Compare BlackBerry Classic Q20 vs Xiaomi Mi Max

Feature Comparison

  • The Screen Size on Xiaomi Mi Max is 45.0% more
  • The Xiaomi Mi Max has 32GB Internal Storage, which is 50.0% more
  • The Xiaomi Mi Max has 3GB RAM, which is 33.0% more
 
BlackBerry Classic Q20
Xiaomi Mi Max
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
30 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
52 Value For Money Score
89 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
3.5 inch 6.44 inch   
Screen Resolution
720 x 720 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
290.9 PPI 342 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 1.8GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 836 Qualcomm Snapdragon 650   
Processor Type
Dual-Core Hexa-Core   
RAM
2GB 3GB   
Graphics
Adreno 225 Adreno 510   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
8MP 16MP   
Front Camera Resolution
2MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), Dual Tone LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
BlackBerry Android   
OS Version
- Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
BlackBerry OS 10.3 MIUI 7   
OS Upgradable To
- Android 7.0   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, InfraRed (IR) Blaster, GPS   
Dimensions (mm)
131 x 72.4 x 10.2 173.1 x 88.3 x 7.5   
Weight
177 grams 203 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black Silver, Gold, Dark Gray   
Build Material
- Metal   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- 24GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Single Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- Yes   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2515mAh 4850mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- No   

BlackBerry Classic Q20 vs Xiaomi Mi Max Specs

Specs
BlackBerry Classic Q20Xiaomi Mi Max  
Screen Size 3.5 inch6.44 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 8MP16MP  
RAM 2GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2515mAh4850mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 2MP5MP  

Xiaomi Mi Max Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Good build quality
  • Fast fingerprint scanner
  • Fantastic battery life
  • Acceptable camera quality
The Bad
  • Reported issues with 4K video recording
  • Display visibility reportedly not great outdoors

BlackBerry Classic Q20 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • The keyboard is classic BlackBerry and is excellent for typing
  • Excellent call reception
  • BlackBerry Assistant is useful
  • Long battery life
The Bad
  • Camera is bad in low light conditions
  • Touchscreen is cramped which makes hitting a touch point challenging
  • Trackpad is not all that useful
  • No Google Play Services so plenty of Android apps do not function

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare BlackBerry Classic Q20 with Xiaomi Mi Max. When you see BlackBerry Classic Q20 Vs Xiaomi Mi Max comparison on Pricebaba, watch-out for the specifications of these phones and also the VFM score. With Pricebaba’s Value For Money Score, you can know how BlackBerry Classic Q20 stands against Xiaomi Mi Max and which one you should buy. The best price of BlackBerry Classic Q20 is currently Rs. 17,999. The prices for both these products were updated October 22, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page