Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.5 | 90.7 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow | -- |
| 2016-09-01 | 2021-03-17 |
| 6.04 x 2.96 x 0.20 inches | 6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 inches |
| 4.80 ounces | 6.67 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | -- |
| Aluminum | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 284.00 | -- |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.5 inches | 6.5 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2400 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 534 pixels per inch | 405 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.6 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G SM7225 chipset |
| Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Kryo 570, 64-bit, 8 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM |
| Adreno 530 GPU | Adreno 619 GPU |
| 9 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot |
| 12.76 | 15.42 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 64.00 MP + 32.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 26.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.59 inches (1/1.7") 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 | 12.1 |
| 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 |
| 6.3 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 2600mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 4.56 | 6.32 |
| 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 |
Comparison review
The Galaxy A52 is a lot better than the Moto Z, getting a general score of 90.7 against 74.5. Galaxy A52's body is incredibly newer, but extremely thicker and extremely heavier than the Moto Z. Moto Z features a slightly better screen than Galaxy A52, because although it has a little bit smaller screen, it also counts with a better resolution of 1440 x 2560px and a higher count of pixels per display inch.
The Samsung Galaxy A52 features a bit more powerful processor than Moto Z, because it has 4 more CPU cores and more RAM. Galaxy A52 has a much better camera than Moto Z, and although they both have the same 30 frames per second video frame rate, the same diafragm aperture and the same 3840x2160 (4K) video resolution, the Galaxy A52 also has a lot more MP back-facing camera.
Galaxy A52 has a superior storage capacity to store more games and applications than Motorola Moto Z, because although it has a SD memory slot that supports 976 GB smaller, it also counts with more internal memory. The Samsung Galaxy A52 has a superior battery life than Moto Z, because it has 4500mAh of battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.