Motorola Moto G86 VS Motorola Moto G86 Power

Both phones share an identical footprint — the same 74.7 × 161.2 mm width and height — so they fit identically in the hand and in pockets from a 2D perspective. Both also carry a full IP68 waterproof rating, meaning neither compromises on water resistance. Where they diverge is in the third dimension: the Moto G86 Power is noticeably thicker at 8.7 mm versus 7.8 mm for the standard G86, a difference of nearly a full millimeter that is perceptible when gripping the device or sliding it into a tight pocket.

That extra thickness compounds with a meaningful weight gap. The G86 Power tips the scales at 198 g compared to 185 g for the G86 — a 13 g difference that, while not dramatic on paper, translates to a noticeably heavier feel during prolonged one-handed use or extended browsing sessions. The resulting volume difference — roughly 104.8 cm³ versus 93.9 cm³ — confirms the Power is a bulkier device overall, almost certainly to accommodate a larger battery inside.

For design, the standard Moto G86 has a clear edge: it is slimmer, lighter, and more pocketable, while still matching the G86 Power on every protection credential (IP68, waterproof, non-rugged). Users who prioritize a sleeker, more comfortable everyday carry should favor the G86; those willing to accept the added bulk are presumably trading it for the battery capacity implied by the Power variant's larger chassis.

The display story here is straightforward: these two phones are equipped with an absolutely identical screen. Both feature a 6.67″ OLED/AMOLED panel at 1220 × 2712 px, landing at 446 ppi — a density sharp enough that individual pixels are indistinguishable at normal viewing distances. The 120Hz refresh rate ensures smooth scrolling and responsive touch input, a meaningful advantage over the 60Hz panels still found on budget devices.

Protection and HDR support are equally matched. Both phones use Gorilla Glass 7i, Corning's latest scratch- and crack-resistant solution in the mid-range tier, and both support HDR10+ — the dynamic metadata standard that adapts tone-mapping scene by scene for more accurate highlight and shadow rendering on compatible streaming content. Neither device offers Always-On Display or Dolby Vision, but those omissions are consistent across both models.

This category is a dead tie. There is no basis in the provided specs to favor one phone over the other on display quality, size, sharpness, smoothness, or durability. A buyer choosing between the G86 and the G86 Power can treat the screen as a non-factor and focus entirely on other differentiating specs.

At the silicon level, these two phones are identical. Both run on the MediaTek Dimensity 7300 — a modern 4nm chip with an 8-core big.LITTLE CPU configuration and a Mali G615 MC2 GPU — and both are paired with 8GB of DDR5 RAM. Unsurprisingly, their Geekbench 6 scores are a perfect match: 1026 single-core and 2932 multi-core. For everyday tasks, gaming, and multitasking, expect identical real-world responsiveness from both devices.

The one numerical divergence worth examining is the AnTuTu score: the G86 Power posts 777,200 against the G86's 675,000 — a gap of roughly 15%. Since every other compute-related spec is shared, the most plausible explanation within the provided data is the storage tier: the G86 Power ships with 512GB versus 256GB on the standard G86. AnTuTu's benchmark suite includes storage read/write tests, so a faster or higher-capacity NAND configuration can meaningfully inflate the composite score without any difference in CPU or GPU throughput. The Geekbench results — which isolate processor performance — confirming parity supports this interpretation.

On raw processing power, this is a tie. The G86 Power's higher AnTuTu figure reflects its storage advantage rather than any CPU or GPU superiority. However, that storage difference is itself significant: 512GB versus 256GB is a practical win for users who store large media libraries or avoid cloud reliance, giving the G86 Power a meaningful edge in this category for storage-conscious buyers.

Across every single camera specification provided, the Motorola Moto G86 and G86 Power are exact mirrors of each other. Both feature a dual-lens rear system headlined by a 50MP main sensor paired with an 8MP secondary, a 32MP front camera, and built-in optical image stabilization — a genuinely useful inclusion at this price tier that reduces blur in low-light and shaky shooting conditions. Video tops out at 4K 30fps on both, with continuous autofocus during recording and slow-motion support rounding out the video feature set.

Manual controls — ISO, exposure, focus, and white balance — are present on both, giving photography enthusiasts a degree of creative control beyond fully automatic shooting. Phase-detection autofocus ensures snappy, accurate subject locking for stills, and the HDR mode helps recover detail in high-contrast scenes. Neither phone offers optical zoom, laser autofocus, or a dual-tone flash, but those absences apply equally across both models.

This is an unambiguous tie. There is not a single camera-related differentiator between these two devices in the provided data. A buyer for whom the camera system is the deciding factor will find no reason to prefer one over the other — the choice must rest entirely on the distinctions found in other specification groups.

Running Android 15 on both devices, the software experience is completely shared — there is not a single feature flag that differs between them. Practically speaking, users get a well-rounded privacy toolkit: granular controls over location, camera, and microphone access, plus app tracking blockers and clipboard warnings. These are meaningful protections for daily use, covering the most common vectors through which apps can quietly harvest user data.

On the productivity and usability side, both phones support split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, widgets, full-page screenshots, and offline voice recognition — a solid feature set for a mid-range Android device. Dynamic theming, dark mode, and an extra dim mode round out the personalization and accessibility options. Notably, neither model receives direct OS updates from Google, meaning update delivery depends on Motorola's own rollout schedule — a shared limitation that buyers should factor in when considering long-term software support.

Verdict: a complete tie. The OS category offers zero differentiation between the Moto G86 and G86 Power. Every feature, every permission system, every privacy control is identical. Software preference simply cannot be a tiebreaker here.

Battery capacity is where the G86 Power earns its name — and justifies the extra bulk noted in the design comparison. Its 6720 mAh cell is a substantial step up from the standard G86's 5200 mAh, a difference of 1520 mAh or roughly 29% more capacity. In practical terms, that gap is significant: where the G86 is already well-equipped for a full day of use, the G86 Power is firmly in multi-day territory for moderate users, and a much safer bet for heavy users or those who regularly go long stretches without access to a charger.

Where the two phones converge is on charging: both top out at 30W wired fast charging, and neither supports wireless charging. The shared charging speed means the G86 Power will actually take longer to charge from empty to full, since it has considerably more capacity to fill at the same wattage. That is a minor trade-off for the endurance gained, but worth noting for users who rely on quick top-ups.

The G86 Power has a clear and meaningful advantage in this category. The near-30% larger battery directly translates to longer real-world endurance, and the trade-off — slightly more weight and thickness as established earlier — is the only cost. For battery life-conscious buyers, this is one of the most decisive differentiators between the two models.

The audio specs for these two phones are identical in every respect. Both feature stereo speakers — a genuinely worthwhile inclusion for media consumption, gaming, and hands-free calls, producing a wider soundstage than the mono setups still common at this price point. Neither device offers a 3.5mm headphone jack, so wired audio requires a USB-C adapter or a Bluetooth solution.

On the wireless audio quality front, neither phone supports any high-resolution Bluetooth codec — no aptX, no LDAC, no aptX HD or Adaptive. Users relying on Bluetooth headphones will be limited to standard SBC or AAC transmission, which is adequate for casual listening but falls short of what audiophiles or quality-conscious listeners might want from a wireless setup.

This is a complete tie — the audio profile is shared down to every last spec. The absence of a headphone jack and high-res Bluetooth codecs are shared limitations, and the stereo speaker inclusion is a shared strength. Audio cannot serve as a differentiator between these two models.

Connectivity is another category where the two phones are perfectly matched. Both support 5G, Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax), and Bluetooth 5.3 — a strong trio that positions them well for current network infrastructure. Wi-Fi 6 delivers improved throughput and reduced congestion in crowded environments, while Bluetooth 5.3 offers reliable, low-energy connections to peripherals and wearables. The SIM configuration — one physical SIM plus one eSIM — adds useful flexibility for travelers or users managing personal and work lines without needing a second physical card slot.

Beyond wireless, both phones share NFC for contactless payments, a fingerprint scanner for biometric security, a full sensor suite (gyroscope, accelerometer, compass, GPS with Galileo support), and a microSD slot for expandable storage. The USB-C port is capped at USB 2.0 speeds on both devices, which means data transfers to a computer will be slower than on phones with USB 3.x — a shared limitation worth knowing for users who frequently sideload large files.

Yet again, this is a complete tie. Every connectivity standard, sensor, and feature is mirrored exactly across both models. Neither phone holds any advantage here, and buyers should continue looking to the design and battery categories — the only areas where these two devices meaningfully diverge.

The miscellaneous specs for these two phones offer very little to analyze, and nothing to differentiate. Both feature a video light — essentially a sustained torch mode useful for filming in low-light conditions — and neither carries a curved display, sapphire glass, or an e-paper screen. Those absences are entirely expected at this segment; sapphire glass remains the domain of premium and rugged devices, and e-paper displays serve a niche use case far outside the scope of mainstream mid-range smartphones.

This is a tie in every respect. The provided specs in this category are too limited and too uniform to draw any meaningful distinction between the Moto G86 and the G86 Power. As has been the pattern across most specification groups in this comparison, the only areas where these two devices genuinely diverge remain design dimensions and battery capacity — everything else, including these miscellaneous traits, is shared common ground.