Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.8 | 83.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | -- |
| 2016-09-01 | 2019-03-15 |
| 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches | 6.24 x 2.93 x 0.30 inches |
| 5.75 ounces | 5.86 ounces |
| Black, Gold and Gray | Black, Blue, Coral and White |
| -- | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 250.00 | $ 202.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.4 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 534 pixels per inch | 403 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9610 chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 14.66 | 14.14 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 25.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.36 inches (1/2.8") 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 | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 10.01 | 10.12 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 5.5 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3500mAh Battery | 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 5.44 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy A50 has a general score of 83.8, which is better than Moto Z Force's 75.8 score. Even though the Samsung Galaxy A50 is noticeably newer than Moto Z Force, it's a little heavier and just a little bit thicker. The Galaxy A50 has a little better hardware performance than Motorola Moto Z Force, and although they both have 4 GB of RAM memory, the Galaxy A50 also has a higher number of cores.
The Moto Z Force has a bit better screen than Galaxy A50, because although it has a little bit smaller screen, it also counts with a better resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels and a greater number of pixels per inch of display. The Moto Z Force features slightly more memory for applications and games than Galaxy A50, because although it has less internal storage, it also counts with an external memory slot that holds up to 1,95 TB.
Samsung Galaxy A50 features just a bit longer battery duration than Moto Z Force, because it has 4000mAh of battery capacity instead of 3500mAh. Galaxy A50 captures just a bit better photographs and videos than Moto Z Force, and although they both have the same video quality and the same 30 fps video frame rate, the Galaxy A50 also has a more mega pixels camera in the back and a larger camera aperture.
Even being the best phone between the ones we are comparing, the Samsung Galaxy A50 is also by far the cheapest, which makes it a no doubt choice.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.