Compare Panasonic P85 vs Motorola Moto C

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of Panasonic P85 is the same as Motorola Moto C
  • The Panasonic P85's got 16GB Internal Storage, while Motorola Moto C's Internal Storage is 8GB
  • The RAM on Panasonic P85 is 50.0% more
 
Panasonic P85
Motorola Moto C
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
86 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
63 Value For Money Score
79 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 854 x 480 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
294 PPI 196 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Bezel Less
No No   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1GHz 1.1GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6735P MediaTek MT6737M   
Processor Type
Quad-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
2GB 1GB   
Graphics
Mali-T720 MP2 -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
8MP 5MP   
Dual Rear Camera
No -   
Front Camera Resolution
2MP 2MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
No -   
Camera Details
White balance settings, Continuous shooting, Panorama, ISO settings, Scene mode, Digital zoom, Expposure compensation, HDR, Geotagging, Touch focus, Self timer, Face detection 1.4 µm pixel size, geo-tagging, touch focus, panorama   
Video Recording Resolution
- HD Video Recording (720p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 6.0 Marshmallow Android 7.0 Nougat   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Sensors
Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Ambient Light, Gyroscope Accelerometer   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
145 x 72.2 x 9.35 145.5 x 73.6 x 9   
Weight
146.7 grams 154 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Gold, Gray Starry Black, Fine Gold, Pearl White   
Build Material
Plastic -   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
1 Year for Mobile & 6 Months for Accessories -   
Body SAR
- -   
Head SAR
- -   
In The Box
Device, Charger & Cable Separate, Earphone, User Manual, Warranty Card Device, Charger & Cable Separate, SIM Ejector Tool, User Manual   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 8GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 32GB   
OTG Support
No -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes -   
2G Bands
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900   
3G Bands
UMTS 900 / 2100 MHz HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100   
4G Bands
TD-LTE 2300(band 40) FD-LTE 1800(band 3) / 850(band 5) -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
4000mAh 2350mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No Yes   
Wireless Charging
No No   
Fast Charging
No No   

Panasonic P85 vs Motorola Moto C Specs

Specs
Panasonic P85Motorola Moto C  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 8MP5MP  
RAM 2GB1GB  
Battery Capacity 4000mAh2350mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 2MP2MP  

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Panasonic P85 with Motorola Moto C. When you see Panasonic P85 Vs Motorola Moto C 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 Panasonic P85 stands against Motorola Moto C and which one you should buy. The best price of Panasonic P85 is currently Rs. 6,499. The lowest price for Motorola Moto C is Rs. 5,199. The prices for both these products were updated December 13, 2017.
Report an error on this page