Quick capture is also offered on the Ultra, and it works just as well as it did on the X: you can twist your wrists twice in a row to activate the camera UI, which comes in handy when the phone is asleep. As for the camera's performance, our assessment hasn't changed since we published our Moto X review. HDR shots worked well when we needed to combine shadows and highlights in the same image; all other shots were hit and miss. We were able to get great color reproduction and an above-average amount of detail in most daytime shots, but there were quite a few instances when the entire image appeared washed out. Low-light images were also a mixed bag. True to the company's claims, the camera is indeed good at capturing errant light; unfortunately, noise and blurring frequently creep in since the camera occasionally approaches ISO 6500, and it captures color and white balance inconsistently. Also, the Ultra lacks image stabilization, which doesn't help either.

Our video footage was taken at a resolution of 1080p (1,920 x 1,080) and resulted in a bit rate of 17 Mbps and a frame rate of 30 fps. Movies actually appeared better than most smartphones at this resolution, with good color and smooth motion. We only had some concerns about the mics, which picked up a little more wind than we would have preferred.

Performance and battery life

Assuming Motorola and Verizon are targeting the average mid-range handset market, the Droid Ultra's X8 architecture should be more than sufficient. For those of you who haven't read our review of the Moto X, here's what you need to know about the X8. It's comprised of a 1.7GHz dual-core Snapdragon S4 Pro, a quad-core Adreno 320 GPU clocked at 400MHz, a core for contextual computing and another for natural language processing. The latter two cores are meant to handle features like Touchless Control and Active Notifications without requiring a huge hit on battery life. Lastly, it also gets 2GB of RAM as part of the bundle.

Basically, then, this setup is ideal for anybody who isn't a power user and doesn't need the absolute best graphics processor available on a smartphone today. In using the phone over the course of a week, everything was immensely responsive and not once did we have to worry about the phone crashing or slowing down. We played games for several hours, and while it didn't have quite the level of detail that you'd find on an Adreno 330, we doubt most people will even notice or care about the subtle difference. Here are a few benchmarks that we use to compare the Ultra with the Moto X and Nexus 4, both of which have Snapdragon S4 Pro chips (though the latter uses a quad-core version):

Droid Ultra Moto X Nexus 4 Quadrant 2.0 8,767 8,958 4,949 Vellamo 2.0 2,465 2,427 1,382 3Dmark Ice Storm/Ice Storm Extreme 11,495 / 7,025 11,620 / 7,114 10,077 / 4,391 SunSpider 1.0 (ms) 594 582 1,016 GLBenchmark T-Rex 2.7 HD Offscreen (fps) 15 16 13 CF-Bench 14,540 14,092 13,954 SunSpider: lower scores are better. Nexus 4 tests were run on 4.2.2 for consistency (3Dmark excepted, which was run on 4.3) .

As a disclaimer, we decided to show most of the Nexus 4 test results as they appeared on Android 4.2.2 -- the same version of the OS running on Motorola's selections. (3DMark was the only exception, as we didn't have the chance to run it on 4.2.2.) Granted, some of the scores generated using 4.3 are a little better -- 660ms in SunSpider 1.0 and 15 in GLBench 2.7, for instance. Our Quadrant score, meanwhile, improved to 5,224. Overall, though, it's clear that Moto's X8 alternative benefited from a few solid optimizations. What's more, you're not going to see any noticeable difference in performance between the Ultra and the X.

Motorola's onto something when it comes to battery life. We raved about the Moto X, which lives up to its claim of 24-hour runtime (assuming mixed usage). We weren't able to replicate Moto's promise of 28-hour battery life for the Droid Ultra, but it still did a good job holding a charge. The Ultra still frequently made it through a full day of use, while a heavier workload yielded us around 13 hours of total life. (For those asking, our heavy workload consisted of taking pictures and videos, navigating from San Francisco to the South Bay, a few hours of using the phone as a mobile hotspot, surfing the web, frequent emailing and a good deal of social networking.) If this is what we have to look forward to from Motorola, we can't wait to try out the Droid Maxx's larger battery.

Speaking of navigating, the GPS had no problem following us around town. Calls on Verizon's network were clear, and the audio was incredibly loud both in the earpiece and on speakerphone; in fact, the same goes for media playback, regardless of whether we used the speakers or a pair of headphones. Touchless Control also recognized our commands in every environment, whether in a quiet house or on noisy streets.

The competition

Here's the thing: most of our review up to this point feels moot. We still have a hard time understanding why the Ultra needs to exist: it's offered at the same $200 on-contract price as the similarly specced Moto X, which will also be available on Verizon. We won't dispute that it has a larger screen size, and a different design that may indeed appeal to different people. However, the Ultra not only uses nearly identical specs and software as the X, but it also offers the same screen size as the Droid Maxx. The Maxx and the Droid Mini both make sense, because having different screen sizes, batteries and price points ($300 and $100, respectively) at least ensure a greater number of options.

The Ultra will only appeal to those people who are okay paying $200 for a mid-range device that has a slightly larger display than the Moto X, and don't have a problem with having less storage space and a smaller battery than on the Maxx (not to mention the lack of wireless charging). It just seems odd that Verizon would be willing to devote a good portion of its Droid marketing efforts to such a device that doesn't even seem necessary.

Of course, we're saying this with the assumption that paying $200 for a mid-range phone is an acceptable option for you, but we have a feeling that not many people would choose the Ultra over the Samsung Galaxy S 4, which is available for the same price. The GS4 sports a 5-inch (1080p) AMOLED, quad-core Snapdragon 600 processor, a much better camera, infrared, expandable external storage and the list goes on. Overall, the Ultra is a good phone and we like the Touchless Control and Active Notifications as much as the next person, but we have a hard time recommending the Ultra when it's the same price.

Oddly enough, our overall enjoyment of the two latest Motorola devices makes us very eager to try out the Droid Mini. With very few exceptions, it has the same features and similar specs, with a smaller display size and an appropriate $100 on-contract cost, which actually works for a mid-range smartphone. HTC and Samsung have attempted to make petite versions of their flagship devices, only to cut a lot of corners in the process; from what we can tell so far, the Droid Mini appears to be the closest to its older (and larger) brethren.

Wrap-up

The Motorola Droid Ultra is a great mid-range phone with lots of compelling features that many potential buyers will find interesting. It does have its negatives, though -- this is essentially a Moto X riddled with Verizon branding, a glossy and fingerprint-prone finish and a nonsensical price. But therein lies the problem: we simply can't think of a reason why the Ultra should co-exist with the X at the exact same price. The only way we'd recommend it over the X is if you need a (slightly) larger screen or perhaps just prefer a slightly thinner and taller chassis, but even the Maxx offers those things and adds a much larger battery. Of the four handsets released by Motorola this month, this one is by far the most uninteresting and, more importantly, the least likely to tempt potential buyers. It's ironic, perhaps, that such a fate would befall a phone called the Ultra.

Edgar Alvarez contributed to this review.