Motorola Moto E4 Smartphone Review

Name: Lenovo Moto E4
Brand: Lenovo

Removable. In this case we mean it in a positive way, since the battery can be removed in the Moto E4. The smartphone is also quite affordable and offers a fingerprint sensor. You can find out in the test whether the competition needs to brace for this.

Florian Wimmer, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Mark Riege), Published 09/12/2017 🇩🇪 🇵🇹 ...

ARM Android Touchscreen Smartphone

For the original German review, see here.

The Moto E4 is a smartphone available for barely 160 Euros (~$190; available for $130 in the US), that places it in the entry-level segment. You get a compact 5-inch case and even a removable battery, which is a rarity with current smartphones. It came on the market together with the Moto E4 Plus, which offers a much larger battery and better cameras but then costs almost 40 Euros (~$48) more. The predecessor, the Moto E3, was again considerably cheaper, so it will be interesting to see where Lenovo made the improvements.

As comparison devices we use similarly priced 5-inch smartphones, such as the LG K8, the Gigaset GS170, the Samsung Galaxy J3, and the Huawei Y6.

Test device courtesy of Lenovo Deutschland

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Lenovo Moto E4 (Moto E Series)

Processor

Mediatek MT6737 4 x 1.3 GHz, Cortex-A53

Graphics adapter

ARM Mali-T720 MP2

Memory

2048 MB

Display

5.00 inch 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel 294 PPI, IPS, glossy: yes

Storage

16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB

, 10 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio port, Card Reader: microSD up to 32 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, proximity sensor, USB-OTG

Networking

802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850/900/1800/1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (B1/B3/B5/B7/B8/B20/B38/B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 8.9 x 144 x 72.9 ( = 0.35 x 5.67 x 2.87 in)

Battery

10.6 Wh, 2800 mAh Lithium-Ion, removeable

Operating System

Android 7.1 Nougat

Camera

Primary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.2, contrast AF, LED flash, videos @720p/30fps
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2

Additional features

Speakers: speaker at the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, USB cable, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat.4 (150 MBit/s download, 50 MBit/s upload); SAR value: 0,553 W/kg (head), 1,27 W/kg (body), fanless

Weight

151 g ( = 5.33 oz / 0.33 pounds), Power Supply: 56 g ( = 1.98 oz / 0.12 pounds)

Price

159 Euro

Links

Lenovo homepage
Lenovo notebook section

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

Case

Compared to the predecessor, the design has been adjusted. The long slot in the bottom area, behind which the speaker was, has disappeared and the speaker now radiates towards the back. What has remained is the removable back, which is made from metal. In the Moto E4 it is incredibly difficult to take off and can only be removed using a lot of force. In addition, the thin metal case bends easily and then does not fit perfectly onto the back anymore.

Underneath the back cover is the battery which you have to remove to get at the SIM card or microSD, so a hot swap with the phone running is not possible. This is surprising, since in the Moto E4 Plus you can exchange the cards while the phone is running without any problems. The case is fairly stable, and pressure on the front or back hardly reaches the display. When twisting it, the case does not creak, but there are small traces in the liquid crystal.

What we like about Lenovo's rounded design language is that it makes the smartphone sit in the hand comfortably. At 151 grams, the Moto E4 is not particularly a lightweight, but it is not much heavier than comparable smartphones either.

Size Comparison

Features

Compared to the Moto E3, the working memory and storage were each doubled: there is 2 GB of RAM and 16 GB of memory storage in the Moto E4. This is the standard equipment in this price range.

At the bottom edge is a micro-USB port. In this price class, USB-C is still rather unusual. USB-OTG is supported, so you can connect external data storage and even charge other devices with the battery in the Moto E4. MicroSD cards can be inserted into the dedicated slot. Lenovo promises up to 32 GB, but our 64-GB card also works flawlessly. You can format the cards as internal or external storage. With the latter, you can use the cards also in other devices, but then you cannot move apps onto the microSD.

Software

Lenovo uses Android 7.0 as the operating system. Besides the just released Android 8 which can only be found on a few devices, the more current version is 7.1.1, but neither of them are available for the Moto E4. At the time of testing, the security patches were already half a year old, and it is unlikely that there will be updates, since they are rare in this price class.

Android purists will be happy that Lenovo does not install its own UI but uses a pure Android. There are also hardly any additional apps and no preinstalled advertising apps on the smartphone either. You can activate a few additional functions with the Moto app, for example, if you lift up the smartphone, the display can automatically wake up in reduced form and show the time and notifications. Unfortunately, this does not always work perfectly with the Moto E4 but at times is delayed considerably. But in principle it is a great feature.

Communication and GPS

With eight LTE bands the Lenovo Moto E4 looks good. At least in nearby foreign countries you don't need to worry about finding a network. In this price class, LTE Cat. 4 is standard. The reception in the inner-city areas of the German D2 net is okay, and we can get half of the reception bars also indoors.

For WLAN networks, the 802.11 b/g/n standards are supported. The less used and therefore often faster 5-GHz band is not available. Even in this less demanding price class, the WLAN speeds are among the worst and even the predecessor was faster. We load various websites near the router to see how this looks in practice. The web pages render quite slowly and pictures often take 10 seconds to load. At a 10-meter distance from the router and through three walls, 3/4 of the signal still arrives, but loading the pages is even slower than directly next to the router.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 Mali-T720 MP2, Exynos 7570, 16 GB eMMC Flash	53.5 MBit/s +16%
Gigaset GS170 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49.9 MBit/s +8%
Lenovo Moto E3 Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash	49.3 MBit/s +7%
LG K8 2017 Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49.2 MBit/s +7%
Huawei Y6 2017 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737T, 16 GB eMMC Flash	48.7 MBit/s +6%
Lenovo Moto E4 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	46.1 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
LG K8 2017 Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash	54.1 MBit/s +26%
Gigaset GS170 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49.4 MBit/s +15%
Lenovo Moto E3 Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash	47 MBit/s +9%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 Mali-T720 MP2, Exynos 7570, 16 GB eMMC Flash	46.9 MBit/s +9%
Huawei Y6 2017 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737T, 16 GB eMMC Flash	43.6 MBit/s +1%
Lenovo Moto E4 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	43.1 MBit/s

While indoors it is unable to locate our position, we are quickly located within an accuracy of eight meters (~26 ft) outdoors. This is rather inexact. Our practical test of the precision locating our position includes a tour on a mountain bike. Besides the Lenovo Moto E4, we also took the professional Garmin Edge 500 navigation device for comparison. On our test unit, the measured distance is 280 meters (~919 ft) shorter, which is quite a big difference on our 6.5 km (~4 miles) test route. In sections, the Moto E4 places us completely off the route, and anyone who wants to navigate with this smartphone should not rely on it too much.

Phone and Call Quality

Lenovo uses Android's standard app for the phone functions of the smartphone. This app is clear and its operation intuitive. Initially you see the entered favorites or often used contacts. You can display the often little-used phone keys with an entry key, and tabs on top offer the list of phone calls and contacts.

The call quality is decent. The ear piece can become fairly loud but then booms quite a bit. The conversation partner is easily understandable and sounds fairly natural. The sound is pleasantly noise free. The microphone records our voice quite well and is also able to deal with fairly loud or low voices. On the speaker phone, the voice of our conversation partner sounds much less full and the highs and mids are strongly emphasized. However, it is still easily understandable. The microphone is good here as well and only has problems to record very low voices from time to time.

Cameras

While the Moto E4 Plus has a 13-MP camera on the back, you have to make do with an 8-MP camera in the Moto E4. This is the same as in the Moto E3, but nowadays not suitable anymore even in this price class. Pictures taken with the main camera appear slightly blurry, and larger color areas appear spotty. In addition, the camera could be brighter. The dynamic in bright areas is fairly good and you can also still make out a few details in dark areas. You can take videos at a maximum 720p resolution with 30 fps. The autofocus attracts attention with some annoying pumping, so it goes through all the stages of sharpness and blurriness, before it finds the right one. The images then appear fairly sharp, but larger areas are poor in detail. The exposure adjusts to the environment quite fast and accurately.

The front camera has a resolution of 5 megapixels, which is the norm in almost all the devices of this price level and even above. The pictures appear with slightly cool colors. You have to keep the right distance to the object through the fixed focus, otherwise the image becomes blurry. The dynamic in dark areas is quite good, but bright areas become quickly too bright.

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.

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

The main camera also must prove itself in our test lab, where we use controlled light conditions for easier comparison of the camera images. Color areas appear in parts very pixelated with the camera of the Moto E4, and the edges are often blurry. The color display is clearly too pale. Here the Samsung Galaxy J3, for example, does much better in terms of the camera.

ColorChecker: The target color is displayed in the bottom half of each field.

Accessories and Warranty

Except for the charger and a USB cable, there are no accessories in the box. The warranty of the device is limited to 24 months. Please see our Guarantees, Return policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices and Operation

Being faithful to the Motorola philosophy, Lenovo uses Google's GBoard standard app as the virtual keyboard. It is intuitive to operate, very clean, and it still has strong functionalities.

There is a fingerprint sensor below the screen, which is always a small sensation in this price class. It operates very fast and can also be used for Android navigation. A short press brings you back to the Home screen and a longer press switches the smartphone into standby mode. By swiping, you go back or go to the last opened app. If you don't want that, you can just use the on-screen keys for navigation.

Although the hardware keys for standby and volume are set tightly into their places on the right case side, their pressure point is slightly spongy.

Display

A display with 1280x720 pixel resolution is standard in this price class, and with the Moto E4, Lenovo sticks to this. The 5-inch screen appears sufficiently sharp, but of course Full HD displays appear even slightly sharper in a direct comparison. Compared to the predecessor, the screen became a little brighter and now achieves a very good 474 cd/m² on average. However at 87%, the brightness distribution is not quite so even anymore and small brightness differences in large color areas are even visible to the naked eye.


511 cd/m²	487 cd/m²	452 cd/m²
491 cd/m²	488 cd/m²	447 cd/m²
468 cd/m²	479 cd/m²	443 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 511 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 474 cd/m² Minimum: 7.21 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 488 cd/m²
Contrast: 1627:1 (Black: 0.3 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 5.5 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
96.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27

	Lenovo Moto E4 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Huawei Y6 2017 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 PLS, 1280x720, 5.00	Gigaset GS170 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	LG K8 2017 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Lenovo Moto E3 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00
Screen		22%	8%	-51%	-35%	-16%
Brightness middle	488	438 -10%	502 3%	418 -14%	358 -27%	436 -11%
Brightness	474	432 -9%	494 4%	418 -12%	351 -26%	420 -11%
Brightness Distribution	87	90 3%	89 2%	92 6%	93 7%	91 5%
Black Level *	0.3	0.13 57%	0.35 -17%	0.45 -50%	0.49 -63%	0.41 -37%
Contrast	1627	3369 107%	1434 -12%	929 -43%	731 -55%	1063 -35%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	5.4	4.8 11%	4.6 15%	9.7 -80%	7.1 -31%	5.4 -0%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	9	11.4 -27%	8 11%	18.9 -110%	14.9 -66%	10 -11%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	5.5	3.2 42%	2.5 55%	11.3 -105%	6.5 -18%	7 -27%
Gamma	2.27 ^97%	2.23 ^99%	2.29 ^96%	2.27 ^97%	2.12 ^104%	2.13 ^103%
CCT	7397 ^88%	7090 ^92%	6351 ^102%	10414 ^62%	8166 ^80%	8318 ^78%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

A good black value of 0.3 cd/m² together with the good maximum brightness leads to the contrast ratio of 1627:1. This is a very good value, but our test unit still cannot stand up against the Huawei Y6 which has an extremely high contrast. You can activate the "Intensive" color mode in the settings to make the colors appear slightly more vibrant, otherwise they appear quite natural. It is just a matter of taste whichever you prefer. The test unit cannot reach the great colors of an AMOLED display, though.

This also shows in a more detailed examination of the screen with the spectral photometer and the CalMAN software. In addition to a slight blue tint, the accuracy of the color display is only mediocre. At least more than 96% of the sRGB color space is covered according to CalMAN. However, this measurement shows more of a trend.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 15 ms rise
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 84 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 13 ms rise
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 11 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 29 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

Thanks to its bright display, you can also use the Moto E4 outdoors, but of course the reflective surface will be a hindrance in bright surroundings. The brightness sensor adjusts the display brightness fittingly and quickly.

The viewing angles of the display are good, thanks to IPS, and you can recognize the image on the screen from any perspective. However, you do need to count on color and brightness shifts.

Performance

The Lenovo Moto E4 is equipped with a Mediatek MT6737, which has four cores and a maximum 1250 MHz clock speed. This makes the device noticeably faster than its predecessor, so that a 20 to 30% higher performance is possible in the benchmarks. Compared to similarly priced devices, the Moto E4 is in the middle of the field. The Huawei Y6 is considerably faster, while the LG K8 and the Gigaset GS170, which uses the same SoC, are about at the same level.

An ARM Mali-T720 MP2 with two cores and a 650 MHz clock speed handles the graphics calculations. With this, the Moto E4 achieves a performance in the middle of the field of the comparison devices. At least all the benchmarks will run, while the Moto E3 and LG K8 in parts don't get any results at all here. This is a good indication that the Moto E4 should be more stable and be able to handle more apps than those devices.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	30856 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	40981 Points +33%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	35669 Points +16%
Gigaset GS170	30144 Points -2%
LG K8 2017	30924 Points 0%
Lenovo Moto E3	20542 Points -33%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	3518 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	4607 Points +31%
Gigaset GS170	3344 Points -5%
LG K8 2017	4673 Points +33%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	2674 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	3487 Points +30%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	3436 Points +28%
Gigaset GS170	2600 Points -3%
LG K8 2017	2986 Points +12%
Lenovo Moto E3	2087 Points -22%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	531 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	839 Points +58%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	704 Points +33%
Gigaset GS170	538 Points +1%
LG K8 2017	371 Points -30%
Lenovo Moto E3	418 Points -21%
System (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	1077 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	1354 Points +26%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	1395 Points +30%
Gigaset GS170	1170 Points +9%
LG K8 2017	1191 Points +11%
Lenovo Moto E3	817 Points -24%
Memory (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	576 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	1288 Points +124%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	1055 Points +83%
Gigaset GS170	610 Points +6%
LG K8 2017	634 Points +10%
Lenovo Moto E3	401 Points -30%
Graphics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	208 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	386 Points +86%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	252 Points +21%
Gigaset GS170	210 Points +1%
LG K8 2017	436 Points +110%
Lenovo Moto E3	177 Points -15%
Web (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	617 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	734 Points +19%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	662 Points +7%
Gigaset GS170	558 Points -10%
LG K8 2017	616 Points 0%
Lenovo Moto E3	528 Points -14%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	530 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	680 Points +28%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	634 Points +20%
Gigaset GS170	581 Points +10%
LG K8 2017	642 Points +21%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	1532 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	1903 Points +24%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	1858 Points +21%
Gigaset GS170	1595 Points +4%
LG K8 2017	1737 Points +13%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	938 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	1238 Points +32%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	1135 Points +21%
LG K8 2017	1203 Points +28%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	3671 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	6858 Points +87%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	4381 Points +19%
Gigaset GS170	3666 Points 0%
LG K8 2017	2951 Points -20%
Lenovo Moto E3	3127 Points -15%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	3168 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	6184 Points +95%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	3725 Points +18%
Gigaset GS170	3167 Points 0%
LG K8 2017	2546 Points -20%
Lenovo Moto E3	2694 Points -15%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	8266 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	11088 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	11426 Points +38%
Gigaset GS170	8178 Points -1%
LG K8 2017	6656 Points -19%
Lenovo Moto E3	7156 Points -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	155 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	267 Points +72%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	115 Points -26%
Gigaset GS170	152 Points -2%
LG K8 2017	39 Points -75%
Lenovo Moto E3	Points -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	126 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	221 Points +75%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	92 Points -27%
Gigaset GS170	227 Points +80%
LG K8 2017	31 Points -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	774 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	967 Points +25%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	925 Points +20%
Gigaset GS170	781 Points +1%
LG K8 2017	622 Points -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	106 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	176 Points +66%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	79 Points -25%
Gigaset GS170	93 Points -12%
LG K8 2017	Points -100%
Lenovo Moto E3	Points -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	85 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	143 Points +68%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	63 Points -26%
Gigaset GS170	74 Points -13%
LG K8 2017	Points -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	783 Points
Huawei Y6 2017	971 Points +24%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	923 Points +18%
Gigaset GS170	772 Points -1%
LG K8 2017	Points -100%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	11 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	17 fps +55%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	11 fps 0%
Gigaset GS170	11 fps 0%
LG K8 2017	6.4 fps -42%
Lenovo Moto E3	9 fps -18%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	6 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	11 fps +83%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	6.8 fps +13%
Gigaset GS170	6 fps 0%
LG K8 2017	3.4 fps -43%
Lenovo Moto E3	5 fps -17%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	4.8 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	8.1 fps +69%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	5.4 fps +13%
Gigaset GS170	4.8 fps 0%
LG K8 2017	3.7 fps -23%
Lenovo Moto E3	4 fps -17%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	2.2 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	3.9 fps +77%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	2.6 fps +18%
Gigaset GS170	2.2 fps 0%
LG K8 2017	1.3 fps -41%
Lenovo Moto E3	1.8 fps -18%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	14 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	6 fps -57%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	3.8 fps -73%
Gigaset GS170	3.4 fps -76%
LG K8 2017	fps -100%
Lenovo Moto E3	2.9 fps -79%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto E4	1.4 fps
Huawei Y6 2017	2.5 fps +79%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	1.7 fps +21%
Gigaset GS170	1.4 fps 0%
LG K8 2017	fps -100%
Lenovo Moto E3	1.2 fps -14%

Legend

Lenovo Moto E4 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Huawei Y6 2017 Mediatek MT6737T, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Gigaset GS170 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

LG K8 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Lenovo Moto E3 Mediatek MT6735P, ARM Mali-T720, 8 GB eMMC Flash

In the browser performance, the Moto E4 places more in the rear of the comparison field. Even though more demanding HTML5 games such as the pinball game at letsplay.ouigo.com stutter at times, they are still smoothly playable.

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Y6 2017 (Chrome 60)	17.64 Points +21%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)	17.17 Points +18%
LG K8 2017 (Chrome 57)	17.12 Points +18%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	14.57 Points
Gigaset GS170 (Chrome Version 59)	14.34 Points -2%
Lenovo Moto E3 (Chrome 56)	12.43 Points -15%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Huawei Y6 2017 (Chrome 60)	3092 Points +36%
LG K8 2017 (Chrome 57)	3052 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)	2921 Points +29%
Gigaset GS170 (Chrome Version 59)	2284 Points +1%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	2270 Points
Lenovo Moto E3 (Chrome 56)	2077 Points -9%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	17185 ms *
Lenovo Moto E3 (Chrome 56)	16744 ms * +3%
Gigaset GS170 (Chrome Version 59)	16723 ms * +3%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)	12791 ms * +26%
Huawei Y6 2017 (Chrome 60)	12255 ms * +29%
LG K8 2017 (Chrome 57)	10742 ms * +37%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall
Huawei Y6 2017 (Chrome 60)	65 Points +35%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)	60 Points +25%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	48 Points
Lenovo Moto E3 (Chrome 56)	38 Points -21%

* ... smaller is better

In terms of accessing the storage, our test unit does not fare that badly, but it remains only on the level of the price class. The access to our reference microSD card, a Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, is quite fast, but it cannot make use of the potential fast access rates of the card by any means. In the internal storage random writes, meaning the writing onto randomly distributed blocks, the memory is quite fast, while all the remaining access speeds are rather mediocre. In general, the load times of the device are average.

	Lenovo Moto E4	Huawei Y6 2017	Samsung Galaxy J3 2017	Gigaset GS170	LG K8 2017	Lenovo Moto E3
AndroBench 3-5		-0%	2%	-26%	39%	-41%
Sequential Read 256KB	187.6	202.6 8%	177.7 -5%	197.9 5%	270.8 44%	141.4 -25%
Sequential Write 256KB	45.3	66.9 48%	51 13%	44.79 -1%	84.6 87%	37.3 -18%
Random Read 4KB	18.7	25.93 39%	24 28%	18.34 -2%	41.6 122%	16 -14%
Random Write 4KB	29.2	20.54 -30%	9.5 -67%	10.45 -64%	12.5 -57%	8 -73%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	65.4	48.4 -26%	70.3 7%	37.41 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -43%	78.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 20%	29.78 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -54%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	44.9	26.4 -41%	59.6 33%	21.34 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -52%	52.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 16%	17.49 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -61%

Games

The demanding Asphalt 8 racing game does not run smoothly in full detail. Only 13 fps is reached on average, and with minimum detail it reaches 29 fps which is slightly less than the completely smooth 30 frames. Dead Trigger 2, a zombie shooter, is less demanding and it runs smoothly also on the Moto E4. The same goes for simpler games such as Angry Birds.

Operation creates no problems, and the touchscreen and position sensor function reliably and without delay.

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Settings	Value
	high	13 fps
	very low	29 fps

... in comparison

Dead Trigger 2
	Settings	Value
	high	30 fps

... in comparison

Emissions

Temperature

Under maximum load our test unit reaches a temperature of 35 °C (95 °F) at most, which we measured at the front in the camera area. This is a warming which can hardly be felt. Compared to the idle mode, the device warms up only by 3 °C (~5 °F) at this place.

We do not expect a limitation to the performance via throttling. In the GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 battery test which renders a sequence 30 times and then compares the achieved frames, there are only minimal differences between the beginning and end of the test run. Thus the performance can also be maintained after a longer load.

Max. Load

Idle


33.8 °C 93 F	31.5 °C 89 F	30.5 °C 87 F
35 °C 95 F	32 °C 90 F	30.9 °C 88 F
34.7 °C 94 F	32 °C 90 F	30.9 °C 88 F

Maximum: 35 °C = 95 F
Average: 32.4 °C = 90 F


31.4 °C 89 F	32.3 °C 90 F	33 °C 91 F
31.8 °C 89 F	33 °C 91 F	33.9 °C 93 F
32 °C 90 F	33 °C 91 F	34.5 °C 94 F

Maximum: 34.5 °C = 94 F
Average: 32.8 °C = 91 F

Power Supply (max.) 37.1 °C = 99 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-350

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.4 °C / 90 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 35 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.5 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.2 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

Speaker

The small mono speaker is positioned at the back. This is not a particularly good position, since it can easily be muffled by the hand or on soft surfaces. The maximum volume of the speaker is 85.6 dB(A), which can fill a small room. However, the speaker emphasizes the highs and the low mids and bass is lacking, so listening to music is not really enjoyable. At least the highs are not booming uncomfortably but are still recognizable with higher volumes. The speaker is good enough to listen to music or videos, but anyone wanting a better sound needs to use headphones or external speakers, which can easily be connected to the 3.5-mm audio port or via Bluetooth to receive a clean sound.

Lenovo Moto E4 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 53% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 71% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Huawei Y6 2017 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 63% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 79% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Frequency comparison (checkboxes selectable!)

Battery Life

Power Consumption

The Moto E4 likes to use a little more power, in particular in idle mode. When the device is turned on but there is no load, at 2.38 watts on average, the smartphone uses quite a lot of power. The predecessor was overall more efficient and the comparison devices also make do with much less power. However, under load the energy consumption is comparatively low.

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.11 / 0.23 Watt
Idle	0.87 / 2.38 / 2.47 Watt
Load	2.63 / 3.86 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.

	Lenovo Moto E4 2800 mAh	Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 2400 mAh	Gigaset GS170 2500 mAh	LG K8 2017 2500 mAh	Lenovo Moto E3 2800 mAh
Power Consumption		3%	14%	13%	17%
Idle Minimum *	0.87	0.82 6%	0.54 38%	0.65 25%	0.79 9%
Idle Average *	2.38	1.94 18%	1.56 34%	1.6 33%	1.7 29%
Idle Maximum *	2.47	2.06 17%	1.6 35%	1.62 34%	1.72 30%
Load Average *	2.63	3.31 -26%	3.18 -21%	2.97 -13%	2.65 -1%
Load Maximum *	3.86	3.89 -1%	4.42 -15%	4.34 -12%	3.16 18%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

With 2800 mAh or 10.6 Wh, the battery has quite a high capacity. Yet, a runtime of only 8:42 hours in the WLAN test is disappointing. The Galaxy J3 by Samsung gets three hours more out of a smaller battery. The predecessor lasted much longer as well. The idle battery life of not even 22 hours is much less compelling. We expected more from the relatively large battery capacity of the Moto E4, and the standard battery life for a device of this price class remains unchanged. However, it is still plenty for a workday at the office and even for the night afterwards. During average use, the device has to be plugged in the next day, though. Charging takes just below two hours.

The removable battery is definitely a large advantage. Anyone who needs a longer battery life can just take a second charged battery and use that when necessary.

Battery Runtime

Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)		21h 42min
WiFi Websurfing		8h 42min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		10h 08min
Load (maximum brightness)		5h 16min

	Lenovo Moto E4 2800 mAh	Huawei Y6 2017 3000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 2400 mAh	Gigaset GS170 2500 mAh	LG K8 2017 2500 mAh	Lenovo Moto E3 2800 mAh
Battery Runtime		13%	20%	-15%	2%	7%
Reader / Idle	1302	1522 17%	1425 9%			1325 2%
H.264	608	693 14%	819 35%			649 7%
WiFi v1.3	522	654 25%	722 38%	442 -15%	594 14%	621 19%
Load	316	302 -4%	305 -3%		280 -11%	315 0%

Pros

+ removable battery

+ dedicated microSD slot

+ not sensitive to pressure

+ quite a lot of LTE bands

+ fingerprint sensor

+ pure Android

+ bright display, good contrast

+ hardly warms up

+ decent voice quality

Cons

- cover is very tight

- back cover bends easily

- outdated security patches

- slow WLAN

- quite inaccurate GPS

- camera images blurry in parts

- high power consumption

Verdict

In review: Lenovo Moto E4. Test unit provided by Lenovo Germany.

The Moto E4 is an affordable smartphone that offers some highlights, such as a fingerprint sensor, pure Android, and removable battery. If you don't consider the camera the most important feature in a smartphone or depend on exact navigation, then you get the performance typical for this price class in all the other areas: the voice quality is decent, the performance appropriate, and the battery life suitable in practice.

Compared to the predecessor, the higher price is justified by the metal case, the higher performance, and the additional storage. The reason why entry-level phones in particular cost a few Euros more this year lies to a large extent in the storage chips which are currently very expensive. The Moto E3, for example, offered a longer battery life, which makes taking a look at it also worthwhile. As a note to anyone who is currently looking at the Moto E4 Plus: it is much larger and heavier, and the battery is not removable, but it also has a much larger capacity. Compared to the Moto E4, the performance is about the same. For anyone who would like to find out more, we have a detailed review of the Moto E4 Plus.

The Moto E4 is a solid entry-level smartphone that has only few essential weaknesses and convinces with a removable battery and fingerprint sensor. However, the camera should not be very important to the user, since the image quality is rather meager.

When buying a smartphone, you should always weigh which features are really important to you. If a removable battery and a fingerprint sensor belong to these features, the Moto E4 is surely a device you should consider. But anyone who hopes for a long life of the built-in battery should rather consider the Samsung Galaxy J3, which at this point falls in the same price range as the Moto E4. The Huawei Y6 offers most performance for the buck.

Lenovo Moto E4 - 2017-09-08 09/08/2017 v6^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Chassis

86%

Keyboard

64 / 75 → 86%

Pointing Device

91%

Connectivity

36 / 60 → 60%

Weight

92%

Battery

91%

Display

85%

Games Performance

6 / 63 → 10%

Application Performance

30 / 70 → 43%

Temperature

92%

Noise

100%

Audio

57 / 91 → 63%

Camera

55%

Average

68%

80%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile - 1134 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009

I initially wrote about gaming laptops when I joined Notebookcheck in 2009. I was then involved with the setup of the comparison portal Notebookinfo and worked with social media concepts for large companies like BMW and Adidas, while also returning to work for Notebookcheck in 2012. Nowadays, I focus on smartphones, tablets, and future technologies. Since 2018 I have been Managing Editor for mobile device reviews, working alongside my colleague Daniel Schmidt.

contact me via: @FloSchmi26, LinkedIn, Xing

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Motorola Moto E4 Smartphone Review

Florian Wimmer, 2017-09-12 (Update: 2019-04- 5)

Motorola Moto E4 Smartphone Review

Case

Size Comparison

Features

Software

Communication and GPS

Phone and Call Quality

Cameras

Accessories and Warranty

Input Devices and Operation

Display

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Performance

Games

Emissions

Temperature

Speaker

Lenovo Moto E4 audio analysis

Huawei Y6 2017 audio analysis

Battery Life

Power Consumption

Battery Life

Pros

Cons

Verdict

More articles related to this device

Related Articles

Pricecompare