Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 97.6 | 75.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 9.0 Pie | Android 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2019-09-27 | 2016-09-01 |
| 6.33 x 4.64 x 0.27 inches | 6.14 x 2.98 x 0.28 inches |
| 9.74 ounces | 5.75 ounces |
| Cosmos black and Space silver | Black, Gold and Gray |
| $ 1980.00 | $ 250.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 7.3 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 2152 x 1536 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| Dynamic AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 362 pixels per inch | 534 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2200 MHz) processor |
| 12 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.72 | 9 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP | 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.50 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | -- |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video |
| 10.23 | 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, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.7 | 5.5 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4380mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 3500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 6.24 | 5.44 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0, EDR | Bluetooth 4.1 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Fold has a global score of 97.6, which is much better than the Motorola Moto Z Force's general score of 75.8. Even though Galaxy Fold is way heavier than the Motorola Moto Z Force, it's a little bit thinner and also notably newer. Both devices in this review have Android operating system, but Galaxy Fold has newer 9.0 Pie version while Motorola Moto Z Force has Android 7.0 Nougat.
The Motorola Moto Z Force features a slightly better looking screen than Samsung Galaxy Fold, because although it has a really smaller screen, it also counts with a quite better 1440 x 2560px resolution and a greater pixels density. The Galaxy Fold features a very superior storage to store more games and applications than Motorola Moto Z Force, because although it has no slot for external memory cards, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage.
The Galaxy Fold has a bit better performance than Motorola Moto Z Force, because it has a larger amount of RAM memory and a higher number of cores. Samsung Galaxy Fold captures just a bit better photographs and videos than Moto Z Force, because although it has a way worse resolution back-facing camera and a worse (4K) video quality, it also counts with a larger diafragm aperture.
Galaxy Fold counts with better battery lifetime than Moto Z Force, because it has 4380mAh of battery capacity against 3500mAh.
Although Samsung Galaxy Fold is a better device, it is a lot more expensive than the Motorola Moto Z Force, and it doesn't have such a good relation between it's price and quality as Motorola Moto Z Force. So if you want that extra features and specs, you can buy Samsung Galaxy Fold, but if you don't you can save a couple dollars and get the Motorola Moto Z Force, letting go a couple specifications.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.