Final Words

The Moto G4 and G4 Plus represent the fourth entries in Motorola's Moto G line. For me, the Moto G has always been about balancing the different features of a smartphone to provide a well-rounded smartphone that doesn't really excel in any area, but does well in all of them. One would expect that as a product is continually developed, its quality will improve with each iteration. However, in the smartphone market there have been devices where this has not been the case. On paper, the specs of the Moto G4 and G4 Plus make them look like obvious improvements over the 2015 Moto G, but I'm not so sure that you can truly say that based on their specs alone. Over the course of this review I've looked at each aspect of the Moto G in detail, and I found that some areas impressed, while others left something to be desired. I think the question of whether or not a user should buy the Moto G4 or Moto G4 Plus is heavily dependent on what they value in a smartphone, so before trying to make any conclusions it's worth going over how each aspect of the phones compared to their predecessor.

At first glance the chassis of the Moto G4 seems to represent an upgrade over the 2015 model. It's thinner, and at least in my view the slightly rubbery feeling plastic back feels nicer than the hard plastic shell from the 2015 Moto G. However, Motorola has made a number of design decisions that I consider questionable at best. By far the worst one is the choice of buttons. I already went over this in detail in the intro, but the buttons really are terrible and the volume rocker is actually difficult to use because of it. The size of the phone also poses problems. Making the phone much larger has helped to slim it down while still putting in a large battery, but it comes at the cost of usability. I find the 2015 Moto G much easier to use due to its 5-inch display, even though it's a thicker phone and a bit more slippery in the hand due to the hardness of the back cover. The Moto G was one of the only mid-range Android devices that hadn't moved to 5.5-inches, and now there are really no options for someone looking to get a mid-range 5-inch Android smartphone.

Another strange decision is having a removable back cover just to access the SIM and MicroSD trays. This isn't something that only Motorola does, but I just don't understand why you would opt for this over removable trays when your battery isn't removable. I suppose that it simplifies the manufacturing process when the phone is ordered using Moto Maker, but you end up with an unnecessary seam between the back cover and the edges of the phone. This isn't a change from the previous Moto G, but it feels like design improvements are being left on the table. As for the Moto G4 Plus, the fingerprint scanner really feels like an afterthought, and putting it on the bottom bezel in order to keep the chassis the same between both models despite the fact that it can't be used as a home button was a really poor decision. I constantly try, and fail, to use it to return home, due in no small part to the fact that the borders are raised above the glass in such a way that you frequently feel it with your thumb. It's almost like it's inviting you to press it, but you're just greeted with failure every time you try.

My misgivings about the size aside, the Moto G4's display is actually quite good. Having two units allowed me to get an idea of what variance there is between units. It seems clear that regardless of the calibration, these displays have class leading brightness and contrast ratios, and the outdoor usability is great. Color calibration ranges from just okay to good, and it's clear that the displays target the sRGB gamut but don't really have a standard about what the white point should be or how high errors can be before they're not acceptable. In this case, the Moto G4 Plus exhibited greater accuracy, but I wouldn't attribute this to anything more than panel variance. Even if both displays had the error levels of the normal Moto G4 results, I would still say that the display is one of the best I've seen on a phone of this price.

The Moto G4's performance hasn't impressed me in any respect. Moving from Snapdragon 410 to 617 has very little impact on the CPU performance results. The GPU performance improvement is significant, but in the face of current and upcoming mid-range smartphones that use Snapdragon 650, the performance improvement going from the 2015 Moto G to the Moto G4 simply isn't large enough. We're already in the third quarter of 2016, and $200 phones with Snapdragon 615 launched in late 2015 and early 2016. Cortex A53 just doesn't provide compelling performance when competing phones are moving to an SoC with Cortex A72 cores, and Adreno 405 is only half as fast as Adreno 510.

The performance issues aren't just limited to benchmarks. Motorola's previous phones provided a smooth experience despite their limited specifications, and the Moto G4 and G4 Plus are significantly jankier throughout the UI, with even the simplest of ListViews stuttering at times. This is most certainly an issue of software rather than hardware, and stability issues with tests like PCMark battery don't inspire any confidence in the Moto G4's software quality either. Couple that with Motorola refusing to commit to monthly security updates and there's a lot of reason to be concerned about whether the Moto G4 is ever going to get to a state where it's performant and secure.

The standard Moto G4 isn't really interesting as far as camera quality is concerned because it shares a sensor with the 2015 Moto G. It makes some improvements to image quality due to the newer ISP and some altered image processing algorithms, but in general it's fair to say that the Moto G4 has just kept camera quality at the same level as its predecessor. That is to say, you can use it for daytime shots and some occasional video recording, but you won't want to take any low-light photos with it.

The Moto G4 Plus is a completely different story. One would normally not expect that a $50 upgrade comes with a significantly larger camera sensor than the base model, but that's what Motorola has done. The OV16860 sensor in the Moto G4 Plus is actually larger than some flagship smartphones, and with that comes a large improvement in low-light image quality. You also get PDAF and Laser AF, which makes focusing quick in any scenario. I do think the addition of Laser AF is questionable when the money could have been spent on improving other parts of the phone, but it does mean that you can focus effectively in low light. As far as $200-300 smartphones go I don't think there's anything that competes with the Moto G4 Plus, and if you're someone who likes taking photos and wants to buy the Moto G4 it will probably be worth paying the $50 to get the better camera.

Perhaps the most important aspect of a smartphone is its battery life. Unfortunately, the Moto G4's software stability problems that prevent it from completing the PCMark battery test leaves us without the complete story of battery life. Based on the web test and GFXBench test results, the Moto G4 appears to provide good battery life. This reflects my own experience when using the phones, with both generally making it through the day unless they're subjected to a heavy battery stressing app like Pokémon Go.

When I think about the Moto G4 and G4 Plus as a whole, it really seems to me that they weren't designed with the same attitude as their predecessors. There are areas where money shouldn't have been spent, and others where more money needed to be spent. The only thing that is truly great about the Moto G4 is its display, and even with that Motorola is just getting on par with what Huawei has been providing for quite some time in the Honor 5X. Everything else about the phones feels like a sidegrade at best, with the chassis feeling nicer but having terrible buttons, and the camera on the normal model not really improving in any significant way. CPU performance doesn't improve much, while competing phones will be making large gains with the move to Snapdragon 650. In the case of the Moto G4 Plus the extra $50-100 does get you a better phone, but the only upgrade that is truly significant is the camera.

Ultimately, I don't think the Moto G4 is a bad smartphone, but the Huawei Honor 5X provides an equally good experience and has been widely available since the start of the year. The Moto G4 has just arrived too late to be relevant. As we move toward the end of 2016 and into 2017, there are going to be new mid-range devices at these prices that greatly surpass the performance, camera, and build quality of the Moto G4, and even right now there are better options available.

Battery Life and Charge Time
Comments Locked

94 Comments

View All Comments

  • Barkuti - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    Welcome to another member of the now ever increasing @#$% slabphone family, comprising in the following sizes to fulfill not so everyone's needs: mammoth, beluga, Moby-dick, Jahre Viking…
    For the love of God, @#$%!!!
  • Teknobug - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    I'm somewhat interested in the G4 Plus, however it has an IPS display, kind of hard to go back to that after using an AMOLED for a long time. I still have my Moto X 2013 which is 4.7", the display is fantastic.
  • WPX00 - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link

    The dimmest display ever tested by phoneArena and among the dimmest according to AT, and also one of the brighest at lowest setting plus color rendering issues is fantastic?
  • raju516 - Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - link

    Moto x 2013 has good color calibration when compared to moto x 2014 which is worst. Also moto x 2013 dose not use pentile layout for its panel. However display is dim but I like it
  • jb14 - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the interesting review Brandon and well timed for me. I am looking for a phone under £200 after my trusty Samsung SII's WiFi finally failed this week. I've noticed in my search for a replacement that the Nexus 5x 16GB has now dropped to £200 (argos) so has now surprisingly joined the competition. It seems the 5x is a significant step up in most categories compared to these phones?
  • cbf - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    Brandon --

    I think you're doing a disservice to your readership by not covering Motorola's software update policies in your article, the ways Ars has: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/07/motorola-co...

    I strongly advise my friends and family to avoid any vendors that aren't diligent about releasing Google's monthly security updates to Android -- which unfortunately, is just about all the Android OEMs. (Some, like Samsung, are pretty good for their flagship phones, but ignore most of their less expensive models.) Maybe if more journalists made this an important aspect of a review, we'd get better behavior from the OEMs (and yes, the carriers as well).

    Otherwise, it's only Nexus phones for me and mine.
  • Lau_Tech - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the good review Brandon! And timely as well.!

    I repeat my opinion: You and Matt Humrick should do the flagship phone reviews. Anandtech has had a very odd year where most of the flagship phone reviews are late and the entry-level phone reviews are not.
  • WPX00 - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link

    Untrue about Samsung ignoring budget devices. I have a $150 Galaxy J2 that gets those updates once every so often, maybe not every month but once every 2 or 3. But then again you can say the same about my GS7's updates.
  • aryonoco - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    It would be great if Anandtech started to pay a little bit of attention to the Android Security Patch level that a device ships with as well.

    It should be noted that these phones are already well behind Google's monthly security patches, which mean that Motorola is selling devices with known remote root vulnerabilities, something that is definitely anti-consumer and borderline unethical in my opinion. Furthermore, Motorola has said that they won't be releasing monthly security updates. Their 2015 phones have also been very tardy in receiving Marshmallow, and have gotten security updates only very irregularly.

    With all the attention to detail that AT pays to small details like the pixel size of the camera, I find it baffling how the update situation and how of timely security patches are completely ignored on this website.
  • Teknobug - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link

    If this is true, then my concerns of Motorola getting sold to a Chinese firm was legit.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now