Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 11.76 | 9.36 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 11, 10 | Android 8.0 Oreo, 7.0 Nougat, 6.0 Marshmallow |
| 2020-08-21 | 2016-10-04 |
| 6.49 x 3.04 x 0.32 inches | 6.16 x 3.01 x 0.28 inches |
| 7.34 ounces | 5.82 ounces |
| Mystic black, Mystic bronze and Mystic white | Black, Gold, Gray and White |
| Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass Victus) and Stainless steel | Glass and Metal |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1054.00 | $ 280.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.9 inches | 5.5 inches |
| 3088 x 1440 pixels | 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) |
| Dynamic AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 494 pixels per inch | 401 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.7 | 8 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ SM8250-AB chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 8953 chipset |
| Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3000 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor |
| 12 GB RAM | 3 GB RAM |
| Adreno 650 GPU | Adreno 506 GPU |
| 9.81 | 9.09 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 32 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1000 GB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 15.38 | 12.76 |
| Camera | |
| 108.00 MP + 10.00 MP | 16.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/2.00 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.75 inches (1/1.33") sensor | -- |
| 7680 x 4320 (24 fps) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (120 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 13.64 | 9.68 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | 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 | 6.1 |
| Battery Life | |
| 4500mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 3510mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 4.56 | 4.8 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.0 |
| 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 |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has an overall score of 11.76, which is much better than Moto Z Play's global score of 9.36. Both phones in this comparison review have Android OS, but Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has an older 11 version and Moto Z Play has Android 8.0 Oreo. Galaxy Note 20 Ultra's body is much newer than Moto Z Play's, but it is notably heavier and somewhat thicker.
The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has a little better hardware performance than Moto Z Play, and although they both have 8 processing cores, the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra also has 9 GB more RAM. The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra counts with just a bit better screen than Motorola Moto Z Play, because it has a bigger display, a way better resolution of 1440 x 3088 pixels and a just a bit greater quantity of pixels per screen inch.
The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra counts with a much better camera than Motorola Moto Z Play, because it has a back camera with way more megapixels, a bigger camera aperture to capture better low light captures and a way better 7680x4320 video quality. The Galaxy Note 20 Ultra has a superior storage capacity to store more games and applications than Moto Z Play, because although it has a SD memory card expansion slot that allows 1000 GB smaller, it also counts with 128 GB internal storage capacity.
The Moto Z Play counts with a little longer battery duration than Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, although it has just 3510mAh battery size instead of 4500mAh.
Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra is way more expensive than Moto Z Play, but it's still a good choice, as you can get a lot more features for that extra money.