Notebookcheck

Motorola Moto E5 Smartphone Review

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Mark Riege), 12/29/2018

Larger E. The Motorola Moto E5 offers a large screen and large battery at a small price. However, for about 130 Euros (~$149; usually $100 in the US, currently on sale for $70) you can also get some good deals from other manufacturers. We find out in our test whether the Moto E5 is able to stand out.

Motorola Moto E5

For years, Motorola smartphones have been convincing with a fairly pure Android and a design that is still quite distinct. More extraordinary ideas, such as the plug-in expansion modules of the Moto-Z series, are also permitted at Motorola. The affordable Moto E series has been rather basic from the beginning, but there can be some surprises from time to time, such as being able to replace the battery in the Moto E4.

While this is already history with the current generation, the Moto E5, perhaps the ample capacity of the battery offering 4000 mAh can make up for it. In addition, the Moto E5 offers a large display diagonal and has reduced the large bezels of the predecessor. This results in a quite attractive design that still stands out on its own.

In our test, we evaluate the additional changes from the Moto E4 predecessor, and also what the differences are to the Moto E5 Plus that we already tested. Of course, we also include devices from other manufacturers, and the comparison to the Xiaomi Redmi 6 and BQ Aquaris C is supposed to show whether the Moto E5 can also convince compared to other devices from its price class.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
German-English-Translator - Details here

Motorola Moto E5 (Moto Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
5.7 inch 18:9, 1440 x 720 pixel 282 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 10.5 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio port, Card Reader: microSD up to 128 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, proximity sensor, microUSB
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B38/​B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9 x 154.4 x 72.2 ( = 0.35 x 6.08 x 2.84 in)
Battery
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lithium-Ion, quick-charge
Operating System
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/​2.0, phase-comparison AF, LED flash, videos @ 1080p/​30fps
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2, LED flash
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker at the front, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, quick-charger, USB cable, SIM tool, Moto, Moto Help, 24 Months Warranty, FM radio; LTE Cat. 4 (150 Mb/s, 50 Mb/s); SAR value: 0.66 W/kg (head), 1.313 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
174 g ( = 6.14 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 62 g ( = 2.19 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
149 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case – Design progress compared to the Moto E4

In terms of case design, the progress compared to the Moto E4 is clearly visible. The bezels above and below the screen have clearly become smaller. One reason for this is the fact that Motorola has moved the fingerprint sensor to the back of the device. Since you cannot remove the back of the case anymore in the Moto E5, its design is also more uniform. The round camera module is still there, and the round Motorola symbol is now also the fingerprint reader.

With gray and gold, there are again two classic color variants. Both appear quite restrained in terms of their colors and are also suitable for more formal surroundings. The Moto E5 is significantly taller than its predecessor, but its width is even slightly slimmer. It is also easy to hold if you have smaller hands, while still offering more screen real-estate.

At 174 grams (~6.1 oz), the Moto E5 is no light weight but feels good in the hand overall. You have to push on the back really hard to see a reaction in the screen, but it is possible if you push hard enough. In the front, medium pressure is sufficient, and you can hear how the protective glass touches the actual screen and then separates again. Twisting and creaking are not an issue with the Motorola Moto E5.

Motorola Moto E5
Motorola Moto E5
Motorola Moto E5
Motorola Moto E5
Motorola Moto E5
Motorola Moto E5

Size Comparison

Equipment – Connections typical for the price class

The predecessor also offered 16 GB of storage and 2 GB of RAM, which is the usual equipment in this price class. The microSD card reader accepts cards up to 128 GB, and you can even use the microSD in addition to the two SIM-card slots. The card can be formatted as internal or external storage, but you cannot move apps onto it.

There is a microUSB port with USB-2.0 speed at the bottom of the case. While a USB-C port would have been nice, it is not really standard in this price class.

Software – Motorola Moto E5 with pure Android

As is customary for Motorola, there is a fairly pure Android on the smartphone, with only a few preinstalled apps. The Moto app allows you to control the additional functions of the smartphone and offers information on the storage usage and charging process. The Moto Help app allows a service representative to access the smartphone if you permit it and also offers numerous tools allowing you to check the status of the smartphone.

Version 8.0 of the operating system is installed, and the security patches are on the level of September 2018. This system cannot be called current anymore and an update to Android 9 is also not in sight.

Motorola Moto E5 software
Motorola Moto E5 software
Motorola Moto E5 software

Communication and GPS – Slow WLAN in the E5

Motorola has installed a WLAN module in its smartphone that can access networks in the 802.11 b/g/n standards. This means that the less occupied 5-GHz net cannot be accessed and also that fast networks according to 802.11 ac are also impossible. While this would be unusual in this price class, BQ shows with the Aquaris C that it is possible. In terms of WLAN speeds, the Moto E5 has to be content with a place far in the back, where it is accompanied by the Moto E4 and the Moto E5 Plus. Thus it appears necessary for Motorola to improve the reception and sending performance of the WLAN module in its affordable devices in general.

At least in terms of LTE, a few more networks than the pure minimum are available. However, while the Moto E5 can accompany you into far-away countries, it will often be unable to connect to the LTE net and will only use 3G instead. Inside city environments, the reception is also decent indoors, and we measure three-quarters of the reception inside a building with concrete walls, which is fairly decent.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
268 (min: 247, max: 276) MBit/s ∼100% +773%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=342)
215 MBit/s ∼80% +600%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
62.1 (min: 30, max: 62) MBit/s ∼23% +102%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
43.2 (min: 36, max: 52) MBit/s ∼16% +41%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
43.1 MBit/s ∼16% +40%
Motorola Moto E5
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
30.7 (min: 21, max: 43) MBit/s ∼11%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
216 (min: 189, max: 218) MBit/s ∼100% +877%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=342)
208 MBit/s ∼96% +841%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.5 (min: 47, max: 59) MBit/s ∼26% +151%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.1 MBit/s ∼21% +109%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
35.4 (min: 23, max: 51) MBit/s ∼16% +60%
Motorola Moto E5
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
22.1 (min: 4, max: 37) MBit/s ∼10%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280Tooltip
Motorola Moto E5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø30.5 (21-43)
Motorola Moto E5 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø42.7 (36-52)
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø59.9 (30-62)
BQ Aquaris C Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø267 (247-276)
Motorola Moto E5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø21.5 (4-37)
Motorola Moto E5 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø35.5 (23-51)
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø55.8 (47-59)
BQ Aquaris C Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø205 (189-218)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

In the same building, the GPS module of the Moto E5 is unable to locate us. Outdoors it takes a moment, and then we are located with a good accuracy of six meters (~20 ft).

In our practical test, a bike tour, the Moto E5 does quite well, but it still cuts off significantly more curves than the professional Garmin Edge 520 navigation device. It is also a bit strange that our test unit stops locating us very early, several dozen meters from the end of our route. The side of the road we used can hardly be identified and the smartphone also only approximates our route during the bridge access. 

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – overview
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – overview
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – forest
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – forest
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – bridge
GPS Motorola Moto E5 – bridge

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality – Audible noise

As the telephone app, Google's standard app is used, and Motorola did not make any changes here. The Moto E5 supports VoLTE and VoWi-Fi when the provider supports it.

The voice quality is at an average level: We can hear some noise together with our conversation partner in the earpiece, and our voice is transferred slightly hollow by the microphone. Using the built-in speaker, the clarity of our conversation partner's voice is also mediocre, and what we are saying is mostly transferred clearly, but not in the highest quality.

Cameras – Decent lenses in the Moto E5

Picture taken by the front camera
Picture taken by the front camera

With a 13-megapixel camera in the back and a 5-megapixel camera in front, the Motorola Moto E5 is equipped at the level of the price class. The Moto E5 Plus offers slightly less pixels in the main camera but has a laser autofocus for close-up range instead. 

The front camera of the Moto E5 takes slightly grainy pictures and cannot necessarily handle bright light either, with all the details getting lost. Overall, the image quality is at the level of the price class, which is not particularly high.

In terms of the colors, the main camera takes decent pictures, but the detail lacks accuracy. Bright areas quickly outshine everything else, and the dynamic is not very high in dark areas either. On the other hand, the image sharpness is at a decent level. The camera is less suited for low-light images; the pictures can easily become blurry and do not appear particularly sharp overall.

Videos can be recorded at a maximum of 1080 p and 30 fps. The sharpness and color reproduction is okay here as well, and the adjustments to changing light conditions happen fairly fast and gradually. 

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 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

The main camera also has to prove itself in the lab, where we can create controlled light conditions. The image sharpness is decent here, and while the color reproduction slightly deviates from the reference colors most of the time, it still remains at a good level overall.

Picture taken of the test chart
Picture taken of the test chart
Test chart detail
Test chart detail
ColorChecker: The target color is displayed in the bottom half of each field.
ColorChecker: The target color is displayed in the bottom half of each field.

Accessories and Warranty – Quick-charger included

Besides the quick-charger, the box includes a USB cable, a SIM tool to open the tray, and the usual paperwork. Except for additional chargers, the Motorola website currently does not offer any other accessories.

The manufacturer offers a 24-month warranty for its products.

Input Devices and Operation – Easy operation

The touchscreen of the Moto E5 responds promptly to input and can be operated very well up to the edges. The Android menu keys are displayed as virtual buttons on the screen. The volume rocker and standby button are on the right in the classical arrangement. Both can be reached easily and operate precisely.

Compared to the predecessor, the fingerprint sensor has moved to the back. It is positioned well and unlocks the phone from standby quickly and accurately.

Keyboard portrait
Keyboard portrait
Keyboard landscape
Keyboard landscape

Display – Bright and with a blue tint

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid

At 5.7-inches, the display of the Moto E5 is exactly 0.3-inches smaller than that of the Moto E5 Plus, but it is still slightly larger than those of many other models in this price class. The resolution is at the class level with 1440x720. Due to its 2:1 format, it is slightly too wide for a 16:9 video, so there will be black bars on the left and right of most of the currently available videos.

At an average of 537 cd/m², the brightness is quite respectable, and the black value is also in a good range with 0.37 cd/m², so that dark areas will actually be displayed quite dark.

490
cd/m²
560
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
517
cd/m²
567
cd/m²
540
cd/m²
506
cd/m²
555
cd/m²
550
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 567 cd/m² Average: 536.6 cd/m² Minimum: 4.5 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 567 cd/m²
Contrast: 1532:1 (Black: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.06 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 6.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
96.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.356
Motorola Moto E5
IPS, 1440x720, 5.7
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
IPS, 1440x720, 6
Lenovo Moto E4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Xiaomi Redmi 6
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
BQ Aquaris C
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Screen
-20%
3%
-11%
-0%
Brightness middle
567
518
-9%
488
-14%
373
-34%
623
10%
Brightness
537
481
-10%
474
-12%
361
-33%
608
13%
Brightness Distribution
86
87
1%
87
1%
94
9%
91
6%
Black Level *
0.37
0.85
-130%
0.3
19%
0.53
-43%
0.61
-65%
Contrast
1532
609
-60%
1627
6%
704
-54%
1021
-33%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.06
4.47
26%
5.4
11%
4.22
30%
4.5
26%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.98
8.04
10%
9
-0%
10.14
-13%
7.33
18%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.2
5.4
13%
5.5
11%
3.3
47%
4.8
23%
Gamma
2.356 93%
2.318 95%
2.27 97%
2.321 95%
2.596 85%
CCT
7791 83%
7134 91%
7397 88%
6862 95%
7557 86%

* ... smaller is better

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 detected 2427 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2427 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2427 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9247 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The contrast ratio is a good 1532:1, causing colors to be displayed vibrantly and showing the differences between bright and dark areas to their advantage. However, our good impression of the display is marred by a significant blue tint and a fairly high deviation of the separate colors compared to the reference color space. On the other hand, you can adjust the color reproduction to your own liking in three steps and using two presets.

CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ ms rise
↘ 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 32 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
60 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ ms rise
↘ ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Outdoors, the Moto E5 does not do too badly on cloudy days, but you have to accept the strong reflections in the reflective display, as in almost all smartphones. While you can view it from unusual viewing angles, the brightness shifts noticeably.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

Performance – Motorola smartphone with entry-level performance

With the Qualcomm Snapdragon 425, the same SoC as found in the Moto E5 Plus is used. Overall, there is hardly any difference in the results either: Sometimes one model is slightly ahead in one benchmark, sometimes the other is ahead in another benchmark. Both models offer the typical performance level for this price class, and the Moto E5 is able to clearly move ahead of the Moto E4, so anyone who likes slightly more performance in a smartphone should prefer the more current model.

Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
1416 Points ∼31%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1380 Points ∼30% -3%
Lenovo Moto E4
938 Points ∼21% -34%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
2799 Points ∼62% +98%
BQ Aquaris C
1218 Points ∼27% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1113 - 1460, n=13)
1345 Points ∼30% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1131 - 21070, n=227)
4537 Points ∼100% +220%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
1851 Points ∼42%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
883 Points ∼20% -52%
Lenovo Moto E4
1532 Points ∼35% -17%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3660 Points ∼84% +98%
BQ Aquaris C
1769 Points ∼40% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (883 - 1939, n=15)
1757 Points ∼40% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1635 - 11598, n=278)
4370 Points ∼100% +136%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
660 Points ∼52%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
541 Points ∼43% -18%
Lenovo Moto E4
530 Points ∼42% -20%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
824 Points ∼65% +25%
BQ Aquaris C
647 Points ∼51% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (541 - 692, n=15)
656 Points ∼52% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (590 - 4824, n=279)
1267 Points ∼100% +92%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
3418 Points ∼71%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2829 Points ∼59% -17%
Lenovo Moto E4
2674 Points ∼56% -22%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4801 Points ∼100% +40%
BQ Aquaris C
3281 Points ∼68% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2829 - 3629, n=15)
3274 Points ∼68% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2828 - 9868, n=288)
4694 Points ∼98% +37%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
4573 Points ∼74%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3681 Points ∼59% -20%
Lenovo Moto E4
3518 Points ∼57% -23%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
6200 Points ∼100% +36%
BQ Aquaris C
4058 Points ∼65% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (4009 - 4813, n=15)
4082 Points ∼66% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (3977 - 13531, n=456)
5123 Points ∼83% +12%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
911 Points ∼53%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
375 Points ∼22% -59%
Lenovo Moto E4
772 Points ∼45% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
971 Points ∼56% +7%
BQ Aquaris C
861 Points ∼50% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (375 - 911, n=14)
834 Points ∼48% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=323)
1724 Points ∼100% +89%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
248 Points ∼12%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
248 Points ∼12% 0%
Lenovo Moto E4
118 Points ∼6% -52%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
647 Points ∼32% +161%
BQ Aquaris C
247 Points ∼12% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (118 - 250, n=14)
239 Points ∼12% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=323)
2048 Points ∼100% +726%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
296 Points ∼17%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
268 Points ∼15% -9%
Lenovo Moto E4
153 Points ∼9% -48%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
699 Points ∼40% +136%
BQ Aquaris C
294 Points ∼17% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (145 - 298, n=14)
283 Points ∼16% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=324)
1735 Points ∼100% +486%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
890 Points ∼56%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
851 Points ∼54% -4%
Lenovo Moto E4
774 Points ∼49% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1050 Points ∼66% +18%
BQ Aquaris C
845 Points ∼53% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (622 - 907, n=15)
861 Points ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (512 - 4215, n=415)
1581 Points ∼100% +78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
54 Points ∼3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
55 Points ∼3% +2%
Lenovo Moto E4
126 Points ∼8% +133%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
523 Points ∼32% +869%
BQ Aquaris C
55 Points ∼3% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (31 - 199, n=15)
57.3 Points ∼3% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=415)
1641 Points ∼100% +2939%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
68 Points ∼5%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
69 Points ∼5% +1%
Lenovo Moto E4
155 Points ∼11% +128%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
589 Points ∼42% +766%
BQ Aquaris C
69 Points ∼5% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (39 - 239, n=15)
71.7 Points ∼5% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=423)
1407 Points ∼100% +1969%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
10714 Points ∼82%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3958 Points ∼30% -63%
Lenovo Moto E4
8266 Points ∼63% -23%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
11048 Points ∼84% +3%
BQ Aquaris C
10105 Points ∼77% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3958 - 10784, n=15)
9751 Points ∼74% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=572)
13100 Points ∼100% +22%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
5402 Points ∼29%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5480 Points ∼30% +1%
Lenovo Moto E4
3168 Points ∼17% -41%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9536 Points ∼52% +77%
BQ Aquaris C
5434 Points ∼30% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2546 - 5712, n=15)
5288 Points ∼29% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1152 - 162695, n=572)
18381 Points ∼100% +240%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
6071 Points ∼39%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5049 Points ∼33% -17%
Lenovo Moto E4
3671 Points ∼24% -40%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9835 Points ∼64% +62%
BQ Aquaris C
6056 Points ∼39% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2951 - 6379, n=15)
5847 Points ∼38% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=573)
15482 Points ∼100% +155%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
7.7 fps ∼24%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
7.7 fps ∼24% 0%
Lenovo Moto E4
6 fps ∼19% -22%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
19 fps ∼59% +147%
BQ Aquaris C
7.6 fps ∼24% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.4 - 7.8, n=15)
7.38 fps ∼23% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=597)
32.1 fps ∼100% +317%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
13 fps ∼50%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Lenovo Moto E4
11 fps ∼42% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
26 fps ∼100% +100%
BQ Aquaris C
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (6.4 - 20, n=15)
13.4 fps ∼52% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=600)
25.5 fps ∼98% +96%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
2.8 fps ∼16%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Lenovo Moto E4
2.2 fps ∼13% -21%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9.4 fps ∼55% +236%
BQ Aquaris C
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1.3 - 2.8, n=15)
2.68 fps ∼16% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=519)
17.2 fps ∼100% +514%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
5.6 fps ∼33%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5.6 fps ∼33% 0%
Lenovo Moto E4
4.8 fps ∼28% -14%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
17 fps ∼100% +204%
BQ Aquaris C
5.6 fps ∼33% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.7 - 11, n=15)
5.99 fps ∼35% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=522)
16.4 fps ∼96% +193%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
45161 Points ∼38%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
46450 Points ∼39% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
75706 Points ∼63% +68%
BQ Aquaris C
43307 Points ∼36% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 46710, n=10)
38831 Points ∼32% -14%
Average of class Smartphone (54871 - 348178, n=203)
120264 Points ∼100% +166%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
38111 Points ∼48%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
39106 Points ∼50% +3%
Lenovo Moto E4
30856 Points ∼39% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
57169 Points ∼73% +50%
BQ Aquaris C
36719 Points ∼47% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (29054 - 39106, n=16)
36220 Points ∼46% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=422)
78766 Points ∼100% +107%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
685 Points ∼97%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
664 Points ∼94% -3%
Lenovo Moto E4
617 Points ∼87% -10%
BQ Aquaris C
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10 - 802, n=15)
646 Points ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=530)
707 Points ∼100% +3%
Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
438 Points ∼25%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
433 Points ∼25% -1%
Lenovo Moto E4
208 Points ∼12% -53%
BQ Aquaris C
434 Points ∼25% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (418 - 447, n=15)
437 Points ∼25% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=530)
1767 Points ∼100% +303%
Memory (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
367 Points ∼28%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
794 Points ∼61% +116%
Lenovo Moto E4
576 Points ∼44% +57%
BQ Aquaris C
457 Points ∼35% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (367 - 1372, n=15)
702 Points ∼54% +91%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=530)
1303 Points ∼100% +255%
System (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
1295 Points ∼50%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1245 Points ∼48% -4%
Lenovo Moto E4
1077 Points ∼41% -17%
BQ Aquaris C
1187 Points ∼45% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1043 - 1477, n=15)
1280 Points ∼49% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=530)
2612 Points ∼100% +102%
Overall (sort by value)
Motorola Moto E5
615 Points ∼48%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
730 Points ∼56% +19%
Lenovo Moto E4
531 Points ∼41% -14%
BQ Aquaris C
219 Points ∼17% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (219 - 891, n=15)
667 Points ∼52% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=534)
1294 Points ∼100% +110%

Legend

 
Motorola Moto E5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto E5 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Lenovo Moto E4 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris C Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash

While surfing the Internet, the Moto E5 also performed at class level and faster than its predecessor.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=455)
37.3 Points ∼100% +107%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
22.736 Points ∼61% +26%
Motorola Moto E5 (Chrome 70)
18.035 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
17.914 Points ∼48% -1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
17.765 Points ∼48% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (15.5 - 18.7, n=14)
17.6 Points ∼47% -2%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
14.57 Points ∼39% -19%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=591)
5743 Points ∼100% +78%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
4257 Points ∼74% +32%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
3250 Points ∼57% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 (Chrome 70)
3222 Points ∼56%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
3160 Points ∼55% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2412 - 3289, n=15)
2959 Points ∼52% -8%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
2270 Points ∼40% -30%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
17184.6 ms * ∼100% -30%
Motorola Moto E5 (Chrome 70)
13255 ms * ∼77%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
13253 ms * ∼77% -0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10742 - 16192, n=15)
13045 ms * ∼76% +2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
12723 ms * ∼74% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=611)
11260 ms * ∼66% +15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
10846 ms * ∼63% +18%

* ... smaller is better

Since the Moto E5 only brings 16 GB of storage and the larger flash storage modules are often faster, there is a clear difference in the access rates compared to the Moto E5 Plus with 32 GB of storage. On the other hand, compared to the Moto E4 our test unit is noticeably faster, and overall the Moto E5 does fairly well in the comparison in terms of the storage speed.

The Moto E5 is able to access an inserted microSD card at the expected speed.

Motorola Moto E5Motorola Moto E5 PlusLenovo Moto E4Xiaomi Redmi 6BQ Aquaris CAverage 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
43%
-28%
27%
-17%
-44%
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.75 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.68 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
44.9
-27%
64.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
59.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
37.9 (6.38 - 65.4, n=116)
-39%
46.9 (59.5 - 87.1, n=351)
-24%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
84.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
65.4
-23%
82.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
83.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
57 (10.8 - 87.7, n=116)
-32%
65.2 (76.6 - 96.5, n=351)
-23%
Random Write 4KB
38.6
56.14
45%
29.2
-24%
36.3
-6%
9.8
-75%
7.67 (0.49 - 43.2, n=231)
-80%
17.6 (0.14 - 250, n=639)
-54%
Random Read 4KB
45.7
62.71
37%
18.7
-59%
52.5
15%
39.1
-14%
20.5 (2.49 - 61.7, n=231)
-55%
40.4 (1.59 - 173, n=639)
-12%
Sequential Write 256KB
47.9
137.89
188%
45.3
-5%
118.4
147%
45.7
-5%
41.6 (8.74 - 97.6, n=231)
-13%
84.4 (2.99 - 253, n=639)
76%
Sequential Read 256KB
274.6
248.49
-10%
187.6
-32%
287
5%
275.9
0%
160 (9.66 - 294, n=231)
-42%
238 (12.1 - 912, n=639)
-13%

Games – Crashes and stutters

While gaming is quite possible with the Moto E5, since the Qualcomm Adreno 308 graphics unit does not support most of the modern graphic APIs, some games in the Play Store are not displayed because they are unable to run. An example is the Asphalt 9 racing game. Anyone who wants to be able to play games in the future should look for a device that is better equipped, even if they have to pay more for it.

Arena of Valor can run on the device, but we have to register a crash before the game begins and there are also some stutters in the menus. In the middle of the matches, things run fairly smoothly. Using an endless runner such as Temple Run 2, we can easily evaluate the suitability of the touchscreen and position sensor for gaming control. Our result: Control is precise and hardly leaves anything to be desired.

Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor

Emissions – The Moto E5 hardly heats up

Temperature

You do not need to expect a lot of heat development in the Moto E5. After an hour of full load, the maximum warming of the case is barely 35.1 °C (~95 °F). During idle operation, we hardly register any warming.

Max. Load
 35.1 °C
95 F
32.8 °C
91 F
30.8 °C
87 F
 
 34.1 °C
93 F
32.8 °C
91 F
30.8 °C
87 F
 
 34.1 °C
93 F
32 °C
90 F
31 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 35.1 °C = 95 F
Average: 32.6 °C = 91 F
29 °C
84 F
30.5 °C
87 F
32.9 °C
91 F
29.9 °C
86 F
30.4 °C
87 F
32.2 °C
90 F
29.4 °C
85 F
31.2 °C
88 F
31.8 °C
89 F
Maximum: 32.9 °C = 91 F
Average: 30.8 °C = 87 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.2 °C = 99 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.9 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.3 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heat map back
Heat map back
Heat map front
Heat map front

Speaker

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

In contrast to the Moto E4, the speaker in our test unit is now positioned in the ear piece, radiating towards the front. However, it also became a little quieter, but otherwise it shows a fairly balanced sound characteristic just like its predecessor. Only the very high tones are overemphasized slightly.

In practice, the effect we saw in our diagram is hardly noticeable. The sound is fairly balanced and quite good for an affordable smartphone, and there is no distortion. The sound output via 3.5-mm audio connector or via Bluetooth is also good.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.434.12541.732.63139.134.44035.334.55033.831.66332.925.78027.823.710028.323.612522.12216021.928.120019.636.625020.238.531519.443.340017.751.150016.855.163016.161.18001667.210001570.1125016.368.316001568.7200014.466.825001466.631501470.9400013.868.9500013.965.4630013.760.8800013.966.21000013.967.41250013.967.31600013.956.1SPL60.270.827.379.4N13.424.90.943.2median 15median 65.4Delta3.111.431.129.231.127.128.627.128.328.728.332.734.632.728.227.728.226.124.826.126.531.526.526.133.826.131.228.331.223.522.923.527.521.127.535.42035.445.82045.854.32254.362.822.962.86819.36871.118.371.173.618.373.672.717.972.775.716.475.77516.57575.316.775.375.616.275.674.316.174.372.816.272.872.816.172.871.416.171.474.316.174.371.51671.561.316.161.385.629.985.662.31.462.3median 71.4median 17.9median 71.413.32.813.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMotorola Moto E5Lenovo Moto E4
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Motorola Moto E5 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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 (24.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 71% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life – Efficient and with good endurance

Power Consumption

In terms of power consumption, like the Moto E5 Plus, the Moto E5 shows itself as quite efficient. However, the Xiaomi Redmi 6 does an even better job here.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.8 / 1.5 / 1.9 Watt
Load midlight 3 / 4.5 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Motorola Moto E5
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
-14%
6%
-20%
-37%
-19%
Idle Minimum *
0.8
0.9
-13%
0.87
-9%
0.6
25%
0.7
12%
1.108 (0.54 - 4.02, n=16)
-39%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=674)
-10%
Idle Average *
1.5
1.5
-0%
2.38
-59%
1.3
13%
1.9
-27%
2.21 (1.2 - 6, n=16)
-47%
1.73 (0.6 - 6.2, n=673)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
1.9
2
-5%
2.47
-30%
2.1
-11%
2.5
-32%
2.55 (1.62 - 6.64, n=16)
-34%
2.01 (0.74 - 6.6, n=674)
-6%
Load Average *
3
3.2
-7%
2.63
12%
3
-0%
4.1
-37%
4.31 (2.9 - 9.6, n=16)
-44%
4.05 (0.8 - 10.8, n=668)
-35%
Load Maximum *
4.5
4.9
-9%
3.86
14%
4.4
2%
5.2
-16%
5.5 (4.3 - 7.34, n=16)
-22%
5.8 (1.2 - 14.2, n=668)
-29%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Considering the fact that the Moto E5 has a 4000-mAh battery, which is also noticeable in terms of the weight, the battery life is almost a bit disappointing. In our WLAN test, the Moto E5 lasts for 12:33 hours, which is not a bad result in itself and also significantly more than the Moto E4. However, the Moto E5 Plus, which lasts considerably longer in comparison, and the less heavy Xiaomi Redmi 6, where the endurance difference is rather small, show the runtime of the Moto E5 in a different light.

On the other hand, you can easily survive for two workdays with the Moto E5, and thanks to the quick-charger, the battery is fully recharged within less than 2 hours.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 33min
Motorola Moto E5
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
43%
-31%
-8%
-23%
Reader / Idle
1302
1425
WiFi v1.3
753
1078
43%
522
-31%
695
-8%
583
-23%
Load
316
238
H.264
608
752

Pros

+ bright display
+ performance is typical for the price class
+ decent GPS
+ acceptable cameras
+ good battery life

Cons

- aging security patches and system version
- slow WLAN

Verdict – A good entry-level smartphone

In review: Motorola Moto E5. Test unit provided by Motorola Germany.
In review: Motorola Moto E5. Test unit provided by Motorola Germany.

A bright screen, good battery life, decent performance, and reasonable cameras: The Motorola Moto E5 offers several good reasons to adopt it as your future smartphone. On the other hand, current software, a good camera performance in bad light conditions, or a USB-C connection should then not be important to you. The Moto E5 is also slightly larger and heavier than many comparison devices.

A uniquely designed smartphone with a large battery for little money – the Motorola Moto E5 convinces in the test.

Overall, the manufacturer succeeded in creating a good smartphone that offers many positive aspects for everyday operation, represents a good update of its predecessor, and it hardly shows any real weaknesses besides the slow WLAN. So those who like the design should go for it.

Motorola Moto E5 - 12/28/2018 v6
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
82%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
92%
Connectivity
36 / 60 → 61%
Weight
90%
Battery
95%
Display
84%
Games Performance
7 / 63 → 10%
Application Performance
36 / 70 → 52%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
65%
Average
70%
81%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Motorola Moto E5 Smartphone Review
Florian Schmitt, 2018-12-29 (Update: 2018-12-29)