Motorola Moto G 5G Plus vs Oppo Reno4 Z 5G: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range 5G Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing longevity and a brighter display, the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus emerges as the stronger choice. Its significantly superior battery endurance rating (114h vs 78h) and higher peak brightness (543 nits) outweigh the Reno4 Z 5G’s slightly faster charging.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G 3.5 Gbps DL | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, September 29. Released 2020, October 15 | 2020, July 07. Released 2020, July 08 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 163.8 x 75.5 x 8.1 mm (6.45 x 2.97 x 0.32 in) | 168.3 x 74 x 9.7 mm (6.63 x 2.91 x 0.38 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 184 g (6.49 oz) | 207 g (7.30 oz) |
| - | Water-repellent coating | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 3+ | - |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~401 ppi density) | 1080 x 2520 pixels, 21:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.57 inches, 104.2 cm2 (~84.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 104.9 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 120Hz, 480 nits (typ) | IPS LCD, 90Hz, HDR10 |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A76 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.3 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 800 (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC4 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, upgradable to Android 11, ColorOS 11.1 | Android 10 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Dual-LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ (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 5 MP (macro), AF Auxiliary lens |
| Single | 2 MP | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 16 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm 2 MP, f/2.4, (depth) | 16 MP, f/2.0, 29mm (normal), 1.0µm 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 20W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Ink Black, Dew White | Surfing Blue, Mystic Lilac |
| Models | CPH2065 | XT2075, XT2075-2, XT2075-3 |
| Price | About 260 EUR | About 260 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 78h | Endurance rating 114h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: 1284:1 (nominal) | Contrast ratio: 1269:1 |
| Loudspeaker | -28.1 LUFS (Average) | -28.4 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 295562 (v8) GeekBench: 2196 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 299926 (v8) GeekBench: 1898 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
- Faster 18W wired charging
- Slightly more compact design (likely)
- Oppo’s ColorOS offers a feature-rich experience
- Significantly shorter battery life (78h endurance)
- Dimmer display (398 nits)
- Potentially less consistent performance under sustained load
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
- Exceptional battery life (114h endurance)
- Brighter display (543 nits)
- Snapdragon 765 offers more consistent performance
- Slightly slower 20W wired charging
- Motorola’s software is closer to stock Android, which some may find lacking in features
- Potentially larger footprint
Display Comparison
Both the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G and Motorola Moto G 5G Plus feature displays with a similar 1269-1284:1 contrast ratio, suggesting comparable black levels and overall image depth. However, the Moto G 5G Plus boasts a significantly brighter panel at 543 nits compared to the Reno4 Z 5G’s 398 nits. This translates to better visibility outdoors and in brightly lit environments. While both lack high refresh rates, the brightness difference is a key differentiator for everyday usability.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer a 'Photo / Video' camera experience, but detailed sensor information is lacking. Given the market positioning, it’s likely both rely on multi-camera setups with a primary sensor for detail and auxiliary lenses for ultra-wide or macro shots. Without specific sensor sizes or aperture data, it’s difficult to definitively declare a winner. However, Motorola’s image processing tends towards more natural colors, while Oppo often employs more vibrant, saturated tones – a matter of user preference. The absence of details on OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) makes it impossible to assess low-light performance differences.
Performance
The Motorola Moto G 5G Plus utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 5G, featuring a Kryo 475 Prime core clocked at 2.3 GHz, while the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G is powered by the MediaTek Dimensity 800. While both are 7nm chips, the Snapdragon 765’s core architecture offers a slight edge in sustained performance due to its more balanced core configuration (1x2.3GHz + 1x2.2GHz + 6x1.8GHz) versus the Dimensity 800’s (4x2.0GHz + 4x2.0GHz). This difference, though not massive, will be noticeable in demanding applications and prolonged gaming sessions. Both devices benefit from 5G connectivity, but the Snapdragon 765 generally exhibits more consistent modem performance.
Battery Life
The Motorola Moto G 5G Plus delivers a substantial advantage in battery life, achieving an endurance rating of 114 hours compared to the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G’s 78 hours. This nearly 40-hour difference suggests the Moto G 5G Plus can comfortably last a full day of heavy use, while the Reno4 Z 5G may require a top-up before the day is over. While the Reno4 Z 5G supports 18W wired charging, and the Moto G 5G Plus offers 20W, the larger battery capacity of the Motorola device mitigates the charging speed difference, resulting in a more practical real-world experience.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G if you prioritize a slightly faster charging experience and are comfortable with a shorter battery life. Buy the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus if you value exceptional battery endurance, a brighter and more visible display in sunlight, and a more consistently powerful chipset for sustained tasks.