ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G vs Motorola Moto G 5G Plus: A Detailed Comparison
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus edges out the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G. While performance is nearly identical thanks to the shared Snapdragon 765G chipset, the Moto G 5G Plus’s slightly faster 20W charging and measured display brightness provide a more polished overall experience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | ZTE Blade 20 Pro 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, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 41, 78, 79 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| CDMA 800 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, November 30. Released 2021, January 04 | 2020, July 07. Released 2020, July 08 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 159.2 x 73.4 x 7.9 mm (6.27 x 2.89 x 0.31 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 | 168 g (5.93 oz) | 207 g (7.30 oz) |
| - | Water-repellent coating | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~398 ppi density) | 1080 x 2520 pixels, 21:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.47 inches, 102.8 cm2 (~87.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 104.9 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | IPS LCD, 90Hz, 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 (1x2.3 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 620 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, MiFavor 10 | Android 10 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| - | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | Dual-LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.9, 25mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚, 16mm (ultrawide) 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 5 MP (macro), AF Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30fps; gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 16 MP, f/2.0, 29mm (normal), 1.0µm 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 20 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/2.8", 1.0µm | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | Yes |
| 35mm jack | No | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.1 | 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, QC4 | 20W wired |
| Type | Li-Ion 4000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Blue | Surfing Blue, Mystic Lilac |
| Models | - | XT2075, XT2075-2, XT2075-3 |
| Price | About 350 EUR | About 260 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 114h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: 1269:1 |
| Loudspeaker | - | -28.4 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 299926 (v8) GeekBench: 1898 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G
- Potentially lower price point
- Qualcomm Quick Charge 4 support
- 5G connectivity
- Slower 18W charging
- Display brightness data unavailable (likely lower than Moto)
- Limited camera details
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
- Faster 20W charging
- Brighter 543 nit display
- Good battery endurance (114h)
- Potentially higher price
- Similar chipset to ZTE
- Camera details lacking
Display Comparison
Both devices feature displays with a 1269:1 contrast ratio, indicating similar levels of black depth and color pop. However, the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus boasts a measured peak brightness of 543 nits, a tangible advantage over the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G (brightness data unavailable). This higher brightness translates to better visibility in direct sunlight. While both likely utilize IPS LCD panels, the Motorola’s superior brightness makes it the better choice for outdoor use. We lack information on refresh rates, but given the price bracket, 60Hz is expected on both.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack specific details. Without sensor size, aperture, or image processing details, a direct comparison is difficult. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on either device is unlikely to significantly impact image quality, serving primarily as a marketing feature. The quality of the main sensor and image processing algorithms will be the determining factors, and without further data, it’s impossible to declare a clear winner. We can assume both will perform adequately in good lighting conditions.
Performance
At the heart of both phones lies the Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) chipset. The CPU configuration is nearly identical – an octa-core setup with 1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime (ZTE) vs 1x2.3 GHz Kryo 475 Prime (Motorola), 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold, and 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver cores. The minor clock speed difference is unlikely to be noticeable in real-world usage. Both devices will handle everyday tasks and moderate gaming with ease. Thermal performance will likely be similar, relying on passive cooling solutions given the price point. The lack of LPDDR5x RAM specification suggests both likely use LPDDR4x, limiting potential performance gains.
Battery Life
Both the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G and Motorola Moto G 5G Plus achieve an endurance rating of 114 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage patterns. However, charging speeds differ: the Motorola supports 20W wired charging, while the ZTE is limited to 18W with QC4 support. This 2W difference translates to a faster 0-100% charge time for the Motorola, a convenience factor that many users will appreciate. The identical endurance ratings suggest that despite the charging speed difference, both phones offer all-day battery life for typical use.
Buying Guide
Buy the ZTE Blade 20 Pro 5G if you prioritize a potentially lower price point and are comfortable with a slightly slower charging experience. Buy the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus if you value a brighter display, faster charging, and a more refined user experience, even if it means paying a small premium.