OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v3.0
Tablets Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Tablets Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Tablets Methodology v3.0

Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440RAM capacity:1 GBInternal storage:32 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:TI OMAP 4430

Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 26 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

35%

5.1

Technical score

30%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

5.1

Reviews score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 6.9, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 86% of tablets
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

22%

4.3

Performance

20%

5.7

Display

16%

5.0

Camera

14%

4.6

Battery

12%

5.9

Connectivity

8%

5.7

Software

5%

5.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

â–¼Worse than 84%
5.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models

5.1

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (26)
16 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 88%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 30% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £440
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Available versions:
16GBCheck price
Other versions:
32GB

What reviewers say about the Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB)

Based on 16 · 11

Reviewers like the sturdy design and comfortable handling, but complain about the outdated Android version and lack of storage expansion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components:

22%

4.3

Performance

20%

5.7

Display

16%

5.0

Camera

14%

4.6

Battery

12%

5.9

Connectivity

8%

5.7

Software

5%

5.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

5.1
Reviews score
5.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the tablet's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a tablet with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

6.7
RAM capacity
1 GB
Market range: <1 GB – >8 GB
This tablet has 1 GB of RAM, which is less than 78% of tablets and equal to 19.1% of tablets.
Process node
45 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 45 nm process, which is larger than 94.9% of tablets and equal to 4.4% of tablets.
Internal storage
32 GB
Market range: <16 GB – >256 GB
This tablet has 32 GB of internal storage, which is less than 60.9% of tablets and equal to 17.9% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core score
?
Chipset
TI OMAP 4430
This tablet runs on TI OMAP 4430, which is less advanced than 68.4% of tablets and equal to 2.1% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Screen resolution
1280×800
This tablet has a 1280×800 screen, which is less sharp than 68.1% of tablets and equal to 21.7% of tablets.
Refresh rate
60 Hz
Market range: <60 Hz – >120 Hz
This tablet has a 60 Hz screen, which is smoother than 0.1% of tablets and equal to 73.4% of tablets.
Display type
IPS LCD
This tablet uses a IPS LCD display type. 17% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
149 ppi
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 149 ppi, which is lower than 86.8% of tablets and equal to 9.2% of tablets.
Display glass type
Corning Gorilla Glass
This tablet protects its screen with Corning Gorilla Glass, which is more durable than 45.4% of tablets and the same as 32.8% of tablets.
Show more
What reviewers say
Optical image stabilization
no
This tablet does not support optical stabilisation. 0.4% of tablets offer this.
Main camera megapixels
5 MP
Market range: <3.15 MP – >13 MP
This tablet has a rear camera with 5 MP resolution, which is lower than 63.7% of tablets and equal to 26% of tablets.
Front camera megapixels
1.3 MP
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera with 1.3 MP resolution, which is lower than 80.9% of tablets and equal to 5.4% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
?
Optical zoom
1xxx
This tablet has 1xx optical zoom, which is stronger than 18.2% of tablets and equal to 80.9% of tablets.
Show more
Battery capacity
7,000 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has 7,000 mAh battery capacity, which is larger than 53.7% of tablets and equal to 3.6% of tablets.
Charging speed
10 W
Market range: <10 W – >45 W
This tablet charges at 10 W, which is slower than 60.9% of tablets and equal to 33.3% of tablets.
Battery life
10 hours
Market range: <7 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 10 hours, which is longer than that of 39.1% of tablets and equal to that of 20.5% of tablets.
Wireless charging
no
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets offer this.
Fast charging
no
This tablet does not support fast charging. 56.9% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
LTE support
no
This tablet does not have built-in LTE. 42.9% of tablets offer this.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
This tablet connects to Wi-Fi. 0.2% of tablets offer this.
GPS
yes
This tablet has built-in GPS. 17.1% of tablets offer this.
5G connectivity
no
This tablet does not support 5G. 8.1% of tablets offer this.
NFC
no
This tablet does not include NFC. 10.8% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
Operating system
Android
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.2%.
Update support duration
short
This tablet offers short update support, which is shorter than the support period of 52.4% of tablets and equal to that of 47.6% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
?
On-device AI
no
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
This tablet does not support app tracking protection. 28.4% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
IP rating
not rated
This tablet's IP rating is not rated, which is less protected than 16.5% of tablets and the same as 83.6% of tablets.
Weight
599 g
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 599 g, which is heavier than 76.2% of tablets and equal to 0.7% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.7% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
What reviewers say
Number of microphones
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This tablet has a microphone array of 1, which is more than 0.2% of tablets and equal to 54.8% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this.
Dolby Atmos support
no
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.3% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
2
Market range: <2 – >4
This tablet includes 2 speakers, which is more than in 9.8% of tablets and equal to the number in 60.8% of tablets.
FM radio
no
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftwareDesignAudio
  • 78 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (478 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    478 nits vs 400 nits
  • 2,011 Hz higher PWM dimming frequency
    This tablet has a higher PWM dimming frequency than the average tablet (2011 Hz vs 0 Hz). The average tablet has PWM dimming frequency of 0 Hz.
    2,011 Hz vs 0 Hz
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (TI OMAP 4430 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    TI OMAP 4,430 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • Built-in camera flash
    This tablet has a camera flash, while the average tablet does not. 45.5% of tablets have one.
  • Supports HDMI output
    This tablet supports HDMI output, while the average tablet does not. 49.8% of tablets offer this.
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (TI OMAP 4430 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    TI OMAP 4,430 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 78 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (478 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    478 nits vs 400 nits
  • 2,011 Hz higher PWM dimming frequency
    This tablet has a higher PWM dimming frequency than the average tablet (2011 Hz vs 0 Hz). The average tablet has PWM dimming frequency of 0 Hz.
    2,011 Hz vs 0 Hz
  • Built-in camera flash
    This tablet has a camera flash, while the average tablet does not. 45.5% of tablets have one.
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • Supports HDMI output
    This tablet supports HDMI output, while the average tablet does not. 49.8% of tablets offer this.
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This tablet has fewer CPU threads than the average tablet (2 vs 8). The average tablet has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 3.7 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (1.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    1.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • 27.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models

    5.1

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (26)
    16 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.1 vs 7.0
  • 3 GB less RAM
    This tablet has less RAM than the average tablet (1 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    1 GB vs 4 GB
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • No fast charging
    This tablet does not support fast charging, while the average tablet does. 56.8% of tablets support fast charging.
  • 40% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.2 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 27.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.4 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models

    5.1

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (26)
    16 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.1 vs 7.0
  • 13.4% worse value for money
    Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.66 vs 7.6).
    6.66 vs 7.55
  • 69.2% more expensive
    Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£440 vs £260).
    £440 vs £260
  • 6 fewer CPU threads
    This tablet has fewer CPU threads than the average tablet (2 vs 8). The average tablet has 8 CPU threads.
    2 vs 8
  • 3 GB less RAM
    This tablet has less RAM than the average tablet (1 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    1 GB vs 4 GB
  • 40% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1.2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1.2 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 3.21x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (45 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    45 nm vs 14 nm
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (PowerVR SGX540 vs Mali-G51).
    PowerVR SGX540 vs Mali-G51
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    This tablet does not support big.LITTLE architecture, while the average tablet does. 51.7% of tablets support big.LITTLE architecture.
  • 57% less memory bandwidth
    This tablet has less memory bandwidth than the average tablet (6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has 14.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
    6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • 50% less internal storage
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet has 64 GB of internal storage.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 8 years older
    This tablet was released earlier than the average tablet (2011 vs 2019). The average tablet was released in 2019.
    December 2011
    2011 vs 2019
  • More basic memory type
    This tablet uses less advanced memory than the average tablet (LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3).
    LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3
  • 32.6% softer screen detail
    This tablet has softer screen detail than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has a pixel density of 221 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • Less sharp display
    This tablet has a less sharp screen than the average tablet (1280×800 vs 1920×1200).
    1,280×800 vs 1,920×1,200
  • Less vivid contrast
    This tablet has less contrast than the average tablet (800:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    800:1 vs 1,015:1
  • 3.7 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (1.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    1.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • Worse main-camera video
    This tablet supports worse main-camera video recording than the average tablet (720x30 fps vs 1080x30 fps). The average tablet supports 1080x30 fps main-camera video recording.
    720x30 fps vs 1080x30 fps
  • 3 MP lower rear resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution rear camera than the average tablet (5 MP vs 8 MP). The average tablet has a rear camera of 8 MP.
    5 MP vs 8 MP
  • No manual exposure control
    This tablet does not support manual exposure, while the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets support manual exposure.
  • No HDR photo mode
    This tablet does not have HDR photo mode, the average tablet does. 79.8% of tablets support HDR photo mode.
  • No manual white balance
    This tablet does not support manual white balance, while the average tablet does. 51.5% of tablets support manual white balance.
  • No burst mode
    This tablet does not support burst mode, the average tablet does. 60.6% of tablets support burst mode.
  • No panorama mode
    This tablet does not support panorama mode, while the average tablet does. 78.6% of tablets support panorama mode.
  • No timelapse video
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, while the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets support timelapse video.
  • No fast charging
    This tablet does not support fast charging, while the average tablet does. 56.8% of tablets support fast charging.
  • 44.4% slower charging
    This tablet charges slower than the average tablet (10 W vs 18 W). The average tablet charges at 18 W.
    10 W vs 18 W
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    This tablet has an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (2.1 vs 5).
    2.1 vs 5
  • Older Wi-Fi standard
    This tablet has an older Wi-Fi standard than the average tablet (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • No face recognition
    This tablet does not have face recognition, the average tablet does. 56.4% of tablets support face recognition.
  • Shorter update support
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • No split-screen
    This tablet does not support split-screen, the average tablet does. 72.8% of tablets support split-screen.
  • No picture-in-picture mode
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61.4% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No camera and mic privacy
    This tablet does not support camera and mic privacy, while the average tablet does. 56.6% of tablets offer this.
  • No multi-user mode
    User score
    5.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average of independent expert reviews and videos, graded by us; missing reviews count as 7/10.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how independent test sites and video reviewers rate the product in real use.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616
    the average tablet
    Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) does not support multi-user mode, while the average tablet does. 73.8% of tablets offer this.
  • No full-page screenshots
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 53% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No location privacy
    This tablet does not support location privacy, while the average tablet does. 76.7% of tablets offer this.
  • No dark mode
    This tablet does not support dark mode, while the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets offer this.
  • No offline voice recognition
    This tablet does not support offline voice recognition, the average tablet does. 76.4% of tablets support offline voice recognition.
  • 22.2% heavier
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (599 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    599 g vs 490 g
  • 78.6 mm wider
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (253.9 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    253.9 mm vs 175.3 mm
  • 0.8 mm thicker
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (8.8 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8 mm thick.
    8.8 mm vs 8 mm
  • 53.9 mm taller
    This tablet is taller than the average tablet (253.9 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200 mm tall.
    253.9 mm vs 200 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
techcentral.co.za
≈ estimated
02/07/2012
Hands-on review · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a well-built, slimmer successor that feels good in the hand, but it arrives too late and drops the microSD slot.
6.0
itpro.com
✓ explicit
25/01/2012
Review · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a stylish, well made Android tablet and a viable iPad alternative, though its hardware changes from the first model make little sense.
7.6
cnet.com
✓ explicit
05/03/2012
Hands-on review · Infrared remote tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is slimmer and lighter than its predecessor, but sluggish performance makes it feel like last year's tablet.
10
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
13/12/2011
Hands-on review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a great Android tablet with a bright screen and slim build, but most buyers should wait for Android 4.0.
5.0
eurogamer.net
≈ estimated
13/02/2012
Hands-on test · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a slimmer, lighter upgrade with a much better screen, but its modest resolution and older software leave it behind rivals.
7.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
07/12/2011
Hands-on review · Thin Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a thin, light tablet with a crisp screen, but it trails rivals because of its unfinished MotoCast software and high price.
7.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
07/12/2011
Review · Honeycomb tablet design
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is slim, light and well built, but its design lacks flair and its non-expandable 16GB of storage is paltry.
6.0
itpro.com
✓ explicit
25/01/2012
Lab test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a stylish, quick Android tablet with long battery life, but it's priced too close to the more capable iPad 2.
6.0
t3.com
✓ explicit
17/03/2012
Hands-on test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a slimmer, lighter upgrade with fast web browsing, but it feels heavy in the hand, rotates slowly and fails to beat the iPad 2.
8.6
notebookcheck.com
✓ explicit
03/04/2012
Lab test · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a sturdy, bright tablet with a very fast 3G connection, but it still stutters and gains little speed over the original.
7.2
pcwelt.de
✓ explicit
19/04/2012
Lab test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 ranks among the top three Android tablets for its screen, build and features, but its weak battery keeps it from the very top.
8.0
connect.de
✓ explicit
13/04/2012
Lab test · 10-inch Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a light, handy Android tablet with a good screen, but its battery lasts only about five and a half hours.
7.4
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
06/06/2012
Hands-on test · 10-inch Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a solid, light tablet with HDMI and a card slot, but its battery and sharpness fall behind the new iPad.
8.0
connect-professional.de
≈ estimated
01/02/2012
Hands-on test · Quick first look
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 impresses in a short first test with its sharp screen and fast processor, though Android 4 is only promised.
8.0
brasiligeeks.com
≈ estimated
12/01/2013
Hands-on test · Android 4.0 update
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a solid, well-designed tablet whose infrared remote works well, and Android 4.0 makes it feel much faster than before.
7.0
dday.it
≈ estimated
20/03/2012
Hands-on test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom 2 is a thinner, lighter upgrade with a good screen and enough power, but unstable Android 3.2 software and a high price hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB)

  • Lighter and slimmer design compared to the original Xoom
  • Vibrant 10.1-inch IPS display with excellent viewing angles
  • Useful built-in features like the IR transmitter for universal remote functions
  • Solid build quality featuring splash-proof coating and premium materials
  • MotoCast software allows for effective wireless syncing of media from a PC
  • Good battery life during inactive periods and respectable longevity for video playback

What customers don't like about Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB)

  • Sluggish and laggy performance during web browsing and multitasking
  • Lacks 4G connectivity, limiting it to slower 3G data speeds
  • Removal or blocking of the microSD card slot limits storage expansion
  • Awkward placement of power and volume buttons on the back/curves of the device
  • Shipped with an outdated version of Android (Honeycomb) initially
  • Rear-facing speakers lack volume and tend to distort at high levels

Verdict

The Motorola XOOM 2 3G MZ616 is a 10.1-inch tablet featuring a 1280x800 IPS LCD display protected by Corning Gorilla Glass and a splash-guard coating for durability. It is powered by a 1.2 GHz dual-core TI OMAP 4430 processor with 1GB of RAM and 32GB of internal storage, running on Android 3.2 Honeycomb (upgradable to 4.0.4). Key strengths include its slim 8.8mm profile, built-in 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, an integrated IR blaster for universal remote functionality, and a 7000 mAh battery that supports micro-USB charging. While it offers a premium feel and useful software like MotoCast, it is occasionally held back by sluggish UI performance, high screen reflectivity, and the lack of a microSD card slot for storage expansion.

Compare Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) with other tablets

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Motorola Xoom 2 3G MZ616 (32GB) and other tablets

No results found