Compare Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen vs Xiaomi Redmi Pro

Feature Comparison

  • Xiaomi Redmi Pro has 5.5 inch Screen Size, whereas Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen has 5 inch Screen Size
  • The Xiaomi Redmi Pro's Internal Storage measures in at 32GB. When compared to the other product's Internal Storage, it is 50.0% more
  • The Xiaomi Redmi Pro has 3GB RAM, which is 33.0% more
 
Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen
Xiaomi Redmi Pro
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
60 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
74 Value For Money Score
88 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
294 PPI 401 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.4GHz 2.1GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MediaTek Helio x25   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Deca-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 306 Mali-T880 MP4   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama +5MP Rear Camera, Touch focus, Face detection, White balance setting, ISO setting, Scene mode, Continuous shooting, Digital image stabilization, Geotagging, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) 4K Video Recording (2160p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, Dual LED Flash Autofocus, OIS, Dual Rear Camera, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash, Dual Tone LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
Android 6.0 -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB USB Type C   
Features
Water Resistance, GPS, FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, GPS, FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
141.5 x 70.7 x 11 151.50 x 76.20 x 8.15   
Weight
149 grams 174 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black, White Silver, Gold, Dark Grey   
Build Material
Polycarbonate Glass, Metal   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- 26.73GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 256GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No Yes   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2470mAh 4050mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- Yes   

Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen vs Xiaomi Redmi Pro Specs

Specs
Motorola Moto G 3rd GenXiaomi Redmi Pro  
Screen Size 5 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2470mAh4050mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good HD display and Corning Gorilla Glass 3 protection
  • Near Stock UI experience and faster Android updates
  • Water Resistant IP67 rating
  • 4G and VoLTE Support
  • Improved 13MP camera
The Bad
  • Average battery capacity at 2470mAh
  • No Full HD display
  • No notification LED
  • No USB cable supplied with the device

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen with Xiaomi Redmi Pro. When you see Motorola Moto G 3rd Gen Vs Xiaomi Redmi Pro 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 G 3rd Gen stands against Xiaomi Redmi Pro and which one you should buy. The prices for both these products were updated October 22, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page