Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.9 | 87.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| -- | Android 14 |
| 2016-01-01 | 2024-04-16 |
| 6.37 x 3.19 x 0.29 inches | 6.34 x 2.85 x 0.34 inches |
| 7.05 ounces | 6.95 ounces |
| Champagne gold, Midnight black, Pearl white and Pink | Forest Grey (Vegan Leather), Nordic Wood and Peach Fuzz (Vegan Leather) |
| Metal | Aluminum, Vegan Leather and Wood |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) | 2400 x 1080 pixels |
| Super AMOLED | P-OLED |
| 367 pixels per inch | 393 pixels per inch |
| -- | 2500 cd/m2 brightness |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 7.8 | 9.6 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 652 8976 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8s Gen 3 (4 nm) chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A72 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 28 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM |
| Adreno 510 GPU | Adreno 720 GPU |
| 8.91 | 6.21 |
| Storage | |
| 32 GB internal memory | 512 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 128 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 8.12 | 17.6 |
| Camera | |
| 13.00 MP + 8.00 MP | 50.00 MP + 50.00 MP |
| f/1.90 aperture | f/1.60 aperture |
| -- | 25.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 9.46 | 12.32 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 5.7 | 10.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4000mAh Battery | 4500mAh Nano SIM, eSIM Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 5.92 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.4 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Motorola Edge 50 Ultra is better than the Galaxy A9 (2016), getting a score of 87.1 against 74.9. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra's construction is incredibly newer and just a little bit lighter, but somewhat thicker than the Galaxy A9 (2016). The Samsung Galaxy A9 (2016) features a much better performance than Motorola Edge 50 Ultra, although it has a smaller amount of RAM memory, they both have 8 processing cores.
The Motorola Edge 50 Ultra counts with a lot better looking screen than Samsung Galaxy A9 (2016), because it has a bit bigger display, a little bit greater screen pixels density and a slightly higher resolution of 1080 x 2400 pixels. The Motorola Edge 50 Ultra has a much greater memory for apps and games than Galaxy A9 (2016), because although it has no slot for SD memory cards, it also counts with 512 GB internal memory capacity.
Motorola Edge 50 Ultra has just a little better battery performance than Galaxy A9 (2016), because it has a 13% more battery size. Motorola Edge 50 Ultra shoots a lot better pictures and videos than Galaxy A9 (2016), and although they both have the same video quality, the Motorola Edge 50 Ultra also has a larger diafragm aperture, better 60 fps video frame rate and a back camera with way more mega-pixels.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.