Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 83.8 | 75.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| -- | Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2019-03-15 | 2016-09-01 |
| 6.24 x 2.93 x 0.30 inches | 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches |
| 5.86 ounces | 5.75 ounces |
| Black, Blue, Coral and White | Black, Gold and Gray |
| Plastic | -- |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 202.00 | $ 250.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.4 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 403 pixels per inch | 534 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9610 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 4 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G72 MP3 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 14.14 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 25.00 MP + 25.00 MP | 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor | -- |
| 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 10.12 | 10.01 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | -- |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 5.5 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 5.92 | 5.44 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.1 |
| 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
Galaxy A50 has a general score of 83.8, which is much better than Moto Z Force's 75.8 general score. Galaxy A50's design is incredibly newer than the Moto Z Force's, but it's just a bit thicker and just a little bit heavier. Moto Z Force counts with a little sharper display than Galaxy A50, because although it has a little smaller display, it also counts with a better screen pixels density and a higher resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels.
The Samsung Galaxy A50 has just a little better performance than Moto Z Force, and although they both have a 4 GB RAM memory, the Samsung Galaxy A50 also has a larger number of cores. The Motorola Moto Z Force has just a bit bigger memory for apps and games than Galaxy A50, because although it has less internal storage capacity, it also counts with a SD memory slot that admits a maximum of 1,95 TB.
Samsung Galaxy A50 captures a little bit better pictures and videos than Motorola Moto Z Force, and although they both have the same 1920x1080 (Full HD) video resolution and the same 30 fps video frame rate, the Samsung Galaxy A50 also has a higher 25 megapixels resolution back camera and a larger diafragm aperture to capture better low light photography and video.
Samsung Galaxy A50 counts with a little longer battery performance than Moto Z Force, because it has 4000mAh of battery capacity instead of 3500mAh.
The Samsung Galaxy A50 is not only the best phones in our comparison, but it's also by far the cheapest.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.