Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 90.7 | 75.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| -- | Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2021-03-17 | 2016-09-01 |
| 6.30 x 2.96 x 0.33 inches | 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches |
| 6.67 ounces | 5.75 ounces |
| -- | Black, Gold and Gray |
| Plastic | -- |
| -- | $ 250.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.5 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 2400 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 405 pixels per inch | 534 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G SM7225 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset |
| Kryo 570, 64-bit, 8 nm (Octa-Core 2200 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 619 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 15.42 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 64.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 21.00 MP + 5.00 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 |
| 12.1 | 10.01 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | -- |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.7 | 5.5 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Battery | 3500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.32 | 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 |
Comparison review
The Samsung Galaxy A52 is better than the Moto Z Force, having a score of 90.7 against 75.8. The Samsung Galaxy A52 body is notably newer, but thicker and somewhat heavier than Moto Z Force. The Galaxy A52 counts with a bit more powerful processing unit than Motorola Moto Z Force, because it has a greater amount of RAM memory and a larger number of 2.2 GHz cores.
Moto Z Force counts with a slightly better looking display than Samsung Galaxy A52, because although it has a little bit smaller display, it also counts with a better quantity of pixels per screen inch and a higher 1440 x 2560px resolution. The Galaxy A52 features a bit bigger storage for apps and games than Moto Z Force, because although it has a slot for SD memory cards that admits up to 1 TB against 1,95 TB, it also counts with 128 GB internal memory.
Galaxy A52 features a very superior camera than Motorola Moto Z Force, and although they both have the same (4K) video quality, the same 30 frames per second video frame rates and the same diafragm aperture, the Galaxy A52 also has a lot better 64 mega pixels resolution back facing camera. Samsung Galaxy A52 counts with greater battery life than Motorola Moto Z Force, because it has a 29 percent greater battery size.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.