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 MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£620RAM capacity:1 GBInternal storage:16 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 2 T20

Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 17 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

5.8/10

Overall score

Score
5.8/ 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 92% of models
Score components

35%

4.9

Technical score

30%

?

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

25%

4.9

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 92% of tablets
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 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 92% of models
Score components

22%

3.9

Performance

20%

4.8

Display

16%

5.7

Camera

14%

4.2

Battery

12%

6.4

Connectivity

8%

5.1

Software

5%

4.0

Design

3%

5.5

Audio

â–¼Worse than 92%
4.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.9/ 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 93% of models

4.9

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

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (17)
15 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 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 93%
?

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.
Other versions:
1GB + 16GB1GB + 64GB

What reviewers say about the Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB)

Based on 15 · 3

Reviewers like the fast performance and solid build, but complain it is heavy and thick, with an awkward power button.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB)

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 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 92% of models
Score components:

22%

3.9

Performance

20%

4.8

Display

16%

5.7

Camera

14%

4.2

Battery

12%

6.4

Connectivity

8%

5.1

Software

5%

4.0

Design

3%

5.5

Audio

4.9
Reviews score
4.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

70%

5.8

Overall score

30%

7.2

Price

6.3
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
16 GB
Market range: <16 GB – >256 GB
This tablet has 16 GB of internal storage, which is less than 78.8% of tablets and equal to 14.8% 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
N/A
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery capacity
3,250 mAh
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has 3,250 mAh battery capacity, which is smaller than 95.1% of tablets and equal to 0.5% 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
9 hours
Market range: <7 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 9 hours, which is shorter than that of 62.7% of tablets and equal to that of 6.9% of tablets.
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
no
This tablet does not support direct OS updates. 79.8% 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
?
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 MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) 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.
  • 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.
  • 4 more GPU execution units
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (8 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 4
  • 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
  • 4 more GPU execution units
    This tablet has more GPU execution units than the average tablet (8 vs 4). The average tablet has 4 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 4
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 30.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 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 93% of models

    4.9

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

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (17)
    15 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    4.9 vs 7.0
  • 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
  • 50.8% smaller battery capacity
    This tablet has a smaller battery capacity than the average tablet (3,250 mAh vs 6,600 mAh). The average tablet offers 6,600 mAh of battery capacity.
    3,250 mAh vs 6,600 mAh
  • More basic graphics
    This tablet has less advanced graphics than the average tablet (ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51).
    ULP GeForce vs Mali-G51
  • 30.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 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 93% of models

    4.9

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

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (17)
    15 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    4.9 vs 7.0
  • 20.5% worse value for money
    Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.27 vs 7.6).
    6.27 vs 7.55
  • 2.38x more expensive
    Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) 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
  • 75% less internal storage
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet has 64 GB of internal storage.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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.
    February 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
  • 96 nits lower typical brightness
    This tablet has a lower typical brightness than the average tablet (304 nits vs 400 nits). The average tablet reaches 400 nits typical brightness.
    304 nits vs 400 nits
  • 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
  • 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 backside-illuminated sensor
    This tablet does not have a BSI sensor, while the average tablet does. 52.6% of tablets have a BSI sensor.
  • No timelapse video
    This tablet does not support timelapse video, while the average tablet does. 57.5% of tablets support timelapse video.
  • 50.8% smaller battery capacity
    This tablet has a smaller battery capacity than the average tablet (3,250 mAh vs 6,600 mAh). The average tablet offers 6,600 mAh of battery capacity.
    3,250 mAh vs 6,600 mAh
  • 1 hours shorter battery life
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (9 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    9 hours vs 10 hours
  • 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 direct OS updates
    This tablet does not support direct OS updates, while the average tablet does. 79.7% of tablets offer this.
  • 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 MZ601 Cellular
    the average tablet
    Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) 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
  • 49.1 mm taller
    This tablet is taller than the average tablet (249.1 mm vs 200 mm). The average tablet is 200 mm tall.
    249.1 mm vs 200 mm

Video reviews

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

8.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
22/03/2011
Full review · a couple weeks of use
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular is recommended if you want Android, with reservations about glare, touch accuracy and the missing 4G.
9.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
26/02/2011
First look · unboxing and first use
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular is responsive and well finished, though the screen is reflective and the charger is unusual.
Brand video
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
digit.in
✓ explicit
30/08/2011
Hands-on review · Android 3.1 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a solid tablet held back by few tablet-ready apps and a battery that ran out in about 3 hours, so it suits only people avoiding iOS.
8.0
techsmart.co.za
≈ estimated
30/08/2011
Benchmark review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a solid, rugged Honeycomb tablet with a handy microSD slot, but its screen and benchmark speed trail rivals like the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
8.0
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
19/04/2011
Full review · First Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is the top Android tablet, with a solid build and smooth Android 3.0, but the iPad 2 is still the better choice for most people.
7.0
androidcentral.com
≈ estimated
24/02/2011
Hardware review · Stock Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a fast, all-day tablet with clean stock Android, but many apps aren't tablet-ready yet and its microSD slot doesn't work.
8.7
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
23/06/2011
Lab test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a well-built Honeycomb tablet with 32GB of storage, but at 730g it is heavy and its microSD slot is unusable for now.
5.0
engadget.com
≈ estimated
23/02/2011
Hands-on review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a strong iPad rival with long battery life, marred by a power button that sometimes sticks, distorting speakers and a non-working microSD slot.
8.0
mobiletechreview.com
≈ estimated
28/02/2011
Full review · Honeycomb launch
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a fast, high-resolution Honeycomb tablet, but Flash, 4G and a working microSD slot are missing at launch, so it feels early.
8.0
slashgear.com
≈ estimated
10/08/2012
Benchmark review · Launch tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is fast with very long battery life, but Flash, 4G and microSD are missing at launch and it cannot make voice calls.
6.0
theguardian.com
≈ estimated
27/04/2011
Long-form review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a good Honeycomb tablet, but the iPad remains stronger, with a thinner app store and a power button hidden on the back.
7.0
spiegel.de
≈ estimated
02/03/2011
Quick test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a fast, solid-feeling iPad challenger with vivid colours, but its app library is still far thinner than Apple's.
7.0
connect.de
≈ estimated
20/06/2011
Lab measurements · Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has a strong screen for outdoor use and a sturdy build, but short battery life and an unsupported microSD slot let it down.
7.7
pcwelt.de
✓ explicit
20/05/2011
Lab test · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is the best Android tablet so far, but the iPad 2 is still smoother, faster to use and has the better screen.
9.0
frandroid.com
≈ estimated
24/03/2011
Hardware review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a sturdy Honeycomb tablet with up to 12 hours of normal use, but it is heavy, microSD doesn't work yet and the power button is awkward.
6.6
01net.com
✓ explicit
28/04/2011
Lab test · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is fast with long battery life, but a thin choice of tablet apps and an inactive microSD slot hold it back.
6.4
01net.com
✓ explicit
01/03/2011
First impressions · Android tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has strong hardware and features, but its unfinished Honeycomb software needs free add-on apps, so it suits people happy to fix the software themselves.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB)

  • Solid build quality with a premium, high-quality metallic feel
  • First tablet to feature Android Honeycomb, which offered a modern, desktop-like UI
  • High-resolution 1280 x 800 display provides crisp details for text and images
  • Strong multitasking performance powered by a dual-core Tegra 2 processor
  • Comprehensive feature set including dual cameras, HDMI output, and stereo speakers
  • Excellent battery life, capable of lasting over 12 hours in video playback tests

What customers don't like about Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB)

  • Notably heavy (approx. 1.6 lbs), making it fatiguing to hold for long periods
  • Screen brightness is often insufficient for comfortable outdoor use under direct sunlight
  • Initial software issues, including occasional app force-closes and lag during screen rotation
  • Launched with several non-functional features, such as the microSD slot and 4G LTE support
  • The display glass is highly reflective and attracts fingerprints very easily
  • Cannot be charged via the micro-USB port; requires a proprietary wall charger

Verdict

The Motorola XOOM MZ601 is a 10.1-inch cellular tablet featuring a 1280 x 800 pixel TFT capacitive display and a dual-core 1.0 GHz Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 processor. This specific variant is equipped with 1GB of RAM and 16GB of internal storage, expandable via a dedicated microSD slot. Its main characteristics include a 5MP rear camera with dual-LED flash and 720p video recording, a 2MP front-facing camera, and stereo speakers, all powered by a 7000 mAh battery. Key pros are its solid build quality, responsive widescreen for multimedia, and built-in HDMI output for external viewing. However, notable cons include its significant weight of approximately 730g, which can be tiring for one-handed use, and the highly reflective nature of its screen.

Compare Motorola Xoom MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) 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 MZ601 Cellular (1GB + 16GB) and other tablets

No results found