Ulefone Armor Mini 20 vs. Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: A Rugged Showdown
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing battery life and raw processing power, the Ulefone Armor Mini 20 emerges as the winner. Its Helio G99 chipset and 58:42h endurance significantly outperform the Galaxy XCover Pro’s older Exynos 9611 and limited charging options. However, Samsung’s software support and ecosystem integration remain compelling advantages for existing Samsung users.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Ulefone Armor Mini 20 | Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 - International |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66, 71 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (3CA) Cat11 600/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 20, 29, 38, 40, 41, 66 - Canada | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2024, September | 2020, January |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, September | Available. Released 2020, January |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dimensions | 133.5 x 63.3 x 24.9 mm (5.26 x 2.49 x 0.98 in) | 159.9 x 76.7 x 10 mm (6.30 x 3.02 x 0.39 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 301 g (10.62 oz) | 218 g (7.69 oz) |
| - | IP68 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 35 min) Drop-to-concrete resistance from up to 1.5m MIL-STD-810G compliant* *does not guarantee ruggedness or use in extreme conditions | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~373 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 4.7 inches, 53.3 cm2 (~63.1% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.3 inches, 97.4 cm2 (~79.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | IPS LCD |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.3 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x1.7 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Helio G99 (6 nm) | Exynos 9611 (10 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G72 MP3 |
| OS | Android 14 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/1.31", 1.2µm 64 MP, f/1.8, (night vision), 2 infrared lights | 25 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm |
| Features | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Video | 1440p@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 13 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/3.1", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1440p@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | Yes | - |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Wireless FM radio, RDS, recording | FM radio (market/region dependent) |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/k/v/r, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| - | ANT+ | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 33W wired 15W wireless 5W reverse wireless | 15W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 6200 mAh | Li-Po 4050 mAh, removable |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black | Black |
| Models | - | SM-G715FN/DS, SM-G715FN, SM-G715F, SM-G715W, SM-G715U, SM-G715U1 |
| Price | - | About 120 EUR |
| SAR EU | - | 0.47 W/kg (head) 1.23 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 58:42h endurance, 1000 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class B | - |
| Free fall | Class A (270 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
Ulefone Armor Mini 20
- Superior CPU performance with the Helio G99
- Exceptional battery life (58:42h endurance)
- Faster and more versatile charging options (33W wired, 15W wireless)
- Brand recognition is lower than Samsung
- Software support may be less extensive
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
- Samsung’s One UI and ecosystem integration
- Potential for longer software support
- Samsung Knox security features (enterprise focused)
- Older and less efficient Exynos 9611 chipset
- Limited charging speed (15W wired)
- Significantly shorter battery life
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a cutting-edge display. Details on panel type, resolution, and refresh rate are missing for both, but the focus is clearly on practicality over visual fidelity. The lack of high refresh rates is expected in this segment. The Ulefone's advantage may lie in its smaller size, making it more pocketable, while the XCover Pro's display size is likely larger, potentially aiding productivity. Without specific brightness data, it's difficult to assess outdoor visibility, but rugged phones generally prioritize visibility under direct sunlight.
Camera Comparison
Camera details are sparse, but the focus on ruggedness suggests image quality isn't the primary concern. The Ulefone Armor Mini 20 likely features a more modern sensor and image processing pipeline due to its newer chipset. The Galaxy XCover Pro’s camera system, while functional, is likely hampered by the older Exynos 9611’s image signal processor. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on either device is largely a marketing gimmick, offering minimal practical benefit. Real-world image quality will depend heavily on software optimization, but the Ulefone has a hardware advantage.
Performance
The Ulefone Armor Mini 20’s Mediatek Helio G99 (6nm) represents a significant architectural leap over the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro’s Exynos 9611 (10nm). The G99 utilizes newer Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz alongside efficient A55 cores, compared to the XCover Pro’s older A73/A53 configuration. This translates to a noticeable performance advantage for the Ulefone in both single-core and multi-core tasks. The 6nm process node also contributes to better thermal efficiency, reducing the likelihood of throttling during sustained workloads. While both phones likely feature adequate RAM for their target use cases, the G99’s superior CPU architecture provides a more future-proof experience.
Battery Life
The Ulefone Armor Mini 20’s 58:42h endurance is a standout feature, dwarfing the expected battery life of the Galaxy XCover Pro. This is likely due to the more efficient Helio G99 chipset and optimized power management. Furthermore, the Ulefone supports 33W wired charging, 15W wireless charging, and even 5W reverse wireless charging, offering significantly more versatility than the XCover Pro’s limited 15W wired charging. The Ulefone’s 1000 charge cycle rating also suggests a longer lifespan, reducing the need for battery replacements.
Buying Guide
Buy the Ulefone Armor Mini 20 if you need a long-lasting, capable rugged phone for demanding work or outdoor activities, and prioritize value for money. Its modern chipset and wireless charging are significant advantages. Buy the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro if you prefer Samsung’s One UI, require compatibility with Samsung’s enterprise solutions (like Knox), and value a more established brand with potentially longer software support, even at the cost of performance and battery life.