Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.8 | 98 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | Android 13, 12, 11, 10 |
| 2016-09-01 | 2020-03-06 |
| 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches | 6.57 x 2.99 x 0.35 inches |
| 5.75 ounces | 7.83 ounces |
| Black, Gold and Gray | Cosmic black and Cosmic grey |
| -- | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 6) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 250.00 | $ 1400.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.9 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 3200 x 1440 pixels |
| AMOLED | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 534 pixels per inch | 509 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 8.7 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 SM8250 (7 nm) chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 9 | 9.72 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1000 GB) external memory slot |
| 14.66 | 15.38 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 108.00 MP + 40.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.5 inches (1/2") 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 | 13.42 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 5.5 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3500mAh Battery | 5000mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 5.44 | 6.8 |
| 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, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
The Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G is way better than Moto Z Force, getting a 98 score against 75.8. The Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G design is notably newer than Moto Z Force's, but it is incredibly heavier and somewhat thicker. Both phones in this review have Android OS (operating system), but Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G has the previous 13 version while Moto Z Force has Android 7.0 Nougat version.
The Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G has a bit better hardware performance than Motorola Moto Z Force, because it has a higher number of cores and a greater amount of RAM memory. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G has a bit sharper display than Moto Z Force, because although it has a just a bit lower count of pixels per inch in the display, it also counts with a bigger screen and a little higher 1440 x 3200 resolution.
The Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G captures a lot better photos and videos than Moto Z Force, and although they both have the same aperture, the Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G also has a back camera with much more megapixels and a way better 7680x4320 video quality. The Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G counts with a bit more memory for games and applications than Moto Z Force, because although it has a slot for SD memory cards that allows up to 1000 GB against 1,95 TB, it also counts with 128 GB internal storage.
Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G features a really longer battery performance than Moto Z Force, because it has a 43% greater battery capacity.
Although Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G is a better device, it costs a lot more money than Moto Z Force, and it doesn't have such a good quality/price relation as Moto Z Force. If you prefer to save a few dollars, you can get Moto Z Force, letting go a few specs and features, but you will get the most with your money.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.