vivo Y52 5G vs Motorola Moto G 5G: A Deep Dive into Budget 5G Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing consistent performance and slightly faster charging, the Motorola Moto G 5G emerges as the better choice. Its Snapdragon 750G, built on an 8nm process, offers a slight edge in efficiency and sustained performance compared to the vivo Y52 5G’s Dimensity 700. However, the difference is marginal, and both phones deliver a capable 5G experience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo Y52 5G | Motorola Moto G 5G |
| 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, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 |
| 5G bands | 1, 7, 28, 40, 41, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, May 18 | 2020, November 05. Released 2020, December 07 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, June 20 | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 164 x 75.3 x 8.5 mm (6.46 x 2.96 x 0.33 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 + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 193 g (6.81 oz) | 212 g (7.48 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 1080 x 2408 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~401 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.58 inches, 104.3 cm2 (~84.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~85.7% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | IPS LCD, HDR10 |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 570 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 570) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 700 (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7225 Snapdragon 750G 5G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Adreno 619 |
| OS | Android 11, Funtouch 11.1 | Android 10 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 2GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | - |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 2 MP (macro) 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 | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 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 | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO |
| Radio | Unspecified | FM radio, RDS |
| 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 (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 20W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Shiny Black, Glacier Blue | Volcanic Gray, Frosted Silver |
| Models | V2053 | - |
| Price | About 240 EUR | About 90 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 131h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: 1419:1 |
| Loudspeaker | - | -28.1 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 312461 (v8) GeekBench: 1980 (v5.1) GFXBench: 17fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
vivo Y52 5G
- Potential for more frequent software updates from vivo.
- Slightly more streamlined user interface (based on brand reputation).
- Competitive 5G performance for everyday tasks.
- Chipset built on a less efficient 7nm process.
- Slower 18W charging.
- Limited camera specification details.
Motorola Moto G 5G
- More efficient Snapdragon 750G chipset (8nm).
- Faster 20W wired charging.
- Higher peak display brightness for better outdoor visibility.
- Motorola’s software update track record is less consistent.
- Similar camera specifications to the vivo Y52 5G.
- Potential for more bloatware (typical of Motorola).
Display Comparison
Both the vivo Y52 5G and Motorola Moto G 5G share a contrast ratio of 1419:1, indicating similar levels of black depth and color vibrancy. However, the Moto G 5G boasts a measured peak brightness of 484 nits, which will translate to better visibility in direct sunlight. While neither phone specifies panel technology (likely IPS LCD), the higher brightness of the Moto G 5G provides a tangible advantage for outdoor use. Bezels are expected to be comparable given the price point, and color accuracy is likely similar without specific calibration data.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack detailed camera specifications. Without knowing sensor sizes, apertures, or image processing algorithms, a direct comparison is difficult. However, focusing on the market segment, it’s reasonable to expect similar image quality in good lighting conditions. The absence of details suggests neither phone prioritizes camera performance as a key selling point. Any additional camera lenses are likely to be low-resolution auxiliary sensors with limited utility.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the vivo Y52 5G utilizes the Mediatek Dimensity 700 (7nm) while the Motorola Moto G 5G features the Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G (8nm). The 8nm process of the Snapdragon 750G generally leads to better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during extended gaming sessions. Both CPUs feature an octa-core configuration with 2x2.2 GHz performance cores, but the Snapdragon 750G’s Kryo 570 cores are paired with 6x1.8 GHz efficiency cores, compared to the Dimensity 700’s 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This suggests a slight advantage in multi-core performance for the Motorola. RAM configurations are not specified, but LPDDR4X is likely standard for both.
Battery Life
Both the vivo Y52 5G and Motorola Moto G 5G achieve an endurance rating of 131 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage patterns. However, the Motorola Moto G 5G offers 20W wired charging, slightly faster than the vivo Y52 5G’s 18W charging. This translates to a quicker 0-100% charge time, a benefit for users who frequently need to top up their battery. While battery capacity isn’t specified, the Snapdragon 750G’s efficiency may contribute to slightly longer real-world usage on the Motorola.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo Y52 5G if you prioritize a brand known for consistent software updates and a potentially more refined user experience, even if it means a slightly less powerful chipset. Buy the Motorola Moto G 5G if you prefer a phone with a proven track record for battery endurance and a chipset that offers a small but measurable performance advantage in demanding tasks, particularly gaming.