Notebookcheck
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 Smartphone Review - Small improvements for the rugged smartphone

Replaceable once again. The Galaxy XCover 5 from Samsung offers an IP certification once again. The replaceable battery is back and the price is attractive. So is it the best it has ever been?
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Stanislav Kokhanyuk), 🇩🇪 🇳🇱 ...
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5

When you are exploring the great outdoors or doing heavy work, you have to constantly worry about your smartphone getting accidentally damaged. This is why, in such situations, it is preferable to have a ruggedised smartphone, which can withstand some accidental damage. Such a device can handle drops in water and dirt. What is more, ruggedised smartphones often have bumpers around the touchscreen, which can further protect the toughened glass from shattering if it does fall to the ground.

Samsung offers a few ruggedised smartphones in its XCover series. We are reviewing the 5th-generation model known as the XCover 5. The version that Samsung sells in Central Europe is known as the Galaxy XCover 5 Enterprise Edition. The EE model is primarily intended for construction and warehouse workers. The difference between the Galaxy XCover 5 EE and the Galaxy XCover 5 is negligible. The only advantage of the XCover 5 EE is that it can be managed remotely. The longer warranty period of the EE model should also be more attractive to large enterprises. Individual users should pay attention to the promise of extended software support, though.


The Galaxy XCover 5 retails for 300 Euros (~$365). This is a typical price for a ruggedised smartphone.

, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Galaxy XCover Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 850 8 x - 2 GHz, Cortex-A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
5.30 inch 18:9, 1480 x 720 pixel 311 PPI, capacitive, PLS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD cards up to 1 TB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: anemometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B17/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41/​B66) , Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.2 x 147.1 x 71.6 ( = 0.36 x 5.79 x 2.82 in)
Battery
3000 mAh Lithium-Ion, removeable
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/​1.8, phase detection auto-focus, dual-LED flash, video recording at 1080p/​30fps
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/​2.2
Additional features
Speakers: mono-speaker, Keyboard: virtual, charger, USB cable, 24 Months Warranty, IP68-certified, MIL-STD-810G-certified; SAR: 0.699W/​kg (head), 1.272W/​kg (body), fanless, ruggedized, waterproof
Weight
172 g ( = 6.07 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 55 g ( = 1.94 oz / 0.12 pounds)
Price
299 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Likely Competitors

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
74.3 %
04/2021
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2
172 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.30"1480x720
78 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
218 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.30"2340x1080
73 %
08/2020
CAT S42
Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300
220 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.50"1440x720
73 %
03/2020
Blackview BV5900
Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300
268 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.70"1520x720
75.9 %
11/2019
Gigaset GX290
Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2
279 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.10"1560x720

Case - Down-to-earth design and durable mid-frame

Most ruggedised smartphones have flashy resigns. For instance, metal accents, rubberised backs, and visible screws are things that most manufacturers opt for when making such devices. The Galaxy XCover 5 deviates from this trend slightly. It still has colour accents around the camera and the XCover button, though. All in all, its design is more down-to-earth than the designs that many other ruggedised smartphones feature. The mid-frame is made of plastic. It looks quite plain. The back is made of textured plastic, which makes the smartphone grippier.

The smartphone is relatively compact, and it is comfortable to hold in the hand. There are bumbers around the touchscreen and the camera. Because of huge bezels around the display, the XCover 5 does not look modern. It has a screen-to-body ratio of only 69%. The smartphone feels very rigid. The only flexible area is around the ear-piece.

The back can be removed, which is why the battery can be replaced.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Size Comparison

162.4 mm / 6.39 inch 79 mm / 3.11 inch 15.3 mm / 0.602 inch 279 g0.615 lbs161.3 mm / 6.35 inch 77.2 mm / 3.04 inch 12.7 mm / 0.5 inch 220 g0.485 lbs159 mm / 6.26 inch 80 mm / 3.15 inch 15 mm / 0.591 inch 268 g0.591 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 76.7 mm / 3.02 inch 9.94 mm / 0.3913 inch 218 g0.4806 lbs147.1 mm / 5.79 inch 71.6 mm / 2.82 inch 9.2 mm / 0.3622 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs

Connectivity - More memory

The ruggedised smartphone comes with 4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of eMMC memory, which is not bad for such a device. However, it is worth noting that non-ruggedised 300-Euro (~$365) smartphones offer more RAM and storage space.

Users can insert two SIM cards and one microSD card into the XCover 5. For this, the battery will have to be removed. SIM or SD cards cannot be hot-swapped. 

Left side: XCover button
Left side: XCover button
Rechts: Standby-Taste, Lautstärkewippe
Right side: power button, volume rocker
Bottom: microphone, USB-C port, speaker
Bottom: microphone, USB-C port, speaker
Top: microphone, 3.5mm audio jack
Top: microphone, 3.5mm audio jack

Software - Android 11 and extended software support

The XCover 5 runs Android 11 with a custom launcher known as One UI 3.1. At the time of writing, the security patches were still quite recent. The user interface looks modern and simple. The XCover 5 comes with very few third-party applications pre-installed. However, there are a lot of first-party applications, many of which cannot be completely uninstalled.

There is a pre-installed application for the remappable button, which allows you to use the smartphone as a QR scanner or a walkie-talkie without any friction.

Samsung promises 5 years of software support for the Galaxy XCover 5 Enterprise Edition (until January, 2026)

Software of the Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Software of the Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Software of the Samsung Galaxy XCover 5

Communication and GNSS - Stable Wi-Fi

The Galaxy XCover 5 supports 16 LTE bands, which is why it can operate in LTE networks in many parts of the world. The Wi-Fi module supports Wi-Fi 5, which is why data transfer rates with our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12 are on a decent level. We did not encounter any issues with signal stability.

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=286, last 2 years)
454 MBit/s ∼100% +39%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
337 (198min - 368max) MBit/s ∼74% +3%
CAT S42
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D, 32 GB eMMC Flash
329 (326min - 335max) MBit/s ∼72% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 64 GB eMMC Flash
327 (291min - 337max) MBit/s ∼72%
Gigaset GX290
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 32 GB eMMC Flash
109 (87min - 114max) MBit/s ∼24% -67%
Blackview BV5900
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
75 (68min - 79max) MBit/s ∼17% -77%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=286, last 2 years)
449 MBit/s ∼100% +37%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
349 (244min - 361max) MBit/s ∼78% +7%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 64 GB eMMC Flash
327 (269min - 339max) MBit/s ∼73%
CAT S42
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D, 32 GB eMMC Flash
324 (318min - 336max) MBit/s ∼72% -1%
Gigaset GX290
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 32 GB eMMC Flash
110 (95min - 119max) MBit/s ∼24% -66%
Blackview BV5900
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A22 MT6761, 32 GB eMMC Flash
101 (97min - 104max) MBit/s ∼22% -69%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320269285298336333330332331333336334330320333321332337326336335332331330332330338325324339336269285298336333330332331333336334330320333321332337326336335332331330332330338325324339336291313329323332328322334325334328321332327335328321328332333331318328332332327326337330333Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø327 (269-339)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø327 (291-337)

For geolocation, the XCover 5 relies on the following global navigation satellite systems: GPS, GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo. Outdoors, the Android smartphone has a small margin of error.

In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to navigation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 520. There is no significant difference between the XCover 5 and the Garmin Edge 520. All in all, the ruggedised smartphone is suited for daily navigation.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Overview
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Overview
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Bends and turns
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Bends and turns
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Bridge
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 – Bridge
Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 – Bends and turns
Garmin Edge 520 – Bends and turns
Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge

Telephony and Call Quality - Samsung smartphone offers mediocre call quality

The XCover 5 comes with Samsung’s proprietary phone application, which is very intuitive and easy to use.

The quality of phone calls is on a satisfactory level. However, at high volume, the call partner starts to sound quite tinny. Howbeit, at normal volume, the voices are more intelligible. Background noise suppression works well. Whether it is good enough for an active construction site only practice can tell.

In loudspeaker mode, the user will have to speak loudly, because the built-in microphones are not particularly sensitive. However, the call partner always sounds intelligible.

Camera - Nothing new here

Shot taken with the front-facing camera
Shot taken with the front-facing camera

Most ruggedised smartphones offer mediocre cameras. The Galaxy XCover 5 is no exception. It has a 16-MP rear camera.

The images are properly lit, but not particularly sharp. The colours appear somewhat cool. Under low-light conditions, the photographs look blurry, but well-lit. The dynamic range is not very wide.

The front-facing camera takes passable selfies, which are not particularly well-detailed.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Hauptobjektiv PflanzeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low Light

Under simulated low-light conditions (illuminance of 1 lux), nothing could be recognised on the photographs taken with the XCover 5. Under good lighting conditions, the images appeared muddy and washed-out.

The main shooter is good enough for occasional snapshots. For anything else you will need to get a smartphone with a better camera. There is no flexibility to speak of. The XCover 5 has only one camera on the back.

ColorChecker
18.8 ∆E
16.1 ∆E
21 ∆E
19.6 ∆E
20.6 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
17.4 ∆E
20.7 ∆E
15.1 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
13.7 ∆E
16.6 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
17.1 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
14.6 ∆E
17 ∆E
0.6 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
14.9 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy XCover 5: 14.17 ∆E min: 0.59 - max: 20.99 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.6 ∆E
53.9 ∆E
39.4 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
45.6 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
52.2 ∆E
35.2 ∆E
43.1 ∆E
29 ∆E
65.3 ∆E
64.5 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
37.1 ∆E
76.1 ∆E
44.6 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
88.4 ∆E
70.6 ∆E
52.5 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy XCover 5: 46.7 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 88.44 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - Highly repairable

Besides the smartphone itself, the box also includes a charger and a USB cable.


Samsung offers 24 months of warranty for the XCover 5. If the smartphone breaks, you can send it to a repair centre by mail. You can also deliver it to a service centre in person. In some regions, you can arrange for Samsung’s Express Repair bus to stop directly at your house. You can also find repair manuals and spare parts for many devices on Samsung’s website. However, at the time of writing, there were no spare parts or repair manuals for the XCover 5 on Samsung’s website.

Input Devices and Handling - Samsung smartphone with a remappable button

The touchscreen works without any issues. The sensitivity can be increased so that it could be used with the gloves on.

Just like its predecessor, the XCover 5 does not have a fingerprint sensor. The face unlock works well. However, Samsung’s software implementation is not particularly secure. Users will have to decide whether or not they want to store sensitive data on the XCover 5 on their own.

The remappable physical button is still here. It is large and very easy to use. It can be used to launch various applications or perform different actions.

Keyboard in portrait mode
Keyboard in portrait mode
Keyboard in landscape mode
Keyboard in landscape mode

Display - Mediocre brightness

Pixel arrangement
Pixel arrangement

The ruggedised smartphone comes with a PLS display, which has a typical brightness for this type of device. On very sunny days, the XCover 5’s screen is very hard to read. Furthermore, both the contrast ratio and the brightness distribution are not particularly good.

The PLS panel has a native resolution of 1480x720 pixels, which is acceptable given the relatively small screen size. All in all, the display is usable, but not impressive by any means.

461
cd/m²
457
cd/m²
525
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
525
cd/m²
516
cd/m²
467
cd/m²
519
cd/m²
490
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 525 cd/m² Average: 491.4 cd/m² Minimum: 3.8 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 525 cd/m²
Contrast: 991:1 (Black: 0.53 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.54 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.5
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.64-98 Ø5.7
93.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.318
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
PLS, 1480x720, 5.30
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.30
CAT S42
IPS, 1440x720, 5.50
Blackview BV5900
IPS, 1520x720, 5.70
Gigaset GX290
IPS, 1560x720, 6.10
Screen
6%
3%
2%
-13%
Brightness middle
525
569
8%
541
3%
476
-9%
635
21%
Brightness
491
562
14%
532
8%
473
-4%
615
25%
Brightness Distribution
87
91
5%
95
9%
92
6%
91
5%
Black Level *
0.53
0.42
21%
0.52
2%
0.47
11%
0.39
26%
Contrast
991
1355
37%
1040
5%
1013
2%
1628
64%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.54
6.14
-11%
5.89
-6%
6
-8%
10.5
-90%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.23
10.92
-7%
11.35
-11%
10.09
1%
17.9
-75%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.7
7.9
-18%
5.6
16%
5.4
19%
11.8
-76%
Gamma
2.318 95%
2.256 98%
2.272 97%
2.092 105%
1.86 118%
CCT
8555 76%
8696 75%
7884 82%
7661 85%
9570 68%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17031 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

The screen does not exhibit any PWM flickering.

The colour reproduction is on a satisfactory level. The screen suffers from a bluish cast, though. The display is not suited for colour-critical work.

CalMAN - grayscale tracking
CalMAN - grayscale tracking
CalMAN - colour accuracy
CalMAN - colour accuracy
CalMAN - colour space coverage (sRBG)
CalMAN - colour space coverage (sRBG)
CalMAN - colour space coverage (AdobeRGB)
CalMAN - colour space coverage (AdobeRGB)
CalMAN - colour space coverage (DCI-P3)
CalMAN - colour space coverage (DCI-P3)
CalMAN - saturation
CalMAN - saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 88 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (23.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
60 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 31 ms rise
↘ 29 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (37.7 ms).

The screen content can be viewed at any angle without any distortions.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

Performance - More power for the Galaxy smartphone

When compared to the predecessor model Galaxy XCover 4s, the XCover 5 offers a higher level of performance, because it comes with a new SoC. The Exynos 850 is a good solution for a mid-range ruggedised smartphone. Most applications run very well. However, demanding applications or heavy multi-tasking may bring the octa-core SoC to its knees.

The XCover 5 provides a decent level of GPU performance, according to our benchmarks. 

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
183 Points ∼31%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
134 Points ∼22% -27%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
156 Points ∼26% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (178 - 183, n=3)
181 Points ∼30% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=249, last 2 years)
596 Points ∼100% +226%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
926 Points ∼46%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
421 Points ∼21% -55%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
834 Points ∼41% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (926 - 1081, n=3)
1016 Points ∼50% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4829, n=249, last 2 years)
2028 Points ∼100% +119%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
636 Points ∼29%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (565 - 636, n=3)
609 Points ∼28% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=146, last 2 years)
2188 Points ∼100% +244%
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
543 Points ∼24%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (543 - 664, n=3)
600 Points ∼26% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=148, last 2 years)
2273 Points ∼100% +319%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
6929 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5886 Points ∼59% -15%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
6771 Points ∼67% -2%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
7005 Points ∼70% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (6929 - 7113, n=2)
7021 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=192, last 2 years)
10060 Points ∼100% +45%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
5433 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5351 Points ∼67% -2%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4889 Points ∼61% -10%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4962 Points ∼62% -9%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5133 Points ∼64% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (5433 - 5457, n=2)
5445 Points ∼68% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=237, last 2 years)
8032 Points ∼100% +48%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1263 Points ∼36%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
437 Points ∼13% -65%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
478 Points ∼14% -62%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
725 Points ∼21% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1252 - 1280, n=3)
1265 Points ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=236, last 2 years)
3483 Points ∼100% +176%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1139 Points ∼28%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
384 Points ∼9% -66%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
424 Points ∼10% -63%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
633 Points ∼16% -44%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1130 - 1157, n=3)
1142 Points ∼28% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=236, last 2 years)
4066 Points ∼100% +257%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2039 Points ∼72%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
838 Points ∼30% -59%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
860 Points ∼31% -58%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1483 Points ∼53% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (2007 - 2039, n=3)
2027 Points ∼72% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=236, last 2 years)
2816 Points ∼100% +38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1277 Points ∼30%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
462 Points ∼11% -64%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
512 Points ∼12% -60%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
733 Points ∼17% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1260 - 1292, n=3)
1276 Points ∼30% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=259, last 2 years)
4237 Points ∼100% +232%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1145 Points ∼21%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
408 Points ∼7% -64%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
457 Points ∼8% -60%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
636 Points ∼12% -44%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1133 - 1157, n=3)
1145 Points ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 31940, n=259, last 2 years)
5444 Points ∼100% +375%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2140 Points ∼71%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
865 Points ∼29% -60%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
891 Points ∼30% -58%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1571 Points ∼52% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (2079 - 2190, n=3)
2136 Points ∼71% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5784, n=257, last 2 years)
3019 Points ∼100% +41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
861 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1555 Points ∼58% +81%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
242 Points ∼9% -72%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
271 Points ∼10% -69%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
527 Points ∼20% -39%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (861 - 912, n=3)
879 Points ∼33% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=233, last 2 years)
2678 Points ∼100% +211%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
739 Points ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1450 Points ∼51% +96%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
201 Points ∼7% -73%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
227 Points ∼8% -69%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
445 Points ∼16% -40%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (739 - 788, n=3)
758 Points ∼27% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=233, last 2 years)
2836 Points ∼100% +284%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2034 Points ∼72%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2080 Points ∼73% +2%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
850 Points ∼30% -58%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
854 Points ∼30% -58%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1489 Points ∼53% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1942 - 2037, n=3)
2004 Points ∼71% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=233, last 2 years)
2835 Points ∼100% +39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
872 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1620 Points ∼47% +86%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
263 Points ∼8% -70%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
301 Points ∼9% -65%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
512 Points ∼15% -41%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (866 - 914, n=3)
884 Points ∼26% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=260, last 2 years)
3460 Points ∼100% +297%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
745 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1527 Points ∼38% +105%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
219 Points ∼5% -71%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
253 Points ∼6% -66%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
430 Points ∼11% -42%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (744 - 784, n=3)
758 Points ∼19% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 16221, n=260, last 2 years)
3993 Points ∼100% +436%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2152 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2058 Points ∼67% -4%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
874 Points ∼29% -59%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
889 Points ∼29% -59%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1536 Points ∼50% -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (2042 - 2168, n=3)
2121 Points ∼69% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5793, n=260, last 2 years)
3055 Points ∼100% +42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
944 Points ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1540 Points ∼59% +63%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
560 Points ∼21% -41%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (900 - 947, n=3)
930 Points ∼35% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (426 - 6977, n=198, last 2 years)
2620 Points ∼100% +178%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
819 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1436 Points ∼49% +75%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
462 Points ∼16% -44%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (775 - 820, n=3)
805 Points ∼27% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 11259, n=198, last 2 years)
2940 Points ∼100% +259%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2020 Points ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2061 Points ∼78% +2%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
2170 Points ∼82% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (2020 - 2071, n=3)
2050 Points ∼78% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=198, last 2 years)
2641 Points ∼100% +31%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
430 Points ∼14%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (422 - 430, n=2)
426 Points ∼14% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (153 - 9386, n=113, last 2 years)
2968 Points ∼100% +590%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
429 Points ∼14%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (423 - 429, n=2)
426 Points ∼14% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (174 - 11700, n=109, last 2 years)
3100 Points ∼100% +623%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
35 fps ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
37 fps ∼60% +6%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
18 fps ∼29% -49%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
32 fps ∼52% -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (34 - 35, n=3)
34.3 fps ∼56% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=204, last 2 years)
61.7 fps ∼100% +76%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
24 fps ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
40 fps ∼34% +67%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
13 fps ∼11% -46%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
21 fps ∼18% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (24 - 24, n=3)
24 fps ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 417, n=204, last 2 years)
117 fps ∼100% +388%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
29 fps ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
22 fps ∼45% -24%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
11 fps ∼22% -62%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
20 fps ∼41% -31%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (28 - 29, n=3)
28.3 fps ∼57% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=202, last 2 years)
49.3 fps ∼100% +70%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
20 fps ∼29% +25%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
5.9 fps ∼9% -63%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11 fps ∼16% -31%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (15 - 16, n=3)
15.7 fps ∼23% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 229, n=203, last 2 years)
68.1 fps ∼100% +326%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
20 fps ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼37% -30%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
8.1 fps ∼21% -59%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
14 fps ∼37% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (19 - 20, n=3)
19.3 fps ∼50% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=201, last 2 years)
38.3 fps ∼100% +92%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
9.4 fps ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16 fps ∼34% +70%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4 fps ∼9% -57%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.6 fps ∼14% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (9.4 - 9.4, n=3)
9.4 fps ∼20% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 151, n=201, last 2 years)
46.8 fps ∼100% +398%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
12 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.2 fps ∼38% -23%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
3.3 fps ∼14% -72%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8 fps ∼33% -33%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (11 - 12, n=3)
11.3 fps ∼47% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.3 - 61, n=200, last 2 years)
24.1 fps ∼100% +101%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
6 fps ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼35% +67%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1.8 fps ∼6% -70%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4 fps ∼14% -33%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (5.9 - 6.1, n=3)
6 fps ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 96.6, n=200, last 2 years)
28.2 fps ∼100% +370%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
12 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.4 fps ∼39% -22%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4 fps ∼17% -67%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4.4 fps ∼18% -63%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.5 fps ∼27% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (11 - 12, n=3)
11.7 fps ∼49% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 73, n=267, last 2 years)
24.1 fps ∼100% +101%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
6.2 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼35% +61%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2 fps ∼7% -68%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2.3 fps ∼8% -63%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3.9 fps ∼14% -37%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (6.2 - 6.2, n=3)
6.2 fps ∼22% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=267, last 2 years)
28.4 fps ∼100% +358%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
7.4 fps ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5.6 fps ∼35% -24%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2.5 fps ∼15% -66%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2.8 fps ∼17% -62%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3.8 fps ∼23% -49%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (7.1 - 7.4, n=3)
7.23 fps ∼45% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=268, last 2 years)
16.2 fps ∼100% +119%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2.2 fps ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.5 fps ∼32% +59%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
0.73 fps ∼7% -67%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
0.85 fps ∼8% -61%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.4 fps ∼13% -36%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (2.2 - 2.2, n=3)
2.2 fps ∼20% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=268, last 2 years)
11 fps ∼100% +400%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
127096 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
175661 Points ∼51% +38%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
77514 Points ∼22% -39%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
95354 Points ∼28% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (124232 - 133391, n=3)
128240 Points ∼37% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 727247, n=178, last 2 years)
346046 Points ∼100% +172%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1533 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2057 Points ∼54% +34%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
895 Points ∼24% -42%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
916 Points ∼24% -40%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1533 - 1644, n=3)
1588 Points ∼42% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (615 - 7123, n=189, last 2 years)
3806 Points ∼100% +148%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
3314 Points ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4029 Points ∼59% +22%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1542 Points ∼22% -53%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1531 Points ∼22% -54%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (3042 - 3382, n=3)
3246 Points ∼47% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 11774, n=189, last 2 years)
6883 Points ∼100% +108%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1533 Points ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1717 Points ∼38% +12%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1018 Points ∼22% -34%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1156 Points ∼26% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1533 - 1904, n=3)
1774 Points ∼39% +16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=189, last 2 years)
4527 Points ∼100% +195%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1219 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2150 Points ∼36% +76%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
478 Points ∼8% -61%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
477 Points ∼8% -61%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (1159 - 1219, n=3)
1199 Points ∼20% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 15739, n=189, last 2 years)
5945 Points ∼100% +388%
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
893 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1202 Points ∼92% +35%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
854 Points ∼66% -4%
Blackview BV5900
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
836 Points ∼64% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 850
  (893 - 990, n=3)
927 Points ∼71% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=189, last 2 years)
1302 Points ∼100% +46%

In the browser benchmarks, the Samsung smartphone performs as expected. Websites load quickly and scrolling feels smooth. However, images and other media content can sometimes take a while to load.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 182, n=177, last 2 years)
52.7 Points ∼100% +185%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
27.671 Points ∼53% +50%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (18.4 - 19.1, n=3)
18.7 Points ∼35% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chrome 89)
18.469 Points ∼35%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
14.282 Points ∼27% -23%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 414, n=187, last 2 years)
95.6 Points ∼100% +253%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
50.992 Points ∼53% +88%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (27.1 - 28, n=3)
27.5 Points ∼29% +2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chrome 89)
27.09 Points ∼28%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
22.543 Points ∼24% -17%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 244, n=163, last 2 years)
52.2 runs/min ∼100% +241%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chome 80)
29 runs/min ∼56% +90%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chome 89)
15.3 runs/min ∼29%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (15 - 15.6, n=3)
15.3 runs/min ∼29% 0%
CAT S42 (Chome 80)
12.8 runs/min ∼25% -16%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 252, n=193, last 2 years)
80.9 Points ∼100% +131%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
46 Points ∼57% +31%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chrome 89)
35 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (35 - 35, n=3)
35 Points ∼43% 0%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
26 Points ∼32% -26%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 64222, n=201, last 2 years)
18720 Points ∼100% +284%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
7442 Points ∼40% +53%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (4875 - 5060, n=3)
4970 Points ∼27% +2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chrome 89)
4875 Points ∼26%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
3971 Points ∼21% -19%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
11842.1 ms * ∼100% -26%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 (Chrome 89)
9396.9 ms * ∼79%
Average Samsung Exynos 850 (9174 - 9397, n=3)
9276 ms * ∼78% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
6212.4 ms * ∼52% +34%
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 29635, n=203, last 2 years)
3764 ms * ∼32% +60%

* ... smaller is better

The XCover 5 uses eMMC memory, which is the slowest type of memory currently used in smartphones. Nevertheless, it is good enough for day-to-day use.

The Android smartphone achieves acceptable transfer rates with our reference-grade microSD card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501. It has a somewhat faster microSD card reader than comparable devices.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 5Samsung Galaxy XCover ProCAT S42Blackview BV5900Gigaset GX290Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
116%
-3%
-20%
-11%
14%
187%
Sequential Read 256KB
268.5
507.6
89%
287.9
7%
179.6
-33%
275.59
3%
274 ?(95.6 - 704, n=174)
2%
807 ?(41.9 - 2037, n=273, last 2 years)
201%
Sequential Write 256KB
273.6
181.1
-34%
121.1
-56%
101.7
-63%
33.77
-88%
178 ?(40 - 274, n=174)
-35%
365 ?(11.9 - 1321, n=273, last 2 years)
33%
Random Read 4KB
121
108.6
-10%
51.6
-57%
40.9
-66%
33.33
-72%
58.7 ?(11.4 - 149, n=174)
-51%
142 ?(13.5 - 325, n=273, last 2 years)
17%
Random Write 4KB
14.7
100.5
584%
14.8
1%
7.6
-48%
10.95
-26%
29.1 ?(3.4 - 147, n=174)
98%
132 ?(5.5 - 330, n=273, last 2 years)
798%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
64.3 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
72.4 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
83.1 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
29%
83.1 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
29%
81.05 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
26%
77.4 ?(21.1 - 108, n=144)
20%
76.4 ?(13.4 - 154, n=144, last 2 years)
19%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
38.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.4 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
53%
62.5 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61%
63.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63%
74.3 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
92%
58.3 ?(11.2 - 83.3, n=144)
51%
58.6 ?(8.4 - 83.3, n=144, last 2 years)
51%

Gaming - Is the XCover suitable for gaming?

The Galaxy XCover 5 cannot always achieve 30 FPS in modern titles. We had to lower the graphics settings considerably to achieve playable frame rates in Asphalt 9.

The HD present cannot be selected in PUBG Mobile on the XCover 5. Howbeit, the smartphone was able to maintain decent frame rates in PUBG Mobile on the low preset. We use GameBench to measure frame rates.

Both the touchscreen and the motion sensor worked well during our gaming sessions. 

Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
0510152025303529313030303030303029303029313030303030301828293030303030303029302930313025303030302827303030303024252931303030303030302930302931303030303030182829303030303030302930293031302530303030282730303030302425162425101213121761413911161615161818151617151235913171718171918171917172220202424252320162022212323181821293130303030303030293030293130303030303018282930303030303030293029303130253030303028273030303030242516242510121312176141391116161516181815161715123591317171817191817191717222020242425232016202221232318182129303434353535312731363733343436363637343536363732323737353533363635363536363835363735403736363236373735383738393737373739373837363729313030303030303029303029313030303030301828293030303030303029302930313025303030302827303030303024251624251012131217614139111616151618181516171512359131717181719181719171722202024242523201620222123231818212930343435353531273136373334343636363734353636373232373735353336363536353636383536373540373636323637373538373839373737373937383736372714242923129212526242530232629272425262727232628293029262729303029303030293030302728253028272828292630302729272830Tooltip
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 2.8.3a: Ø29.2 (18-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 2.8.3a: Ø16.8 (3-25)
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 1.3.0: Ø35.5 (27-40)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 1.3.0: Ø26.6 (9-30)

Emissions - Mediocre speakers

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test
Stress test with 3DMark (Wild Life)
Stress test with 3DMark (Wild Life)

The smartphone does not become hot or throttle under load, as the results of our 1-hour stress test show. The XCover 5 always stays cool.

The XCover 5 is able to maintain its full performance in GFXBench and 3DMark Wild Life.

3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 64 GB eMMC Flash
99.3 % ∼100%
Max. Load
 37.7 °C
100 F
34.2 °C
94 F
33.3 °C
92 F
 
 37.3 °C
99 F
33.7 °C
93 F
33.6 °C
92 F
 
 36.7 °C
98 F
34 °C
93 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 37.7 °C = 100 F
Average: 34.8 °C = 95 F
34.2 °C
94 F
35.1 °C
95 F
37.9 °C
100 F
34 °C
93 F
34.2 °C
94 F
36.9 °C
98 F
34 °C
93 F
34.1 °C
93 F
36 °C
97 F
Maximum: 37.9 °C = 100 F
Average: 35.2 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  38.6 °C = 101 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.8 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.9 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.2 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Heat distribution - back
Heat distribution - back
Heat distribution - front
Heat distribution - front

Speakers

Frequency response
Frequency response

The mono-speaker offers a decent volume. However, the lows are almost completely missing. At full volume, the mono-speaker sounds rather unpleasant. All in all, the audio quality is on a typical level for such a device.

You can get a better sound quality if you connect a set of headphones to the XCover 5 via either the 3.5-mm audio jack or Bluetooth. Both Bluetooth and wired headphones work without any problems.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs204342.52536.837.53136.829.54030.632.5503433.1632928.48025.519.310029.320.312523.91616014.224.520011.333.425011.741.13159.747.34009.352.150011.857.463013.756.480017.362.4100016.268.3125011.167.8160010.369.8200010.468.6250011.666.6315012.667.2400013.965.6500015.266.4630015.669.3800016.372.21000016.567.31250016.458.21600017.147.4SPL65.971.426.479.6N19.226.50.843.9median 13.9median 62.4Delta2.412.345.240.243.741.334.833.337.637.139.538.636.635.129.130.128.426.930.531.724.735.822.84121.947.521.554.619.962.820.765.719.268.518.773.12277.918.27717.87717.77917.87617.677.317.871.317.77118.171.518.371.418.768.8195919.460.170.966.13187.121.8191.667median 19median 68.8210.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy XCover 5Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 72% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 82% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery Life - Bigger, replaceable battery

Energy Consumption

When idle, the ruggedised smartphone is very energy-efficient. Under load, the power consumption of the Samsung smartphone is on a normal level. We are glad to see that the XCover 5 does not consume any power when it is turned off.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.3 / 1.9 / 2.7 Watt
Load midlight 4.3 / 6.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
CAT S42
4200 mAh
Gigaset GX290
6200 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 850
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
3%
1%
9%
1%
7%
Idle Minimum *
1.3
0.9
31%
1.5
-15%
0.89
32%
1.267 ?(1 - 1.5, n=3)
3%
0.951 ?(0.37 - 2.5, n=218, last 2 years)
27%
Idle Average *
1.9
1.8
5%
2
-5%
2.09
-10%
1.867 ?(1.6 - 2.1, n=3)
2%
1.804 ?(0.65 - 3.94, n=218, last 2 years)
5%
Idle Maximum *
2.7
2.3
15%
3
-11%
2.15
20%
2.63 ?(2.3 - 2.9, n=3)
3%
2.04 ?(0.69 - 4.2, n=218, last 2 years)
24%
Load Average *
4.3
5.4
-26%
3.6
16%
4.49
-4%
4.3 ?(4 - 4.6, n=3)
-0%
4.48 ?(2.1 - 8.4, n=218, last 2 years)
-4%
Load Maximum *
6.2
6.9
-11%
4.9
21%
5.78
7%
6.27 ?(6 - 6.6, n=3)
-1%
7.31 ?(3.56 - 12.3, n=218, last 2 years)
-18%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Samsung smartphone comes with a relatively small 3000-mAh battery. However, the XCover 5 comes with a feature, which has become increasingly rare in the smartphone world. It has a replaceable battery. So if its battery dies, you can pop another one in and keep using the smartphone. 

The Samsung smartphone lasted about 11 hours in our Wi-Fi test. This is not a bad result, given the small battery capacity. The Gigaset GX290 lasts twice as long as in our Wi-Fi test, but it weighs more than 100 grams more.

The battery takes about 90 minutes to fully charge with the included 15-W charger.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
20h 46min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 57min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
11h 29min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 33min
Samsung Galaxy XCover 5
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
CAT S42
4200 mAh
Blackview BV5900
5580 mAh
Gigaset GX290
6200 mAh
Battery Runtime
14%
19%
75%
100%
Reader / Idle
1246
1259
1%
1243
0%
H.264
689
802
16%
902
31%
WiFi v1.3
657
731
11%
836
27%
1153
75%
1316
100%
Load
213
268
26%
253
19%

Pros

+ fast Wi-Fi
+ good GNSS performance
+ replaceable battery
+ long warranty period
+ no throttling under load
+ flicker-free screen

Cons

- low contrast ratio
- no hardware navigation buttons
- outdated (single) camera
- mediocre speaker
- slow card reader

Verdict - New features, missing features

Review of the Samsung Galaxy XCover 5. Device provided courtesy of: notebooksbilliger.de
Review of the Samsung Galaxy XCover 5. Device provided courtesy of: notebooksbilliger.de

The Galaxy XCover 5 is not a quantum leap forward for the XCover series. It is a small step forward. It has a faster SoC, which does not throttle under load, a somewhat bigger battery and a new design.

However, the redesign also has a few drawbacks such as the fact that the hardware buttons for OS navigation were removed. The gesture support has gotten better, but if you use the XCover 5 with the gloves on you will certainly miss the physical buttons.

If you need extended software support, but do not need hardware buttons and a fingerprint sensor, then you should take a close look at the Galaxy XCover 5.

We were rather disappointed with the predecessor model, because it did not make any real progress. This time around, though, you will get more memory. This is something that makes the XCover 5 more competitive than its predecessor. However, its single rear camera looks antiquated in this day and age.

Samsung promises 5 years of software support and 2 years of availability for the XCover 5. This is good news for enterprise customers. 

The Wi-Fi module is quite fast and the remappable hardware button is also a nice-to-have feature. Unfortunately, the ruggedised smartphone still does not have a fingerprint sensor. Samsung should have included it a long, long time ago. 

All in all, the XCover 5 is a ruggedised smartphone, which does not have any weaknesses, except that it looks somewhat outdated.

Price and Availability

Currently, the Galaxy XCover 5 can be purchased on Samsung’s website for £329.00 (~$460).

Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 - 04/22/2021 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
78%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
85%
Connectivity
44 / 70 → 63%
Weight
90%
Battery
89%
Display
82%
Games Performance
10 / 64 → 15%
Application Performance
50 / 86 → 58%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
58 / 90 → 64%
Camera
49%
Average
69%
74%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile - 881 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009
I initially wrote about gaming laptops when I joined Notebookcheck in 2009. I was then involved with the setup of the comparison portal Notebookinfo and worked with social media concepts for large companies like BMW and Adidas, while also returning to work for Notebookcheck in 2012. Nowadays, I focus on smartphones, tablets, and future technologies. Since 2018 I have been Managing Editor for mobile device reviews, working alongside my colleague Daniel Schmidt.
contact me via: @FloSchmi26, LinkedIn, Xing
Stanislav Kokhanyuk
Translator: Stanislav Kokhanyuk - Translator - 61 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2021
I am a big fan of technology, which is why I try to keep up with it. Among my other passions are literature and writing, and so it should not be surprising to anyone at all that I have a four-year bachelor's degree in philology. However, my interests are not limited just to the world of technology, or, for that matter, the world of literature. I am also interested in people and the stories they have to tell. And more recently, I took an interest in artificial intelligence.
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy XCover 5 Smartphone Review - Small improvements for the rugged smartphone
Florian Schmitt, 2021-04-25 (Update: 2021-04-25)