Notebookcheck

Motorola Razr 2019 Smartphone Review – Foldable Phone with Retro Charm

And... cut! With the new Motorola Razr, a legendary name is once again the center of attention: The Razr 2019 is a smartphone with a foldable display. In our review, we will determine how it performs during daily use and whether the concept is suitable for long-term use.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Marius S.),
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019

Those who didn't have it in the 2000s at least knew someone who had it: The Motorola Razr, a legendary flip phone with an extremely slim construction and a sleek design that turned it into a classic. Now, Motorola is trying to build upon this well-established name to enter the market of foldable phones and more specifically phones with a foldable display. Thus, we are now testing the Motorola Razr 2019, which is indeed reminiscent of the manufacturer's ancestral Razr phones.

The smartphone costs almost 1500 Euros ($1500 in the US) and it comes with a few peculiarities: It can only be used with an eSIM, the specs are mid-range level, there is only a single-camera, and the battery is relatively small. Does the foldable display make up for the expensive price and lean specifications? Let's find out.

Motorola Razr 2019 (RAZR Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 360
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.2 inch 22:9, 2142 x 876 pixel 373 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, P-OLED, Secondary display: 2.7", 800x600 pixels, OLED, capacitive touchscreen, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 113 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: audio output via USB Type-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B13/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B66) , LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 6.9 x 172 x 72 ( = 0.27 x 6.77 x 2.83 in)
Battery
2510 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/​1.7, phase detection AF (dual pixel), laser AF, dual LED flash, video @2160p/​30FPS
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/​2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Quick charger, USB cable, headset, 3.5-mm adapter, stand, 24 Months Warranty, eSIM only; LTE-Speed 800 Mb/s (download)/ 150 Mb/s (upload); SAR value: 0.289 W/kg (head), 0.971 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
205 g ( = 7.23 oz / 0.45 pounds), Power Supply: 79 g ( = 2.79 oz / 0.17 pounds)
Price
1499 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Competing Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
76 %
06/2020
Motorola Razr 2019
SD 710, Adreno 616
205 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.2"2142x876
86 %
10/2019
Samsung Galaxy Fold
SD 855, Adreno 640
276 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash7.3"2152x1536
82 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
SD 855+, Adreno 640
183 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"2636x1080
82 %
04/2020
Huawei Mate Xs
Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16
300 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash8"2480x2200
84 %
11/2019
LG G8X ThinQ
SD 855, Adreno 640
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080

Case – Foldable Phone with a Secondary Display

Motorola has put a lot of effort into creating a good unboxing experience: The Motorola Razr 2019 is delivered in a plastic prism with a glass top. On the inside, a stand holds the smartphone in an upright position.

While Motorola tries to create a high-quality impression with the box, the Razr phone itself mainly consists of plastic, which does not result in a particularly premium look and feel. In Central Europe, the only available color variant is black, whereas the international version also comes in gold. When folded, the smartphone itself measures 72 x 94 x 14 mm (~2.8 x 3.7 x 0.55 in) and although the 14-mm (~0.55 in) hump on the bottom of the display, which appears to contain the battery, retains its original position when the phone is opened, Motorola has not included it in the official dimensions.

Since the Motorola Razr 2019 is opened vertically, its display is relatively narrow and long, as opposed to the tablet form factor of the Samsung Galaxy Fold. The hinge consists of two visible, interlocking cogs for a mechanism that can be observed when folding the phone. Unfortunately, folding the smartphone is not as easy as it should be and on top of that, there are uncomfortable crunching noises, which do not inspire confidence in the longevity of the foldable display.

There are already reports from users and stress tests on the internet that put the long-term durability of the display into question. However, Motorola disputes these claims. While we are unable to provide long-term results, since we will have to return our test device, there were no issues during our test period.

Although it weighs 205 g (~7.23 oz) and thus slightly more than the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip, the smartphone is generally easy to handle.

Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019
Motorola Razr 2019

Size Comparison

172 mm / 6.77 inch 72 mm / 2.83 inch 6.9 mm / 0.2717 inch 205 g0.4519 lbs167.3 mm / 6.59 inch 73.6 mm / 2.9 inch 7.2 mm / 0.2835 inch 183 g0.4034 lbs161.3 mm / 6.35 inch 146.2 mm / 5.76 inch 11 mm / 0.4331 inch 300 g0.661 lbs160.9 mm / 6.33 inch 117.9 mm / 4.64 inch 6.9 mm / 0.2717 inch 276 g0.608 lbs159.3 mm / 6.27 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs

Features – Insufficient for the Price

Compromises will have to be made when it comes to the features. 128 GB of internal storage with no option for storage expansion via microSD for 1500 Euros ($1500) is disappointing. In fact, there are no card slots at all and even the SIM compatibility is limited to eSIM only, which is why everyone with a physical SIM will have to obtain an eSIM from their carrier.

At least, there is a USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-C port and although it also serves as the only audio output, Motorola has included a 3.5-mm adapter. With Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC, the wireless interfaces are fairly up-to-date.

Bottom: Microphone, USB Type-C, speaker
Bottom: Microphone, USB Type-C, speaker
Top: No connectivity
Top: No connectivity
Left: No connectivity
Left: No connectivity
Right: Volume rocker, standby button
Right: Volume rocker, standby button

Software – No Ads

As per usual, the Motorola phone ships with a relatively pure Android 10, but there are already two updates available after first starting the device. The security patches on our test device date back to April 2020 and while this is barely acceptable, a smartphone this expensive demands more up-to-date security in the very near future.

There is no bloatware and instead, only Motorola's own applications have been preinstalled to explain certain features of the Razr 2019 or to provide access to additional settings.

Software Motorola Razr 2019
Software Motorola Razr 2019
Software Motorola Razr 2019

Communication and GPS – Wi-Fi 5 with Appropriate Speeds

The LTE modem reaches up to 800 Mb/s when downloading files and while it supports a lot of frequencies, it is probably still insufficient for globetrotters.

The Wi-Fi module only supports Wi-Fi 5 speeds, which is standard for mid-range smartphones and we would have liked to see at least Wi-Fi 6 support on a smartphone with an MSRP of 1499 Euros ($1499). While the transfer speeds match our expectations for Wi-Fi 5 devices, occasional dips are noticeable.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate Xs
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
963 (min: 471, max: 1110) MBit/s ∼100% +69%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Adreno 640, SD 855, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
662 (min: 623, max: 679) MBit/s ∼69% +16%
LG G8X ThinQ
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 (min: 539, max: 678) MBit/s ∼68% +14%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
605 (min: 299, max: 640) MBit/s ∼63% +6%
Motorola Razr 2019
Adreno 616, SD 710, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
569 (min: 236, max: 657) MBit/s ∼59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=562)
267 MBit/s ∼28% -53%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Motorola Razr 2019
Adreno 616, SD 710, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
619 (min: 447, max: 657) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Adreno 640, SD 855, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
576 (min: 544, max: 601) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Huawei Mate Xs
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
542 (min: 479, max: 631) MBit/s ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
474 (min: 405, max: 541) MBit/s ∼77% -23%
LG G8X ThinQ
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
343 (min: 290, max: 411) MBit/s ∼55% -45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=562)
253 MBit/s ∼41% -59%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø568 (236-657)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø619 (447-657)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

Outdoors, our test device quickly locates us with an accuracy of within 3 meters (~10 ft). To achieve this, it can connect to various satellite networks.

Since the locating capabilities of the Motorola Razr are very solid apart from a few minor deviations and inaccuracies, we recommend it to users who are looking for a smartphone with relatively precise geolocation.

Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
Motorola Razr 2019 – Overview
Motorola Razr 2019 – Overview
Motorola Razr 2019 – Turn
Motorola Razr 2019 – Turn
Motorola Razr 2019 – Bridge
Motorola Razr 2019 – Bridge

Telephony and Call Quality – Noticeable Ambient Noise

The Razr uses Google's default Android telephony app. The SoC supports both VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling.

The call quality is mediocre: There is noticeable static and ambient noise on both ends of the line. Similarly, the voice of our conversational partner is not very distinct and our voice does not come across as rich and natural when using the speakerphone and the hands-free microphone.

Cameras – Razr with Few Lenses

Front camera picture
Front camera picture

A lot has changed for the camera of the new Motorola Razr: The main camera consists of just one lens on the flip top that doubles as a selfie camera when the phone is closed. However, there is still a dedicated selfie camera on the inside.

The main camera has a resolution of 16 megapixels and although it produces pictures with rich colors, it appears to have difficulty focusing objects. In low-light conditions with a high dynamic range, details remain discernible even in darker areas, although their sharpness suffers as well. The camera quality would be more appropriate for a smartphone that costs 1000 Euros less.

While it is possible to record 4K video, the recordings are limited to 30 FPS. Although the exposure is good, adjustments to changing conditions occur in noticeable steps. The quality of the results is decent overall.

The dedicated front camera at the top of the display has a resolution of just 5 megapixels and there is once again room for improvement in terms of the 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

The main camera has to prove itself once more in our lab, which shows the color representation to be fairly accurate in good lighting and even in poor lighting, part of the image can still be made out. However, the picture of our test chart lacks sharpness and colors appear relatively pale.

ColorChecker
28.1 ∆E
49 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
35.2 ∆E
41.8 ∆E
58.3 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
32.3 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
26.2 ∆E
59.8 ∆E
60.9 ∆E
28.4 ∆E
46 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
68.7 ∆E
39.3 ∆E
43.2 ∆E
70.4 ∆E
66.4 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
23.5 ∆E
13 ∆E
ColorChecker Motorola Razr 2019: 43.06 ∆E min: 12.99 - max: 70.36 ∆E
ColorChecker
10.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
14.2 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
8 ∆E
ColorChecker Motorola Razr 2019: 8.56 ∆E min: 4.15 - max: 14.15 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty – Sleek Extras

The accessories can be stored in an elegant triangular box. Motorola has included a quick charger, a nice-looking, braided USB Type-C cable and a USB Type-C headset with a matching design. There is also a USB Type-C to 3.5 mm jack adapter in the box, which is good to see. Furthermore, the stand which the Motorola Razr ships in is not just visually appealing, but it is also supposed to enhance the audio experience of the speakers. Does it work and if so, how well? More on that in the speaker's chapter.

Motorola offers its customers a 24-month warranty.

Input Devices & Handling – Stand-alone Fingerprint Sensor

Using the touchscreen is a pleasant experience, although the plastic surface does not exhibit the same premium feel as glass and there is some unevenness around the hinge area. Thankfully, this barely has an effect during use. The outer display is also precise and a swiping to the right activates the main camera for selfies. Additionally, most important settings can be adjusted directly from the outer display and it of course also displays new messages.

Since the buttons on the right are fairly small, the ribbed texture of the standby button comes in handy and it allows users to more easily identify it by touch, whereas the volume buttons are harder to find.

The fingerprint sensor is located below the display on the hump. While it unlocks the smartphone quickly and precisely, its position is not ideal, since you may need to change your grip to reach it.

Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard landscape mode
Keyboard landscape mode

Display – Dim Screen

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

Due to its folding mechanism, the Motorola Razr offers two displays: The main display has an unusual resolution of 2142x876 pixels, which is not particularly high. Thus, the width slightly misses the Full HD mark and while the aspect ratio is suitable for cinemascope content in the 21:9 format, there are fairly wide black bars on the sides during the playback of normal 16:9 content. The display type is P-OLED.

With an average of 428 cd/m², the maximum brightness is very low compared to other flip phones and generally lackluster.

The secondary display on the front is also an OLED display and offers a resolution of 800x600 pixels and support for touch inputs to control basic smartphone settings.

403
cd/m²
432
cd/m²
453
cd/m²
404
cd/m²
428
cd/m²
453
cd/m²
405
cd/m²
428
cd/m²
448
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 453 cd/m² Average: 428.2 cd/m² Minimum: 3.28 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 428 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.39 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Motorola Razr 2019
P-OLED, 2142x876, 6.2
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Infinity Flex-Display (Dynamic AMOLED, 7,3") und Super AMOLED (4,6"), 2152x1536, 7.3
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Dynamic AMOLED, 2636x1080, 6.7
Huawei Mate Xs
OLED, 2480x2200, 8
LG G8X ThinQ
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Screen
43%
48%
26%
11%
Brightness middle
428
531
24%
705
65%
417
-3%
570
33%
Brightness
428
532
24%
709
66%
418
-2%
581
36%
Brightness Distribution
89
97
9%
97
9%
99
11%
90
1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.39
2.3
64%
3.1
51%
2.6
59%
6.27
2%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.83
3.7
66%
5.4
50%
7.7
29%
9.75
10%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5
1.5
70%
2.7
46%
2
60%
5.7
-14%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.15 102%
2.11 104%
2.31 95%
2.37 93%
CCT
7649 85%
6631 98%
6264 104%
6276 104%
7309 89%

* ... 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 231.5 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 231.5 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 231.5 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17927 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Our advanced display tests with our spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software reveal relatively high deviations in terms of the color accuracy. Well-saturated colors in particular are displayed inaccurately. The grayscale suffers from a blue tint. There are three preset color profiles.

PWM flickering, which commonly occurs on OLED panels, can be observed across almost all brightness levels. While a frequency of 231.5 Hz falls within the usual range, sensitive users would be well-advised to test the screen themselves in order to determine whether the flickering causes headaches. The response times are fast.

CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN saturation sweeps
CalMAN saturation sweeps

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
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 4 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39 ms).

Even on overcast days, it becomes difficult to discern the screen content. On sunny days, users will want to at least stick to the shade.

When looking at the display from the side or from a steep angle, the picture still remains clear and mostly undistorted.

Outdoor use
Outdoor use
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance – Only Mid-range

Since the Snapdragon 710 SoC can usually be found in upper mid-range offerings, it is an odd choice for such an expensive smartphone. A glance at the system and processor performance shows that the Motorola Razr 2019 cannot match other foldable smartphones in terms of performance. The system is responsive during daily use and the difference should only become noticeable more demanding apps.

While the graphics performance of the Motorola Razr also falls short of its competitors, the frame rates in the onscreen tests are at least decent due to the fairly low resolution of the screen.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
634 Points ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2096 Points ∼76% +231%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
2757 Points ∼100% +335%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (634 - 694, n=2)
664 Points ∼24% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=66)
1633 Points ∼59% +158%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
838 Points ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2365 Points ∼66% +182%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3600 Points ∼100% +330%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (833 - 838, n=2)
836 Points ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (272 - 4739, n=61)
1759 Points ∼49% +110%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1448 Points ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2665 Points ∼90% +84%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
2972 Points ∼100% +105%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1448 - 1508, n=2)
1478 Points ∼50% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (445 - 3531, n=90)
1990 Points ∼67% +37%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
394 Points ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
738 Points ∼96% +87%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
766 Points ∼100% +94%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (392 - 394, n=2)
393 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=90)
568 Points ∼74% +44%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
7460 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9655 Points ∼94% +29%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10261 Points ∼100% +38%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
8512 Points ∼83% +14%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9259 Points ∼90% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (6453 - 7460, n=6)
6824 Points ∼67% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=491)
5840 Points ∼57% -22%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
9345 Points ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
12276 Points ∼97% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12665 Points ∼100% +36%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10628 Points ∼84% +14%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
11795 Points ∼93% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (7041 - 9345, n=6)
8137 Points ∼64% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=649)
6378 Points ∼50% -32%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2406 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
3228 Points ∼89% +34%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3259 Points ∼90% +35%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3638 Points ∼100% +51%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3128 Points ∼86% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2129 - 2406, n=3)
2291 Points ∼63% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4057, n=150)
2637 Points ∼72% +10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1635 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5884 Points ∼100% +260%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4250 Points ∼72% +160%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4046 Points ∼69% +147%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5733 Points ∼97% +251%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1579 - 1635, n=3)
1615 Points ∼27% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=150)
2915 Points ∼50% +78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1760 Points ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4974 Points ∼100% +183%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3981 Points ∼80% +126%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3948 Points ∼79% +124%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4838 Points ∼97% +175%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1675 - 1760, n=3)
1727 Points ∼35% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6644, n=150)
2627 Points ∼53% +49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2720 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4336 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4348 Points ∼100% +60%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
2497 Points ∼57% -8%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3866 Points ∼89% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1840 - 2720, n=6)
2330 Points ∼54% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=497)
2178 Points ∼50% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1866 Points ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7114 Points ∼100% +281%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5424 Points ∼76% +191%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5672 Points ∼80% +204%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6857 Points ∼96% +267%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1842 - 1875, n=6)
1860 Points ∼26% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=497)
2077 Points ∼29% +11%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2006 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6227 Points ∼100% +210%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5141 Points ∼83% +156%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4422 Points ∼71% +120%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5851 Points ∼94% +192%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1867 - 2006, n=6)
1941 Points ∼31% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=498)
1929 Points ∼31% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2634 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4228 Points ∼87% +61%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4344 Points ∼90% +65%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4836 Points ∼100% +84%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3308 Points ∼68% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1862 - 2634, n=6)
2362 Points ∼49% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=527)
2087 Points ∼43% -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2931 Points ∼30%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9489 Points ∼98% +224%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7751 Points ∼80% +164%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4064 Points ∼42% +39%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9724 Points ∼100% +232%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2841 - 2931, n=6)
2875 Points ∼30% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=527)
2766 Points ∼28% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2859 Points ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7434 Points ∼100% +160%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6601 Points ∼89% +131%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4213 Points ∼57% +47%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6795 Points ∼91% +138%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2544 - 2859, n=6)
2736 Points ∼37% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=527)
2325 Points ∼31% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2847 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4250 Points ∼96% +49%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4201 Points ∼95% +48%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4305 Points ∼97% +51%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4429 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2054 - 2847, n=6)
2457 Points ∼55% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=577)
2064 Points ∼47% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1764 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6350 Points ∼100% +260%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6314 Points ∼99% +258%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6265 Points ∼99% +255%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6275 Points ∼99% +256%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1698 - 1764, n=6)
1716 Points ∼27% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=577)
1737 Points ∼27% -2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1927 Points ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5722 Points ∼100% +197%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5679 Points ∼99% +195%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5689 Points ∼99% +195%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5743 Points ∼100% +198%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1774 - 1927, n=6)
1837 Points ∼32% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=578)
1660 Points ∼29% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2780 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4019 Points ∼96% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4133 Points ∼99% +49%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4192 Points ∼100% +51%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3260 Points ∼78% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1878 - 2780, n=6)
2410 Points ∼57% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=619)
1927 Points ∼46% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2857 Points ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9918 Points ∼100% +247%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9480 Points ∼96% +232%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4044 Points ∼41% +42%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9806 Points ∼99% +243%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2725 - 2857, n=6)
2767 Points ∼28% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=618)
2281 Points ∼23% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2840 Points ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7479 Points ∼100% +163%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7363 Points ∼98% +159%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4076 Points ∼54% +44%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6780 Points ∼91% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2490 - 2840, n=6)
2670 Points ∼36% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=621)
1965 Points ∼26% -31%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
18181 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
30743 Points ∼73% +69%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
42240 Points ∼100% +132%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
24989 Points ∼59% +37%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
31384 Points ∼74% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13595 - 18181, n=6)
14925 Points ∼35% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=767)
15269 Points ∼36% -16%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
40461 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
106066 Points ∼98% +162%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
108418 Points ∼100% +168%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60860 Points ∼56% +50%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
103509 Points ∼95% +156%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (37157 - 40461, n=6)
39183 Points ∼36% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=765)
25945 Points ∼24% -36%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
31801 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
68675 Points ∼85% +116%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
80419 Points ∼100% +153%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
46141 Points ∼57% +45%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
68517 Points ∼85% +115%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (26967 - 31801, n=6)
28731 Points ∼36% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=765)
20395 Points ∼25% -36%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
65 fps ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
115 fps ∼69% +77%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
166 fps ∼100% +155%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
139 fps ∼84% +114%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
151 fps ∼91% +132%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (56 - 65, n=6)
63.5 fps ∼38% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=773)
43.9 fps ∼26% -32%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
57 fps ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
60 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
58 fps ∼97% +2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (54 - 65, n=6)
57.3 fps ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=782)
30.5 fps ∼51% -46%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
32 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
90 fps ∼100% +181%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
73 fps ∼81% +128%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
81 fps ∼90% +153%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
85 fps ∼94% +166%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (32 - 33, n=6)
32.3 fps ∼36% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=678)
25.9 fps ∼29% -19%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
40 fps ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
58 fps ∼97% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
56 fps ∼93% +40%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
47 fps ∼78% +18%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (20 - 40, n=6)
29.7 fps ∼50% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=686)
21.8 fps ∼36% -45%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
23 fps ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
62 fps ∼100% +170%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
51 fps ∼82% +122%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
51 fps ∼82% +122%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51 fps ∼82% +122%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (23 - 23, n=6)
23 fps ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=541)
20.8 fps ∼34% -10%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
30 fps ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
46 fps ∼100% +53%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼89% +37%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
26 fps ∼57% -13%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼78% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (19 - 30, n=6)
22.3 fps ∼48% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=543)
19 fps ∼41% -37%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
11 fps ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
21 fps ∼46% +91%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
34 fps ∼74% +209%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
46 fps ∼100% +318%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25 fps ∼54% +127%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (5.9 - 11, n=6)
8.03 fps ∼17% -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=290)
11.2 fps ∼24% +2%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
5.2 fps ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
17 fps ∼25% +227%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
39 fps ∼57% +650%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
68 fps ∼100% +1208%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼24% +208%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (4.9 - 7.8, n=6)
5.53 fps ∼8% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=288)
8.03 fps ∼12% +54%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
17 fps ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
32 fps ∼53% +88%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
23 fps ∼38% +35%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +253%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼63% +124%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (11 - 17, n=6)
13 fps ∼22% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=294)
16.6 fps ∼28% -2%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
14 fps ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼25% +200%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
16 fps ∼10% +14%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
165 fps ∼100% +1079%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼25% +200%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13 - 14, n=6)
13.8 fps ∼8% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=293)
19.3 fps ∼12% +38%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
13 fps ∼31%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼100% +223%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
31 fps ∼74% +138%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
32 fps ∼76% +146%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼86% +177%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13 - 13, n=6)
13 fps ∼31% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=466)
14 fps ∼33% +8%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
16 fps ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
32 fps ∼97% +100%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
25 fps ∼76% +56%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
17 fps ∼52% +6%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33 fps ∼100% +106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (11 - 16, n=6)
12.7 fps ∼38% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=470)
12.5 fps ∼38% -22%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
205722 Points ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
463291 Points ∼98% +125%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
470692 Points ∼100% +129%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
418779 Points ∼89% +104%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (172068 - 205722, n=2)
188895 Points ∼40% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=95)
314806 Points ∼67% +53%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1307 Points ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
1317 Points ∼91% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1446 Points ∼100% +11%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
950 Points ∼66% -27%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1256 Points ∼87% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1070 - 1307, n=6)
1140 Points ∼79% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=710)
808 Points ∼56% -38%
Graphics (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
3112 Points ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9510 Points ∼100% +206%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9334 Points ∼98% +200%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
8570 Points ∼90% +175%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9339 Points ∼98% +200%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2906 - 3112, n=6)
3060 Points ∼32% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=710)
2431 Points ∼26% -22%
Memory (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
3368 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4945 Points ∼77% +47%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5434 Points ∼84% +61%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6453 Points ∼100% +92%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5140 Points ∼80% +53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2872 - 3575, n=6)
3138 Points ∼49% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=710)
1810 Points ∼28% -46%
System (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
5678 Points ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
8825 Points ∼97% +55%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8507 Points ∼93% +50%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
8823 Points ∼97% +55%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9113 Points ∼100% +60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (5603 - 5813, n=6)
5698 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=710)
3379 Points ∼37% -40%
Overall (sort by value)
Motorola Razr 2019
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2970 Points ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4835 Points ∼97% +63%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4998 Points ∼100% +68%
Huawei Mate Xs
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4640 Points ∼93% +56%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4841 Points ∼97% +63%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2731 - 2970, n=6)
2808 Points ∼56% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=710)
1719 Points ∼34% -42%

The Motorola Razr cannot match other foldable smartphones when it comes to web browsing speed, where it places near the bottom in all of our benchmarks. The device is still fast enough for daily browsing, although there are minor delays when scrolling the page or when new images are being loaded - here, the advantages of faster devices become most apparent.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
63.096 Points ∼100% +64%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
63.087 Points ∼100% +64%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
55.781 Points ∼88% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samung Browser 10.1)
53.761 Points ∼85% +40%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=172)
40.2 Points ∼64% +4%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chrome 83)
38.507 Points ∼61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (29 - 38.5, n=3)
34.7 Points ∼55% -10%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
113.88 Points ∼100% +110%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
113.68 Points ∼100% +110%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
106.73 Points ∼94% +97%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
103.59 Points ∼91% +91%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (50.5 - 66.6, n=6)
61.4 Points ∼54% +13%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chrome 83)
54.208 Points ∼48%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=601)
46.4 Points ∼41% -14%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
LG G8X ThinQ (Chome 78)
66.8 runs/min ∼100% +130%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
63.1 runs/min ∼94% +118%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
62.5 runs/min ∼94% +116%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
61.5 runs/min ∼92% +112%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=156)
43.1 runs/min ∼65% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (29 - 38.7, n=3)
34.8 runs/min ∼52% +20%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chome 83)
29 runs/min ∼43%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
129 Points ∼100% +126%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
98 Points ∼76% +72%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
98 Points ∼76% +72%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
90 Points ∼70% +58%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=237)
69.9 Points ∼54% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (57 - 72, n=6)
66.2 Points ∼51% +16%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chrome 83)
57 Points ∼44%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
24128 Points ∼100% +147%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
23781 Points ∼99% +143%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
23506 Points ∼97% +141%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
20917 Points ∼87% +114%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (9771 - 12802, n=6)
11817 Points ∼49% +21%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chrome 83)
9771 Points ∼40%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=768)
7701 Points ∼32% -21%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=794)
9883 ms * ∼100% -178%
Motorola Razr 2019 (Chrome 83)
3557.6 ms * ∼36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (3035 - 3800, n=6)
3370 ms * ∼34% +5%
Huawei Mate Xs (Huawei Browser 10.1)
2219.3 ms * ∼22% +38%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
2201.2 ms * ∼22% +38%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
2076.8 ms * ∼21% +42%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
2002.8 ms * ∼20% +44%

* ... smaller is better

The UFS 2.0 storage is not just somewhat small, but also slower than that of other smartphones and of course far too slow for the price category of the Motorola Razr 2019. While there is no stuttering during day-to-day use, the loading times tend to be significantly longer than with other smartphones.

Motorola Razr 2019Samsung Galaxy FoldSamsung Galaxy Z FlipHuawei Mate XsLG G8X ThinQAverage 128 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
72%
160%
179%
56%
8%
-41%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
72.05 (Nano Memory Card)
47.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
54 (28.6 - 70.2, n=15)
50.7 (1.7 - 87.1, n=509)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
82.56 (Nano Memory Card)
68.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
69.7 (30.2 - 86, n=15)
68.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=509)
Random Write 4KB
80.1
34.41
-57%
212.87
166%
259.08
223%
30.2
-62%
76.2 (13.5 - 180, n=20)
-5%
33.2 (0.14 - 319, n=857)
-59%
Random Read 4KB
88.6
158.38
79%
184.51
108%
202.85
129%
160.5
81%
122 (88.4 - 173, n=20)
38%
57.2 (1.59 - 324, n=857)
-35%
Sequential Write 256KB
186.4
394.51
112%
523.39
181%
402.67
116%
497.1
167%
192 (143 - 257, n=20)
3%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=857)
-35%
Sequential Read 256KB
510.2
1302.76
155%
1442.56
183%
1766.63
246%
704.8
38%
494 (409 - 733, n=20)
-3%
330 (12.1 - 1802, n=857)
-35%

Gaming – 30-FPS Gaming on the Razr

Although it is possible to game on the new Motorola Razr, users should not expect 60 FPS in current titles. In "Asphalt 9", it maintains a stead 30 FPS and the same holds true for "PUBG Mobile" at only slightly reduced quality settings, whereas the frame rate can be less consistent in other cases. Furthermore, the loading times are considerable, which probably stems from the slow storage.

While the small height of the screen can result in some fairly small control elements in landscape mode, the gyroscope and touchscreen controls generally work well.

Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
010203040Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 0.18.0: Ø29.9 (27-31)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 0.18.0: Ø29.7 (25-32)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 2.2.2a: Ø27.4 (19-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 2.2.2a: Ø29.8 (22-31)

Emissions – Moto Razr Throttles

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

The heat distribution is as unusual as the foldable screen concept may presently appear: Since most of the components seem to occupy the bump on the bottom edge of the smartphone, this is the only area with noticeable heat development. While the rise in temperature can be felt under load, the smartphone does not become uncomfortably hot.

The new Razr suffers from throttling: Due to the small case, the SoC cannot be cooled as effectively, resulting in performance dips after prolonged load in the form of the GFXBench battery test: After running the benchmark 30 times, the performance drops by 40%. Thus, users will not be able to reliably access the full power of the smartphone after prolonged intensive use.

Max. Load
 27.2 °C
81 F
31.4 °C
89 F
43.5 °C
110 F
 
 26.8 °C
80 F
33.3 °C
92 F
43.4 °C
110 F
 
 27.2 °C
81 F
34.1 °C
93 F
42 °C
108 F
 
Maximum: 43.5 °C = 110 F
Average: 34.3 °C = 94 F
40.3 °C
105 F
32.3 °C
90 F
26.6 °C
80 F
40.6 °C
105 F
33.8 °C
93 F
26.2 °C
79 F
41.4 °C
107 F
33.2 °C
92 F
26.6 °C
80 F
Maximum: 41.4 °C = 107 F
Average: 34.6 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  43.2 °C = 110 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.3 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.5 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.4 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.

Speaker

Speaker test pink noise
Speaker test pink noise

The mono speaker on the bottom edge has been nicely integrated into the design of the bottom edge: Even though the USB Type-C port is completely surrounded by a speaker grille, the speaker itself is located on the right. The sound quality is decent, warm and well-balanced. Although the stand that comes with the smartphone supposedly enhances the sound, the speaker sounds richer and more present without it.

External audio devices can be connected via USB Type-C or, with the included adapter, via 3.5-mm jack. Both solutions offer a clear audio experience. Additionally, devices can be paired via Bluetooth without much difficulty, which also results in good audio output.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2043.838.3254138.13133.234.14033.4345036.134.96329.431.28027.525.310025.724.312521.230.816020.441.720019.24525018.246.831517.652.34001757.550017.762.263018.261.480016.765.410001770.4125015.268.316001666.7200015.368.4250015.769315015.363.6400015.858.5500016.26663001671.8800016.1751000016.771.41250016.564.41600016.769.9SPL59.828.580.6N12.41.147.1median 16.7median 64.4Delta18.432.432.230.727.126.424.124.233.529.232.221.825.919.421.922.621.51926.818.444.717.148.516.654.718.357.814.858.815.66315.263.414.466.114.169.414.470.713.372.113.774.614.276.214.676.114.478.914.677.114.973.514.774.514.973.414.969.115.560.526.786.40.864.1median 14.9median 69.11.410.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMotorola Razr 2019Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Motorola Razr 2019 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 43% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Energy Management – Quickly full, quickly empty

Energy Consumption

Since the Snapdragon 710 is a fairly efficient SoC, the Motorola Razr 2019 is a relatively economical smartphone as well. However, it should be noted that the performance is also slower.

That being said, up to 5.2 watts under maximum load is still low, whereas other smartphones are more energy-efficient while idling.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.7 / 1.2 / 1.8 Watt
Load midlight 3.2 / 5.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Motorola Razr 2019
2510 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Fold
4235 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
3300 mAh
Huawei Mate Xs
4500 mAh
LG G8X ThinQ
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-5%
-5%
-133%
-37%
-8%
-26%
Idle Minimum *
0.7
0.6
14%
0.59
16%
2.22
-217%
1.1
-57%
0.772 (0.7 - 0.8, n=5)
-10%
0.887 (0.2 - 3.4, n=866)
-27%
Idle Average *
1.2
0.85
29%
0.88
27%
3.94
-228%
1.49
-24%
1.474 (1.2 - 2.07, n=5)
-23%
1.754 (0.6 - 6.2, n=865)
-46%
Idle Maximum *
1.8
1
44%
0.95
47%
4.01
-123%
1.76
2%
1.882 (1.6 - 2.31, n=5)
-5%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=866)
-13%
Load Average *
3.2
4.47
-40%
4.97
-55%
4.34
-36%
4.2
-31%
3.33 (2.6 - 3.97, n=5)
-4%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=860)
-28%
Load Maximum *
5.2
9.02
-73%
8.37
-61%
8.46
-63%
9.2
-77%
5.2 (4.5 - 5.82, n=5)
-0%
6.04 (1.2 - 14.2, n=860)
-16%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Motorola Razr is supposed to be a very slim flip smartphone, which does not leave a lot of space for the battery: 2510 mAh is far from being a generous capacity and as a result, the smartphone lasts for less than 7 hours in our Wi-Fi test. This is a significantly shorter runtime compared to most of the other foldable phones in our comparison and the real stamina monsters are usually found elsewhere, since the battery cannot be placed near the hinge of a foldable phone, which means there is inherently less space available due to the construction.

Due to the small battery, the charger's maximum charge rate of only 15 watts, which is at the lower end of the quick-charging spectrum, is less of an issue. The smartphone can be fully recharged in less than two hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
16h 28min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
7h 49min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
9h 46min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 56min
Motorola Razr 2019
2510 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Fold
4235 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
3300 mAh
Huawei Mate Xs
4500 mAh
LG G8X ThinQ
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
46%
14%
16%
98%
Reader / Idle
988
1724
74%
1741
76%
1071
8%
H.264
586
1027
75%
527
-10%
762
30%
WiFi v1.3
469
600
28%
647
38%
481
3%
930
98%
Load
296
316
7%
157
-47%
357
21%

Pros

+ sleek design
+ innovative foldable display
+ useful secondary display
+ precise GPS
+ fancy accessories
+ warm speakers
+ responsive fingerprint sensor
+ USB 3.1 Gen 1
+ stock Android

Cons

- very expensive relative to the features
- slow storage
- eSIM only
- short battery life
- mediocre call quality
- camera pictures are somewhat blurry
- touchscreen with noticeable unevenness
- plastic case

Verdict – Too expensive, technically...

In review: Motorola Razr 2019
In review: Motorola Razr 2019

The Motorola Razr carries a well-known name and its slim form factor as well as its iconic design are quite impressive. However, a closer look reveals that the manufacturer had to balance on a razor's edge when designing the device, in order to be able to fit the folding mechanism and the secondary display into the budget. Although the smartphone's price is just shy of 1500 Euros ($1500 in the US), it comes with plastic attachments, without modern standards such as Wi-Fi 6 or 5G, comparatively slow performance, a small battery and a single-camera.

Furthermore, users will have to contend with creakiness, a fairly low-resolution display, significant throttling under load and slow storage. Additionally, there are of course doubts about the longevity of the foldable display.

That being said, the smartphone is well-suited to daily use, there is no preinstalled, intrusive ad software, the performance is sufficient for most situations and the quality of the accessories is high.

The Motorola Razr 2019 is a foldable smartphone that comes with a hefty price tag for its features. Despite all of its shortcomings, its slim silhouette is fascinating to look at.

Since the hardware and performance are far from being worthy of the price class, this is where we should advise against a purchase. While we still do not recommend this model to most users, those fascinated by the innovation and enticed by the retro appeal of the Razer smartphone will definitely receive a device that is nice to look at. Prospective buyers should have no need for high-end features and be both able and willing to afford the Motorola Razr 2019.

Motorola Razr 2019 - 06/08/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
73%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
44 / 70 → 63%
Weight
88%
Battery
81%
Display
82%
Games Performance
22 / 64 → 34%
Application Performance
64 / 86 → 74%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
66 / 90 → 73%
Camera
55%
Average
71%
76%
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 Razr 2019 Smartphone Review – Foldable Phone with Retro Charm
Florian Schmitt, 2020-06-15 (Update: 2020-06-17)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.