Compare Coolpad Note 3 Lite vs Motorola Moto Z

Feature Comparison

  • Motorola Moto Z's 5.5 inch Screen Size is more than Coolpad Note 3 Lite's 5 inch Screen Size
  • Motorola Moto Z's Internal Storage is 75.0% more
  • Motorola Moto Z has 4GB RAM and Coolpad Note 3 Lite has 3GB RAM
 
Coolpad Note 3 Lite
Motorola Moto Z
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
76 Value For Money Score
82 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 2560 x 1440 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD AMOLED   
Pixel Density
293.7 PPI 534 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.3GHz 2.2GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6735 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
3GB 4GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 MP2 Adreno 530   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Camera Details
- Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, OIS, Laser Autofocus, Dual Tone LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
Cool UI 6.0 -   
OS Upgradable To
- Android O   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB USB Type C   
Features
Fingerprint Scanner, GPS Water Resistance, Fingerprint Scanner, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
140.8 x 70.4 x 8.9 153.3 x 75.3 x 5.2   
Weight
142 grams 136 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Audio Jack
3.5mm USB Type C   
Color
Champagne White, Black, Gold Black, White   
Build Material
Plastic Glass, Metal   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 64GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
10.6GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 2TB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Single   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2500mAh 2600mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
No No   
Fast Charging
No Yes   

Coolpad Note 3 Lite vs Motorola Moto Z Specs

Specs
Coolpad Note 3 LiteMotorola Moto Z  
Screen Size 5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 3GB4GB  
Battery Capacity 2500mAh2600mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

Motorola Moto Z Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Sharp and Vivid AMOLED display with Gorilla Glass protection
  • Smooth near Stock Android experience
  • Fast and accurate fingerprint scanner
  • Sleek and impressive build quality with water proofing
  • Fast charging support with USB Type-C connector
The Bad
  • Not that impressive rear camera, struggles in low lighting and definitely not flagship quality
  • Below average battery life with just 2600mAh unit
  • Lacks dual SIM support

Coolpad Note 3 Lite Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Small size makes it comfortable to hold and use
  • Fingerprint Scanner helps secure phone and apps
  • 3GB RAM along with 16GB internal storage is impressive
The Bad
  • Camera Quality is average

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Coolpad Note 3 Lite with Motorola Moto Z. When you see Coolpad Note 3 Lite Vs Motorola Moto Z comparison on Pricebaba, watch-out for the specifications of these phones and also the VFM score. With Pricebaba’s Value For Money Score, you can know how Coolpad Note 3 Lite stands against Motorola Moto Z and which one you should buy. The lowest price for Motorola Moto Z is Rs. 24,990. The prices for both these products were updated October 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page