Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 80.1 | 78.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Vivo |
| Android 8.0 Oreo | Android 11 |
| 2020-04-04 | 2021-04-02 |
| 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches | 6.24 x 2.88 x 0.30 inches |
| 9.03 ounces | 6.31 ounces |
| Black | Midnight Black and Shimmer Blue |
| Plastic | Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 6) and Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1105.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.1 inches | 6.6 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2376 x 1080 pixels |
| -- | AMOLED |
| 576 pixels per inch | 395 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.9 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 SM8250-AC (7 nm) chipset |
| Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit (Octa-Core 3200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP18 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 9.45 | 9.9 |
| 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 + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 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 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 8.14 | 11.77 |
| 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) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 4200mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 6.08 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.1 |
| 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 |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a little bit better than vivo X60 Pro, having a score of 80.1 against 78.8. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro construction is older, a lot thicker and heavier than vivo X60 Pro. Both phones in this comparison include Android OS (Operating System), but the Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a more recent 8.0 Oreo version and vivo X60 Pro has Android 11 version, giving a couple nice extra features and performance tweaks.
Vivo X60 Pro has a bit superior processing unit than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have 8 cores, the vivo X60 Pro also has 8 GB more RAM memory. Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a little bit better looking display than vivo X60 Pro, because although it has a really smaller display, it also counts with a higher resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels and a higher count of pixels per inch of screen.
The vivo X60 Pro takes greater videos and photos than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller camera aperture which is not good for capturing photographs and video in low light environments, it also counts with a back-facing camera with a much higher resolution, a way higher (4K) video quality and a lot bigger sensor providing a way better image quality.
Vivo X60 Pro features a quite bigger memory for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has no external memory card slot, it also counts with more internal storage capacity. The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a bit longer battery life than vivo X60 Pro, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity instead of 4200mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.