The Motorola Moto E is part of Google’s shock offensive on the low-end of the market, targeting value handsets like the Nokia Lumia 520 and the market of users upgrading from feature phones.
How exactly does the handset however match up against the most popular Windows Phone 8 handset, which is just now hitting remarkably low prices all round the world.
For handsets released more than a year apart the devices are pretty comparable.
|Motorola Moto E||Nokia Lumia 520|
|Screen Size||4.3inch||4 inch|
|Processor||Dual-core Snapdragon 200 Cortex A7, Adreno 302 GPU, 1.2 Ghz||Qualcomm MSM8227, Dual-core 1Ghz, Adreno 305 GPU|
|Camera||5 MP, no front-facing, 480P video max, no autofocus||5 MP, no front-facing, autofocus, 720P video|
|OS||Android 4.4.2 (kitkat)||WP 8 (upgradable to 8.1)|
|Battery||1980 mAh, non-removable||1430 mAh, removable|
|WLAN||HSDPA, Dual SIM||HSDPA, Single SIM|
|Other||FM Radio||FM Radio|
|Price||$129||From as little as $49|
|Release date||May 2014||Feb 2013|
The most striking difference to consumers at least is that the Motor E has a larger screen with a slightly higher resolution.
The handset is however also a lot chunkier, being half an inch thick vs the 9.9 mm of the Lumia 520. It is also nearly an ounce heavier, underlining that is is a low-end handset.
Looking at the specs, the handset has 1 GB RAM, which like the 512 MB RAM on the Nokia Lumia 520 are both at the low end of the range demanded by their operating systems. The Moto E only has 4 GB internal storage, with 2.2 GB free, and does not allow the installation of apps to the SD card. The 520 has double the storage, and with WP 8.1 will allow apps to be moved to the SD card.
The 520 has a slightly smaller but removable battery, and with an autofocus camera that can record at 720P is significantly better than the terrible camera on the Moto E, which can only record in 480P.
Of course dual-SIM is a major advantage in some markets, and both devices lack LTE support.
While the Moto E is a pretty good handset for the price range, it seems one would mostly be paying more for less vs the much older Nokia Lumia 520.
Do our readers agree? Let us know below.