Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 72.2 | 98.9 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 13, 12, 11, 10 |
| 2020-06-12 | 2020-08-21 |
| 6.37 x 2.98 x 0.36 inches | 6.49 x 3.04 x 0.32 inches |
| 6.68 ounces | 7.34 ounces |
| Pearl white | Mystic black, Mystic bronze and Mystic white |
| Plastic | Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass Victus) and Stainless steel |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 200.00 | $ 1300.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.4 inches | 6.9 inches |
| 1560 x 720 pixels | 3088 x 1440 pixels |
| IPS LCD | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 268 pixels per inch | 494 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 7.2 | 8.7 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 SM6125 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ SM8250-AB (7 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 260, 64-bit, 11 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3000 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Adreno 610 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 9.09 | 9.81 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1000 GB) external memory slot |
| 9.84 | 15.38 |
| Camera | |
| 16.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 108.00 MP + 10.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | 0.75 inches (1/1.33") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 7680 x 4320 (24 fps) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 10.01 | 13.64 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Battery | 4500mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 5.92 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| -- | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra is a lot better than Moto G Fast, having a 98.9 score against 72.2. Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra's design is a bit heavier but somewhat thinner than Moto G Fast, and both of them were released with only 2 months difference. Both phones in this comparison review work with Android operating system, but Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has 13 version and Moto G Fast has Android 11.
Galaxy Note 20 Ultra features a little faster processing unit than Moto G Fast, and although they both have the same number of cores, the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra also has a larger amount of RAM. Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra counts with an incredibly better screen than Moto G Fast, because it has a quite larger display, a way better pixel count per screen inch and a much higher 1440 x 3088 resolution.
The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra features a way better camera than Moto G Fast, because although it has a tinier diafragm aperture which is not recommended for low light photography, it also counts with a way larger camera sensor, a much higher video quality and a lot more megapixels camera. Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has a lot bigger storage to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Motorola Moto G Fast, because it has a slot for an external memory card that allows up to 1000 GB and 96 GB more internal storage.
The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra features just a bit longer battery performance than Motorola Moto G Fast, because it has a 4500mAh battery capacity against 4000mAh.
The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra costs a lot more money than the Moto G Fast, but you can get a much better phone for that extra money.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.