Compare Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB vs Yota YotaPhone 2

Feature Comparison

  • Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB's Screen Size is 3.0% more
  • Both Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB and Yota YotaPhone 2 have same Internal Storage
  • Both Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB and Yota YotaPhone 2 have same RAM
 
Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB
Yota YotaPhone 2
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
62 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
67 Value For Money Score
56 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.2 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
AMOLED LCD   
Pixel Density
423.6 PPI 440.6 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Bezel Less
No -   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
2.5GHz 2.3GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 Qualcomm Snapdragon 801   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
2GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 330 Adreno 330   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 8MP   
Dual Rear Camera
No -   
Front Camera Resolution
2MP 2.1MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
No -   
Camera Details
- Geo-Tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
4K Video Recording (2160p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 4.4 KitKat -   
OS Detail
- Android (4.4)   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
Water Resistance, FM Radio FM Radio   
Sensors
Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Magnetometer, Barometer, Gyroscope -   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
140.8 x 72.4 x 9.97 144.9 x 69.4 x 9   
Weight
144 grams 145 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Royal Blue, Cognac Leather -   
Build Material
Metal, Polycarbonate -   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Body SAR
- -   
Head SAR
- -   
In The Box
Device, Charger, User Manual -   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
23GB -   
Card Slot
No No   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
- -   
OTG Support
- -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Single   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
- -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No -   
2G Bands
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 -   
3G Bands
HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 -   
4G Bands
LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 7(2600), 20(800) -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2300mAh 2500mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
Yes, Quick Charge 2.0 -   

Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB vs Yota YotaPhone 2 Specs

Specs
Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GBYota YotaPhone 2  
Screen Size 5.2 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP8MP  
RAM 2GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 2300mAh2500mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 2MP2.1MP  

Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Unique, useful software features
  • Solid acoustic experience from earpiece to speakerphone
  • Excellent build quality, feels good to hold
  • Very sharp Full HD AMOLED display with great color reproduction
The Bad
  • No MicroSD slot
  • Average battery backup

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB with Yota YotaPhone 2. When you see Motorola Moto X 2nd Gen 32GB Vs Yota YotaPhone 2 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 X 2nd Gen 32GB stands against Yota YotaPhone 2 and which one you should buy. The prices for both these products were updated December 16, 2017.
Report an error on this page