Compare Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G vs Xolo Era 4K

Feature Comparison

  • Xolo Era 4K's 5 inch Screen Size is more than Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G's 4.5 inch Screen Size
  • Internal Storage of Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G is the same as Xolo Era 4K
  • RAM of Xolo Era 4K's is 50.0% more than Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G
 
Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G
Xolo Era 4K
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
62 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
64 Value For Money Score
75 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
4.5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
960 x 540 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
244.8 PPI 294 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.2GHz 1GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MediaTek MT6735P   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
1GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 302 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
5MP 8MP   
Front Camera Resolution
0.3MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Panorama, HDR Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face/Smile Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
480p Video Recording Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus Autofocus, Dual LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.0 Lollipop Android 5.1 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 GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
129.9 x 66.8 x 12.3 143 x 71.8 × 9.2   
Weight
145 grams 157 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black, White Dark Blue, White   
Build Material
Plastic Plastic   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
8GB 8GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
4.61GB 5.31GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 32GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2390mAh 4000mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G vs Xolo Era 4K Specs

Specs
Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3GXolo Era 4K  
Screen Size 4.5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 5MP8MP  
RAM 1GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 2390mAh4000mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 0.3MP5MP  

Xolo Era 4K Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Exceptional battery life
  • Compact design with a good build quality and reassuring feel
  • Mostly stock Android UI
  • Air shuffle lets you use proximity sensor to change songs or radio channels
The Bad
  • Comes pre-loaded with a ton of bloatware
  • Internal memory to the user is very low
  • The back panel is prone to picking up scratches
  • Highly reflective display which can be a little difficult to read in direct sunlight

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 Xolo Era 4K. When you see Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G Vs Xolo Era 4K 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 Xolo Era 4K and which one you should buy. The best price of Motorola Moto E (2nd Gen) 3G is currently Rs. 5,999. The prices for both these products were updated August 20, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page