The rugged smartphone market caters to a specific user: those needing durability and reliability in harsh conditions. The Ulefone RugKing and Cat S62 Pro both aim to deliver this, but they take different approaches. The RugKing leverages a newer Unisoc chipset and focuses on extended battery life, while the S62 Pro relies on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 660 and a more established brand reputation. This comparison dives deep into the specifics to determine which phone truly reigns supreme.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing longevity and value, the Ulefone RugKing emerges as the winner. Its impressive 106-hour endurance and modern Unisoc T7255 chipset offer a compelling package, especially considering its likely lower price point. While the Cat S62 Pro benefits from Qualcomm’s software optimization, the RugKing’s battery performance is a significant advantage.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat13 400/150 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, August | 2020, June 28. Released 2020, August 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, September 15 | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 6), plastic back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 173.4 x 83.4 x 18.3 mm (6.83 x 3.28 x 0.72 in) | 158.5 x 76.7 x 11.9 mm (6.24 x 3.02 x 0.47 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 397 g (14.00 oz) | 248 g (8.75 oz) |
| | - | IP68/IP69 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 35 mins)
Drop-to-concrete resistance from up to 1.8m
MIL-STD-810H compliant |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 3, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass 6 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1440 pixels, 18:9 ratio (~269 ppi density) | 1080 x 2160 pixels, 18:9 ratio (~424 ppi density) |
| Size | 5.99 inches, 92.6 cm2 (~64.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 5.7 inches, 83.8 cm2 (~69.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 60Hz, 910 nits (peak) | IPS LCD |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.2 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver) |
| Chipset | Unisoc T7255 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SDM660 Snapdragon 660 (14 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 | Adreno 512 |
| OS | Android 15 | Android 10 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF
2 MP (macro) | 12 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF
FLIR thermal camera (Lepton 3.5 module) |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Thermal imaging, heat palettes, temp. spot meter, LED flash |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 8 MP |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes (126dB) | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, QZSS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Wireless FM radio, RDS, recording | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG, accessory connector pins | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired
5W reverse wired | - |
| Type | 9600 mAh | Li-Ion 4000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black | Black |
| Price | About 170 EUR | About 530 EUR |
| EU LABEL |
|---|
| Battery | 106:26h endurance, 1000 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class A | - |
| Free fall | Class A (270 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class C | - |
Ulefone RugKing
- Exceptional battery life (106:26h endurance)
- Modern Unisoc T7255 chipset (12nm process)
- Potential for better value for money
- Brand recognition is lower than Cat
- Camera specifications are unknown
Cat S62 Pro
- Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 offers established software optimization
- Cat is a well-known brand in the rugged phone market
- Potentially more refined user experience
- Likely shorter battery life compared to the RugKing
- Snapdragon 660 is an older chipset (14nm process)
- May be more expensive than the RugKing
Display Comparison
Neither device’s display specifications are provided, so a direct comparison is limited. However, given the RugKing’s focus on value, it likely utilizes an IPS LCD panel. The Cat S62 Pro, being a slightly more premium offering, *may* feature a higher quality IPS panel or even OLED. The absence of details like resolution, peak brightness, and refresh rate makes it difficult to assess visual quality, but the rugged nature of both phones suggests durability over visual fidelity is prioritized.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications, a thorough comparison is impossible. However, rugged phones often prioritize practicality over photographic excellence. Both devices likely feature a main camera for general use and potentially an ultra-wide lens. The absence of information regarding sensor size, aperture, or optical image stabilization (OIS) makes it difficult to assess image quality. It’s reasonable to assume both phones will perform adequately in good lighting conditions, but struggle in low-light scenarios. We can expect image processing to be geared towards producing usable, rather than artistic, results.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Ulefone RugKing’s Unisoc T7255 (12nm) features an octa-core configuration with 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 and 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. The Cat S62 Pro utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (14nm) with 4x2.2 GHz Kryo 260 Gold and 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver cores. While the Snapdragon 660’s Kryo Gold cores offer a slight clock speed advantage, the Unisoc T7255 benefits from a more modern 12nm process, potentially leading to better power efficiency. The architectural differences suggest the Snapdragon 660 might excel in single-core tasks, while the Unisoc T7255 could offer better multi-core performance and sustained performance due to thermal efficiency.
Battery Life
This is where the Ulefone RugKing truly shines. Its reported 106:26h endurance is significantly higher than what’s typically seen in phones with similar specifications. The 18W wired charging and 5W reverse wired charging are standard for this segment. The Cat S62 Pro’s battery capacity is unknown, but given the Snapdragon 660’s power consumption and the phone’s overall design, it’s likely to offer considerably less endurance. The RugKing’s 1000 charge cycle claim also suggests a longer lifespan, making it ideal for users who rely on their phone for extended periods.
Buying Guide
Buy the Ulefone RugKing if you need maximum battery life for extended fieldwork, travel, or simply dislike frequent charging. It’s ideal for users who prioritize endurance and a modern chipset at a potentially lower cost. Buy the Cat S62 Pro if you prefer a brand with a proven track record in rugged devices and value Qualcomm’s established software ecosystem, even if it means sacrificing some battery life. It’s a good choice for professionals already invested in the Cat ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ How does the Unisoc T7255 in the Ulefone RugKing compare to the Snapdragon 660 in real-world usage for demanding apps?
While the Snapdragon 660 has a slight edge in single-core performance, the Unisoc T7255’s newer 12nm process and octa-core architecture should provide comparable performance in most apps. For sustained tasks like video editing or gaming, the T7255’s improved thermal efficiency may prevent throttling and maintain higher frame rates over longer periods.
❓ Is the 5W reverse wired charging on the Ulefone RugKing useful for charging accessories like Bluetooth headphones?
Yes, the 5W reverse wired charging is a convenient feature for topping up small accessories like Bluetooth headphones, smartwatches, or even a friend’s phone in an emergency. While it’s not fast charging, it can provide a significant boost to these devices when you’re away from a power outlet.
❓ Given the RugKing's focus on battery life, does it sacrifice charging speed?
The 18W wired charging on the Ulefone RugKing is fairly standard for this class of device. While not the fastest charging available, it’s a reasonable compromise considering the exceptional battery endurance. The focus is clearly on maximizing runtime, not minimizing charge times.
