Compare Xiaomi Mi Max vs Brandsdaddy Magic Plus

Feature Comparison

  • The 6.44 inch Screen Size on the Xiaomi Mi Max is 22.0% more
  • The 32GB Internal Storage on the Xiaomi Mi Max is 50.0% more
  • The Xiaomi Mi Max's got 3GB RAM, while Brandsdaddy Magic Plus's RAM is 2GB
 
Xiaomi Mi Max
Brandsdaddy Magic Plus
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
32 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
69 Value For Money Score
50 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
6.44 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
342 PPI 293.72 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Bezel Less
No -   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm MediaTek   
Processor Speed
1.8GHz 1.3GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 650 MediaTek MT6735   
Processor Type
Hexa-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
3GB 2GB   
Graphics
Adreno 510 Mali-T720   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
16MP 13MP   
Dual Rear Camera
No -   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 5MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
No -   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, Panorama, HDR -   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) -   
Camera Features
Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), Dual Tone LED Flash LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 6.0 Marshmallow Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
MIUI 7 -   
OS Upgradable To
Android 7.0 -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
Fingerprint Scanner, InfraRed (IR) Blaster, GPS GPS, FM Radio   
Sensors
Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Magnetometer, Gyroscope -   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
173.1 x 88.3 x 7.5 140.6 x 72.1 x 9.15   
Weight
203 grams 158.6 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio) 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Silver, Gold, Dark Gray Black   
Build Material
Metal -   
Device Warranty
1 Year -   
Warranty Details
- -   
Body SAR
0.63W/kg -   
Head SAR
0.84W/kg -   
In The Box
Device, Charger & Cable Separate, SIM Ejector Tool, User Manual -   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
24GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 32GB   
OTG Support
- -   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Micro SIM, Nano SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
Yes -   
2G Bands
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900, CDMA 800 / 1900 -   
3G Bands
HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100, CDMA2000 1xEV-DO -   
4G Bands
LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 7(2600), 38(2600), 39(1900), 40(2300), 41(2500) -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
4850mAh 3500mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No -   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
- -   

Xiaomi Mi Max vs Brandsdaddy Magic Plus Specs

Specs
Xiaomi Mi MaxBrandsdaddy Magic Plus  
Screen Size 6.44 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 16MP13MP  
RAM 3GB2GB  
Battery Capacity 4850mAh3500mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP5MP  

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

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Xiaomi Mi Max with Brandsdaddy Magic Plus. When you see Xiaomi Mi Max Vs Brandsdaddy Magic Plus 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 Xiaomi Mi Max stands against Brandsdaddy Magic Plus and which one you should buy. The prices for both these products were updated December 15, 2017.
Report an error on this page