As demonstrated by our comparison of the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 and the Motorola Razr+, things are changing for the better in the world of foldable. Since the most recent iteration of Samsung’s flip phone-style device made its debut last fall at a comfortable sub-$1,000 price, there hasn’t really been a serious competitor to the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 here in the United States. up until this point.
With the release of the Motorola Razr+, it appears that we may have a viable alternative that can fiercely compete with Samsung. There’s no denying that the two foldable prove they’re the future and, more importantly, that phones are fun again by providing an appealing package for their distinct folding abilities and features.
Specs:
| Motorola Razr+ | Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 | |
| Starting price | $999/£782/AU$1,469 | $999/£782/AU$1,469 |
| Screen size | 6.9-inch pOLED (2640 x 1080) | 6.7-inch Dynamic AMOLED |
| Refresh rate | 165 Hz | 120Hz |
| CPU | Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 | Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 |
| RAM | 8GB | 8GB |
| Storage | 256GB | 128GB, 256GB, 512GB |
| Expandable storage? | No | No |
| Rear cameras | 12MP main (f/1.5), 13MP ultrawide (f/2.2) | 12MP main (f/1.8), 12MP ultrawide (f/2.2) |
| Front cameras | 32MP (f/2.4) | 10MP (f/2.4) |
| Battery size | 3,800 mAh | 3,700 mAh |
| Battery life (Hrs: Mins) | 10:09 | 8:59 |
| Charging speed | 30W wired, 5W wireless | 25W wired; 10W wireless |
| Size | 6.7 x 2.9 x 0.27 inches (open), 3.48 x 2.9 x 0.59 inches (closed) | 2.8 x 6.5 x 0.27 inches (71.9 x 165.2 x 6.9mm) |
| Weight | 6.63 ounces | 6.5 ounces |
| Colors | Infinite Black, Glacier Blue, Viva Magenta | Blue, Bora Purple, Graphite, Pink Gold |
Price:
The cost of both foldable phones is $999.99. However, there are currently offers for the Motorola Razr+ that make it even more alluring. For instance, AT&T is currently offering customers the Razr+ for as little as $5/month with a 36-month contract, bringing the device’s overall cost down to an astounding $180. When it comes to a foldable that has just been released, that is unheard of.
There are also a few Galaxy Z Flip 4 deals available, but they’re not nearly as generous. The price of the phone is reduced to as low as $255 thanks to Samsung’s instant trade-in credits, which range from $20 to $745. In contrast to the Razr+, you have to trade in to get these discounts.
Design:
The designs of both foldable have a lot of charm and personality from an aesthetic standpoint. Since they are both about the same size and weight, I had no trouble folding them over and putting them in my pockets. The Razr+’s rounded bezel made it more comfortable to hold in my hand than the Galaxy Z Flip 4’s flatter metallic bezel that surrounds the device.
They also share a lot of design elements, such as the fact that the fingerprint sensors are integrated into the side-mounted power buttons. But something about the Razr+’s contrasting metallic frame and vegan leather casing gives it the edge in terms of fashion. Not that the Galaxy Z Flip 4 isn’t attractive; especially when the Bespoke edition of Samsung’s phone allows you to customize the paint job. I’ve noticed that using the Razr+ in public draws more attention than using the Galaxy Z Flip 4.
Because of Samsung’s foldable’s IPX8 rating, you should stick with it unless you frequently go swimming or use your phone in the shower. It will be shielded from splashes and submersion for up to 30 minutes at a depth of 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) thanks to this. The Razr+, in contrast, only has an IP52 rating, which is adequate against splashes of water but not submersion.
Display:
Even though their respective creases are visible when the displays are off, the main displays of each foldable are a sight to behold. I’d say it’s more noticeable on the Galaxy Z Flip 4, but that makes sense given how much longer I’ve been using it. But guess what? For routine tasks like watching videos and sending emails, the crease didn’t bother me.
| Motorola Razr+ | Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 | |
| Display size | 6.9-inch pOLED | 6.7-inch AMOLED |
| sRGB (%) | 101.5% (Natural) | 110.1% |
| DCI-P3 (%) | 71.9% (Natural) | 78% (Natural) |
| Delta-E | 0.22 | 0.24 |
| Peak brightness | 1,084 nits | 772 nits |
The Galaxy Z Flip 4’s 6.7-inch 2640 x 1080 Dynamic AMOLED display, which has a pixel density of 426 ppi, is favored by the specifications. With a 413 ppi pixel density that is only lower due to its larger 6.9-inch 2640 x 1080 pOLED display, the Razr+ isn’t too far off. The visual quality of both interior displays is identical in terms of fine details, excellent color saturation, and broad viewing angles.
Despite the fact that their displays draw a lot of attention, I thought the Razr+ display was more suitable for use outside. That’s because, in our testing, its display’s maximum brightness was 1,084 nits, making it significantly more visible in bright light than the Galaxy Z Flip 4’s display, which only managed to reach 772 nits.
Even though their primary displays were evenly matched, the Motorola Razr+ easily wins when comparing their external panels. Essentially, you get a 3.6-inch 1066 x 1056 pOLED display that is bigger and more useful. I was able to perform almost all of the same tasks on this display as I could on the Razr’s primary display. This greatly increases utility, in part because I was able to run apps on the external display and get better selfie framing with the rear cameras.
The Galaxy Z Flip 4’s 1.9-inch Super AMOLED Cover Display is small in comparison. The ability to quickly access things without opening the phone was useful, but the limited space meant that it was only possible to access widgets and notifications. Everywhere I tried using the Cover Display to take selfies, it also cropped the framing.
Cameras:
When you take a look at these foldables’ cameras, it’s clear that they are once again evenly matched. Both have two cameras: a primary camera and a secondary, wider camera, along with a single LED flash.
While the Galaxy Z Flip 4 has a 12-megapixel f/1.8 main camera paired with a 12-megapixel f/2.2 ultra-wide lens, the Motorola Razr+ has a 12-megapixel f/1.5 main camera and a 13-megapixel ultra-wide lens.
Performance:
The majority of people would concur that having the newest and best hardware would be beneficial. Despite this belief, you must keep in mind that a smartphone’s performance is not influenced by its hardware or how well it performs in benchmark tests.
The Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 chipset from Qualcomm and 8GB of RAM, power both foldable. On paper, it appears to be a deadlock, but Motorola’s choice to use this ‘older’ chip when other recent phones, like the Galaxy S23 series, were powered by the more modern Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 chip is difficult to ignore. (The fastest chip at the time the Galaxy Z Flip 4 was released was the Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1; it is likely that the Galaxy Z Flip 5, which will be released later this summer, will benefit from Qualcomm’s more recent silicon.
| Motorola Razr+ | Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 | |
| CPU | Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 | Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 |
| Geekbench 5 (single core/multicore) | 1320 / 4134 | 1291 / 4015 |
| 3DMark Wild Life Unlimited (fps) | 66.8 | 66/7 |
| Adobe Premiere Rush (Mins: Secs) | 0:44 | 0:44 |
Running benchmark tests showed that there isn’t much of a difference in how well they perform. On the single-core and multi-core tests of GeekBench 5, the Razr+ scored an average of 1,320 and 4,134 points, respectively, while the Galaxy Z Flip 4 scored 1,291 and 4,015. When we ran the 3DMark Wilde Life Unlimited test for graphics processing, they also maintained fluid frame rates of 66 frames per second. Similarly, it took 40 seconds for both phones to render a brief clip in Adobe Premiere Rush.
They also demonstrated similar results when performing other fundamental tasks like navigating the user interface, engaging in graphically demanding games, and occasionally browsing the web. The majority of their fluid movements were a result of their main displays’ quick refresh rates. Although the Galaxy Z Flip 4 has a refresh rate of 120Hz compared to the Motorola Razr+’s 165Hz, I could not tell the difference in performance.
Battery Life and Charging:
Neither phone offers the long-lasting batteries that more conventionally designed flagship phones do due to their thin frames. The Razr+’s 3,800 mAh battery averaged out at 20% capacity before bedtime, while the Galaxy Z Flip 4’s 3,700 mAh battery was less at about 10%. At the very least, I’m happy to report that I got a good one day’s worth of battery out of the two.
The Razr+ triumphed in our own benchmark tests as well, lasting 10 hours and 9 minutes while performing nonstop cellular web browsing. That is one hour more than the Galaxy Z Flip 4’s record of 8 hours and 59 minutes. Both phones will undoubtedly require nightly charges.
| Motorola Razr+ | Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 | |
| Battery size | 3,800 mAh | 3,700 mAh |
| Battery life (Hrs: Mins) | 10:09 | 8:59 |
| Charging speed | 30W wired | 25W wired |
You’ll be happy to know that both support wireless charging while we’re on the subject. The Razr+’s 30W Turbocharger powered the phone to 35% after 15 minutes of charging, while the Galaxy Z Flip 4 got to 28% in the same amount of time. If you’re in a bind and need a lot of charge in a hurry, I’d suggest choosing the Razr+.
Software:
Both foldable will, in essence, offers the same core Android experience, but the Motorola Razr+ boasts the utility I need to get more use out of my phone. You’ll appreciate that the interfaces are as simple as they can be and that stock Android hasn’t had a lot of pointless additions made to it. You have the option of using Android’s gesture-based interface or the more conventional 3-button menu, and their interface visuals are noticeably different.
There is a lot to be said about the Razr+ in this regard, in part due to the additional boost provided by the effective use of the external display. On the smaller external display, I can check my notifications, reply to messages, scroll through some of my favorite apps, and yes, even play some games. You can basically do everything in Android using the main display.
Motorola has the advantage here because the Galaxy Z Flip 4’s cover screen can only be used to access a few widgets, view notifications, and take pictures. I also value the additional gestures that Motorola has continued to include in its Android phones, such as the simple double-chop motion on the Razr+ that turns on the flashlight.
In addition, I have a lot more customization options at my disposal to enhance the Razr+’s exterior screen with dynamic wallpapers, clock faces, and other features.
Verdict:
I’m happy to report that the Motorola Razr+ is finally the foldable device we need after two attempts to persuade the world that the Razr line is a worthy contender. The Motorola Razr+ outperformed the Galaxy Z Flip 4 as the clamshell foldable king, even though it lagged behind Samsung’s well-established foldable in a few areas, particularly its low-light camera performance and how the design isn’t as water resistant.
| Samsung Galaxy A54 | Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4 | |
| Price (10 points) | 10 | 9 |
| Design (10 points) | 10 | 9 |
| Display (15 points) | 15 | 13 |
| Cameras (20 points) | 14 | 16 |
| Performance (20 points) | 16 | 17 |
| Battery life and charging (15 points) | 12 | 11 |
| Software (10 points) | 10 | 8 |
| Overall (100 points) | 87 | 83 |
The Razr+’s external display’s functionality, including the ability to run my apps through it and to better frame self-portrait photos and videos, was what I was most pleased with. It’s difficult to disagree that the Motorola Razr+ is currently the best foldable when you consider all of those factors and the generous discounts it is receiving.
Read more: Samsung Galaxy S24 Series Tipped Codename
