Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 72.2 | 88.5 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 12, 11, 10 |
| 2020-06-12 | 2020-02-14 |
| 6.37 x 2.98 x 0.36 inches | 6.59 x 2.90 x 0.28 inches |
| 6.68 ounces | 6.46 ounces |
| Pearl white | Mirror black and Mirror purple |
| Plastic | Aluminum |
| $ 200.00 | $ 1380.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.4 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 1560 x 720 pixels | 2636 x 1080 pixels |
| IPS LCD | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 268 pixels per inch | 425 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 7.2 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 SM6125 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ SM8150-AC (7 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 260, 64-bit, 11 nm (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2960 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 8 GB RAM |
| Adreno 610 GPU | Adreno 640 GPU |
| 9.09 | 9.72 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 9.84 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 16.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 10.01 | 10.23 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Battery | 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 5.92 | 5.28 |
| 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 | -- |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Z Flip is much better than Motorola Moto G Fast, getting an 88.5 score against 72.2. These devices have Android OS (operating system), but Galaxy Z Flip has a newer 12 version while Motorola Moto G Fast has Android 11 version, so it counts with some extra features. The Galaxy Z Flip body is a bit lighter and notably thinner than the Motorola Moto G Fast, even though both of them were released only a couple months apart.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip counts with a more vivid display than Moto G Fast, because it has a much better display pixels density, a much better resolution of 1080 x 2636 and a little bit larger display. The Galaxy Z Flip counts with a much bigger storage capacity to install applications and games than Motorola Moto G Fast, because although it has no SD extension slot, it also counts with 256 GB internal memory capacity.
Galaxy Z Flip counts with just a little better hardware performance than Motorola Moto G Fast, and although they both have 8 CPU cores, the Galaxy Z Flip also has a larger amount of RAM memory. The Moto G Fast counts with superior battery life than Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, because it has 4000mAh of battery capacity against 3300mAh.
Galaxy Z Flip has just a bit better camera than Moto G Fast, because although it has a back camera with lot less megapixels resolution, a lower video resolution and a smaller camera aperture which is not good for low-light images and videos, it also counts with a bigger camera sensor capturing better quality videos and photographs.
Although Samsung Galaxy Z Flip is a better device, it costs a lot more money than the Moto G Fast, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Moto G Fast. If you want to save some money, you can get Moto G Fast, letting go a few features and specifications, but you'll get the most out of your budget.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.