Compare HTC One E9+ vs Xiaomi Mi Max

Feature Comparison

  • The Xiaomi Mi Max has 6.44 inch Screen Size, which is 14.0% more
  • Internal Storage of HTC One E9+ is the same as Xiaomi Mi Max
  • RAM of HTC One E9+ is the same as Xiaomi Mi Max
 
HTC One E9+
Xiaomi Mi Max
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
87 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
81 Value For Money Score
89 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 6.44 inch   
Screen Resolution
2560 x 1440 pixels 1920 x 1080 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
534 PPI 342 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 4 Corning Gorilla Glass 3   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
2GHz 1.8GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6795 Helio X10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 650   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Hexa-Core   
RAM
3GB 3GB   
Graphics
PowerVR G6200 Adreno 510   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
20MP 16MP   
Front Camera Resolution
4MP 5MP   
Camera Details
Dual-LED Flash, Automatic Simultaneous Video And Image Recording, Geo-Tagging, Face/Smile Detection, HDR, Panorama Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR   
Video Recording Resolution
4K Video Recording (2160p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), Dual Tone LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.0 Lollipop Android 6.0 Marshmallow   
OS Detail
Sense UI MIUI 7   
OS Upgradable To
Android 6.0 Android 7.0   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
Front Facing Stereo Speakers, GPS, FM Radio Fingerprint Scanner, InfraRed (IR) Blaster, GPS   
Dimensions (mm)
156.5 x 76.5 x 7.54 173.1 x 88.3 x 7.5   
Weight
149 grams 203 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Meteor Grey, Rose Gold Silver, Gold, Dark Gray   
Build Material
- Metal   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 32GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
22GB 24GB   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
2TB 128GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual 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)
No Yes   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2800mAh 4850mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po)   
Removable Battery
No No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- No   

HTC One E9+ vs Xiaomi Mi Max Specs

Specs
HTC One E9+Xiaomi Mi Max  
Screen Size 5.5 inch6.44 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 20MP16MP  
RAM 3GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2800mAh4850mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 4MP5MP  

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

HTC One E9+ Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Mindboggling display quality at 534PPI with Gorilla Glass 4 protection
  • HTC BoomSound Stereo speakers
  • Metal unibody construction makes it feel premium
  • Decent performance and battery life
The Bad
  • Runs outdated Android 5.0 Lollipop
  • Lacks fingerprint sensor
  • No fast charging support

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare HTC One E9+ with Xiaomi Mi Max. When you see HTC One E9+ 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 HTC One E9+ stands against Xiaomi Mi Max and which one you should buy. The best price of HTC One E9+ is currently Rs. 19,850. The prices for both these products were updated October 23, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page