LG Velvet 5G vs Motorola One 5G Ace: Which 5G Phone Delivers the Best Value?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the LG Velvet 5G emerges as the stronger choice. Its significantly brighter 617-nit display and faster 25W charging, coupled with a comparable processor, outweigh the Motorola One 5G Ace’s newer chipset. However, the Ace is a viable option for those prioritizing a lower price point.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | LG Velvet 5G | Motorola One 5G Ace |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66, 71 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 28, 78 SA/NSA | 2, 5, 25, 41, 66, 71 Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (5CA) Cat16 1000/75 Mbps, 5G 2Gbps | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, May 07. Released 2020, May 15 | 2021, January 08 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2021, January 14 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | - |
| Dimensions | 167.2 x 74.1 x 7.9 mm (6.58 x 2.92 x 0.31 in) | 166.1 x 76.1 x 9.9 mm (6.54 x 3.00 x 0.39 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 180 g (6.35 oz) | 212 g (7.48 oz) |
| IP68 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 30 mins) MIL-STD-810G compliant* *does not guarantee ruggedness or use in extreme conditions | Water-repellent coating | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 1080 x 2460 pixels (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.8 inches, 109.8 cm2 (~88.6% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~85.7% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | P-OLED | IPS LCD, HDR10 |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 620 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 10, upgradable to Android 13, LG UX | Android 10 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | - | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚, 15mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm Auxiliary lens | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 2 MP (macro), AF |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/1.9, 29mm (standard), 1/3.06, 1.0µm | 16 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, QZSS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO |
| Radio | FM radio (market/region dependent) | Unspecified |
| USB | USB Type-C, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 25W wired, PD3.0, QC4 9W wireless | 15W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4300 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Aurora White, Aurora Green, Aurora Gray, Illusion Sunset, Red, Pink | Volcanic Gray, Frosted Silver |
| Models | LM-G900N, LM-G900EM, LM-G900, LM-G900TM | XT2113-2, XT2113-5 |
| Price | About 470 EUR | About 50 EUR |
| SAR | 0.23 W/kg (head) 1.02 W/kg (body) | - |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 79h | - |
| Camera | Photo / Video | - |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | - |
| Loudspeaker | -23.5 LUFS (Very good) | - |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 297372 (v8) GeekBench: 1905 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | - |
LG Velvet 5G
- Brighter and more vibrant display (617 nits)
- Faster 25W wired charging with PD3.0/QC4
- Wireless charging support
- Older chipset (Snapdragon 765G)
- Potentially lower battery efficiency compared to 8nm process
Motorola One 5G Ace
- Newer chipset (Snapdragon 750G) for potentially better efficiency
- Lower price point
- 5G connectivity
- Slower 15W charging
- Likely dimmer display
- Less refined camera system
Display Comparison
The LG Velvet 5G’s display is a clear standout, achieving a measured peak brightness of 617 nits. This is a substantial advantage over what’s typically found in the Motorola One 5G Ace, which lacks published brightness data but is expected to be lower given its market positioning. While both likely utilize LCD panels, the Velvet’s higher brightness translates to better visibility in direct sunlight. The Velvet’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) suggests a well-tuned panel, though without specific contrast measurements, it’s difficult to quantify the difference. The Ace’s display is likely optimized for power efficiency, but at the cost of visual vibrancy.
Camera Comparison
Detailed camera analysis is hampered by the lack of specific sensor information for both devices. Both phones are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, which is unhelpful. However, the LG Velvet 5G, being a more premium device, likely incorporates a larger main sensor and more sophisticated image processing algorithms. The Motorola One 5G Ace likely prioritizes cost savings in this area. Without knowing the megapixel counts or aperture values, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment, but the Velvet’s brand reputation suggests a more capable camera system. We can assume both phones include standard features like HDR and scene detection.
Performance
Both phones utilize Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets, but with key architectural differences. The LG Velvet 5G features the Snapdragon 765G (7nm), while the Motorola One 5G Ace uses the Snapdragon 750G (8nm). The 8nm process of the 750G *should* offer improved power efficiency, potentially leading to longer battery life during less demanding tasks. However, the 765G’s Kryo 475 Prime core, clocked at 2.4 GHz, provides a slight edge in single-core performance compared to the 750G’s 2.2 GHz Kryo 570 cores. For gaming, the difference will be minimal, but the Velvet’s slightly more powerful GPU may provide a smoother experience in graphically intensive titles. Both devices likely feature similar RAM configurations, impacting multitasking performance similarly.
Battery Life
The LG Velvet 5G boasts an endurance rating of 79 hours, a strong indicator of its battery performance. While the Motorola One 5G Ace’s battery capacity is unknown, the Snapdragon 750G’s 8nm process *could* partially offset a smaller battery size. However, the Velvet’s 25W wired charging with PD3.0 and QC4 support is a significant advantage. This allows for much faster charging times compared to the Ace’s 15W charging. The Velvet also supports 9W wireless charging, a feature absent on the Ace. The faster charging speeds of the Velvet are crucial for users who need to quickly top up their battery throughout the day.
Buying Guide
Buy the LG Velvet 5G if you prioritize a vibrant, easily viewable display, faster charging speeds, and a more refined user experience. This phone is ideal for media consumption and users who frequently rely on their smartphone outdoors. Buy the Motorola One 5G Ace if you are on a strict budget and value a newer chipset, even if it means sacrificing display quality and charging speed. It’s a solid choice for basic smartphone tasks and light 5G usage.