Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.1 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 11 | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2021-04-02 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.28 x 2.95 x 0.29 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.21 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Midnight Black and Shimmer Blue | Black |
| Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 6) and Plastic | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| -- | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.6 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 2376 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | -- |
| 395 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.2 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 SM8250-AC chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3200 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 650 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.81 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 10.1 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 48.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.5 inches (1/2") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 11.77 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4300mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 6.16 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.1 | 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 |
Comparison review
The Galaxy XCover FieldPro is a little bit better than the vivo X60, with a global score of 80.1 against 75.1. Although it's the best in this review, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro body is older, noticeably heavier and way thicker than vivo X60. Both of these phones use Android operating system, but the Galaxy XCover FieldPro has the newer 8.0 Oreo version and vivo X60 has Android 11, so it gives a lot of extra features.
Vivo X60 counts with a bit more powerful processing unit than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have 8 cpu cores, the vivo X60 also has 4 GB more RAM. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro counts with a little more vivid screen than vivo X60, because although it has a way smaller display, it also counts with a higher 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution and more pixels per inch of display.
The Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bigger storage capacity for games and applications than vivo X60, because although it has 0 less internal memory, it also counts with a slot for SD memory cards that admits up to 512 GB. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a little better battery life than vivo X60, because it has a 5 percent more battery size.
The vivo X60 shoots way better photographs and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a smaller aperture which is not recommended for taking pictures and/or video in low-light situations, it also counts with a much larger sensor, a lot better 3840x2160 video resolution and a much better resolution back facing camera.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.