Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 81 | 78.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 11, 10, 9.0 Pie |
| 2020-01-31 | 2019-05-07 |
| 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches | 5.96 x 2.76 x 0.32 inches |
| 7.76 ounces | 5.19 ounces |
| Black | Black, Purple and White |
| -- | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 421.00 | $ 186.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 5.6 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 2220 x 1080 pixels |
| IPS LCD | OLED |
| 409 pixels per inch | 441 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9611 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 670 SDM670 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor | Kryo 360, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP3 GPU | Adreno 615 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9.09 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 11.74 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 25.00 MP + 13.00 MP | 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | 28.00mm focal length |
| 0.25 inches (1/4") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (480 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 9.79 | 9.79 |
| 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, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4050mAh Battery | 3000mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Galaxy XCover Pro is just a bit better than the Google Pixel 3a, having a general score of 81 against 78.8. The Galaxy XCover Pro body is somewhat thicker and extremely heavier than Google Pixel 3a. Both phones in this comparison review work with the same Android 11 OS, so you shouldn't see any difference regarding that.
The Google Pixel 3a has a bit sharper screen than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a bit smaller display and a little worse 1080 x 2220 pixels resolution, it also counts with a little bit more pixels per inch in the display. The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro has a bit more powerful processor than Google Pixel 3a. Both of them have a Octa-Core CPU and a 4 GB RAM memory.
The Galaxy XCover Pro counts with a much bigger memory for apps and games than Google Pixel 3a, and although they both have exactly the same internal storage capacity, the Galaxy XCover Pro also has a SD memory card expansion slot that admits a maximum of 512 GB. Google Pixel 3a features a camera that is just as good as Galaxy XCover Pro's camera, because although the Google Pixel 3a has a camera in the back with a way worse 12.2 mega pixels resolution and a smaller aperture, it also counts with a much better video quality and a way bigger sensor taking much better quality videos and photographs.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro counts with a very superior battery duration than Google Pixel 3a, because it has a 4050mAh battery size.
Although Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more than Google Pixel 3a, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as the Google Pixel 3a. So if you want that extra specs and features, you can buy Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, but if you don't you can save some dollars and get the Google Pixel 3a, giving up some specifications.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.