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 3G (1GB + 32GB) review: 168 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270RAM capacity:1 GBInternal storage:32 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Nvidia Tegra 2 T20

Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 14 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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 64% 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%

7.9

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 64% of tablets
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
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 90% of models
Score components

22%

4.3

Performance

20%

4.8

Display

16%

5.5

Camera

14%

4.5

Battery

12%

5.8

Connectivity

8%

5.9

Software

5%

4.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

â–¼Worse than 90%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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–² Better than 52% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (14)
7 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 7 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–²Better than 52%
?

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~ £270
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 MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB)

Based on 7 · 9

Reviewers like the software and smooth performance, but complain about the limited choice of tablet apps and a disappointing screen.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB)

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 90% of models
Score components:

22%

4.3

Performance

20%

4.8

Display

16%

5.5

Camera

14%

4.5

Battery

12%

5.8

Connectivity

8%

5.9

Software

5%

4.1

Design

3%

4.8

Audio

4.9
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

7.4
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
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
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
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
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.
mixed use
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
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
Operating system
Android
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.2%.
Update support duration
medium
This tablet offers medium update support, which is longer than the support period of 47.6% of tablets and equal to that of 32.4% 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
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 MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB) 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 manual ISO
    This tablet supports manual ISO, while the average tablet does not. 45.9% of tablets support manual ISO.
  • 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
  • 12.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 52% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (14)
    7 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.9 vs 7.0
  • 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.
  • 12.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 52% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (14)
    7 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.9 vs 7.0
  • 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
  • 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
  • Supports manual ISO
    This tablet supports manual ISO, while the average tablet does not. 45.9% of tablets support manual ISO.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
    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 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 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
  • 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.
  • 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 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 3G
    the average tablet
    Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 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.
  • 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
Full review · a couple of weeks of use
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G is recommended for Android fans, though glare, glitches and the missing 4G are real downsides.
8.0
BWOne
≈ estimated
05/03/2011
Hands-on review · apps, games and ports tested
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G is a solid first Android 3.0 tablet, though the missing 4G, SD support and HDMI cable hurt.
7.0
justechn
≈ estimated
03/03/2011
Full review · UI walkthrough and hardware features
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G has impressive hardware but has flaws, making it best for enthusiasts and early adopters at its price.
9.0
TechHarvest
≈ estimated
01/03/2011
Hands-on review · first days with it, apps and Flash tests
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G is an excellent multi-purpose tablet that could replace a netbook once Flash arrives.
8.0
PhoneArena
≈ estimated
25/02/2011
Full video review · design, camera, battery and software
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G is a winner, though it's pricey and its design is fairly typical.
9.0
MobileTechReview
≈ estimated
25/02/2011
Hands-on review · software, HDMI and keyboard tests
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G is fast, responsive and enjoyable to use, though it is one of the pricier tablets.
9.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
26/02/2011
First look · unboxing and first setup
Verdict
Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G feels responsive and polished on first use, though these are only first impressions so far.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techsmart.co.za
≈ estimated
30/08/2011
Review · Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is a tough, well-built tablet with strong sound and expandable storage, though its screen is hard to read in direct sunlight.
7.0
digit.in
✓ explicit
01/08/2011
Review · Android 3.1 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has a solid build with strong game performance and decent camera results, but its battery drains quickly and few apps are built for tablets.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
03/03/2011
Review · Android 3.0 tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom is the first Honeycomb tablet, quick to respond with a decent camera, but few tablet apps and no Flash support hold it back.
6.0
theguardian.com
≈ estimated
27/04/2011
Review · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has a pleasant Honeycomb interface, but with fewer tablet apps than the iPad 2, it cannot yet match Apple.
9.0
areadvd.de
≈ estimated
30/08/2011
Lab test · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom looks well finished and runs Android 3.1 quickly, but its awkward power button, large charger and slow boot time let it down.
6.4
01net.com
✓ explicit
01/03/2011
Early impressions · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has plenty of features and multitasks well, but its unfinished Honeycomb software can be fixed with free apps, and its screen is weak in daylight.
8.0
xataka.com
≈ estimated
22/06/2011
Hands-on test · Honeycomb tablet
Verdict
The Motorola Xoom has the best finish of the Android tablets tested and lasts long on battery, but its proprietary charger and young Honeycomb software hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB)

  • Solid and premium metal-back build quality
  • First tablet to feature Android 3.0 Honeycomb with a tablet-optimized UI
  • Strong multitasking performance powered by the dual-core Nvidia Tegra 2 processor
  • High-resolution 1280x800 display provides sharp text and images
  • Excellent battery life, often lasting 9-10+ hours of video playback or web browsing
  • Comprehensive connectivity including 3G, Mini-HDMI, and Micro-USB

What customers don't like about Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB)

  • Notably heavy (1.6 lbs) and bulky, making it tiring to hold for long periods
  • High launch price compared to competitors like the iPad
  • Screen is highly reflective and lacks sufficient brightness for outdoor use
  • Software bugs and frequent 'force-close' errors in early firmware versions
  • MicroSD card slot was non-functional at launch, requiring later software updates
  • Limited selection of tablet-optimized applications in the early Android ecosystem

Verdict

The Motorola XOOM MZ601 is a 3G-enabled Android tablet featuring a 10.1-inch TFT capacitive display with a resolution of 1280 x 800 pixels. It is powered by a 1.0 GHz dual-core NVIDIA Tegra 2 processor, paired with 1GB of RAM and 32GB of internal storage, which is expandable via a dedicated microSDHC slot. Key features include a 5MP rear camera with dual-LED flash capable of 720p video recording, a 2MP front-facing camera, and integrated sensors such as a gyroscope and barometer. Main pros highlighted by reviewers include its robust build quality, responsive touchscreen, and the inclusion of a mini-HDMI port for external display output. However, common cons include its relatively heavy weight of approximately 730g, high screen reflectivity, and a lack of tablet-optimized applications at the time of its release.

Compare Motorola Xoom MZ601 3G (1GB + 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 MZ601 3G (1GB + 32GB) and other tablets

No results found