Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 76.3 | 88.5 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 12, 11, 10 |
| 2018-06-29 | 2020-02-14 |
| 6.16 x 3.01 x 0.27 inches | 6.59 x 2.90 x 0.28 inches |
| 5.50 ounces | 6.46 ounces |
| 16 777 216 | Mirror black and Mirror purple |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 3) | Aluminum |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 500.00 | $ 1380.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 2160 x 1080 pixels | 2636 x 1080 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 402 pixels per inch | 425 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 SDM636 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ SM8150-AC (7 nm) chipset |
| Kryo 260, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2960 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 8 GB RAM |
| Adreno 509 GPU | Adreno 640 GPU |
| 8.91 | 9.72 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 14.66 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 9.68 | 10.23 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 4.96 | 5.28 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | 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 |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Z Flip is much better than the Moto Z3 Play, with a general score of 88.5 against 76.3. The Galaxy Z Flip body is newer than Moto Z3 Play's, although it is a little bit thicker and heavier. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip has a bit better display than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, because it has a little bigger display, a slightly better 1080 x 2636 resolution and a just a little greater screen pixels density.
Motorola Moto Z3 Play counts with a quite bigger memory for applications, games, photos and videos than Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, because although it has 0 less internal storage, it also counts with a SD memory card expansion slot that admits a maximum of 1,95 TB. The Galaxy Z Flip counts with a bit faster CPU than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, and although they both have the same number of cores, the Galaxy Z Flip also has a higher amount of RAM.
Galaxy Z Flip features just a little better battery lifetime than Moto Z3 Play, because it has a 10% larger battery size. Galaxy Z Flip counts with a bit better camera than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, because although it has a tinier camera aperture which is not nice for low-light photography and video, and they both have a 12 mega pixels resolution camera, a same size sensor and the same (4K) video quality, the Galaxy Z Flip also counts with faster video frame rates.
Although Galaxy Z Flip is a better device, it costs a lot more than the Motorola Moto Z3 Play, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Motorola Moto Z3 Play. So if you need that extra features, you can buy the Galaxy Z Flip, else you can save some money and get the Motorola Moto Z3 Play, resigning some features and specifications.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.