The Motorola Razr (2025) is a $600 flip-style foldable running a MediaTek Dimensity 7400X processor with 8GB of RAM and a 4,500mAh battery. It sits well below Motorola's own Razr Ultra ($1,300) and Samsung's Galaxy Z Flip 7 ($1,100) in price, offering a foldable form factor at a cost closer to mainstream slabs like the Google Pixel 9a ($499) and iPhone 17e ($599).

The 6.9-inch inner OLED display folds shut to reveal a 3.6-inch AMOLED cover screen. The camera system pairs a 50-megapixel f/1.7 main lens with a 13-megapixel f/2.2 ultrawide and a 32-megapixel f/2.4 front camera. It carries an IP48 water resistance rating and connects over USB-C 2.0.

The Razr's core appeal is the form factor at its price — no other flip phone comes close to $600. Battery life is solid, the inner display gets bright enough for HDR content, and speaker output is surprisingly loud for a foldable. The trade-offs are clear, though. The Dimensity 7400X chipset delivers low-end processing power, the camera system underperforms both the Razr Ultra and the Galaxy Z Flip 7 by a wide margin, and the outer display isn’t great. These are the compromises you accept to get a folding phone at half the price of its competitors.

Design

The Motorola Razr (2025) measures 88.1 x 74 x 15.9mm folded. It uses an aluminum frame with Gorilla Glass Victus on the 6.9-inch inner display and a vegan leather back panel. The outer display is 3.6 inches with a 1:1 aspect ratio; the inner display has a 22:9 aspect ratio and an 84.9% screen-to-body ratio. The outer display's 64.1% screen-to-body ratio is low because it doesn't wrap around the cover camera module. An IP48 rating covers submersion in fresh water but offers limited dust protection — only against solid objects 1mm or larger rather than the full dust exclusion of IP68. Depth and duration are set by Motorola. Bandicoot Lab does not formally test design or durability, so this section is descriptive rather than scored.

The Razr (2025) sits in the more affordable tier of clamshell foldables at $599.99. The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 at $1,099.99 is comparable in folded footprint (85.5 x 75.2 x 13.7mm) but thinner and heavier at 188 grams, with a much larger 4.1-inch outer display. The Razr Ultra (2025) at $1,299.99 is nearly the same folded size (88.1 x 74 x 15.7mm) but with a larger 7.0-inch inner display and a 4-inch outer display. The vegan leather back is a styling choice Motorola has pushed across its range.

Display

Inner

The Razr's inner display is a 6.9-inch OLED panel at 2640 x 1080 resolution (413 pixels per inch), at up to 165Hz with an adaptive range down to 1Hz.

The inner display reaches 525 nits at maximum manual brightness and peaks at 3,221 nits under HDR stimulus — a strong result that puts it in the same territory as the Razr Ultra's 2,850 nits and the Galaxy Z Flip 7's 2,785 nits. Brightness stability is excellent at 99.5%, meaning the panel holds its peak output for the full 30-minute sustained brightness test without any thermal throttling. Minimum brightness dips to 2.6 nits, which is comfortable for nighttime use.

Color accuracy on the inner display is mixed. In Radiant Mode, which maps to the Display P3 color space, the average Delta E is 2.24 — a reasonable result that means colors stay close to their intended values for most content. The panel covers 99.3% of Display P3 and nearly 100% of sRGB. Natural Mode targets sRGB with 98.4% coverage but shows higher overall error with an average Delta E of 2.42, driven primarily by drift in mid-to-bright grays. The Galaxy Z Flip 7 lands at an average Delta E of 2.70 in its best inner mode — worse than the Razr's best, though Samsung's outer display performs much better than the Razr's.

Touch latency on the inner display averages 19.1ms, which is responsive and comparable to the Galaxy Z Flip 7's 18.6ms.

Outer

The outer cover screen is a 3.6-inch AMOLED at 413 pixels per inch, running at 90Hz with a narrow adaptive range between 60 and 90Hz.

The outer display is where quality drops. Color accuracy is noticeably weaker, with a best average Delta E of 2.94 in Radiant Mode, and the Natural Mode climbing to 2.97. Gamut coverage in Natural Mode falls to 97% of sRGB. Peak HDR brightness on the outer panel reaches 1,782 nits with much better size stability (89.9%) than the inner display's 48.3%, but manual brightness tops out at 515 nits.

The outer display is significantly slower at 46.7ms.The 165Hz refresh rate on the inner display exceeds the Galaxy Z Flip 7's 120Hz, and the 1–165Hz adaptive range is broader, though in typical scrolling and app use the visual difference between 120 and 165Hz is subtle. The outer display's 90Hz with a narrow 60–90Hz range is more limited than the Flip 7's 120Hz cover screen.

Performance

The Razr runs a MediaTek Dimensity 7400X paired with 8GB of RAM. This is a mid-range processor, and results reflect that. GeekBench 6 returns 1,081 single-core and 3,077 multi-core. Speedometer scores 9.4. The 3DMark Wild Life Extreme stress test peaks at 1,028 with 99.6% stability across all 20 loops — the chip barely throttles because it never runs hard enough to build enough heat. The device peaked at just 31 degrees during the GPU stress test. GeekBench AI scores 2,844 (quantized), 1,396 (half precision), and 576 (single precision).

These numbers are far below what either of its foldable rivals deliver. The Galaxy Z Flip 7's Exynos 2500 scores roughly double the Razr in GeekBench 6. The Razr Ultra's Snapdragon 8 Elite scores 2,917 single-core and 8,917 multi-core. In browser benchmarks, the Razr's Speedometer score of 9.4 sits well behind the Flip 7's 26.5 and the Razr Ultra's 19.4.

In practice, the Dimensity 7400X handles messaging, social apps, and web browsing without complaint. Heavier tasks like photo editing, multitasking between split-screen apps, and gaming will expose the gap. The 8GB of RAM is also half what the Razr Ultra and Flip 7 provide.

Camera

The Razr's camera system includes a 50-megapixel f/1.7 main camera, a 13-megapixel f/2.2 ultrawide, and a 32-megapixel f/2.4 front camera. There is no telephoto lens, and digital zoom maxes out at 8x.

The overall camera score reflects a system that works adequately in good light but struggles in key areas. Sharpness is the main weakness. The main camera's sharpness score lags well behind the Galaxy Z Flip 7 and the Razr Ultra. At 1x in bright light, the Razr produces a decent adjusted sharpness reading, but the processing applies aggressive sharpening that overshoots noticeably. The Razr Ultra, with its larger sensor and better processing, pulls ahead in resolved detail across all lighting conditions.

The ultrawide's sharpness score is high relative to the main lens. The front camera performs well for sharpness in bright conditions but drops substantially in low light. Digital zoom quality falls off quickly — by 8x, detail is heavily interpolated.

Main Camera

The main camera uses a 50-megapixel sensor with a 1/1.95-inch sensor size at f/1.7 and 25mm equivalent focal length.

Sharpness at 1x is reasonable in bright light, with a clean overall resolution reading, though the processing pipeline shows a clear preference for aggressive sharpening. In low light, the sensor resolves more raw detail than mid-light auto processing would suggest, but noise suppression smooths fine texture. Sharpness degrades steadily through the digital zoom range; by 4–5x, edge detail is mushy.

Color accuracy is heavily influenced by Motorola's vivid processing style. The camera boosts saturation by roughly 25% across all lighting conditions in auto mode, producing punchier images than the scene actually contains. The actual hue accuracy is moderate in bright light but degrades in darker conditions. The main camera shows elevated yellow-blue bias in both mid and dark conditions, which indicates the camera is not fully correcting for the warmer color temperatures in those test environments. At the same time, the a_bias jumps sharply in dark conditions, suggesting sensor-level hue confusion as ISO rises. Both factors contribute to the low-light color shift, but the sensor hue confusion is the larger issue in dark conditions. Skin tones in particular show high error in bright auto mode, driven by the saturation boost rather than hue rotation — the camera warms and saturates skin rather than shifting its hue to incorrect values.

Dynamic range is below average. In our testing the main camera had a heavily compressed tone curve and several monotonicity violations, meaning the tone mapping occasionally inverts step luminance in the darker end of the scale. The Razr Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip 7 both deliver stronger dynamic range on their main cameras.

Video stabilization is average — the main camera controls residual shake adequately for handheld walking shots, but the Galaxy Z Flip 7 is considerably more effective at damping motion.

Ultrawide Camera

The ultrawide uses a 13-megapixel sensor at f/2.2. Sharpness is good for an ultrawide at this price, with strong readings in bright and mid conditions that hold up well relative to the main lens. Low-light sharpness drops as expected.

Color accuracy follows the same vivid processing pattern as the main camera, with a visible saturation boost. Hue accuracy is adequate in bright light but deteriorates substantially in dark conditions — the ultrawide shows a dramatic hue error increase in low light. Dynamic range is the ultrawide's strongest metric. In raw mode it actually reached higher than the main camera's raw output. This is an unusual result that likely reflects the less aggressive tone mapping applied to the ultrawide.

Front Camera

The front camera has a 32-megapixel sensor at f/2.4 with a 25mm equivalent focal length and a 1/3.14-inch sensor.

Sharpness is solid in bright light with good detail retention, and the processing doesn't overshoot as aggressively as the rear cameras. In mid light, sharpness remains decent. Low-light sharpness drops significantly, which is expected from the small sensor.

Color accuracy mirrors the rear cameras' vivid processing approach, with saturation boosted above 125% in bright and mid conditions. Hue accuracy is moderate in bright light but shows mixed behavior across conditions. The front camera's low-light hue shift is driven primarily by sensor-level confusion rather than white balance issues. Skin tone accuracy in bright auto mode shows very high error, again driven by the aggressive saturation boost rather than hue misidentification.

Dynamic range is a relative strength of the front camera. The auto mode resolves about 7.3 stops of usable range with no monotonicity violations and moderate compression. This is better than the main camera's auto dynamic range, which is unusual but reflects the front camera's less aggressive tone mapping.

Video stabilization on the front camera is strong and well-controlled, making it capable for video calls and front-facing recording while walking.

Battery

The Razr offers a 4,500 mAh battery. Video playback on the inner display at 200 nits lasts 23 hours 53 minutes; the outer display extends to 26 hours 15 minutes. The Galaxy Z Flip 7 with its 4,300 milliamp-hour battery reaches 28 hours 26 minutes on its inner display, roughly 4.5 hours longer than the Razr's inner screen. The Razr Ultra's 4,700 milliamp-hour cell pushes to 29 hours 40 minutes on its inner display.

Web browsing drain over 5 hours is 22% — identical to the Razr Ultra and slightly better than the Galaxy Z Flip 7's 23%. Gaming drain during the 3DMark Wild Life Extreme stress test is just 11%, though this number is misleading — the Dimensity 7400X simply doesn't draw much power because it isn't working hard. The Flip 7 drains 21% during the same test while producing far more graphical throughput. Standby drain is 3% over 8 hours, matching the Flip 7.

In practical terms, the Razr comfortably lasts a full day of mixed use. Using the cover screen for quick tasks and notifications will stretch the battery further since it outlasts the inner display. The video playback time translates to roughly two days of moderate use for most people.

Charging

The Razr supports 30W wired charging and 15W wireless charging. It does not support magnetic charging alignment.

Wired charging reaches 27% at 10 minutes and 71% at 30 minutes, with a full charge taking 56 minutes. The Razr Ultra's 68W charger is substantially faster, reaching 75% in 30 minutes. The Galaxy Z Flip 7 with its 25W charger reaches 55% in 30 minutes — the Razr's 30W charging is noticeably quicker despite similar rated speeds.

Wireless charging is slow. It reaches 12% at 10 minutes and just 29% at 30 minutes, with the full charge taking nearly 3 hours.

Speaker

The Razr (2025)'s speaker was average for its price. Bass extension was limited with a 25.9 dB drop from the mids to the bass band, deeper than the iPhone 16e's 20 dB and the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro's 26.3 dB. The high end was better, producing flat and reasonably extended treble. Loudness of 75.1 dBA was competitive with the iPhone 16e and Pixel 9a. Distortion was the largest issue at 13.7%, higher than nearly every rival at this price.

Microphone

The microphone shows a standard deviation of 6.35 decibels across the frequency range. The frequency curve shows a steep rolloff below 200Hz and a pronounced peak in the 6–8kHz region, which can add a bright or thin quality to voice recordings. Call quality should be adequate, but the microphone isn't well-suited for any recording where audio fidelity matters.

Other

The Razr uses a capacitive fingerprint sensor with an average unlock speed of 294.4ms. This is below average — the Galaxy Z Flip 7 unlocks in about 121ms, and even the Razr Ultra is faster at around 165ms. The delay is noticeable in daily use, though most users will quickly get used to it.

USB data transfer speeds are limited by the USB-C 2.0 port. Maximum read speed is 41.3MB/s and maximum write speed is 37.1MB/s. The Galaxy Z Flip 7's USB 3.2 port is significantly faster for file transfers. If you regularly move large files or shoot lots of video, this is a meaningful limitation.

Conclusion

The Motorola Razr (2025) exists in a category of one. It is the most affordable flip-phone foldable available, and that framing is the only way to fairly evaluate it. Compared to traditional slab phones at $600, the Razr falls short in performance, camera quality, and display accuracy. The Dimensity 7400X chipset delivers mid-range power that the iPhone 17e and even the Google Pixel 9a outclass, and the camera system — while functional — cannot match the computational photography of Pixel or Apple devices at this price.

Compared to its foldable competitors, the Razr costs $500 less than the Galaxy Z Flip 7 and $700 less than the Razr Ultra. For that savings, you give up about half the processing power, measurably worse cameras (especially in low light and dynamic range), slower fingerprint unlock, and a USB 2.0 port. What you keep is solid battery life, a bright HDR-capable inner display, a 165Hz refresh rate, wireless charging, and the flip-phone form factor itself. For buyers who want the foldable experience without paying flagship prices, the Razr delivers that — with compromises that are proportional to the price difference.