Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 88.5 | 76.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | Motorola |
| Android 12, 11, 10 | -- |
| 2020-02-14 | 2018-06-29 |
| 6.59 x 2.90 x 0.28 inches | 6.16 x 3.01 x 0.27 inches |
| 6.46 ounces | 5.50 ounces |
| Mirror black and Mirror purple | 16 777 216 |
| Aluminum | Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 3) |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1380.00 | $ 500.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 6 inches |
| 2636 x 1080 pixels | 2160 x 1080 pixels |
| Dynamic AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 425 pixels per inch | 402 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.3 | 8 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ SM8150-AC (7 nm) chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 SDM636 chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2960 MHz) processor | Kryo 260, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 1800 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Adreno 509 GPU |
| 9.72 | 8.91 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot |
| 13.3 | 14.66 |
| Camera | |
| 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.80 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 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 | -- |
| 10.23 | 9.68 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.28 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| 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 |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Z Flip is better than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, with an 88.5 score against 76.3. Galaxy Z Flip's body is newer, but heavier and just a little bit thicker than Motorola Moto Z3 Play. The Galaxy Z Flip has a little faster CPU than Moto Z3 Play, and although they both have the same number of cores, the Galaxy Z Flip also has a larger amount of RAM memory.
The Galaxy Z Flip features a slightly better looking display than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, because it has a little bit higher resolution of 1080 x 2636 pixels, a quite bigger screen and a quite higher screen density. Galaxy Z Flip shoots a little bit better videos and photos than Moto Z3 Play, because although it has a tinier aperture which is worse for low-light images and video, and they both have a back camera with a 12 megapixels resolution, a same size camera sensor and the same video quality, the Galaxy Z Flip also counts with better 60 fps video frame rates.
Moto Z3 Play features more memory capacity for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy Z Flip, because although it has 0 less internal memory, it also counts with a SD card slot that supports up to 1,95 TB. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip has just a bit longer battery performance than Moto Z3 Play, because it has 3300mAh of battery capacity.
Although Samsung Galaxy Z Flip is a better device, it is a lot more expensive than Motorola Moto Z3 Play, and it doesn't have such a good price and quality relation as the Motorola Moto Z3 Play. So if you need that extra features, you can buy Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, but if you don't you can save a couple dollars and get the Motorola Moto Z3 Play, letting go a couple features and specifications.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.