Notebookcheck Logo

Motorola Moto E32 review - Modern memory in an entry-level phone

Inexpensive with 90 Hz screen. The Motorola Moto E32 does not cost much but still comes with a fast screen. The manufacturer has also improved the charging technology. However, Motorola itself has faster and cheaper competitors. Is the cheap phone worth it at all?
Motorola Moto E32
Motorola Moto E32 (Moto E Series)
Processor
UNISOC T606 8 x 1.6 GHz, Cortex-A75 / A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
4 GB 
Display
6.50 inch 20:9, 1600 x 720 pixel 270 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes, 90 Hz
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 64 GB 
, 54 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3.5mm audio port, Card Reader: microSD (dedicated, up to 1 TB), 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, proximity sensor
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B38/​B40/​B41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 164 x 74.9 ( = 0.33 x 6.46 x 2.95 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Ion, 18 Watt charging
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/​2.2, phase comparison-AF, LED-flash, Videos @1080p/​30fps (Camera 1); 2.0MP, f/​2.4, macro lens (Camera 2); 2.0MP, f/​2.4, depth of field (Camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/​2.0, Videos @1080p/​30fps
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, charger, USB cable, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.420W/​kg Head, 1.430W/​kg Body, IP52-certified, notification LED (front), fanless
Weight
184 g ( = 6.49 oz / 0.41 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
149 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
76.4 %
09/2022
Motorola Moto E32
T606, Mali-G57 MP1
184 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.50"1600x720
77.1 %
11/2021
Motorola Moto E40
Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2
198 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
74.8 %
07/2022
realme Narzo 50i Prime
T612, Mali-G52 MP1
182 g32 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.50"1600x720
76.6 %
07/2022
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
SD 680, Adreno 610
190 g64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.71"1650x720

Case and equipment - Angular plastic design with IP protection

Motorola is also well represented below 200 Euros with the inexpensive E-series phones. The Moto E32 costs 149 Euros this year with 4 GB RAM and 64 GB mass storage. Thus, the smartphone's storage configuration is on par with other phones in the price range.

The casing is made of plastic and comes with a back that is plain in a dark or a lighter shade of gray. Both refract the light around the camera module. The design is clearly less round than in the Moto E40 and the Moto E32 feels quite good in the hand without a protective cover, but material transitions and one or the other edge are noticeable. Motorola grants the inexpensive phone an IP52 certification, which certifies protection against splashing water and quite good dust resistance.

The phone is relatively light for its size at 184 grams. Two SIM slots are installed in the smartphone, and there is also a notification LED on the front.

The microSD reader is separate, so you do not have to give up a SIM slot for it. It achieves transfer rates on a good level in the test with our reference microSD Angelbird V60 but also shows individual drops. In the copy test, smartphones like the Redmi 10C that offer almost double the speed.

Size comparision

169.6 mm / 6.68 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs165.1 mm / 6.5 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 198 g0.4365 lbs164.1 mm / 6.46 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 182 g0.4012 lbs164 mm / 6.46 inch 74.9 mm / 2.95 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 184 g0.4057 lbs
SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
  (Angelbird V60)
34.9 MB/s ∼100% +90%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.9 - 59.2, n=118, last 2 years)
25.9 MB/s ∼74% +41%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
  (Angelbird V60)
20.6 MB/s ∼59% +12%
Motorola Moto E32
  (Angelbird V60)
18.4 MB/s ∼53%
Motorola Moto E40
  (Angelbird V60)
11.8 MB/s ∼34% -36%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

0510152025303540455055606570758085Tooltip
Motorola Moto E32 Mali-G57 MP1, T606, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø29.3 (14.6-45.5)
Motorola Moto E40 Mali-G52 MP2, Tangula T700, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø24.6 (14.6-35.2)
realme Narzo 50i Prime Mali-G52 MP1, T612, 32 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø28.9 (21.1-40.1)
Xiaomi Redmi 10C Adreno 610, SD 680, 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø38.2 (26.4-46.1)
Motorola Moto E32 Mali-G57 MP1, T606, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø75.6 (41.3-85.5)
Motorola Moto E40 Mali-G52 MP2, Tangula T700, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø77.2 (42-85.8)
realme Narzo 50i Prime Mali-G52 MP1, T612, 32 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø75.3 (31.8-83.1)
Xiaomi Redmi 10C Adreno 610, SD 680, 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø78.7 (28.6-82.6)

Communication, software and operation - WiFi 4 only and no NFC

The Moto E32 is a 4G smartphone and offers all important LTE bands for Central Europe. However, you should not expect much more, so it is not the preferred choice for international use. The signal strength also proved to be rather mediocre again and again in our random tests during the review.

The fact that the Moto E32 only has WiFi 4 is okay for its price range, but the Redmi 10C shows that WiFi 5 with significantly higher transfer rates can be offered here as well. When we checked the Wi-Fi speeds with our reference router Asus ROG AXE11000, our review sample is quite fickle in terms of transfer rates. Overall, however, it is similarly fast to comparable phones, apart from the Redmi.

The phone comes with fairly up-to-date Bluetooth 5.0, but no NFC, so mobile payment services cannot be used.

Motorola installs a rather pure Android 11 on the phone. Our Moto E32 had the security patches from July 2022 at the time of testing, so an update should be available soon. Based on the experience with earlier Moto E-Phones, an update to Android 12 should follow, but it is uncertain when. It is nice that Motorola does not pre-install any advertising apps.

The phone's touchscreen is easy to use, even in the corners. The phone hides the fingerprint sensor in the slightly raised standby button on the side. It reacts promptly and reliably to once-recognized fingers and allows unlocking the phone or accessing sensitive areas of apps. Unlocking via face recognition is also possible and works reliably, but only in good ambient light. Furthermore, this method is not as secure due to the software solution.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Motorola Moto E40
802.11 b/g/n
86.9 (78min - 93max) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto E40
802.11 b/g/n
87.2 (46min - 105max) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
315 (269min - 336max) MBit/s ∼100% +446%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
802.11 b/g/n
62.6 (58min - 74max) MBit/s ∼20% +8%
Motorola Moto E32
802.11 b/g/n
57.7 (25min - 71max) MBit/s ∼18%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
222 (194min - 242max) MBit/s ∼100% +385%
Motorola Moto E32
802.11 b/g/n
45.8 (23min - 57max) MBit/s ∼21%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
802.11 b/g/n
44.3 (22min - 58max) MBit/s ∼20% -3%
0510152025303540455055606570Tooltip
Motorola Moto E32; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø45.7 (23-57)
Motorola Moto E32; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø57.7 (25-71)

Cameras - No pixel binning

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

Compared to the Moto E40 with its 48-megapixel pixel-binning camera, the simple 16-megapixel sensor in the Moto E32 could be seen as a step backward. And indeed, the nominal light sensitivity of the main camera is also lower in the Moto E32. Nevertheless, our test device takes quite well brightened low-light photos for its price range, but they look quite coarse on closer inspection. Even in normal daylight, you should not enlarge the photos provided by the Hynix camera sensor too much. Exposure and dynamics please us quite well, but the colors look a bit washed out.

There is no wide-angle lens, only a macro camera, and a camera to support blur effects. Videos can be recorded in 1080p and 30 fps with the main camera. The exposure compensation works quickly and reliably, the autofocus is a bit slow now and then, but mostly accurate. The general picture quality is decent, but it becomes visible that individual details are displayed too inaccurately when viewed on a large screen.

Samsung's 8-megapixel front-facing camera also takes somewhat rough pictures, where larger color areas lack nuances.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Main cameraMain cameraLow Light
click to load images
ColorChecker
15.9 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
16.9 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
15.3 ∆E
14.7 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Motorola Moto E32: 9.85 ∆E min: 2.53 - max: 16.87 ∆E
ColorChecker
28.9 ∆E
53 ∆E
38 ∆E
36.4 ∆E
42.9 ∆E
61.8 ∆E
53.6 ∆E
33.5 ∆E
41.1 ∆E
25.8 ∆E
63.2 ∆E
63.2 ∆E
29.1 ∆E
47.9 ∆E
36.3 ∆E
74 ∆E
42.1 ∆E
43.6 ∆E
82.4 ∆E
69.2 ∆E
51.2 ∆E
36.8 ∆E
23.5 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Motorola Moto E32: 45.47 ∆E min: 13.76 - max: 82.39 ∆E

Display - 90-Hz screen as a unique selling point

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

The phone features an IPS screen with an enhanced 720p resolution. Similarly priced smartphones offer the same equipment.

The screen is not quite as bright as in the Moto E40 with a maximum of 375 cd/m², it is relatively dark even in a class comparison, so it is difficult to use it in sunlight. As a special feature, the screen offers a 90 Hz frame rate on request, which enables smooth scrolling and faster operation.

The black value is slightly higher than in other smartphones, resulting in only a moderate contrast ratio and somewhat pale colors. The screen's color profile can be selected and a manual white balance is also possible in several steps, so you can still adjust it.

We did not notice any PWM flickering, but the response times are slow, at least for gamers.

337
cd/m²
347
cd/m²
323
cd/m²
328
cd/m²
375
cd/m²
315
cd/m²
331
cd/m²
373
cd/m²
324
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 375 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 339.2 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 375 cd/m²
Contrast: 721:1 (Black: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.41 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 4.6 | 0.57-98 Ø5.5
94.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.275
Motorola Moto E32
IPS, 1600x720, 6.50
Motorola Moto E40
IPS, 1600x720, 6.50
realme Narzo 50i Prime
IPS, 1600x720, 6.50
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
IPS, 1650x720, 6.71
Response Times
-15%
23%
20%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
40 ?(22, 18)
44 ?(23, 21)
-10%
34 ?(19, 15)
15%
33 ?(17, 16)
17%
Response Time Black / White *
27 ?(13, 14)
32 ?(15, 17)
-19%
19 ?(9.5, 9.5)
30%
21 ?(9, 12)
22%
PWM Frequency
Screen
15%
-3%
41%
Brightness middle
375
452
21%
365
-3%
511
36%
Brightness
339
431
27%
354
4%
478
41%
Brightness Distribution
84
90
7%
83
-1%
84
0%
Black Level *
0.52
0.46
12%
0.45
13%
0.42
19%
Contrast
721
983
36%
811
12%
1217
69%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
4.41
4.15
6%
4.58
-4%
1.51
66%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
6.55
6.47
1%
8.81
-35%
2.53
61%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
4.6
4
13%
5.2
-13%
2.9
37%
Gamma
2.275 97%
2.157 102%
2.28 96%
2.266 97%
CCT
7641 85%
7557 86%
7929 82%
6443 101%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
0% / 9%
10% / 2%
31% / 37%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
27 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 14 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 59 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22 ms rise
↘ 18 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 51 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19555 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions and battery life - Charging with 18 watts would be possible...

The Unisoc Tiger T606 is a fairly simple SoC, which is used in many other entry-level phones, such as the Nokia G21 or the Samsung Galaxy A03 is used. However, it offers much less computing power than, for example, the Moto E40 or even the Redmi 10C are available. This is also noticeable in everyday use: while you can usually navigate through the menus fairly smoothly, it becomes problematic when more performance is needed. You then have to live with stutters and delays.

It is pleasing that Motorola deviates from the eMMC storage in the Moto E32 and installs UFS memory, which is much faster and shortens loading times.

The smartphone's maximum temperature of 40 °C remains within limits and could only be a problem in very high ambient temperatures.

The small mono speaker usually does a good enough job so that you can listen to music from time to time. However, you will quickly notice that it is working at its limit during more intensive passages. The sound is partly imprecise and also seems slightly overemphasized in the trebles. A 3.5-mm port and Bluetooth are suitable for audio transmission. aptX and aptX HD are supported, but the newer variants like aptX Adaptive are not.

The inexpensive Moto phone can be charged with up to 18 watts, which is considerably more than the Moto E40. However, our test device only comes with a 10-watt charger, which not only reduces the charging power but also potentially leads to more electronic waste if customers want to buy an additional 18-watt charger. This is because, with a powerful charger, the charging time drops from over 2 hours to 1:30 hours, and even short charging to get through the next few hours increases the battery level significantly more.

The full 5,000 mAh battery lasts a bit less long in our WLAN test than in the Moto E40, but still does a good job with 15:47 hours. Thus, a full charge should be enough for 2 or more days.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
312 Points ∼42%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
356 Points ∼48% +14%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
347 Points ∼47% +11%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
377 Points ∼51% +21%
Average UNISOC T606
  (273 - 313, n=6)
304 Points ∼41% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1885, n=264, last 2 years)
739 Points ∼100% +137%
Multi-Core (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1186 Points ∼50%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1393 Points ∼59% +17%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
1326 Points ∼56% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
1644 Points ∼69% +39%
Average UNISOC T606
  (708 - 1186, n=6)
1086 Points ∼46% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 5538, n=264, last 2 years)
2380 Points ∼100% +101%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
7815 Points ∼75%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
8743 Points ∼84% +12%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
7705 Points ∼74% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
5884 Points ∼57% -25%
Average UNISOC T606
  (6721 - 7912, n=5)
7482 Points ∼72% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 19200, n=214, last 2 years)
10362 Points ∼100% +33%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
956 Points ∼43%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1486 Points ∼67% +55%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
997 Points ∼45% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
1353 Points ∼61% +42%
Average UNISOC T606
  (945 - 963, n=5)
956 Points ∼43% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 7614, n=153, last 2 years)
2219 Points ∼100% +132%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
812 Points ∼37%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1309 Points ∼59% +61%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
841 Points ∼38% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
1177 Points ∼53% +45%
Average UNISOC T606
  (806 - 823, n=5)
814 Points ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 9978, n=153, last 2 years)
2201 Points ∼100% +171%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
2524 Points ∼88%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2821 Points ∼99% +12%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
2858 Points ∼100% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
2831 Points ∼99% +12%
Average UNISOC T606
  (2379 - 2535, n=5)
2453 Points ∼86% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (688 - 4603, n=153, last 2 years)
2783 Points ∼97% +10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
970 Points ∼22%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1554 Points ∼35% +60%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
987 Points ∼22% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
1350 Points ∼30% +39%
Average UNISOC T606
  (959 - 970, n=5)
966 Points ∼22% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 13223, n=227, last 2 years)
4436 Points ∼100% +357%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
821 Points ∼14%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1368 Points ∼23% +67%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
830 Points ∼14% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
1175 Points ∼20% +43%
Average UNISOC T606
  (814 - 825, n=5)
820 Points ∼14% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 20955, n=226, last 2 years)
5846 Points ∼100% +612%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
2664 Points ∼80%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2961 Points ∼89% +11%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
2940 Points ∼88% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
2825 Points ∼85% +6%
Average UNISOC T606
  (2484 - 2667, n=5)
2578 Points ∼77% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (635 - 5857, n=226, last 2 years)
3329 Points ∼100% +25%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
395 Points ∼12%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
729 Points ∼23% +85%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
415 Points ∼13% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
450 Points ∼14% +14%
Average UNISOC T606
  (394 - 402, n=4)
397 Points ∼13% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (241 - 10062, n=200, last 2 years)
3166 Points ∼100% +702%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
394 Points ∼10%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
722 Points ∼18% +83%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
410 Points ∼10% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
438 Points ∼11% +11%
Average UNISOC T606
  (392 - 406, n=4)
396 Points ∼10% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (236 - 12429, n=221, last 2 years)
4079 Points ∼100% +935%
Wild Life Extreme (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
111 Points ∼10%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
184 Points ∼16% +66%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
114 Points ∼10% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
122 Points ∼11% +10%
Average UNISOC T606
  (111 - 114, n=4)
112 Points ∼10% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (22 - 3383, n=199, last 2 years)
1117 Points ∼100% +906%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
110 Points ∼10%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
183 Points ∼16% +66%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
111 Points ∼10% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
122 Points ∼11% +11%
Average UNISOC T606
  (109 - 110, n=4)
109.5 Points ∼10% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (101 - 3265, n=193, last 2 years)
1120 Points ∼100% +918%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
9.9 fps ∼30%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
19 fps ∼58% +92%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
10 fps ∼30% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
17 fps ∼52% +72%
Average UNISOC T606
  (9.5 - 9.9, n=5)
9.7 fps ∼30% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.7 - 104, n=258, last 2 years)
32.8 fps ∼100% +231%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
5.3 fps ∼13%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
11 fps ∼27% +108%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
5.3 fps ∼13% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
9.5 fps ∼23% +79%
Average UNISOC T606
  (1.9 - 5.3, n=5)
4.58 fps ∼11% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 136, n=260, last 2 years)
41.1 fps ∼100% +675%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
6.2 fps ∼27%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
12 fps ∼52% +94%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
6.4 fps ∼28% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
10 fps ∼43% +61%
Average UNISOC T606
  (6 - 6.2, n=5)
6.1 fps ∼26% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3 - 86, n=259, last 2 years)
23.1 fps ∼100% +273%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E32
UNISOC T606, Mali-G57 MP1, 4096
1.9 fps ∼12%
Motorola Moto E40
UNISOC Tangula T700, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
3.7 fps ∼24% +95%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
UNISOC T612, Mali-G52 MP1, 3072
1.9 fps ∼12% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G, Adreno 610, 4096
3.2 fps ∼20% +68%
Average UNISOC T606
  (0.85 - 2, n=5)
1.71 fps ∼11% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.7 - 52, n=260, last 2 years)
15.7 fps ∼100% +726%
Motorola Moto E32Motorola Moto E40realme Narzo 50i PrimeXiaomi Redmi 10CAverage 64 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-59%
34%
44%
-26%
62%
Sequential Read 256KB
664.3
265
-60%
658.2
-1%
927.7
40%
502 ?(272 - 687, n=16)
-24%
997 ?(45.6 - 1999, n=255, last 2 years)
50%
Sequential Write 256KB
250.7
156.3
-38%
445.6
78%
510.2
104%
186.2 ?(135.2 - 251, n=16)
-26%
570 ?(11.9 - 1783, n=255, last 2 years)
127%
Random Read 4KB
139.1
56
-60%
161.8
16%
120.2
-14%
116.3 ?(60.6 - 157.2, n=16)
-16%
184.3 ?(13.5 - 543, n=255, last 2 years)
32%
Random Write 4KB
134.3
30.7
-77%
189.8
41%
195.2
45%
81.6 ?(13.6 - 195.8, n=16)
-39%
185.6 ?(18.4 - 503, n=256, last 2 years)
38%

Temperature

Max. Load
 38.1 °C
101 F
32.4 °C
90 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
 37.4 °C
99 F
32 °C
90 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
 36.9 °C
98 F
32.1 °C
90 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
Maximum: 38.1 °C = 101 F
Average: 33.4 °C = 92 F
30.6 °C
87 F
32.7 °C
91 F
38.6 °C
101 F
30.8 °C
87 F
33.3 °C
92 F
40 °C
104 F
31.4 °C
89 F
34.1 °C
93 F
39.1 °C
102 F
Maximum: 40 °C = 104 F
Average: 34.5 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  40.3 °C = 105 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.1 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.7 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front
Heatmap Back side
Heatmap Back side

Speaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.236.22540.336.23131.5314030.3345033.732.26323.726.18022.43110022.722.812515.521.31601931.320015.336.225014.341.431513.94840015.253.750015.759.563015.361.280018.362100017.168.312501870.5160014.870.1200014.366.6250014.264.1315014.963.7400015.367.850001666.8630016.958.3800016.262.61000017.163.51250016.266.11600016.657.5SPL28.178.3N140.3median 15.7median 62Delta1.110.136.736.735.738.527.330.233.331.237.432.225.226.718.219.820.520.413.52017.33113.535.413.541.713.14612.950.313.358.815.462.514.165.612.969.19.669.910.668.510.368.21167.812.666.415.264.416.865.316.461.916.565.616.671.815.972.316.654.726.379.30.743median 13.5median 64.41.911.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMotorola Moto E32Xiaomi Redmi 10C
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Motorola Moto E32 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi 10C audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Motorola Moto E40
5000 mAh
995 min ∼38% +5%
Motorola Moto E32
5000 mAh
947 min ∼36%
realme Narzo 50i Prime
5000 mAh
921 min ∼35% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi 10C
5000 mAh
908 min ∼34% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (424 - 1953, n=263, last 2 years)
888 min ∼34% -6%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
15h 47min

Pros

+ fast 90-Hz screen
+ modern design
+ fast charging technology
+ almost pure Android
+ dedicated microSD slot
+ snappy fingerprint sensor

Cons

- only a 10-watt charger in the package
- material transitions noticeable
- relatively little power
- quite rough camera pictures
- no NFC
- low brightness

Verdict - Decent entry-level device with a fast screen

In review: Motorola Moto E32. Test device provided by:
In review: Motorola Moto E32. Test device provided by:
cyberport.com

Motorola launches a smartphone with the Moto E32 that places itself solidly in the entry-level segment and also looks contemporary with fast memory, modern design, and long battery life. However, the user has to make do with a simple camera, and in models like the Xiaomi Redmi 10C, you get much more performance.

We like the quite pure software, the dedicated microSD slot, and the fast charging option of our review sample, even though the included power adapter, unfortunately, does not use it.

Motorola's Moto E32 is a solid phone with a 90 Hz screen and fast charging technology, but it also has drawbacks with the dim screen and missing NFC.

Compared with the still available Moto E40, Motorola's Moto E32 offers some improvements, but also some regressions. Thus, it is important to know which priorities you want to set: can you use the higher charging performance of the Moto E32 with an already existing charger, and do you want to benefit from the faster memory in the Moto E32, then it is a good choice.

The Moto E40 on the other hand offers significantly more power and a slightly more ergonomic design. At amazon.de the alternative currently costs a bit more than the Moto E32 but is also available for less at cyberport.de.

The Redmi 10C is a much better buy in terms of Wi-Fi speed and system power, and you get NFC, but not a 90 Hz screen.

Price and availability

The Motorola Moto E32 is available directly from the manufacturer for just under 150 Euros at the time of the test https://www.motorola.de/smartphones-moto-e-32/p# for just under 150 Euros. Our loaner cyberport.de and amazon.de and amazon.de have the device on offer for this price.

However, the smartphone can also be found for a much lower price in some places.

Motorola Moto E32 - 08/30/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
81%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
40 / 70 → 57%
Weight
89%
Battery
91%
Display
82%
Games Performance
12 / 64 → 18%
Application Performance
55 / 86 → 64%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
54 / 90 → 60%
Camera
54%
Average
70%
76%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Motorola Moto E32 review - Modern memory in an entry-level phone
Florian Schmitt, 2022-09- 1 (Update: 2022-09- 1)