Verdict on the Motorola Edge 70 Plus
The Motorola Edge 70 Plus has significantly less to offer than the standard Edge 70, but its list price is also lower.
In return, you get a screen that can be very bright when needed, with good color reproduction and a high PWM frequency, giving even sensitive users a better chance of tolerating it well. The build quality is also high, although you can notice some slight compromises compared with the more expensive models, such as the lack of protection against immersion in water.
The main camera takes good photos, but is rather isolated on the back, so zoom capabilities are limited.
The large battery is certainly a highlight. It enables very good battery life, and the Edge 70 Plus does indeed have a clear advantage over the Edge 70 here.
Competition is fierce in the €600 range: high-quality midrange smartphones from Oppo or Samsung sometimes offer significantly more power or have a more flexible camera system.
Pros
Cons
Price and availability
At the time of testing, the smartphone is only available in Europa and the Middle East for around US$ 680.
- $289.50Motorola Moto Edge 70 Fusion 5G Ai (Compatible with Tmobile Mint Tello & Global) (256GB+8GB) NFC 50MP 4K Triple Cam Dual Sim 6.8" Curved XT2605-3 Latino American Version (Pantone Silhouette (Blue))
- $549.50Motorola Moto Edge 70 5G Ai (Compatible with Tmobile Mint Tello & Global) (512GB+12GB) NFC 50MP 4K Triple Cam Dual Sim 6.67" Curved XT2601-3 Latino American Version (Gadget Gray)
- $559.50Motorola Moto Edge 70 5G Ai (Compatible with Tmobile Mint Tello & Global) (512GB+12GB) NFC 50MP 4K Triple Cam Dual Sim 6.67" Curved XT2601-3 Latino American Version (Bronze Green)
Table of Contents
- Verdict on the Motorola Edge 70 Plus
- Specifications
- Case and features – Acetate finish on the Motorola phone
- Communication and operation – Mid-range with fingerprint sensor
- Software and sustainability – Motorola promises updates through 2031
- Cameras – Just a single cam
- Display – Motorola phone with a great AMOLED display
- Performance, emissions and battery life – A purchase recommendation thanks to its battery life
- Notebookcheck overall rating
- Possible alternatives compared
Specifications
Case and features – Acetate finish on the Motorola phone
Motorola's mid-range smartphone comes with an acetate finish on the back. As is often the case with the manufacturer, it comes in three different Pantone colors: Mountain View, Grey Lilac, and Milky Blue—that is, dark green, pearlescent, and light blue. A light green variant can also be seen in promotional images, but is currently unavailable, at least in Europe.
The smooth finish looks premium, and the Edge 70 Plus is well built. However, we can produce a noticeable creaking sound when twisting it. The edges of the back are rounded, so the Edge 70 Plus feels quite different from the series' more angular siblings.
The phone is currently available only with 256 GB of storage and 8 GB of RAM. A 128 GB version is also being produced, however. There is a microSD card reader, which can be used to expand the storage. It performs reasonably well in our tests.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Oppo Reno16 FS (Angelbird V60) | |
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus (Angelbird V60) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5.72 - 58.9, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 VIII (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication and operation – Mid-range with fingerprint sensor
WiFi 6 is built in as the fastest Wi-Fi standard, and the Motorola phone achieves speeds of up to 532 Mbps in our test with the Asus RT-BE96U reference router. Other phones in this price range can be significantly faster, but these speeds are usually sufficient for everyday use.
There is a good selection of 4G and 5G frequencies for mobile networks, so you can also use the smartphone when traveling. Reception is decent in spot checks during our test, even in places with poor network coverage.
The touchscreen is easy to use, although it has rounded corners, so whether you like that is a matter of taste.
The fingerprint sensor is integrated into the display and unlocks the phone very quickly and reliably after a single enrollment. Face unlock is also available, but only using the 2D method.
| Networking | |
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Sony Xperia 10 VIII | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Oppo Reno16 FS | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Honor 600 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
Software and sustainability – Motorola promises updates through 2031
Motorola comes with Android 16 preinstalled, and the security patches were from August 2026 at the time of testing, so they are no longer fully up to date. The manufacturer promises 5 years of security patches, i.e. until 2031, and 3 OS updates.
There is little information on sustainability, but at least the packaging is plastic-free.
Cameras – Just a single cam
When it comes to cameras, the Motorola Edge 70 Plus takes a different approach: Instead of focusing on powerful zoom lenses and wide-angle cameras, the manufacturer relies entirely on the main camera and pairs it with only a very low-resolution macro camera.
The main camera, however, has a resolution of 200 megapixels and actually takes good-looking photos with fine detail. The sensor also delivers impressive performance in low light.
The front camera takes very nice selfies, although they tend to be overexposed in very bright areas.
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.
PlantSurroundingLow Light
Display – Motorola phone with a great AMOLED display
The Edge 70 Plus offers a very bright AMOLED screen, which typically reaches around 1,400 cd/m² at maximum in everyday use, but can exceed 4,000 cd/m² with smaller areas and HDR content. Color reproduction impresses with minimal deviations from the ideal, at least when you select the “Natural” color profile.
At 361 Hz, the PWM flicker frequency is very high; nevertheless, sensitive users should try out the screen before buying, for example at an electronics store.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Center on Battery: 1414 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.24 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.69}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1.8 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.94}
103.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.129
CCT: 6517 K
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus AMOLED, 2772x1272, 6.8" | Sony Xperia 10 VIII OLED, 2340x1080, 6.1" | Oppo Reno16 FS AMOLED, 2372x1080, 6.6" | Samsung Galaxy A57 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Honor 600 AMOLED, 2728x1264, 6.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -65% | -68% | -54% | 35% | |
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 4226 | 1487 -65% | 1306 -69% | 1920 -55% | 3102 -27% |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 4152 | 1470 -65% | 1359 -67% | 1980 -52% | 8192 97% |
| Response Times | 1% | -41% | -19% | -4% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 1.2 ? | 0.93 ? 22% | 1.7 ? -42% | 1.21 ? -1% | 1.06 ? 12% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 0.8 ? | 0.93 ? -16% | 1.4 ? -75% | 1.1 ? -38% | 1 ? -25% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 361 | 480 | 92 | 240 | 60 |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 14 | 14.46 -3% | 15 -7% | 16.72 -19% | 13.86 1% |
| Screen | -12% | -101% | -11% | -62% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1414 | 1522 8% | 1143 -19% | 1135 -20% | 1787 26% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.24 | 1.4 -13% | 3.27 -164% | 1.7 -37% | 1.9 -53% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.29 | 2.9 -27% | 6.49 -183% | 2.5 -9% | 5.3 -131% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 2.1 -17% | 2.5 -39% | 1.4 22% | 3.4 -89% |
| Gamma | 2.129 103% | 2.23 99% | 2.274 97% | 2.08 106% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 6517 100% | 6832 95% | 6850 95% | 6578 99% | 6874 95% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1527 | 1134 | |||
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 97 | 99 | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -25% /
-20% | -70% /
-74% | -28% /
-23% | -10% /
-21% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 361 Hz Amplitude: 14 % |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 361 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 361 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7614 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Measurement series at a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (The amplitude curve at minimum brightness may look flat, but this is due to the scaling. The info box shows an enlarged version of the amplitude at minimum brightness.)
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.4 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 1.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.6 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 0.13 (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 (30.7 ms). | ||
Performance, emissions and battery life – A purchase recommendation thanks to its battery life
The performance of the SoC, a Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3, is somewhat below what you would expect at this price point. Smooth operation is usually possible as long as you don't use overly demanding apps or multitask. There is some performance headroom, but very demanding apps overwhelm the smartphone.
Noticeable surface warming can be felt on the chassis after prolonged heavy use. Fortunately, this has no impact on the SoC's performance, as the 3DMark stress tests show.
The stereo speakers produce decent sound and can get loud enough to fill a medium-sized room. Even better sound quality is available through headphones or external speakers, which can be connected via USB or Bluetooth. The phone supports numerous audio codecs for Bluetooth.
The 6,500-mAh battery rounds out the phone. It delivers excellent battery life and far outlasts the Edge 70: we measured 23:42 hours in our Wi-Fi test, which should be enough for two days of average use. The phone supports charging at up to 45 watts, and the battery takes no more than 2 hours to fully recharge. External devices can also be powered from the phone's battery via cable at up to 7.5 watts.
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus | Sony Xperia 10 VIII | Oppo Reno16 FS | Samsung Galaxy A57 | Honor 600 | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -8% | -8% | -39% | -1% | -23% | -3% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 2048.02 | 1914.56 -7% | 1902.3 -7% | 1683.07 -18% | 1986.99 -3% | 1773 ? -13% | 2279 ? 11% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1844.13 | 1802.32 -2% | 1795.4 -3% | 1119.11 -39% | 1807.77 -2% | 1241 ? -33% | 1971 ? 7% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 364.54 | 320.27 -12% | 306 -16% | 249.83 -31% | 353.95 -3% | 290 ? -20% | 317 ? -13% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 434.49 | 386.88 -11% | 402.6 -7% | 149.04 -66% | 451 4% | 320 ? -26% | 363 ? -16% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.1 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.3 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
3DMark Stress Tests
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Oppo Reno16 FS | |
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus | |
| Honor 600 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 VIII | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Oppo Reno16 FS | |
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus | |
| Honor 600 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 VIII | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Honor 600 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Oppo Reno16 FS | |
| Sony Xperia 10 VIII | |
Motorola Edge 70 Plus audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
Samsung Galaxy A57 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
| Off / Standby |   0.1 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  0.9 / 1.6 / 2.1 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus 6500 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 VIII 5000 mAh | Oppo Reno16 FS 6500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A57 5000 mAh | Honor 600 6400 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -23% | 16% | 1% | -30% | -10% | 9% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 0.9 | 0.81 10% | 0.9 -0% | 0.71 21% | 1.24 -38% | 1.245 ? -38% | 0.901 ? -0% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 1.6 | 2.51 -57% | 1.2 25% | 1.94 -21% | 2.28 -42% | 1.659 ? -4% | 1.483 ? 7% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 2.1 | 2.57 -22% | 1.6 24% | 2.04 3% | 2.3 -10% | 1.861 ? 11% | 1.677 ? 20% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 4.37 | 6.19 | 4.43 ? | 6.82 ? | |||
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 10.16 | 13.67 | 7.57 ? | 10.8 ? |
* ... smaller is better
| Motorola Edge 70 Plus 6500 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 VIII 5000 mAh | Oppo Reno16 FS 6500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A57 5000 mAh | Honor 600 6400 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | -16% | -1% | -37% | -5% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 23.7 | 19.8 -16% | 23.4 -1% | 14.9 -37% | 22.6 -5% |
| Reader / Idle (h) | 40.1 | 39.8 | |||
| Load (h) | 5.1 | 3.6 | |||
| H.264 (h) | 26.8 |
Notebookcheck overall rating
The Motorola Edge 70 Plus impresses mainly with its battery life.
Otherwise, it is often somewhat lacking in features, for example when it comes to the processor and camera.
Motorola Edge 70 Plus
- 10/01/2026 v8
Florian Schmitt
Total Sustainability Score: Possible alternatives compared
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 77.8%  | Motorola Edge 70 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 810 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 3.1 | List Price: 599€ | 159 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.78" 2772x1272 450 PPI AMOLED |
2. 78.5%  | Sony Xperia 10 VIII Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 3 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 710 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 128 GB UFS 3.1 | List Price: 599€ | 168 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.10" 2340x1080 422 PPI OLED |
3. 76%  | Oppo Reno16 FS MediaTek Dimensity 7300 ⎘ ARM Mali-G615 MP2 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 3.1 | List Price: 649€ | 196 g | 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.57" 2372x1080 397 PPI AMOLED |
4. 81.5%  | Samsung Galaxy A57 Samsung Exynos 1680 ⎘ Samsung Xclipse 550 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 3.1 | List Price: 589€ | 179 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" 2340x1080 385 PPI Super AMOLED |
5. 82.8%  | Honor 600 Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 SM7750-AB ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 722 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: $729.00 List Price: 650€ | 185 g | 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.57" 2728x1264 458 PPI AMOLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Add as a preferred source on Google
