Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro Smartphone Review – Outdoor phone with user-replaceable battery

Replaceable battery for professionals. The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is a robust phone built for tough environments. Apart from the robust case design, it mainly tries to win over prospective customers with its camera. In our review, we take a closer look at the outdoor smartphone.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Marius S.),
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro

With its XCover-series smartphones, Samsung has been trying to balance a robust exterior with a subtle design for years. Unlike other manufacturers of outdoor phones, Samsung does not use visible screws, metal case elements or unusual case designs and colors. XCover models have an understated design aimed at users who have no interest in a flashy smartphone. While the Galaxy XCover Pro retains this design philosophy, it also looks more modern and appears to be even more business-focused than previous models of the series.

The Galaxy smartphone offers water and dust-protection, good handling and even a user-replaceable battery, which has not been the standard for quite some time now. A good camera and good system performance are supposed to justify the price of just below 500 Euros (~$557). In our test, we compare the device to other outdoor smartphones in its price class, while assessing whether the device is able to meet the requirements for different business scenarios. Perhaps the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro even receives a recommendation for home users who often face rough environments?

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Galaxy XCover Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 9611 8 x 1.7 - 2.3 GHz, Exynos 7 Series
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.3 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 64 GB 
, 48 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 512 GB, dedicated, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, 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/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.94 x 159.9 x 76.7 ( = 0.39 x 6.3 x 3.02 in)
Battery
4050 mAh Lithium-Ion, removeable
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 25 MPix f/​1.7, phase detection AF, dual LED flash, video @1080p/​30FPS (camera 1); 8.0MP, f/​2.2, wide-angle lens (camera 2)
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix f/​2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Charger, USB cable, headset, 24 Months Warranty, FM radio, IP68-certified, MIL-STD-810G certified; LTE speed: 600 MB/s (download), 150 MB/s (upload); SAR value: 0.468 W/kg (head), 1.231 W/kg (body), fanless, ruggedized, waterproof
Weight
218 g ( = 7.69 oz / 0.48 pounds), Power Supply: 49 g ( = 1.73 oz / 0.11 pounds)
Price
499 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Competing Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
78 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
218 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.3"2340x1080
74 %
08/2019
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2
172 g32 GB eMMC Flash5"1280x720
77 %
01/2020
CAT S52
Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320
210 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.65"1440x720
77 %
01/2020
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3
322 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
78 %
03/2019
Crosscall Trekker-X4
SD 660, Adreno 512
250 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.5"1920x1080

Case – Removable Back

At first glance, the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro does not really even look like an outdoor smartphone. Even though it is not as chunky as the Blackview BV9800 Pro, a z-height of close to one centimeter does not make for a very slim device, either. Meanwhile, the purely black case is decidedly subtle. Combined with the rounded-off corners and textured back, the design is visually appealing.

However, a few details expose the fact that this is no ordinary smartphone: The frame around the display protrudes slightly in order to protect the display's glass in case of a fall. Similarly, the camera has been lowered into the case to prevent scratches caused by dropping the phone. All surfaces are relatively slip-proof and the smartphone's handling properties are good for all but very small hand sizes.

The sturdiness of the phone and its suitability for rough environments are emphasized by both an IP68 and a MIL-STD-810G certification. As a result, using the smartphone in fresh water at a depth of up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes is no problem. According to the manufacturer, the device has also passed a fall test from 1.5 meters onto a concrete surface with a plywood cover. The device feels robust and does not yield to pressure.

The back of the smartphone can be easily removed, and subsequently all slots and the replaceable battery are accessible. The latter needs to be removed in order to swap the SIM card, which makes it necessary to restart the phone.

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro

Size Comparison

168.5 mm / 6.63 inch 81 mm / 3.19 inch 14.8 mm / 0.583 inch 322 g0.71 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 82 mm / 3.23 inch 12.85 mm / 0.506 inch 250 g0.551 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 76.7 mm / 3.02 inch 9.94 mm / 0.3913 inch 218 g0.4806 lbs158.1 mm / 6.22 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 210 g0.463 lbs146.2 mm / 5.76 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs

Features – Fast Storage and NFC

Previous XCover models definitely warranted criticism in regard to the mediocre features. Although the XCover Pro's 64 GB of mass storage and 4 GB of RAM certainly will not break any records in this price range, it at least matches the expected memory configuration of an ordinary, similarly priced smartphone. It is good to see that the storage can be expanded with a microSD card, which also does not occupy one of the two SIM slots.

Furthermore, there is Bluetooth 5.0 as well as NFC on board. This is important, since it makes the smartphone more flexible when for example managing warehouses or for NFC chip security checks.

Top: microphone, 3.5 mm jack, assignable button, status LED
Top: microphone, 3.5 mm jack, assignable button, status LED
Bottom: speaker, connection pins, USB Type-C port, microphone
Bottom: speaker, connection pins, USB Type-C port, microphone
Left: freely assignable XCover button
Left: freely assignable XCover button
Right: volume rocker, standby button with integrated fingerprint sensor
Right: volume rocker, standby button with integrated fingerprint sensor

Software – Very Modern Android

Samsung's OneUI 2.0 and with it, by necessity, Android 10 are preinstalled on the smartphone. Although instead of pure stock Android, users are greeted by a fairly heavily customized user interface, the latter is sleek and modern as well as responsive and fast during use. At the time of testing, the security patches date back to February 2020, making them very up to date.

Since the smartphone is certified for DRM Widevine L1, users can watch streaming content in HD. It should be noted that due to Samsung smartphones being region locked, it is necessary to make calls for 5 minutes with a SIM card from the sales region (e.g. the European Union) before SIM cards from other regions are accepted by the smartphone.

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro software
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro software
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro software

Communication and GPS – XCover Pro with Speedy Wi-Fi

The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro comes with Wi-Fi 5 support and transfer speeds that far exceed those of other outdoor smartphones, as our test with the Linksys Nighthawk AX12 shows. During the test, the Wi-Fi connection is relatively stable, although there was one large dip.

While the smartphone supports many LTE frequencies, it is not labeled as a world phone and users may run into issues when trying to connect to LTE networks in far-away countries. In an urban area, the signal strength within the German D2 network was good both indoors and outdoors.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
349 (min: 244, max: 361) MBit/s ∼100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
322 (min: 301, max: 330) MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P70, 128 GB eMMC Flash
315 (min: 204, max: 334) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, Exynos 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 (min: 197, max: 295) MBit/s ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=562)
267 MBit/s ∼77% -23%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
259 (min: 188, max: 274) MBit/s ∼74% -26%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
337 (min: 198, max: 368) MBit/s ∼100%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P70, 128 GB eMMC Flash
302 (min: 173, max: 415) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
275 (min: 268, max: 279) MBit/s ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, Exynos 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
263 (min: 227, max: 296) MBit/s ∼78% -22%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
256 (min: 138, max: 284) MBit/s ∼76% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=562)
253 MBit/s ∼75% -25%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø349 (244-361)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø337 (198-368)
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors

Outdoors, the smartphone is able to very quickly locate us with a pinpoint accuracy of within three meters. Similarly, the compass is very accurate and shows the direction faced precisely.

The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro fares well in our real-world test with a bicycle and the Navi Garmin Edge 520 for comparison purposes: While for the turn, the route deviates from our actual location, the GPS module otherwise precisely tracks our ride through a narrow old-town alley and over the bridge. This feature is particularly important for an outdoor smartphone and we can confirm the Galaxy XCover Pro's precise navigation capabilities.

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Turn
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Turn
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Bridge

Telephony and Call Quality – XCover Phone with Mediocre Call Quality

Samsung provides its own telephony app, which shows the dial pad as soon as the app is opened. It contains multiple tabs, which are neatly arranged. VoLTE and VoWiFi should not present a problem to the phone, as long as your carrier supports them.

The call quality of the XCover Pro is not particularly convincing: Although the internal earpiece reaches a fairly high maximum volume, which can be handy for construction sites, it also suffers from a lot of background noise and strong booming. Our voice reaches our conversational partner quite clearly and the elimination of background noise works nicely as well. While the sound is not very loud when using the speakerphone, it reproduces the voice of our conversational partner much more clearly. Our voice can also be well-understood on the other end of the line.

Cameras – Vivid Colors and Odd Sharpness Issues

Front camera picture
Front camera picture

For the main camera, our test device uses a lens with 25 megapixels. Additionally, there is a wide-angle lens with 8 megapixels. An emulated optical zoom in multiple steps is not available, which means users can only switch between the optics.

While pictures taken with the main camera offer pleasantly vivid colors, the picture of the flower exhibits a noticeable blue tint. Object borders are not cleanly represented and the brightening of our low-light shot could be better. However, we were pleased by the picture's sharpness and the way the camera handles strong contrasts. As for the landscape picture, the details are fairly sharp. Although the wide-angle camera takes noticeably darker pictures, the image quality is decent otherwise.

Videos can be recorded at up to 1080p with 30 FPS, whereas other current mid-range smartphones are often capable of capturing 4K videos. However, this limitation is acceptable for an outdoor smartphone. The camera has to be selected in advance and switching between the optics while recording is not possible. The brightness adjusts to changes in lighting quickly and the focus is rather responsive as well. Since the image sharpness is good overall, the Galaxy XCover Pro receives a recommendation for videographers who do not need 4K.

Of course, there is also a front camera, which in this case has a resolution of 13 megapixels. Here, users can choose between a closer and a farther perspective, which the phone achieves by digitally enhancing a section of the image. Although the pictures could offer a slightly higher brightness level and a close-up look shows that they suffer from noticeable image noise, the degree of sharpness and the image look good overall.

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3

In our lab, the main camera has to prove itself once more. Here, we control the lighting conditions and make sure they are identical for all smartphones. At a high brightness, the camera's picture of our test chart shows a strange lack of sharpness that causes the edges of the picture to appear sharper than the center. In a low-light situation, the chart is at least still somewhat visible. While the camera exhibits clearly visible color deviations, they are still comparatively small.

ColorChecker
26.8 ∆E
44.2 ∆E
35.7 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
39 ∆E
54.9 ∆E
40.6 ∆E
28.9 ∆E
33 ∆E
27.3 ∆E
55.7 ∆E
52.4 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
28.2 ∆E
62.6 ∆E
35.8 ∆E
39.5 ∆E
52.3 ∆E
56 ∆E
45.2 ∆E
34.2 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: 38.76 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 62.59 ∆E
ColorChecker
9.7 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
16.8 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
15.5 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
6.2 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: 6.93 ∆E min: 2.35 - max: 16.77 ∆E
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – 1 lux

Accessories and Warranty – Replaceable Battery

The scope of delivery includes a quick charger with a cable and a headset. Since the back cover of the smartphone can be removed relatively easily, granting users access to all slots, a SIM tool is not necessary. The smartphone is compatible with POGO charging docks that can charge multiple devices simultaneously. A replacement battery costs just below 47 Euros (~$52) online.

Samsung offers home users a 24-month warranty for the smartphone.

Input Devices & Handling – Freely Assignable Buttons

The touchscreen navigation is precise and offers a high sensitivity mode to allow users to input commands with gloves.

There is a freely assignable button on the left edge of the XCover Pro, which can for example be used as a hotkey for the flashlight or camera. Since any app installed on the device can be assigned to the button, users can also assign their own applications to it. Various commands can also be assigned to a second button on the top edge of the case.

The fingerprint sensor, which as with Sony's smartphones doubles as a standby button, is located in the bottom right. It works well and recognizes fingerprints accurately.

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

Display – No AMOLED for the XCover Pro

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The Galaxy XCover Pro does not feature an AMOLED display in spite of the high price and Samsung's apparent fondness of the display technology. Instead, the smartphone is equipped with an IPS panel with a resolution of 2340x1080 pixels. Compared to many other outdoor smartphones, the resolution is higher, which results in a sharper image. While its display is the brightest one in our comparison, it should be noted that the ambient light sensor needs to be enabled, since a luminosity this high cannot be achieved only with manual settings.

Although the black value is acceptable, it is poor compared to other outdoor smartphones, resulting in slightly less saturated colors on the display. However, the differences are not dramatic for daily use, since the human eye is worse at detecting the differences than our measuring device.

539
cd/m²
578
cd/m²
553
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
569
cd/m²
591
cd/m²
542
cd/m²
558
cd/m²
574
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 591 cd/m² Average: 561.7 cd/m² Minimum: 4.17 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 569 cd/m²
Contrast: 1355:1 (Black: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.14 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 7.9 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.256
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5
CAT S52
IPS, 1440x720, 5.65
Blackview BV9800 Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Crosscall Trekker-X4
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
-8%
47%
-9%
-18%
Brightness middle
569
525
-8%
521
-8%
511
-10%
374
-34%
Brightness
562
513
-9%
530
-6%
508
-10%
352
-37%
Brightness Distribution
91
90
-1%
91
0%
89
-2%
86
-5%
Black Level *
0.42
0.52
-24%
0.16
62%
0.29
31%
0.35
17%
Contrast
1355
1010
-25%
3256
140%
1762
30%
1069
-21%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.14
6
2%
2.69
56%
8.1
-32%
7.46
-21%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.92
10.9
-0%
5.07
54%
15.2
-39%
13.27
-22%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.9
7.8
1%
1.8
77%
10.9
-38%
9.8
-24%
Gamma
2.256 98%
2.53 87%
2.243 98%
2.08 106%
2.152 102%
CCT
8696 75%
8605 76%
6622 98%
9859 66%
10554 62%

* ... 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 detected 250 Hz ≤ 30 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 250 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17878 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

With the CalMAN software, we take a closer look at the display characteristics: While both the colors and the grayscale noticeably deviate from their reference point, there are worse offenders in our comparison. A noticeable blue tint can be observed as well.

CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN saturation
CalMAN saturation
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space

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
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 13 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 24 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 25 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. » 71 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39 ms).

Outdoor use is possible thanks to the bright display, although direct sunlight and other, very bright environments should be avoided.

As per usual, the viewing angles of the IPS panel leave no room for complaints.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

Performance – Galaxy with Mid-Range Performance

The Samsung Exynos 9611 is a mid-range SoC that can, for example, also be found in the Galaxy M30s. While it does not allow the Galaxy XCover Pro to achieve extreme feats, it offers solid mid-range performance. Although the effects of the high resolution display are noticeable in several tests, the graphics performance is sufficient overall. For daily use, the XCover Pro should offer enough performance and only very demanding apps may cause issues.

Geekbench 5
Vulkan Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1055 Points ∼77%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1191 Points ∼87% +13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (663 - 1079, n=3)
932 Points ∼68% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (143 - 3794, n=45)
1362 Points ∼100% +29%
OpenCL Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1439 Points ∼83%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1259 Points ∼72% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1393 - 1522, n=3)
1451 Points ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (183 - 4593, n=53)
1738 Points ∼100% +21%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1063 Points ∼58%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1002 Points ∼55% -6%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1399 Points ∼77% +32%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1063 - 1326, n=3)
1229 Points ∼67% +16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=65)
1821 Points ∼100% +71%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
345 Points ∼66%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
173 Points ∼33% -50%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
295 Points ∼57% -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (345 - 349, n=3)
347 Points ∼67% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=65)
519 Points ∼100% +50%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5351 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5309 Points ∼66% -1%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
5794 Points ∼72% +8%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8074 Points ∼100% +51%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6135 Points ∼76% +15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5351 - 5925, n=5)
5606 Points ∼69% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=494)
5834 Points ∼72% +9%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5886 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6316 Points ∼55% +7%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7739 Points ∼68% +31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
11419 Points ∼100% +94%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6651 Points ∼58% +13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5886 - 6697, n=5)
6269 Points ∼55% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=652)
6378 Points ∼56% +8%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2061 Points ∼78%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
2105 Points ∼80% +2%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2585 Points ∼98% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2061 - 2163, n=5)
2119 Points ∼80% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4057, n=151)
2634 Points ∼100% +28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1436 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
477 Points ∼16% -67%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1095 Points ∼38% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1320 - 1442, n=5)
1415 Points ∼49% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=151)
2899 Points ∼100% +102%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1540 Points ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
576 Points ∼22% -63%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1256 Points ∼48% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1442 - 1557, n=5)
1527 Points ∼58% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6644, n=151)
2613 Points ∼100% +70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2058 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1554 Points ∼54% -24%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1210 Points ∼42% -41%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2883 Points ∼100% +40%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2724 Points ∼94% +32%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2058 - 2332, n=5)
2217 Points ∼77% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=500)
2171 Points ∼75% +5%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1527 Points ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
498 Points ∼24% -67%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
488 Points ∼24% -68%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1093 Points ∼53% -28%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1266 Points ∼61% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1267 - 1533, n=5)
1477 Points ∼71% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=500)
2067 Points ∼100% +35%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1620 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
588 Points ∼31% -64%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
563 Points ∼29% -65%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1268 Points ∼66% -22%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1437 Points ∼75% -11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1390 - 1659, n=5)
1594 Points ∼83% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=501)
1920 Points ∼100% +19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1768 Points ∼58%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1212 Points ∼40%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3029 Points ∼100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2748 Points ∼91%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2275 - 2336, n=4)
2301 Points ∼76%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=530)
2081 Points ∼69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
826 Points ∼30%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
816 Points ∼30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1606 Points ∼58%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2001 Points ∼73%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1634 - 2021, n=4)
1910 Points ∼69%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=530)
2754 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
937 Points ∼40%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
880 Points ∼38%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1793 Points ∼77%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2130 Points ∼92%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1743 - 2074, n=4)
1983 Points ∼86%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=530)
2316 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2080 Points ∼72%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1747 Points ∼61% -16%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1173 Points ∼41% -44%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2869 Points ∼100% +38%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2731 Points ∼95% +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2080 - 2258, n=5)
2198 Points ∼77% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=580)
2058 Points ∼72% -1%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1450 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
555 Points ∼32% -62%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
439 Points ∼25% -70%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1104 Points ∼64% -24%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1185 Points ∼68% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1203 - 1478, n=5)
1415 Points ∼82% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=580)
1730 Points ∼100% +19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1555 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
654 Points ∼40% -58%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
510 Points ∼31% -67%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1279 Points ∼77% -18%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1356 Points ∼82% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1342 - 1601, n=5)
1535 Points ∼93% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=581)
1653 Points ∼100% +6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1756 Points ∼61%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1172 Points ∼41%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2856 Points ∼100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2751 Points ∼96%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2195 - 2286, n=4)
2226 Points ∼78%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=622)
1922 Points ∼67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
766 Points ∼34%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
736 Points ∼32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1278 Points ∼56%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1914 Points ∼84%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1468 - 2048, n=4)
1891 Points ∼83%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=621)
2272 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
876 Points ∼43%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
802 Points ∼39%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1457 Points ∼71%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2053 Points ∼100%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1595 - 2088, n=4)
1952 Points ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=624)
1958 Points ∼95%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13610 Points ∼68%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17243 Points ∼86%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
17113 Points ∼85%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
19890 Points ∼99%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (19797 - 20393, n=4)
20109 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=770)
15259 Points ∼76%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13711 Points ∼47%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12064 Points ∼42%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
20321 Points ∼70%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
29055 Points ∼100%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (15971 - 25625, n=4)
22961 Points ∼79%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=768)
25884 Points ∼89%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13688 Points ∼52%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12927 Points ∼49%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19508 Points ∼74%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
26356 Points ∼100%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (16738 - 24052, n=4)
22123 Points ∼84%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=768)
20357 Points ∼77%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
40 fps ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
25 fps ∼50% -37%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
21 fps ∼42% -47%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
42 fps ∼84% +5%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
50 fps ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (36 - 48, n=5)
42.2 fps ∼84% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=774)
43.9 fps ∼88% +10%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
37 fps ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
41 fps ∼84% +11%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
29 fps ∼59% -22%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
38 fps ∼78% +3%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
49 fps ∼100% +32%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (32 - 44, n=5)
38 fps ∼78% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=783)
30.5 fps ∼62% -18%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
20 fps ∼78%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13 fps ∼50% -35%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
11 fps ∼43% -45%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
23 fps ∼89% +15%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
22 fps ∼85% +10%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (18 - 26, n=5)
21.6 fps ∼84% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=679)
25.8 fps ∼100% +29%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
22 fps ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
27 fps ∼100% +23%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
19 fps ∼70% -14%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
21 fps ∼78% -5%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
23 fps ∼85% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (17 - 24, n=5)
21 fps ∼78% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=687)
21.8 fps ∼81% -1%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8.1 fps ∼39% -49%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
6.6 fps ∼32% -59%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
14 fps ∼67% -12%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼72% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (14 - 16, n=5)
15.4 fps ∼74% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=542)
20.8 fps ∼100% +30%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
19 fps ∼100% +36%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12 fps ∼63% -14%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
12 fps ∼63% -14%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼79% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (14 - 14, n=5)
14 fps ∼74% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=544)
18.9 fps ∼99% +35%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5.6 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.4 fps ∼58% +14%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.7 fps ∼42% -16%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4.6 fps ∼41% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5.5 - 8.3, n=5)
6.18 fps ∼56% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=292)
11.1 fps ∼100% +98%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.5 fps ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.8 fps ∼23% -49%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼19% -57%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2.9 fps ∼36% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (3.5 - 3.6, n=5)
3.56 fps ∼45% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=290)
7.98 fps ∼100% +128%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.4 fps ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
10 fps ∼61% +6%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7.4 fps ∼45% -21%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.7 fps ∼47% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (8.8 - 9.7, n=5)
9.28 fps ∼56% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=296)
16.5 fps ∼100% +76%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5 fps ∼26% -50%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.9 fps ∼20% -61%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8.5 fps ∼45% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (9.8 - 10, n=5)
9.96 fps ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=295)
19.1 fps ∼100% +91%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.3 fps ∼31% -57%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2.8 fps ∼20% -72%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8.1 fps ∼58% -19%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9 fps ∼64% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (9.6 - 10, n=5)
9.92 fps ∼71% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=467)
14 fps ∼100% +40%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.2 fps ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12 fps ∼97% +30%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.9 fps ∼40% -47%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.4 fps ∼60% -20%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9.4 fps ∼76% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (8.6 - 9.6, n=5)
9.06 fps ∼73% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=471)
12.4 fps ∼100% +35%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1202 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
977 Points ∼81% -19%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
887 Points ∼74% -26%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1045 Points ∼87% -13%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1095 Points ∼91% -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (10 - 1202, n=5)
451 Points ∼38% -62%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=711)
808 Points ∼67% -33%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2150 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1113 Points ∼46% -48%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
866 Points ∼36% -60%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1712 Points ∼71% -20%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2247 Points ∼93% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2127 - 2168, n=5)
2153 Points ∼89% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=711)
2428 Points ∼100% +13%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1717 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1985 Points ∼71% +16%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1141 Points ∼41% -34%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2559 Points ∼91% +49%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2799 Points ∼100% +63%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1605 - 2122, n=5)
1778 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=711)
1809 Points ∼65% +5%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4029 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3507 Points ∼69% -13%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2390 Points ∼47% -41%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3915 Points ∼78% -3%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5048 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (4029 - 4978, n=5)
4620 Points ∼92% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=711)
3376 Points ∼67% -16%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2057 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1658 Points ∼68% -19%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1203 Points ∼50% -42%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2057 Points ∼85% 0%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2428 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (634 - 2191, n=5)
1234 Points ∼51% -40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=711)
1717 Points ∼71% -17%
AnTuTu v8
UX (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
42816 Points ∼79%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17134 Points ∼32% -60%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
33632 Points ∼62% -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (33717 - 44600, n=5)
39466 Points ∼73% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6969 - 110361, n=97)
54044 Points ∼100% +26%
MEM (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
38461 Points ∼70%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
32868 Points ∼60% -15%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
37952 Points ∼69% -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (38016 - 44128, n=5)
40638 Points ∼74% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9394 - 122714, n=96)
55073 Points ∼100% +43%
GPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
36903 Points ∼37%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
6340 Points ∼6% -83%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
37197 Points ∼38% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (34020 - 46247, n=5)
38559 Points ∼39% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4095 - 224320, n=96)
99110 Points ∼100% +169%
CPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
57481 Points ∼56%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
46624 Points ∼45% -19%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
74929 Points ∼72% +30%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (57481 - 63005, n=5)
60559 Points ∼59% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (23816 - 185108, n=96)
103489 Points ∼100% +80%
Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
175661 Points ∼56%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
102966 Points ∼33% -41%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
183710 Points ∼59% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (174870 - 187087, n=5)
179222 Points ∼57% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=96)
312334 Points ∼100% +78%

In terms of browsing the web, the XCover Pro is sometimes faster and sometimes slower than its competition for an average final score. Subjectively, it is our impression that the device is well-suited to web browsing, although loading pictures may occasionally require some patience.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=173)
40.1 Points ∼100% +45%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 28.7, n=5)
27.9 Points ∼70% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
27.671 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
22.457 Points ∼56% -19%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
55.524 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
50.992 Points ∼92%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=5)
50.4 Points ∼91% -1%
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79)
47.513 Points ∼86% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=602)
46.3 Points ∼83% -9%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
37.945 Points ∼68% -26%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
26.218 Points ∼47% -49%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=157)
42.9 runs/min ∼100% +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (29 - 30.5, n=5)
29.4 runs/min ∼69% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chome 80)
29 runs/min ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
22.15 runs/min ∼52% -24%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=238)
69.7 Points ∼100% +52%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=5)
52.6 Points ∼75% +14%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
48 Points ∼69% +4%
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79)
47 Points ∼67% +2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
46 Points ∼66%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
10573 Points ∼100% +42%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10434, n=5)
9434 Points ∼89% +27%
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79)
8520 Points ∼81% +14%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=769)
7696 Points ∼73% +3%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
7442 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
7065 Points ∼67% -5%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
4494 Points ∼43% -40%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
10848.6 ms * ∼100% -75%
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=795)
9886 ms * ∼91% -59%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
6212.4 ms * ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
5826.7 ms * ∼54% +6%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=5)
4916 ms * ∼45% +21%
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79)
4845.2 ms * ∼45% +22%
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
3954.2 ms * ∼36% +36%

* ... smaller is better

Since the XCover Pro integrates UFS 2.0 storage, it is faster and more modern than all other devices in our comparison. The read and write speeds with our microSD card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 are slightly slower than those of other outdoor smartphones.

Samsung Galaxy XCover ProSamsung Galaxy XCover 4sCAT S52Blackview BV9800 ProCrosscall Trekker-X4Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-35%
-21%
-22%
-24%
-6%
-34%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
64.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
61.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
61.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
3%
59.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
55.3 (33.3 - 65.3, n=9)
-7%
50.8 (1.7 - 87.1, n=514)
-14%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
72.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
79.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
82.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
14%
77.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
7%
83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
15%
73.2 (36.8 - 85.4, n=9)
1%
68.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=514)
-5%
Random Write 4KB
100.5
10.38
-90%
21.3
-79%
20.74
-79%
14.3
-86%
71.8 (13.6 - 196, n=13)
-29%
33.2 (0.14 - 319, n=862)
-67%
Random Read 4KB
108.6
59.56
-45%
76.6
-29%
86.68
-20%
71.5
-34%
113 (60.6 - 157, n=13)
4%
57.2 (1.59 - 324, n=862)
-47%
Sequential Write 256KB
181.1
85.4
-53%
195.4
8%
185.88
3%
194.7
8%
180 (135 - 222, n=13)
-1%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=862)
-33%
Sequential Read 256KB
507.6
298.6
-41%
286.2
-44%
286.45
-44%
272.4
-46%
489 (272 - 687, n=13)
-4%
329 (12.1 - 1802, n=862)
-35%

Gaming – Games Are Allowed

As long as your standards are not too high, the Galaxy XCover Pro is suitable for gaming: While more-demanding games such as Asphalt 9 do not run entirely smoothly, they are at least playable. By contrast, Arena of Valor can be played at a stutter-free 60 FPS.

The touchscreen and gyroscope controls work without any issues.

Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
0102030405060Tooltip
; Arena of Valor; min; 1.33.1.5: Ø60 (59-60)
; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.33.1.5: Ø59.9 (53-60)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 2.0.5a: Ø28.2 (20-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 2.0.5a: Ø29.5 (24-31)

Emissions – Performance Fluctuations under Load

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

While the smartphone does not become hot even after extended use, the surface temperature increases noticeably. By contrast, no heat development is present during idle.

GFXBench's battery test shows a strongly fluctuating performance: The performance drops after only a few benchmark loops, after which it returns to its original score, just to drop even further afterwards. At worst, the performance can decrease by just above 40%. Thus, it is more or less a matter of chance whether the full performance of the SoC is accessible.

Max. Load
 40.4 °C
105 F
36.1 °C
97 F
34.5 °C
94 F
 
 40.2 °C
104 F
36.1 °C
97 F
35.4 °C
96 F
 
 38.4 °C
101 F
36 °C
97 F
34.5 °C
94 F
 
Maximum: 40.4 °C = 105 F
Average: 36.8 °C = 98 F
31 °C
88 F
35.4 °C
96 F
39.5 °C
103 F
31.6 °C
89 F
35.5 °C
96 F
38.8 °C
102 F
31.1 °C
88 F
35.8 °C
96 F
37.4 °C
99 F
Maximum: 39.5 °C = 103 F
Average: 35.1 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.3 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.1 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated); Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.4 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Thermal image back
Thermal image back
Thermal image front
Thermal image front

Speaker

Speaker test pink noise
Speaker test pink noise

The speaker is integrated into the bottom edge and is audible even when fully covered. The maximum volume is good and sufficient for mid-sized rooms. There are barely any deep mids and the treble is strongly emphasized to the point where it is unpleasant to listen to at maximum volume. While the sound quality is nothing spectacular, it should be sufficient in most cases.

External audio devices can be connected via 3.5 mm jack or Bluetooth. This worked well in our test and the audio quality was good as well.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2045.240.22543.741.33134.833.34037.637.15039.538.66336.635.18029.130.110028.426.912530.531.716024.735.820022.84125021.947.531521.554.640019.962.850020.765.763019.268.580018.773.110002277.9125018.277160017.877200017.779250017.876315017.677.3400017.871.3500017.771630018.171.5800018.371.41000018.768.81250019591600019.460.1SPL70.966.13187.1N21.8191.667median 19median 68.8Delta210.142.939.742.342.834.834.93935.640.838.934.433.428.127.425.130.223.630.722.136.620.241.319.645.118.450.818.95620.159.62062.417.565.216.173.415.57417.8721672.415.973.116.17416.366.716.566.616.569.416.97016.665.71754.516.548.468.866.667.866.429.382.922.519.420.818.51.252.3median 17median 65.21.711hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy XCover ProCAT S52
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
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
» 43% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

CAT S52 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life – Wasted Potential

Energy Consumption

The energy consumption is significantly higher than on the Galaxy XCover 4s, a fact that can likely be traced back to the higher resolution of the display. In terms of overall consumption, the XCover Pro is the most demanding smartphone.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.3 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.8 / 2.3 Watt
Load midlight 5.4 / 6.9 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
2800 mAh
CAT S52
3100 mAh
Blackview BV9800 Pro
6580 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
29%
5%
4%
16%
-21%
10%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.65
28%
1
-11%
0.87
3%
0.7
22%
1.122 (0.9 - 1.6, n=5)
-25%
0.887 (0.2 - 3.4, n=866)
1%
Idle Average *
1.8
1.62
10%
1.9
-6%
1.91
-6%
1.4
22%
2.39 (1.7 - 4.24, n=5)
-33%
1.754 (0.6 - 6.2, n=865)
3%
Idle Maximum *
2.3
1.66
28%
2.7
-17%
2.03
12%
2.2
4%
2.91 (1.8 - 4.34, n=5)
-27%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=866)
11%
Load Average *
5.4
3.03
44%
3.6
33%
4.4
19%
4.1
24%
5.86 (5 - 6.99, n=5)
-9%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=860)
24%
Load Maximum *
6.9
4.34
37%
5.2
25%
7.49
-9%
6.4
7%
7.6 (6.3 - 9.4, n=5)
-10%
6.04 (1.2 - 14.2, n=860)
12%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The high energy consumption also noticeably affects the battery life, which is not bad overall, but it still disappoints in light of the battery capacity. First things first: The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is equipped with a 4,400-mAh battery and lasts 12:11 hours in our Wi-Fi test. While this is more than enough for a workday, being away from an outlet for too long can be a problem.

However, this is where a big advantage of the XCover smartphone comes into play: The battery can be replaced. This allows users to bring multiple charged batteries with them and swap them as needed. Hot swapping is not possible, which means that changing the battery requires a restart of the smartphone.

The charger integrates a 15-watt quick-charge technology and charges the battery from empty to full in close to 2 hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
20h 59min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 11min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
13h 22min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 28min
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
2800 mAh
CAT S52
3100 mAh
Blackview BV9800 Pro
6580 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Battery Runtime
-18%
-13%
104%
15%
Reader / Idle
1259
1199
-5%
H.264
802
598
-25%
WiFi v1.3
731
619
-15%
637
-13%
1492
104%
839
15%
Load
268
200
-25%

Pros

+ water- and dustproof
+ freely assignable buttons
+ replaceable battery
+ fast storage
+ modern software
+ understated design
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ precise GPS
+ decent cameras

Cons

- performance fluctuations under load
- camera sharpness issues in our lab test
- blue display tint
- mediocre call quality
- speaker with too much treble

Verdict – Outdoor Phone with Many Strengths

In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro. Test device courtesy of:
In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro. Test device courtesy of:

The Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro is a modern outdoor smartphone. This is not just limited to the exterior, since the internals also include features not usually found in other ruggedized devices: There is a USB Type-C port, fast UFS 2.0 storage and a fingerprint sensor, which has been integrated into the home button for convenience.

Meanwhile, the XCover Pro offers enough stability for rough environments and software with a modern user interface. We are also glad to see somewhat old-fashioned qualities such as a replaceable battery and a 3.5-mm headphone jack return.

While at 499 Euros (~$556), the smartphone cannot compete with traditional smartphones in terms of the memory configuration or system performance, part of the budget was spent on added stability. The Galaxy XCover also offers plenty of useful business features such as freely assignable buttons, a subtle exterior and support for docking stations. This also makes it an interesting choice for home users who venture into rough terrain more often than most, for example while exercising.

The modern outdoor smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro with a replaceable battery is a successful concept.

Of course, the battery life could be better and the call and speaker quality are not great. However, the XCover Pro still receives our recommendation due to the fast Wi-Fi, good GPS and decent cameras.

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro - 03/02/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
69 / 75 → 92%
Pointing Device
95%
Connectivity
47 / 70 → 67%
Weight
88%
Battery
89%
Display
84%
Games Performance
17 / 64 → 27%
Application Performance
53 / 86 → 62%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
50 / 90 → 56%
Camera
59%
Average
72%
78%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 5 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro Smartphone Review – Outdoor phone with user-replaceable battery
Florian Schmitt, 2020-03- 3 (Update: 2020-03- 5)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.