Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 81 | 75.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2020-01-31 | 2016-09-01 |
| 6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 inches | 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches |
| 7.76 ounces | 5.75 ounces |
| Black | Black, Gold and Gray |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 421.00 | $ 250.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | AMOLED |
| 409 pixels per inch | 534 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 9611 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP3 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 11.74 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 25.00 MP + 13.00 MP | 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.25 inches (1/4") 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 | 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 9.79 | 10.01 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | -- |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 5.5 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4050mAh Battery | 3500mAh Battery |
| Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6 | 5.44 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.1 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Galaxy XCover Pro has a general score of 81, which is slightly better than the Motorola Moto Z Force's general score of 75.8. The Galaxy XCover Pro body is extremely newer, but extremely thicker and noticeably heavier than Motorola Moto Z Force. These phones come with Android operating system, but Galaxy XCover Pro has the previous 11 version while Motorola Moto Z Force has Android 7.0 Nougat version.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro counts with a little better performance than Motorola Moto Z Force, and although they both have a 4 GB RAM, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro also has a larger number of faster cores. Motorola Moto Z Force has a little bit better looking display than Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a bit smaller display, it also counts with a better pixel density and a better 1440 x 2560 resolution.
Moto Z Force counts with a much greater storage to store more apps and games than Galaxy XCover Pro, and although they both have exactly the same 64 GB internal memory, the Moto Z Force also has a slot for an SD memory card that holds up to 1,95 TB. The Motorola Moto Z Force shoots a bit better photographs and videos than Galaxy XCover Pro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not favorable for low-light photography and video and a worse 21 mega pixels resolution camera in the back, it also counts with a lot better (4K) video definition.
The Galaxy XCover Pro has greater battery life than Motorola Moto Z Force, because it has a 4050mAh battery capacity.
Although Galaxy XCover Pro is a better device, it costs a lot more money than Motorola Moto Z Force, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as Motorola Moto Z Force. So if you want that extra specs and features, you can buy Galaxy XCover Pro, else you can save some money and buy the Motorola Moto Z Force, resigning some specs and features.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.