Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarMotorola One Vision Review: Cinema smartphone with a strong camera
While the Motorola One predecessor offered a solid performance in our test, it was not a real price-performance winner. Now, the Motorola One Vision successor wants to do better. The manufacturer took particular care with the display and the camera, but the performance and storage size were also improved. Previous virtues like the modest but sufficiently attractive design and Android One with its promise of updates were kept, just as the price was. So this should lead to a really good smartphone, shouldn't it?
Case - Simple and elegant
At first glance, there are visually only a few differences between the new Motorola One Vision and last year's model. Both models bet on modest visuals without frills, but what stands out most is the size difference. While the predecessor still had a 5.9-inch display in the 19:9 format, Motorola uses a 6.3-inch display with a 21:9 format in the new model. This makes the One Vision, which measures 160.1 x 71.2 x 8.7 mm (~6.3 x 2.8 x 0.34 in), significantly longer but also even slimmer than the predecessor.
The screen is not blemished by a wide notch at the top edge anymore. Instead, Motorola uses a punch hole in the top left corner of the One Vision, allowing the front camera to peek through. Although the round notch could have been slightly smaller, it does not interfere in everyday operation. Together with the bezels that are small for a mid-range smartphone, the Motorola One Vision looks fresh and modern.
Looking closer, there is a rounder design language compared to the predecessor. The Gorilla Glass 4 on the back is much more rounded towards the edges, which in combination with the smaller form factor makes it feel better in the hands. Our blue test unit scores with a neat depth effect and different blue color tones depending on the light angle. To protect against the typical slipperiness of glass smartphones and also against fingerprints, as always, Motorola includes a simple, clear plastic bumper case.
The main camera on the back no longer consists of two lenses, sticking out separately from the body; now there is a single dual combination. The fingerprint sensor on the back, which holds the Motorola "bat-wing" logo, was kept. The workmanship is excellent and the mid-range model gives a high-quality impression overall. An IP-52 certification means the device is protected against water splashes.
Equipment - A lot of storage and a hybrid slot
While the working memory has remained the same at 4 GB compared to the predecessor, we see some improvements in terms of the processor and internal storage. Surprisingly, Motorola does not use the Snapdragon chip from Qualcomm anymore but uses a Samsung chipset. The Exynos 9609 that is used has a clock speed of up to 2.2 GHz and offers clearly more performance than its predecessor. In order to be able to make use of that in current games, the manufacturer has now integrated 128 GB of internal storage, instead of 64 GB. This continues to be expandable, but since the microSD card slot is now a hybrid slot, you cannot use a second SIM card at the same time anymore.
Software - Android One with the promise of updates
For years, Motorola has been using almost unmodified Android – and the performance of its smartphones, although not always the frequency of the manufacturer updates, has benefited from that. Since the new One Vision uses Android 9 One, Google dictates two years of version updates and three years of current security patches, which is very nice. In addition to the typical Vanilla Android apps, as usual, the new model also offers its helpful small extensions that are called Moto Actions. These allow you for example to activate the flashlight function with a double hacking movement. There is no bloatware. The level of the security patches on our test unit is May 2019.
Communication and GPS - A significant jump in the connection speeds of the One Vision
In contrast to its predecessor, the Motorola One Vision also supports WLAN networks according to the ac standard in the 5-GHz band. Overall, the new model has improved significantly in terms of the WLAN speeds. It is much faster than the old One model, and now its communication speed is at eye level with those of the top models of its price range in the test with our Linksys EA8500 reference router.
The reception strength in the mobile net turned out very stable in our test. However, interested buyers cannot look forward to many LTE frequencies supported by the One Vision – at least not, if you travel around the world. But here (in Germany) or in the rest of Europe, there should not be any problems.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Motorola One | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=70, last 2 years) | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Motorola One | |
You should not expect any wonders in terms of the reception of GPS signals (A-GPS, Glonass, and Galileo), where the device ranges in the midfield. Outdoors, it behaves rather sluggishly before it finally finds a stable signal, but indoors the locating process fails.
In the comparison with our Garmin Edge 500 professional navigation device, the Motorola One Vision does very well. In some parts, you can even see on which side of the road we went in our test route. During everyday use, there should not be any complaints in terms of Google maps and other similar usage.
Telephone Functions and Voice Quality - No compromises anymore
As always with Motorola, Google's standard Telephone app, which leaves no questions unanswered, is also used in the new One Vision. During the conversation, the new model presents itself better than its predecessor. The voice of our conversation partner sounds less booming but is instead sufficiently clear and understandable. The volume is also relatively high. The same goes for the mono speaker, which produces more bass compared to the predecessor, without losing clarity and without distortions.
Cameras - Almost reference grade in the 300-Euro range
One of the highlights of the Motorola One Vision is the main camera. Not only does it offer an ample 48 megapixels with an aperture of f/1.7 and a quad pixel size of 1.6 µm, but it also offers an optical image stabilizer (OIS). With this, you should succeed in taking good images not only in daylight but also when there is little light. In reality this works quite well, considering the price of barely 300 Euros (~$339; about $360 in the US). At first glance, the image quality appears close to the top of the crop, such as the Samsung Galaxy S10+ or Huawei P30 Pro. Only a closer look reveals that some of the image sharpness or richness in detail is lacking.
During daylight, we really like the general sharpness, the balanced colors, and particularly the image dynamic. Thanks to Auto HDR, there are hardly any image areas that are drowned or burnt out. The results are 12-megapixel images (with four pixels being combined into a Super Pixel) that also make good prints, as long as you don't go overboard on the printing size. For night pictures, the Motorola One Vision is also convincing, however, you should select the night mode manually, since in the automatic mode, the image dynamic can produce overexposed image areas. Overall, we also noticed the auto-focus appearing a bit clueless at times – the user should therefore always check whether the focus is really adjusted correctly.
The front camera also offers a high pixel count: Here it is 25 megapixels with an f/1.8 aperture and also the quad-pixel technology. The result convinces. For a front camera, the pictures are surprisingly sharp and the image dynamic is decent. Videos also look good with both cameras, but 4K at 30 FPS is the limit. Due to the OIS, video-recordings also succeed when holding the smartphone in your unsupported hand. Thanks to the second main lens with 5 megapixels that is solely used to collect depth information, portraits with artificial bokeh also look fairly decent. As always, there are also some nice software gimmicks such as enhancing a particular color and Google Lens.
The test charts from the lab show the sufficient sharpness of the camera, but there is also some noticeable image noise in the details. Colors are recorded too bright overall.
Accessories and Warranty - Now also with a headset
In addition to the 18-watt charger and a USB cable, the box also includes a silicone case for the smartphone. A SIM tool to open the tray and earphones are also included.
The manufacturer offers 24 months of warranty for the smartphone. Google will update the software with security patches for three years and with operating system updates for two years.
Input Devices and Operation - Motorola One Vision with a good touchscreen
The touchscreen has very good sliding characteristics and is very responsive, including into the corners and edges. The preinstalled Gboard keyboard can be replaced without any trouble. The Moto app offers four expanded control options. For example, you can activate the flashlight by a hacking movement, and open up the camera app by rotating the phone twice. In addition, you can setup a single-key control and take screenshots with three fingers.
The fingerprint sensor on the back unlocked our test unit reliably, but there was always a slight delay until the display content appeared. Alternatively, you can use the front camera to unlock the smartphone via face recognition. However, as in most smartphones, this is not particularly secure or reliable. But this might not really make any difference in everyday operation, where the Motorola One Vision behaves inconspicuously and always delivers sufficient performance for smooth operation.
Display - Cinema screen format
The screen of the Motorola One Vision offers a resolution of 2530x1080 pixels in a diagonal of 6.3 inches, while the predecessor only offered HD. In addition, the screen of the One Vision is stretched out due to the 21:9 cinematic display format, which also offers advantages when surfing the Internet in portrait format. On the other hand, in landscape format this leads to annoying black bars on both sides in most YouTube videos that have the 16:9 format.
Overall, the display did very well in the test. The brightness was measured at 626 cd/m² and the reproduction of colors and grayscales turned out comfortably accurate. On the other hand, the brightness distribution was less than optimal and turned out rather mediocre at only 84%. In addition, the display did not appear as bright in everyday operation as in our measurements. This might also be due to the fact that the high brightness is only available in the center of the screen and the rest is in parts significantly darker. While this is less than optimal, it should be fine to a large extent in everyday operation.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 626 cd/m²
Contrast: 1527:1 (Black: 0.41 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.7 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 7.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.13
| Motorola One Vision IPS, 2520x1080, 6.30 | Motorola One IPS, 1520x720, 5.90 | Huawei P30 Lite IPS LCD, 2312x1080, 6.15 | Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.40 | Wiko View 3 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.30 | Oppo R17 Pro AMOLED on-cell, 2340x1080, 6.40 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 2% | 10% | 26% | -0% | ||
| Brightness middle | 626 | 467 -25% | 451 -28% | 644 3% | 459 -27% | |
| Brightness | 564 | 452 -20% | 430 -24% | 628 11% | 450 -20% | |
| Brightness Distribution | 84 | 87 4% | 90 7% | 91 8% | 90 7% | |
| Black Level * | 0.41 | 0.38 7% | 0.55 -34% | 0.39 5% | ||
| Contrast | 1527 | 1229 -20% | 820 -46% | 1177 -23% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.7 | 5.29 7% | 1.4 75% | 2.64 54% | 4.8 16% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.5 | 7.71 27% | 4.4 58% | 9.23 12% | 9.2 12% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.8 | 5 36% | 2.5 68% | 2.5 68% | 5.5 29% | |
| Gamma | 2.13 103% | 2.376 93% | 2.22 99% | 2.024 109% | 2.26 97% | |
| CCT | 8662 75% | 7583 86% | 6422 101% | 6649 98% | 7494 87% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| 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 19046 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Positive: We did not find any flickering when dimming the brightness, so the Motorola One Vision can also be recommended for those who are disturbed by flickering displays.
When using CalMAN software in the lab test we found an LCD-typical blue tint of the display. Otherwise, no negative points stood out.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 20.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13.2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 74 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.1 ms). | ||
Outdoors, the display can be read a little easier than that of the predecessor, but it is still not perfect. This is due to the brightness that is still slightly too low overall. On the other hand, the general viewing-angle stability is very good.
Performance - Ready for anything
We already mentioned Motorola's unusual choice for the processor of the One Vision: Instead of using a Qualcomm chip as usual, the manufacturer has turned to the Samsung Exynos 9609. Its eight cores have a clock speed of up to 2.2 GHz, which is 100 MHz less than the older Exynos 9610. The CPU and the Mali-G72-MP3 GPU ensure a decent mid-range performance, with which the One Vision does not need to hide behind the competition, depending on the benchmark. At least, the jump from the Motorola One is enormous.
| Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (1601 - 1605, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (783 - 8424, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (5273 - 5375, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 21505, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (4860 - 4866, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2053 - 14785, n=64, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (8188 - 8902, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (6578 - 6812, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (35 - 36, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (40 - 40, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (21 - 21, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (24 - 24, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (13 - 13, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (14 - 14, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Motorola One Vision | |
| Motorola One | |
| Huawei P30 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (139138 - 149757, n=2) | |
The same also goes for the browser benchmarks, where the One Vision is at times in front, but most of the time in the upper midfield. In everyday operation, everything runs fast and smoothly.
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (17.3 - 282, n=164, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (30.9 - 31.4, n=2) | |
| Motorola One Vision (Chrome) | |
| Oppo R17 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.3 - 375, n=153, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
| Motorola One Vision (Chrome) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (34 - 292, n=144, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola One Vision (Chrome) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (58 - 68, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Oppo R17 Pro | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo R17 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (9807 - 9809, n=2) | |
| Motorola One Vision (Chrome) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Motorola One (Chrome 69) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Motorola One (Chrome 69) | |
| Wiko View 3 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Motorola One Vision (Chrome) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9609 (4188 - 4216, n=2) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Oppo R17 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10031, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
After we had complained about the storage of the predecessor being too slow, Motorola now uses significantly faster chips in the One Vision. The values we measured point to older UFS storage, which is not common at all in the mid-range. In terms of the internal storage, the new mid-range smartphone places ahead of the comparison devices. In our test of the storage slot with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card, our test unit performs at eye level with the competitors.
| Motorola One Vision | Motorola One | Huawei P30 Lite | Samsung Galaxy A50 | Wiko View 3 Pro | Oppo R17 Pro | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -21% | -21% | -18% | -26% | -23% | -22% | 147% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 499.5 | 280.2 -44% | 293.2 -41% | 507 2% | 302.7 -39% | 489.9 -2% | 289 ? -42% | 1183 ? 137% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 192.2 | 214.9 12% | 158.6 -17% | 192.1 0% | 171.6 -11% | 191.6 0% | 193.5 ? 1% | 743 ? 287% |
| Random Read 4KB | 108.2 | 61.9 -43% | 71.6 -34% | 98.9 -9% | 89.7 -17% | 102.4 -5% | 82.7 ? -24% | 208 ? 92% |
| Random Write 4KB | 126.6 | 69.1 -45% | 87.3 -31% | 18.2 -86% | 31.2 -75% | 20.98 -83% | 53 ? -58% | 217 ? 71% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 78.1 ? | 80.8 ? 3% | 76.8 ? -2% | 73.9 ? -5% | 77.4 ? -1% | 78.1 ? 0% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 68.8 ? | 60.9 ? -11% | 67.8 ? -1% | 60.7 ? -12% | 60.5 ? -12% | 61.8 ? -10% |
Games - Also for gamers in landscape format
The modern mid-range SoC allows effortless gaming on the Motorola One Vision. We did not encounter any games that just did not want to run, as was the case on the predecessor. We took a closer look at this with GameBench. Top games such as Asphalt 9 did not always run smoothly in the test. Thanks to the accurate touchscreen, there were no problems at all controlling the games.
PUBG (high settings)
Asphalt 9 (high settings)
Emissions - The Moto One with a good mono speaker
Temperature - Warming remains limited
Although you notice some significant warming of the Motorola One Vision under load, the Moto phone never becomes annoyingly or dangerously hot in everyday operation. During the test, the smartphone remained below 40 °C (104 °F) with an even temperature distribution to a large extent. We did not notice any throttling of the processor after longer peak load, and even after 30 runs of GFXBench Manhattan, the performance remained mostly stable.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.7 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.8 °C / 93 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
The Motorola One Vision has a single mono speaker on the bottom edge. However, it sounds fairly loud, hardly distorts even at maximum volume, and it delivers a pleasant, fairly warm sound. The low mids are still easily audible and the highs are not too overemphasized. The maximum volume is also impressive. The 3.5-mm audio port produces a clean sound, even with the included headset, and the sound output via Bluetooth 5.0 produces similar results.
Motorola One Vision audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Motorola One audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Battery Life - Sufficient but not outstanding
Power Consumption
Despite the modern processor, the Motorola One Vision does not deliver top values in terms of the power consumption. Compared to the chip in the Motorola One predecessor that is almost four years old, on average the power consumption is lower under load and during standby. This probably also explains why the new model only achieves a similar battery life as the predecessor despite the significantly larger battery.
| Off / Standby |   0.03 / 0.32 Watt |
| Idle |  0.75 / 2.14 / 2.27 Watt |
| Load |
4.36 / 6.48 Watt |
    
| |
| Motorola One Vision 3500 mAh | Motorola One 3000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Wiko View 3 Pro 4000 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9609 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 10% | -13% | -3% | 17% | -7% | 6% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.75 | 1 -33% | 0.91 -21% | 0.8 -7% | 0.77 -3% | 0.745 ? 1% | 0.883 ? -18% |
| Idle Average * | 2.14 | 1.6 25% | 2.41 -13% | 1.5 30% | 1.79 16% | 2.13 ? -0% | 1.487 ? 31% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.27 | 2 12% | 2.43 -7% | 1.7 25% | 1.86 18% | 2.26 ? -0% | 1.701 ? 25% |
| Load Average * | 4.36 | 3.3 24% | 4.57 -5% | 5.9 -35% | 2.74 37% | 5.06 ? -16% | 4.26 ? 2% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.48 | 5.1 21% | 7.57 -17% | 8.3 -28% | 5.53 15% | 7.71 ? -19% | 7.1 ? -10% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
Accordingly, the new model should last through a workday just as well as the predecessor. However, you might want to think about recharging it in the evening, if you weren't able to do that during the day. It takes less than two hours to completely recharge the smartphone. Wireless charging is not supported.
| Motorola One Vision 3500 mAh | Motorola One 3000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Wiko View 3 Pro 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -6% | -34% | -10% | 14% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 778 | 735 -6% | 515 -34% | 701 -10% | 886 14% |
| Reader / Idle | 1652 | 1248 | 1587 | ||
| H.264 | 769 | 685 | 869 | ||
| Load | 268 | 198 | 275 |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - The Motorola One Vision is great!
The Motorola One Vision is an all-round successful smartphone at a relatively low price. The display is great, and with its elongated form factor, the model fits well into the hand. The design should not give any reason for complaint either, and the camera is so good that in some situations even significantly more expensive smartphones cannot clearly differentiate themselves anymore.
The Motorola One Vision is the price-performance winner for camera fans.
The battery life is okay, even if the actual runtime does not quite keep the promises indicated by the large battery. Due to Android One, the user interface is slim, and there will be at least one upgrade to Android 10, thanks to the update promise from Google. In combination with a lot of storage and a decent amount of performance, currently you cannot go wrong with the Motorola One Vision.
Motorola One Vision
-
11/04/2019 v7
Stefan Schomberg
Pricecompare
