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 MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£620RAM capacity:1 GBInternal storage:64 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 2 T20

Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 29 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 84% of models
Score components

35%

5.2

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

5.2

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 84% of tablets
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 97% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 97%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components

22%

4.1

Performance

20%

5.3

Display

16%

5.6

Camera

14%

5.6

Battery

12%

6.3

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software

5%

4.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

â–¼Worse than 80%
5.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.2/ 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 85% of models

5.2

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

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (29)
24 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 5 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 85%
?

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~ £620
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB)

Based on 20 · 7

Reviewers praise the smooth software and quick performance, but find it heavy and bulky and miss a working memory card slot.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB)

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

22%

4.1

Performance

20%

5.3

Display

16%

5.6

Camera

14%

5.6

Battery

12%

6.3

Connectivity

8%

6.0

Software

5%

4.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

5.2
Reviews score
5.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

6.4
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
40 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 40 nm process, which is larger than 86.9% of tablets and equal to 8% of tablets.
Internal storage
64 GB
Market range: <16 GB – >256 GB
This tablet has 64 GB of internal storage, which is more than 39.1% of tablets and equal to 17% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core score
?
Chipset
Nvidia Tegra 2 T20
This tablet runs on Nvidia Tegra 2 T20, which is less advanced than 70.5% of tablets and equal to 2.6% 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
TFT LCD
This tablet uses a TFT LCD display type. 89.9% 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
2 MP
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera with 2 MP resolution, which is lower than 53.8% of tablets and equal to 25.5% 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
What reviewers say
Battery capacity
6,500 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has 6,500 mAh battery capacity, which is smaller than 50.9% of tablets and equal to 0.7% of tablets.
Charging speed
18 W
Market range: <10 W – >45 W
This tablet charges at 18 W, which is faster than 48% of tablets and equal to 12.3% 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.
video playback
Wireless charging
no
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets offer this.
Fast charging
yes
This tablet supports fast charging. 43.2% of tablets offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say
LTE support
yes
This tablet has built-in LTE. 57.1% 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
yes
This tablet supports direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets offer this.
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
730 g
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 730 g, which is heavier than 89.5% of tablets and equal to 0.6% 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 MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftwareDesignAudio
  • More vivid contrast
    This tablet has more contrast than the average tablet (2041:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    2,041:1 vs 1,015:1
  • Supports LTE
    This tablet supports LTE, while the average tablet does not. 42.9% of tablets support LTE.
  • Supports cellular data
    This tablet supports cellular data, while the average tablet does not. 47.4% of tablets offer this.
  • 36 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (436 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    436 nits vs 400 nits
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 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.
    micro-HDMI port
  • More advanced chipset
    This tablet has a more advanced chipset than the average tablet (Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 vs MediaTek MT8169A).
    Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • More vivid contrast
    This tablet has more contrast than the average tablet (2041:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    2,041:1 vs 1,015:1
  • 36 nits higher typical brightness
    This tablet has a higher typical brightness than the average tablet (436 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    436 nits vs 400 nits
  • Built-in camera flash
    This tablet has a camera flash, while the average tablet does not. 45.5% of tablets have one.
  • Supports LTE
    This tablet supports LTE, while the average tablet does not. 42.9% of tablets support LTE.
  • 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.
    micro-HDMI port
  • 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
  • Inferior display type
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • No USB-C port
    This tablet does not have a USB Type-C port, while the average tablet does. 54% of tablets have one.
  • 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
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 25.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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 85% of models

    5.2

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

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    24 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    5.2 vs 7.0
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51).
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 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
  • 25.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.2/ 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 85% of models

    5.2

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

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    24 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    5.2 vs 7.0
  • 17.6% worse value for money
    Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.42 vs 7.6).
    6.42 vs 7.55
  • 2.38x more expensive
    Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) is more expensive than the average tablet (£620 vs £260).
    £620 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
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51).
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 2.86x larger process node
    This tablet has a larger process node than the average tablet (40 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet is built on 14 nm.
    40 nm vs 14 nm
  • 82.1% less memory bandwidth
    This tablet has less memory bandwidth than the average tablet (2.7 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has 14.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
    2.66 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • 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.
  • 48.8% slower GPU clock
    This tablet runs its GPU slower than the average tablet (333 MHz vs 650 MHz). The average tablet runs its GPU at 650 MHz.
    333 MHz vs 650 MHz
  • 8 years older
    This tablet was released earlier than the average tablet (2011 vs 2019). The average tablet was released in 2019.
    March 2011
    2011 vs 2019
  • More basic memory type
    This tablet uses less advanced memory than the average tablet (DDR2 vs LPDDR3).
    DDR2 vs LPDDR3
  • Inferior display type
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • 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
  • 50% slower touch response
    This tablet samples touch more slowly than the average tablet (60 Hz vs 120 Hz). The average tablet samples touch at 120 Hz.
    60 Hz vs 120 Hz
  • 3 MP lower front resolution
    This tablet has a lower-resolution front camera than the average tablet (2 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has a front camera of 5 MP.
    2 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 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.
  • No Ethernet support
    This tablet does not have Ethernet support, the average tablet does. 76.5% of tablets support Ethernet.
  • 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
    8.0/ 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 MZ600
    the average tablet
    Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) 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.
  • 49% heavier
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (730 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    730 g vs 490 g
  • 4.9 mm thicker
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (12.9 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8 mm thick.
    12.9 mm vs 8 mm
  • 73.8 mm wider
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (249.1 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    249.1 mm vs 175.3 mm

Video reviews

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

8.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
22/03/2011
Hands-on review · weeks of daily use
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 is recommended for Android fans, though iPad users may find the switch difficult and some flaws remain.
7.0
Flossy Carter
✓ explicit
28/02/2011
Real review · a few days of use and accessories
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 is fast and fun, but lacks Flash and some apps; a solid buy if you can afford it.
8.0
PhoneArena
≈ estimated
25/02/2011
Full review · battery, camera, video and software
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 is a strong Honeycomb tablet and a win for Motorola, though its price may decide its success.
7.0
Andru Edwards
≈ estimated
24/02/2011
Hands-on review · Honeycomb, browser and music tests
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 has a strong Honeycomb, but its browser feels less smooth than the iPad's.
8.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
26/02/2011
First look · unboxing and first power-on
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 has a solid build and a smooth, responsive experience that feels as polished as an iPad so far.
8.0
Andru Edwards
≈ estimated
23/02/2011
Unboxing · first setup and first impressions
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ600 looks great and has a good screen; a full review follows.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Brand video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
laptopmag.com
✓ explicit
22/02/2011
Review · First Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a sharp, widget-rich first Android 3.0 tablet, but glitchy software, few tablet apps and no Flash at launch hold it back.
7.3
cnet.com
✓ explicit
06/12/2011
Review · Verizon 4G tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has powerful hardware and an excellent keyboard, but its high price and tricky Honeycomb software suit confident Android users more than beginners.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
15/07/2011
Review · First Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a solid, fast Android tablet with Flash support, but its app library and unusable SD card slot keep it behind the iPad 2.
8.0
droid-life.com
≈ estimated
16/03/2011
Long-term review · Verizon Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a fast, good-looking Honeycomb tablet whose video chat and battery life impress, but it is heavy and overpriced for an unfinished product.
8.0
skatter.com
≈ estimated
31/03/2011
Hands-on review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a capable first Honeycomb tablet whose polished interface and video calls suit Android fans, though it lacks tablet apps.
8.0
louisville.am
≈ estimated
17/01/2012
Hands-on review · Verizon Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a relative bargain for web surfers wanting a big, fast screen, though its heft makes one-handed holding tiring.
4.0
zdnet.com
≈ estimated
09/03/2011
Hands-on review · iPad rival
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has a smooth Honeycomb interface and fast performance, but with missing features and few apps, most buyers should wait.
7.0
slashgear.com
≈ estimated
23/02/2011
Review · Verizon Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is fast, with battery life over 14 hours in heavy testing, but Flash, SD card and 4G all arrive later.
6.0
wired.com
✓ explicit
23/02/2011
Hands-on review · Media tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a widescreen tablet suited to video and reading, but rear speakers and rough Honeycomb software make waiting sensible.
6.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
06/03/2011
Hands-on review · Early Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has fast hardware and a strong Honeycomb interface, but LTE, Flash and SD card support missing at launch make it feel unfinished.
7.0
gizmodo.com
≈ estimated
03/03/2011
Hands-on review · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has fast, polished Google apps and a solid core experience, but it feels unfinished, so most buyers should wait for updates.
7.0
engadget.com
≈ estimated
23/02/2011
Review · Android iPad rival
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a credible iPad rival with fast hardware and a redesigned Honeycomb interface, though its high price and weak speakers hold it back.
T
theguardian.com
27/04/2011
≈ estimated
6.0
Summary of the review
Motorola Xoom Android tablet – review - The Guardian
E
expertreviews.co.uk
19/04/2011
✓ explicit
8.0
Summary of the review
Motorola Xoom review - Expert Reviews
F
futurefive.co.nz
01/10/2011
≈ estimated
9.0
Summary of the review
Review: Motorola Xoom Tablet - FutureFive
A
androidheadlines.com
25/02/2011
≈ estimated
9.0
Summary of the review
The Complete Hands-On Motorola Xoom and Android Honeycomb Review
phonearena.com
28/04/2011
Not graded yet
7.8
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
23/03/2011
Lab test · Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a strong choice for web surfing, with a fast browser and Flash video, but it is bulky and its controls can feel awkward.
7.0
connect.de
≈ estimated
20/06/2011
Lab test · Display and endurance
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a bright tablet that stays readable outdoors and runs smoothly, though its battery lasts only about five and a half hours.
8.7
notebookcheck.com
✓ explicit
08/06/2011
Lab test · Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom looks like an older Apple tablet and has a fast browser, but at 730 g it is heavy and its microSD slot does not work yet.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB)

  • Powerful dual-core processor providing 'lightning fast' performance
  • Sturdy build quality with a smooth, soft-touch matte finish
  • First tablet to feature Android 3.0 Honeycomb, optimized for larger screens
  • Excellent battery life, often cited between 10 to 20 hours depending on use
  • Standard inclusion of both front and rear-facing cameras for video chat
  • Responsive and high-resolution 10.1-inch widescreen display

What customers don't like about Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB)

  • High initial retail price compared to competitors like the iPad
  • Heavier and bulkier design (1.6 lbs) makes long-term one-handed use tiring
  • Software instability at launch, including frequent application 'force quits'
  • Awkward placement of the power button on the back of the device
  • Lack of tablet-optimized applications in the Android Market during early release
  • Missing features at launch that were promised for future updates, such as Flash and SD card support

Verdict

The Motorola XOOM MZ600 is a pioneer of the Android 3.0 Honeycomb era, featuring a 10.1-inch capacitive touchscreen with a 1280 x 800 resolution and Corning Gorilla Glass protection. It is powered by a 1GHz dual-core Nvidia Tegra 2 processor, 1GB of LPDDR2 RAM, and a substantial 64GB of internal storage, supplemented by a 6500 mAh battery that provides roughly 10 hours of video playback. Key characteristics include a 5MP rear camera with dual-LED flash, a 2MP front-facing webcam, and an array of sensors such as a gyroscope and barometer. Main pros include its solid build quality, responsive multitasking, and standard HDMI output for easy external display connection. However, notable cons include its significant weight of approximately 730g, high screen reflectivity, and a historical lack of tablet-optimized applications at its initial release.

Compare Motorola Xoom MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) 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 MZ600 (1GB + 64GB) and other tablets

No results found