Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.1 | 81 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2015-09-01 | 2017-02-24 |
| 6.06 x 3.00 x 0.44 inches | 6.41 x 3.18 x 0.27 inches |
| 6.31 ounces | 6.63 ounces |
| Black, Gray and White | Black and Gold |
| Plastic | Metal |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 6 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) |
| IPS LCD | Super AMOLED |
| 515 pixels per inch | 367 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.5 | 7.8 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 MSM8992 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 653 8976 Pro chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Hexa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A72 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 28 nm (Octa-Core 1950 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 418 GPU | Adreno 510 GPU |
| 8.82 | 9.09 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 128 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 256 GB) external memory slot |
| 10.02 | 10.78 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 16.00 MP + 16.00 MP |
| f/2.00 aperture | f/1.90 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.42 inches (1/2.4") sensor | -- |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 10.34 | 9.24 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.3 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 4.96 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
Galaxy C9 Pro is a bit better than the Moto X Style, having a global score of 81 against 74.1. The Galaxy C9 Pro construction is newer and incredibly thinner, but also just a little heavier than the Moto X Style. Motorola Moto X Style features a little sharper display than Galaxy C9 Pro, because although it has a quite smaller screen, it also counts with a greater pixel density and a better 1440 x 2560px resolution.
Galaxy C9 Pro has slightly more storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Moto X Style, and although they both have exactly the same 64 GB internal storage, the Galaxy C9 Pro also has an external memory card slot that admits a maximum of 256 GB. The Samsung Galaxy C9 Pro counts with a bit more powerful CPU than Motorola Moto X Style, because it has more RAM memory and a greater number of cores.
The Moto X Style takes better videos and photos than Samsung Galaxy C9 Pro, because although it has a smaller diafragm aperture which is not favorable for shooting photos or videos in low light situations, it also counts with a back-facing camera with a way higher resolution and a much higher 3840x2160 video definition.
The Galaxy C9 Pro has improved battery life than Moto X Style, because it has 4000mAh of battery capacity against 3000mAh.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.