vs
2.8Display3.8
2.5Smart features3.9
Dimensions
Size comparison
Moto Watch 40105 (2024)
| Moto Watch 40 | 105 (2024) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 45.9 mm | 115.5 mm | −69.6 mm |
| Width | 30.8 mm | 49.5 mm | −18.7 mm |
| Thickness | 10.2 mm | 14 mm | −3.8 mm |
| Weight | 26 g | 78 g | −52 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is Moto Watch 40 better than 105 (2024)?
- Weight26 g vs 77.5 g3×
- Pixel density235 ppi vs 100 ppi2.4×
- Resolution (width)240 px vs 120 px2×
- Thickness10.2 mm vs 14 mm+37%
Why is 105 (2024) better than Moto Watch 40?
- Battery capacity240 mAh vs 1,000 mAh4.2×
- Screen size1.57″ vs 2″+27%
- SpeakerNo · Moto Watch 40: Yes
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Case size | 46 mm | — |
| Weight | 26 g | 77.5 g |
| Thickness | 10.2 mm | 14 mm |
| Height | 45.9 mm | 115.5 mm |
| Width | 30.8 mm | 49.5 mm |
| Ingress protection | IP67 | — |
| Water resistance (IPx) | IPx7 | — |
| Colours | Phantom Black, Black Rose Gold | Black, Blue, Purple |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 1.57″ | 2″ |
| Display technology | LCD | LCD |
| Panel | IPS LCD | TFT LCD |
| AMOLED / OLED display | No | No |
| Resolution (width) | 240 px | 120 px |
| Resolution (height) | 280 px | 160 px |
| Pixel density | 235 ppi | 100 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 240 mAh | 1,000 mAh |
| Wireless charging | No | — |
| Charged in 30 min | 120% | — |
| Health sensors | ||
| Optical heart rate | Yes | — |
| Blood oxygen (SpO2) | Yes | — |
| Sensors | Accelerometer, heart rate, SpO2 | — |
| Sports & navigation | ||
| Built-in GPS | No | No |
| Connectivity | ||
| NFC payments | No | No |
| LTE (cellular) | No | No |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Bluetooth | 5 | — |
| Smart features | ||
| Speaker | No | Yes |
| RAM | — | 0.004 GB |
| Platform | ||
| Operating system | Moto Watch OS | RTOS OS |
| Platform | Proprietary | Proprietary |
