying to save some money, you can buy the Nokia 9 PureView, letting go a few features and specifications, but you will get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.