Notebookcheck

Motorola Moto X4 Smartphone Review

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Tanja Hinum (translated by Sabrina Hartmann), 01/25/2018

Alexa, where are you? The Moto X4 is released with a dual camera, IP68 protection, and a stylish design, trying to conquer the midrange market. However, the promised support for Amazon Alexa is not currently available on our test device. Is the Moto X4 still worth buying? Our review will show.

Motorola Moto X4

Motorola is placed really well within the midrange market: Customers can choose between three whole series of products. First, there are the Moto E4 and Moto E4 Plus, shuffling up the cheap midrange with their good equipment. The Moto G5s and the Moto G5s Plus are offering even better cameras and a unibody case and are placed in the price segment between 200 and 300 Euros (~$249 and ~$374). Customers willing to spend even more can now pick the Moto X4, a 5.2-inch smartphone with a dual camera, a midrange SoC and a case made of metal and glass that is protected against dust and water according to IP68. Furthermore, the manufacturer promises comprehensive voice control with as many as three integrated systems. Originally, Motorola set the asking price for this smartphone at 399 Euros (~$497), but by now the manufacturer is offering it for 349 Euros (~$435).

Many competitors can be found in this price range, such as the HTC U11 Life, the Honor 9, the Xiaomi Mi 6, or the Samsung Galaxy A3. The Asus ZenFone 4 is more expensive, but it is still of interest in a comparison because it uses the same SoC.

Motorola Moto X4 (Moto Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
5.2 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 424 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, LTPS IPS, Corning Gorilla Glass, glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 18.9 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio port, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C, USB-OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/​900/​1700/​1900/​2100), LTE (B1/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.5 x 148.4 x 73.4 ( = 0.37 x 5.84 x 2.89 in)
Battery
11.4 Wh, 3000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 7.1 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix dual camera, phase-detection autofocus, f2.0, 1.4µm, 8MP wide-angle with 120°, f2.2, 1.12µm, dual LED flash
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix f2.0, 1µm, LED flash
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker aimed to the front, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, quick charger, USB cable, SIM tool, Moto, device assistance, 24 Months Warranty, bandwidth (download/​upload): 400Mbps/​75Mbps (LTE); SAR value: 0.815W/​kg (head), 1.54W/​kg (body); IP68-certified, fanless
Weight
163 g ( = 5.75 oz / 0.36 pounds), Power Supply: 78 g ( = 2.75 oz / 0.17 pounds)
Price
399 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Moto X4 is delivered in plain black or in a somewhat livelier blue, like our test device. While the case frame is made of metal, the front and back are covered with glass. The transition between the different materials is clearly visible and can be felt as well. The smooth back is slightly curved at the sides, which gives the smartphone an elegant look and makes it easy to hold. Fingerprints are an issue, but more so for darker smartphones than for our test device.

This smartphone is very stable: It cannot be twisted, does not creak, and does not let any pressure on the front or back reach the screen. The measurements are mostly identical to those of other 5.2-inch smartphones, such as the HTC U11 Life. Following the Motorola tradition, it is rather slim, but has a protruding "bull's-eye" housing the camera module. Since the classic 16:9 build has been used, the front features comparatively wide bezels at the top and bottom, offering room for the fingerprint sensor. At 163 grams (~5.7 oz), the Moto X4 is not exactly lightweight for its screen size.

The case is protected against dust and water according to IP68, meaning that it is completely dustproof and can be submerged into water even for longer periods of time without any problems.

Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4
Motorola Moto X4

Size Comparison

155.4 mm / 6.12 inch 75.2 mm / 2.96 inch 7.5 mm / 0.2953 inch 165 g0.3638 lbs148.4 mm / 5.84 inch 73.4 mm / 2.89 inch 9.5 mm / 0.374 inch 163 g0.3594 lbs149.1 mm / 5.87 inch 72.9 mm / 2.87 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 142 g0.3131 lbs147 mm / 5.79 inch 71 mm / 2.8 inch 7.5 mm / 0.2953 inch 155 g0.3417 lbs145.2 mm / 5.72 inch 70.5 mm / 2.78 inch 7.5 mm / 0.2953 inch 168 g0.3704 lbs135.4 mm / 5.33 inch 66.2 mm / 2.61 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 138 g0.3042 lbs

Connectivity

Motorola has equipped the Moto X4 with 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of storage. A variant with 4 GB/64GB is available on the internet, but those seem to be imported devices. In Central Europe, the Moto X4 is only available as a dual-SIM variant. The storage can be expanded via a microSD card, but a SIM slot has to be sacrificed for this.

A 3.5-mm audio port has been built in despite the presence of a USB-C port, and a fingerprint reader can be found at the front of the case.

bottom: USB-C port, 3.5-mm audio port
bottom: USB-C port, 3.5-mm audio port
top: SIM tray, microphone
top: SIM tray, microphone
left: no connectivity
left: no connectivity
right: power button, volume buttons
right: power button, volume buttons

Software

Motorola is offering an Android One variant of the Moto X4 in some markets, but for us in Germany, the smartphone will be released with only the regular Motorola operating system. Since Motorola leaves Android in its original form anyway and barely installs any additional apps, the difference in the user interface is hardly noticeable. Android 7.1.1 is pre-installed, the current Android Oreo is supposed to be coming soon. The security patches are from November 1st 2017 and still tolerably up-to-date at the time of testing.

A few apps from the Microsoft ecosystem can be found on this smartphone, which is caused by Microsoft offering discounts on license payments if the manufacturer pre-installs these apps. In addition, there is the Moto app serving as a hub for the smartphone's individual features, such as configuring the Moto Display which shows information even when the screen is turned off. Moto Key is an interesting new feature which unlocks apps and even connected Windows PCs via a fingerprint on the Moto X4.

Software Motorola Moto X4
Software Motorola Moto X4
Software Motorola Moto X4
Software Motorola Moto X4

Communication and GPS

The Moto X4 supports all current Wi-Fi standards (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac) and is also compatible with Wi-Fi networks using the 5-GHz band. The Wi-Fi module is reasonably fast - only the Xiaomi Mi 6 was even faster in our comparison with the reference router Linksys EA8500. Close to the router, the connection has a good availability and pages are loading fast. At a distance of ten meters (~33 ft) or through walls, the signal is at half strength while pages are still loading about as fast as they did near the router. 

The support for cellular networks is good as well: Eleven different LTE bands should facilitate mobile internet access, at least while traveling through Europe. The maximum download speed is 400 MBit/s. During our practical test within city boundaries in the German D2 network, we had at least half LTE capacity even inside buildings and we had good internet speed.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 6
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
574 MBit/s ∼100% +70%
Motorola Moto X4
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
337 MBit/s ∼59%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
334 MBit/s ∼58% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
Mali-T830 MP2, 7870 Octa, 16 GB eMMC Flash
305 MBit/s ∼53% -9%
Honor 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB eMMC Flash
283 MBit/s ∼49% -16%
HTC U11 Life
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
224 MBit/s ∼39% -34%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 6
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
500 MBit/s ∼100% +49%
Motorola Moto X4
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
336 MBit/s ∼67%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
329 MBit/s ∼66% -2%
HTC U11 Life
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 MBit/s ∼55% -18%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
Mali-T830 MP2, 7870 Octa, 16 GB eMMC Flash
225 MBit/s ∼45% -33%
Honor 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB eMMC Flash
140 MBit/s ∼28% -58%
GPS indoors
GPS indoors
GPS near window
GPS near window
GPS outdoors
GPS outdoors

The built-in GPS module could not locate us in the middle of a room, but it reached an acceptable accuracy of eight meters (~26 ft) near a window. When outside, this accuracy rose to a peak value of four meters (~13 ft).

For a better evaluation of the GPS unit's usability in the field, we went on a bicycle ride for which we also brought along a Garmin Edge 500, a professional GPS unit specially designed for cyclists, in addition to the Motorola Moto X4. The distance measured by both devices differs by only ten meters (33 ft), which bodes well for our test device. The Moto X4 is actually slightly more accurate in the area of the houses on the screenshot titled "Path", but slightly less accurate than the professional GPS in the route calculation of the "Loop" screenshot. Overall, it is quite impressive that the GPS unit is roughly on a par with the professional GPS. Since the position finding on Google Maps is very fast and precise as well, we can recommend the Moto X4 for navigational purposes.

GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Path
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Path
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Loop
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – Loop
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Overview
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Overview
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Path
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Path
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Loop
GPS Motorola Moto X4 – Loop

Telephony and Call Quality

Even if Motorola adjusted the telephone app's icon: This is still the standard Android app, which does not have to be replaced because it works pretty well.

When initiating a call, the conversation partner can be heard very clearly via the earpiece as well as the speakerphone, which can be turned to a rather high volume if desired. The microphone is average, transmitting our voice decently, but not always without ambient noise or distortions.

Cameras

Image taken by front camera
Image taken by front camera

Even midrange smartphones can barely do without a dual-camera setup nowadays. The Moto X4 is no exception, being equipped with two lenses on the back. One of the cameras is a standard model with 12 megapixels, the other a wide-angle-lens model with a resolution of 8 megapixels. The two lenses are not combined for an optical zoom, but can instead be used separately. In portrait mode, pictures can be created with a blur, but this effect is not produced with the second lens, but rather calculated by the software. Wide-angle photographs have a rather strong fisheye characteristic with the Moto X4, so objects at the edges are distorted, but the camera has a really wide coverage angle.

The camera's software uses an online object recognition and displays search results accordingly. For us, this worked reliably in only one of three cases. Not even the box of the Moto X4 was recognized reliably. Instead, the smartphone identifies it as the box of a Samsung Galaxy Note 5. In portrait mode, funny glasses or animal masks can be added to a photographed person via face recognition.

Even the standard lens of the Moto X4 offers a much wider viewing angle than the Aquaris X Pro or the Honor 9, for example. Pictures taken with the Honor 9 seem somewhat more colorful, but the Moto X4 takes very sharp pictures that also have an adequate brightness. However, this applies only for situations with good lighting - in low-light conditions; the competitors' devices capture significantly more light. For someone taking photos only in good lighting, the Moto X4 will yield good results, but other smartphones of the same price segment will take better pictures in low-light situations.

Video recording can be done with either of the two lenses, but only the standard lens supports 4K videos. The lighting in videos is generally good and the colors are strong. The brightness sensor has fast reaction times and adjusts the exposure, and the image noise is acceptable even in dark areas.

The front camera with 8 megapixels takes decent selfies with a good color representation and sharpness.

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

We took the Moto X4 to our test lab, where the main camera had to prove its worth under pre-determined lighting conditions. The edges of objects tend to contain image noise and color surfaces do not appear to be entirely clean. Sometimes, there is also a slight blurriness when displaying text. Overall, the performance was solid. The color reproduction is too pale in general and white surfaces have a visible brownish cast.

Image of reference card
Image of reference card
Reference card detail
Reference card detail
ColorChecker. Target color in the bottom half of each square.
ColorChecker. Target color in the bottom half of each square.

Accessories and Warranty

Motorola delivers the smartphone with a quick charger, a USB cable, and a SIM tool. An additional charger is available from Motorola for about 30 Euros (~$37).

The manufacturer offers a warranty of 24 months for their smartphones. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices and Handling

The keyboard app is Google's GBoard, which is pre-installed on all devices with a pure Android. Typing is easy with this app and there are many customization options available. Anyone who would prefer a different keyboard should take a look at the Google Play Store which offers numerous alternatives.

Fingers glide easily on the touchscreen and even the corners are very sensitive. The Moto app enables the user to activate additional commands. For example, the fingerprint sensor can be used instead of the menu buttons on the screen to return to the Home screen, to use the "back" function or to open an overview of apps currently in use. After a short adaptation phase, this works very intuitively and reliably. The fingerprint sensor is also rather fast in its original function and can also wake the device from standby mode.

Several gestures can be activated in the Moto app, for example the camera can be activated by turning the smartphone twice or the screen can be downsized for one-handed operation by swiping to the lower left.

Voice control is a feature that Motorola highlights especially. As many as three systems are used for this: First, an internal system that is able to comprehend easy commands such as "Show me my calendar", but that can also be used for unlocking the device via voice recognition. Second, there is the Google Assistant and third, Amazon Alexa. However, there was one peculiarity with this: The feature that enables the Moto X4 to listen even while in standby was activated, but the Moto Alexa app has to be downloaded via the Play Store. Since it was not available at the time of our testing, we notified the manufacturer about this and we will provide you with a short update about this feature once the app is available again. Generally, the two systems that we could activate worked really well and are not interfering with each other because each of them is using distinct activation words.

keyboard in portrait mode
keyboard in portrait mode
keyboard in landscape mode
keyboard in landscape mode

Display

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid

The Moto X4 utilizes an IPS screen with Full HD resolution. At an average of 479 cd/m², the 5.2-inch display is not quite as bright as comparison devices and the brightness is also less evenly distributed at 86%. The decrease in brightness towards the lower part of the screen is slightly visible even to the naked eye.

Furthermore, we noticed a flickering of the screen at a high frequency of 2358 Hz at low brightness settings. This is probably caused by the Pulse-Width Modulation, which is used to dim the brightness. Since the frequency is rather high, even sensitive people should not experience any problems.

498
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
446
cd/m²
504
cd/m²
469
cd/m²
457
cd/m²
517
cd/m²
485
cd/m²
470
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 517 cd/m² Average: 478.8 cd/m² Minimum: 6.37 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 469 cd/m²
Contrast: 1268:1 (Black: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.5 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
Gamma: 2.1
Motorola Moto X4
LTPS IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
HTC U11 Life
SLCD, 1920x1080, 5.2
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
Super AMOLED, 1280x720, 4.7
Honor 9
IPS/LTPS, 1920x1080, 5.15
Xiaomi Mi 6
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.15
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
8%
41%
21%
26%
19%
Brightness middle
469
545
16%
574
22%
550
17%
620
32%
656
40%
Brightness
479
526
10%
576
20%
535
12%
586
22%
634
32%
Brightness Distribution
86
87
1%
94
9%
92
7%
89
3%
93
8%
Black Level *
0.37
0.42
-14%
0.42
-14%
0.28
24%
0.4
-8%
Contrast
1268
1298
2%
1310
3%
2214
75%
1640
29%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.5
4.9
11%
2.4
56%
3.3
40%
4.8
13%
5.3
4%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.7
8.5
21%
3.8
64%
4.5
58%
8.8
18%
7.8
27%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.7
5.4
19%
1.9
72%
3.6
46%
5.3
21%
5.2
22%
Gamma
2.1 105%
2.31 95%
2.09 105%
2.38 92%
2.25 98%
2.22 99%
CCT
8064 81%
7610 85%
6502 100%
7226 90%
7473 87%
7905 82%

* ... 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 2358 Hz ≤ 3 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 3 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358 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 9705 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The black level is decent at 0.37 cd/m² and black areas appear deep and dark. At 1268:1, the contrast is slightly lower than it is for the comparison devices. The smartphone is shipped with two different modes for color accuracy: standard and intense. Our subjective impression was that the colors in both of those modes appeared somewhat too cool on the screen.

We wanted more details and used our spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software to determine with objective measurements how the screen of the Moto X4 displays colors. Both modes showed a significant blue tint on the display, which was even stronger in "intense" mode. To counteract this, users can activate a blue light filter in the Moto app if they wish so. The color space coverage for sRGB is almost complete in both modes, though CalMAN is not able to give us an absolutely exact result. The color accuracy is mediocre in both modes.

CalMAN color accuracy - intense
CalMAN color accuracy - intense
CalMAN color space - intense
CalMAN color space - intense
CalMAN grayscale - intense
CalMAN grayscale - intense
CalMAN saturation - intense
CalMAN saturation - intense
CalMAN color accuracy - standard
CalMAN color accuracy - standard
CalMAN color space - standard
CalMAN color space - standard
CalMAN grayscale - standard
CalMAN grayscale - standard
CalMAN saturation - standard
CalMAN saturation - standard

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
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.8 ms rise
↘ 17.2 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 0.8 (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 (25.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
56.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 29.6 ms rise
↘ 26.8 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. » 92 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (40.7 ms).

Outdoors, the Moto X4 is doing well despite the glossy screen, and the ambient light sensor is quick to react. A shift in the brightness is visible to the naked eye when tilting the smartphone to the side. It is even more noticeable with the reflex camera that we used to take our viewing angle pictures.

outdoors ambient light sensor
outdoors ambient light sensor
outdoors maximum brightness
outdoors maximum brightness
outdoors medium brightness
outdoors medium brightness
outdoors minimum brightness
outdoors minimum brightness
viewing angles
viewing angles

Performance

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 is a fast midrange SoC with 8 processor cores. In terms of performance, the Moto X4 is on a par with the HTC U11 Life or the Asus ZenFone 4, both of which use the same SoC as our test device. The Galaxy A3 drops behind slightly, while the Honor 9 can score with its fast high-end SoC. The Adreno 508 places the Moto X4 in the upper midrange for graphics as well.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
70445 Points ∼26%
HTC U11 Life
73617 Points ∼27% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
45549 Points ∼17% -35%
Honor 9
150276 Points ∼55% +113%
Xiaomi Mi 6
181909 Points ∼66% +158%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
68282 Points ∼25% -3%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
4887 Points ∼41%
HTC U11 Life
4835 Points ∼40% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
3756 Points ∼31% -23%
Honor 9
6113 Points ∼51% +25%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6686 Points ∼56% +37%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
5085 Points ∼43% +4%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
5919 Points ∼30%
HTC U11 Life
5818 Points ∼30% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
5000 Points ∼26% -16%
Honor 9
7034 Points ∼36% +19%
Xiaomi Mi 6
7548 Points ∼39% +28%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
6264 Points ∼32% +6%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
795 Points ∼39%
HTC U11 Life
858 Points ∼42% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
666 Points ∼33% -16%
Honor 9
1069 Points ∼53% +34%
Xiaomi Mi 6
1263 Points ∼62% +59%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
766 Points ∼38% -4%
Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1519 Points ∼5%
HTC U11 Life
1515 Points ∼5% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
529 Points ∼2% -65%
Honor 9
4126 Points ∼14% +172%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6206 Points ∼22% +309%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1496 Points ∼5% -2%
Memory (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1405 Points ∼22%
HTC U11 Life
838 Points ∼13% -40%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
1296 Points ∼21% -8%
Honor 9
3258 Points ∼52% +132%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4054 Points ∼65% +189%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1380 Points ∼22% -2%
System (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
3279 Points ∼20%
HTC U11 Life
3215 Points ∼20% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
2185 Points ∼13% -33%
Honor 9
4154 Points ∼25% +27%
Xiaomi Mi 6
5857 Points ∼36% +79%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
3319 Points ∼20% +1%
Overall (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1536 Points ∼18%
HTC U11 Life
1368 Points ∼16% -11%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
1000 Points ∼12% -35%
Honor 9
2779 Points ∼33% +81%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3694 Points ∼44% +140%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1513 Points ∼18% -1%
Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
3894 Points ∼9%
HTC U11 Life
3956 Points ∼9% +2%
Honor 9
Points ∼0% -100%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
3942 Points ∼9% +1%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
4115 Points ∼11%
HTC U11 Life
4193 Points ∼12% +2%
Honor 9
6527 Points ∼18% +59%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6714 Points ∼19% +63%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
4172 Points ∼12% +1%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
870 Points ∼14%
HTC U11 Life
877 Points ∼14% +1%
Honor 9
1869 Points ∼29% +115%
Xiaomi Mi 6
1938 Points ∼31% +123%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
865 Points ∼14% -1%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1811 Points ∼43%
HTC U11 Life
1779 Points ∼42% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
1670 Points ∼40% -8%
Honor 9
2287 Points ∼54% +26%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3007 Points ∼71% +66%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1751 Points ∼42% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
724 Points ∼11%
HTC U11 Life
729 Points ∼11% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
253 Points ∼4% -65%
Honor 9
2798 Points ∼44% +286%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4072 Points ∼64% +462%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
726 Points ∼11% 0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
835 Points ∼15%
HTC U11 Life
839 Points ∼15% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
312 Points ∼6% -63%
Honor 9
2666 Points ∼48% +219%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3775 Points ∼69% +352%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
835 Points ∼15% 0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1816 Points ∼43%
HTC U11 Life
1711 Points ∼41% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
1699 Points ∼40% -6%
Honor 9
1809 Points ∼43% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 6
2921 Points ∼69% +61%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1785 Points ∼42% -2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1259 Points ∼12%
HTC U11 Life
1257 Points ∼12% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
407 Points ∼4% -68%
Honor 9
2990 Points ∼28% +137%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6231 Points ∼59% +395%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1289 Points ∼12% +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
1351 Points ∼19%
HTC U11 Life
1336 Points ∼19% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
490 Points ∼7% -64%
Honor 9
2611 Points ∼36% +93%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4978 Points ∼69% +268%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
1374 Points ∼19% +2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
12870 Points ∼15%
HTC U11 Life
12919 Points ∼15% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
12954 Points ∼15% +1%
Honor 9
15150 Points ∼18% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 6
20330 Points ∼24% +58%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
13014 Points ∼15% +1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
18355 Points ∼3%
HTC U11 Life
18469 Points ∼3% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
7793 Points ∼1% -58%
Honor 9
38979 Points ∼7% +112%
Xiaomi Mi 6
58228 Points ∼11% +217%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
18386 Points ∼3% 0%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
16767 Points ∼7%
HTC U11 Life
16859 Points ∼7% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
8550 Points ∼4% -49%
Honor 9
28883 Points ∼12% +72%
Xiaomi Mi 6
41172 Points ∼18% +146%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
16841 Points ∼7% 0%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
30 fps ∼0%
HTC U11 Life
30 fps ∼0% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
12 fps ∼0% -60%
Honor 9
60 fps ∼0% +100%
Xiaomi Mi 6
119 fps ∼1% +297%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
30 fps ∼0% 0%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
31 fps ∼1%
HTC U11 Life
29 fps ∼1% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
19 fps ∼1% -39%
Honor 9
55 fps ∼2% +77%
Xiaomi Mi 6
60 fps ∼2% +94%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
29 fps ∼1% -6%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
14 fps ∼3%
HTC U11 Life
14 fps ∼3% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
5 fps ∼1% -64%
Honor 9
30 fps ∼5% +114%
Xiaomi Mi 6
63 fps ∼11% +350%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
14 fps ∼3% 0%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
15 fps ∼4%
HTC U11 Life
14 fps ∼4% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
9.8 fps ∼3% -35%
Honor 9
28 fps ∼8% +87%
Xiaomi Mi 6
56 fps ∼15% +273%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
14 fps ∼4% -7%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
9.6 fps ∼0%
HTC U11 Life
9.7 fps ∼0% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
3.2 fps ∼0% -67%
Honor 9
22 fps ∼0% +129%
Xiaomi Mi 6
43 fps ∼1% +348%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
9.7 fps ∼0% +1%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
11 fps ∼0%
HTC U11 Life
9.8 fps ∼0% -11%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
7.3 fps ∼0% -34%
Honor 9
22 fps ∼1% +100%
Xiaomi Mi 6
42 fps ∼1% +282%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
9.5 fps ∼0% -14%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
5.3 fps ∼1%
HTC U11 Life
5.5 fps ∼1% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
1.9 fps ∼0% -64%
Honor 9
15 fps ∼4% +183%
Xiaomi Mi 6
26 fps ∼7% +391%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
5.3 fps ∼1% 0%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Moto X4
5.7 fps ∼4%
HTC U11 Life
5.4 fps ∼4% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
3.9 fps ∼3% -32%
Honor 9
16 fps ∼11% +181%
Xiaomi Mi 6
26 fps ∼18% +356%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
5.3 fps ∼4% -7%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 6
32.14 fps ∼83%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
9.81 fps ∼25%
Basemark X 1.1 - High Quality (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 6
38773 Points ∼88%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 6
733 Points ∼14%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
190 Points ∼4%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 6
60.1 fps ∼98%

Legend

 
Motorola Moto X4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
HTC U11 Life Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017 Samsung Exynos 7870 Octa, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Honor 9 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash

The Moto X4 has consistently been slightly faster than, for example, the Asus ZenFone 4 in our browser benchmarks. The differences were not huge, but still noticeable. Websites load at an average speed on the Moto X4, complex HTML5 sites such as Google's Interland load pretty fast and show only the occasional, minimal stutter.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
70.453 Points ∼100% +129%
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
58.6 Points ∼83% +90%
Motorola Moto X4 (Chrome 63)
30.81 Points ∼44%
HTC U11 Life (Chrome 63)
28.993 Points ∼41% -6%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL (Chrome 62)
28.09 Points ∼40% -9%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017 (Chrome 56.0.2924.87)
23.281 Points ∼33% -24%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
11909 Points ∼100% +136%
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
10208 Points ∼86% +102%
Motorola Moto X4 (Chrome 63)
5050 Points ∼42%
HTC U11 Life (Chrome 63)
4893 Points ∼41% -3%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL (Chrome 62)
4398 Points ∼37% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017 (Chrome 56.0.2924.87)
3799 Points ∼32% -25%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017 (Chrome 56.0.2924.87)
9669.2 ms * ∼100% -15%
HTC U11 Life (Chrome 63)
9493 ms * ∼98% -13%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL (Chrome 62)
9425 ms * ∼97% -12%
Motorola Moto X4 (Chrome 63)
8396 ms * ∼87%
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
3149 ms * ∼33% +62%
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
2667.5 ms * ∼28% +68%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
107 Points ∼100% +24%
HTC U11 Life (Chrome 63)
100 Points ∼93% +16%
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL (Chrome 62)
95 Points ∼89% +10%
Motorola Moto X4 (Chrome 63)
86 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017 (Chrome 56.0.2924.87)
64 Points ∼60% -26%

* ... smaller is better

Accessing our reference storage card, a Toshiba Exceria M501, works rather fast. The Honor 9 drops behind the other comparison devices here and the Xiaomi Mi 6 does not support microSD cards. Reading from and writing to the Moto X4's internal storage is quick as well, but the Mi 6 takes a clear lead here with its fast UFS 2.1 storage.

Motorola Moto X4HTC U11 LifeSamsung Galaxy A3 2017Honor 9Xiaomi Mi 6Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
AndroBench 3-5
-5%
-42%
-1%
96%
9%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
60.05 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
50.06 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-17%
34.64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-42%
66.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
11%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.91 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
82.75 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
75.47 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-10%
67.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-19%
86.93 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
Random Write 4KB
55.3
50.2
-9%
9.62
-83%
32.7
-41%
25.19
-54%
7.59
-86%
Random Read 4KB
45.4
39.3
-13%
22.32
-51%
55.7
23%
143.49
216%
68.57
51%
Sequential Write 256KB
120.5
120
0%
45.96
-62%
204
69%
196.7
63%
205.27
70%
Sequential Read 256KB
281.6
268
-5%
199.68
-29%
293
4%
728.2
159%
287.38
2%

Games

Every game we tested ran smoothly in the screen's native resolution. When playing “Asphalt 8”, even high details were no problem for the Motorola Moto X4. There were no issues with simpler games such as “Angry Birds” either.

Controlling the games via position sensor and touchscreen always worked precisely during our tests.

Dead Trigger 2
Dead Trigger 2
Asphalt 8
Asphalt 8
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps
 very low30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

The area of the ear piece, of all places, is where the case warms up the most. At 36.3 °C (~97 °F), the temperature is fortunately not too high even after a prolonged period of load, so that the smartphone can still be placed near one's ear for a call or be carried around in one's pants pocket. The rest of the case hardly heats up and the differences to idle mode were only small.

Hence, it is no surprise that we barely saw any fluctuations of the frame rate during our GFXBench battery test. Other than one lapse at the start, the performance remains high, even under a prolonged load.

Max. Load
 35.3 °C
96 F
31.3 °C
88 F
29.8 °C
86 F
 
 36.3 °C
97 F
31.1 °C
88 F
28.8 °C
84 F
 
 33.6 °C
92 F
30 °C
86 F
27.9 °C
82 F
 
Maximum: 36.3 °C = 97 F
Average: 31.6 °C = 89 F
28.2 °C
83 F
30 °C
86 F
29.7 °C
85 F
27.3 °C
81 F
29.4 °C
85 F
29.4 °C
85 F
27.2 °C
81 F
28.7 °C
84 F
28.3 °C
83 F
Maximum: 30 °C = 86 F
Average: 28.7 °C = 84 F
Power Supply (max.)  21.6 °C = 71 F | Room Temperature 20.2 °C = 68 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.6 °C / 89 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 36.3 °C / 97 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 30 °C / 86 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.5 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heat map front
Heat map front
Heat map back
Heat map back

Speakers

Speaker test Pink Noise
Speaker test Pink Noise

The small front pointing speaker offers a relatively balanced sound which can be turned to a rather high volume on demand. Since the low mids are pretty strong while the highs are attenuated slightly, the sound overall is a much more pleasant experience than with the HTC U11 Life, for instance. Even when connecting a Bluetooth device or a headphone via the 3.5-mm audio port, the sound output is very clear.

Motorola has added a bonus feature named "wireless audio system". This feature enables the user to connect to multiple Bluetooth devices simultaneously, even if they are located in different rooms. However, this feature deactivates any existing connections to other Bluetooth devices, such as a connected smartwatch. It is even possible to connect several speakers into a sound system. Additional features such as the ability to control the smartphone via the buttons of connected devices are announced to be delivered in a later update.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.241.62532.9403137.239.44031.734.95039.641.56328.331.28027.333.910026.929.412526.735.51602443.120020.948.925020.954.631519.558.440018.564.450017.568.163017.567.780015.768.9100015.870.4125016.671.8160015.872.4200015.472.1250015.576.531501677.8400015.872.350001673.5630016.370.4800016.376.91000016.2771250016.474.81600016.467SPL28.685.9N1.165median 16.4median 70.4Delta2.17.435.245.132.941.137.238.931.736.639.642.728.33427.33026.930.226.736.32441.720.946.520.950.619.551.718.557.517.556.917.556.615.760.915.870.316.675.715.878.515.479.615.581.21679.415.8781674.416.377.316.381.316.283.816.468.316.455.328.690.21.176median 16.4median 68.32.113.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMotorola Moto X4HTC U11 Life
Motorola Moto X4 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HTC U11 Life audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 64% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 77% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency diagram (checkboxes above selectable/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

The Motorola X4 can be classed as an energy-efficient smartphone, even though Samsung demonstrates again how to do it even better. While idling, our test device's power consumption is very low. Under load, it scores a third place behind the HTC U11 Life and the Samsung Galaxy A3. Another plus is the rather low power consumption while turned off or while in standby.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.04 / 0.17 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.65 / 1.51 / 1.57 Watt
Load midlight 3.88 / 5.47 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Motorola Moto X4
3000 mAh
HTC U11 Life
2600 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
2350 mAh
Honor 9
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6
3350 mAh
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
3300 mAh
Power Consumption
-9%
50%
-48%
-10%
-34%
Idle Minimum *
0.65
0.63
3%
0.37
43%
1.13
-74%
0.45
31%
0.84
-29%
Idle Average *
1.51
2.1
-39%
0.78
48%
2.25
-49%
1.67
-11%
2.31
-53%
Idle Maximum *
1.57
2.15
-37%
0.84
46%
2.3
-46%
1.69
-8%
2.33
-48%
Load Average *
3.88
3.34
14%
1.52
61%
4.89
-26%
4.07
-5%
4.76
-23%
Load Maximum *
5.47
4.83
12%
2.75
50%
7.99
-46%
8.54
-56%
6.39
-17%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

At 3000 mAh, the battery is of average size and the runtimes during our battery tests were average as well: The smartphone lasted roughly 11 hours in our Wi-Fi battery test. This is significantly longer than the Honor 9 or the Asus ZenFone 4, but also more than an hour less than the HTC U11 Life. As far as our first experiences go, this smartphone easily lasts throughout a workday. If it is used sparingly, it might even suffice to recharge it only every other day.

Using the fast charging technology TurboCharge and the included charger, recharging takes approximately 1:30 hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
27h 32min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 59min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
11h 28min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 49min
Motorola Moto X4
3000 mAh
HTC U11 Life
2600 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A3 2017
2350 mAh
Honor 9
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6
3350 mAh
Asus ZenFone 4 ZE554KL
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
10%
51%
-15%
12%
-4%
Reader / Idle
1652
1820
10%
2862
73%
1399
-15%
1665
1%
H.264
688
798
16%
988
44%
564
-18%
698
1%
WiFi v1.3
659
725
10%
668
1%
516
-22%
739
12%
562
-15%
Load
289
303
5%
532
84%
278
-4%
286
-1%

Pros

+ very stable case
+ stylish design
+ dedicated 3.5-mm audio port
+ fingerprint sensor usable for menu navigation
+ multiple voice assistants on demand
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ precise GPS
+ decent voice quality
+ sharp camera pictures under good lighting conditions
+ hardly warms up
+ good speaker
+ good battery life

Cons

- backside susceptible to dirt
- microphone slightly distorted
- mediocre camera brightness under low-light conditions
- display has a blue tint

Verdict

In review: Motorola Moto X4. Review unit courtesy of Lenovo Germany.
In review: Motorola Moto X4. Review unit courtesy of Lenovo Germany.

Motorola has introduced a stylish, high-quality midrange smartphone to the market that surprises with several new ideas, as is common for Motorola: It is rather innovative that the user can create a Bluetooth sound system out of several speakers via 5 GHz Wi-Fi and that the user is supported by not one, but multiple voice assistants. However, the promised support for Alexa together with the app that was not pre-installed on our test device caused some confusion.

Fast Wi-Fi, reliable GPS, stable case, easy yet versatile controls, decent camera under good lighting conditions, adequate performance, good speaker, and battery runtimes suitable for everyday use. This is how the pros of this test device could be summarized, while the Moto X4 has only very few real cons: The display has a visible blue tint, the brightness of camera images taken under bad lighting conditions is mediocre and the manufacturer should be embarrassed by the fact that 6 months after the launch of Android Oreo, there are still devices released with the predecessor version.

The Motorola X4 is a good midrange device with numerous pros and several innovative ideas.

We can definitely pronounce a buying recommendation for the Moto X4. Users who use their smartphone to navigate regularly will be particularly happy with this device. Not only this, but also the numerous other pros would probably make Alexa say: "According to notebookcheck.com, the Motorola Moto X4 is a buying recommendation."

Motorola Moto X4 - 01/18/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Chassis
90%
Keyboard
68 / 75 → 91%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
47 / 60 → 78%
Weight
91%
Battery
93%
Display
84%
Games Performance
41 / 63 → 65%
Application Performance
54 / 70 → 77%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
75%
Average
76%
86%
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 X4 Smartphone Review
Florian Wimmer, 2018-01-25 (Update: 2019-03-25)