Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.5 | 87.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | LG |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | -- |
| 2016-09-01 | 2020-05-15 |
| 6.04 x 2.96 x 0.20 inches | 6.58 x 2.91 x 0.31 inches |
| 4.80 ounces | 6.35 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | Aurora gray, Aurora green, Aurora silver, Aurora white and Illusion sunset |
| Aluminum | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass) |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 284.00 | $ 264.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.8 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2460 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | P-OLED |
| 534 pixels per inch | 395 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G SM7250-AB chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Kryo 475, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2400 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Adreno 620 GPU |
| 9 | 9.36 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 12.76 | 17.06 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 48.00 MP + 16.00 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 | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 9.57 | 11.44 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.3 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2600mAh Battery | 4300mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 4.56 | 6.16 |
| 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 LG Velvet has a general score of 87.1, which is better than the Moto Z's global score of 74.5. Even though the LG Velvet is noticeably newer than the Moto Z, it is noticeably thicker and much heavier. LG Velvet counts with a bit superior CPU than Moto Z, because it has a larger number of faster cores and more RAM memory.
The Motorola Moto Z counts with a bit more vivid display than LG Velvet, because although it has a little smaller display, it also counts with more pixels per inch in the screen and a little bit higher resolution of 1440 x 2560px. LG Velvet counts with a much better camera than Moto Z, and although they both have the same 3840x2160 (4K) video quality, the same video frame rates and a F1.8 diafragm aperture, the LG Velvet also has a camera with a much better resolution.
The LG Velvet has a much greater storage capacity for games and applications than Moto Z, and although they both have a slot for an SD memory card that supports up to 1,95 TB, the LG Velvet also has more internal memory. LG Velvet counts with a much better battery duration than Motorola Moto Z, because it has a 4300mAh battery capacity.
The LG Velvet not only is the best phones between the ones we are comparing here, but it's also the cheapest, making it an easy decision.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.