Compare Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G vs Sony Xperia M5 Dual

Feature Comparison

  • The Sony Xperia M5 Dual has 5 inch Screen Size, which is 10.0% more
  • Sony Xperia M5 Dual's 16GB Internal Storage is more than Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G's 8GB Internal Storage
  • Sony Xperia M5 Dual's RAM is 66.0% more
 
Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G
Sony Xperia M5 Dual
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
44 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
64 Value For Money Score
79 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
4.5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
960 x 540 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
244.8 PPI 441 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.2GHz 2GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
1GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 302 Rogue G6200   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
5MP 21.5MP   
Front Camera Resolution
0.3MP 13MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Panorama, HDR Image Stabiliser, Video Stabiliser, Geo-Tagging,   
Video Recording Resolution
480p Video Recording 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash, Front LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.0 Lollipop Android 5.0 Lollipop   
OS Detail
Android (5.0) -   
OS Upgradable To
Android 5.1 -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio Water Resistance, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
129.9 x 66.8 x 12.3 145 x 72 x 7.6   
Weight
145 grams 143 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black, White Gold, Black, White   
Build Material
Plastic -   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
4.61GB 10.84GB   
Card Slot
Yes -   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 200GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2390mAh 2600mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G vs Sony Xperia M5 Dual Specs

Specs
Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3GSony Xperia M5 Dual  
Screen Size 4.5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 5MP21.5MP  
RAM 1GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2390mAh2600mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 0.3MP13MP  

Sony Xperia M5 Dual Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Stunning Full HD display with a pixel density of 441PPI
  • Decent camera performance with 4K video recording support
  • Good battery saving options
  • Water and Dust resistant, IP65 and IP68
The Bad
  • Not that great gaming perfromance with MediaTek Helio X10 chipset
  • Battery life is a little worry for 1080p display

Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good battery life
  • Good build quality
  • Dual SIM support
The Bad
  • Camera is disappointing
  • Low screen resolution ruins the experience
  • No 4G connectivity

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G with Sony Xperia M5 Dual. When you see Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G Vs Sony Xperia M5 Dual 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 Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G stands against Sony Xperia M5 Dual and which one you should buy. The best price of Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G is currently Rs. 5,999. The lowest price for Sony Xperia M5 Dual is Rs. 19,990. The prices for both these products were updated August 22, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page