Meizu 22 VS Xiaomi Redmi Turbo 4 Pro (512GB / 16GB RAM)

Both the Meizu 22 and the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro share a strong foundation in terms of protection: both carry an IP68 rating, meaning full waterproofing in real-world conditions. Neither adopts a rugged or foldable form factor, so they compete squarely as conventional, slim smartphones.

Where they diverge significantly is in physical footprint. The Meizu 22 is notably more compact — 152 × 71 mm versus 163.1 × 77.9 mm — and lighter at 190 g compared to 219 g. That 29 g difference is perceptible during extended one-handed use or when the phone is pocketed for long periods. The Meizu 22's total volume of 88.5 cm³ versus the Redmi's 101.6 cm³ confirms it is a meaningfully smaller device overall. The Redmi counters with a marginally slimmer profile at 8.0 mm versus 8.2 mm, though this 0.2 mm gap is imperceptible in practice.

For users who prioritize ergonomics and single-handed comfort, the Meizu 22 holds a clear advantage in this category. The Redmi Turbo 4 Pro's larger dimensions may suit those who prefer a bigger-screened device, but on pure design metrics — compactness and weight — the Meizu 22 comes out ahead.

On the fundamentals, these two displays are closely matched: both use OLED/AMOLED panels, run at 120Hz, peak at 1800 nits of typical brightness, and support HDR10+ and Always-On Display. For everyday use — scrolling, video, outdoor visibility — neither has a meaningful edge on panel quality or responsiveness.

The key differentiators lie in size and one notable HDR standard. The Redmi Turbo 4 Pro sports a larger 6.83″ screen versus the Meizu 22's 6.3″, which translates directly to more content visible at once — a real advantage for media consumption, gaming, and multitasking. The Meizu 22 partially compensates with a slightly sharper image at 465 ppi versus 447 ppi, though both figures are comfortably above the threshold where individual pixels become indistinguishable to the naked eye, making this gap imperceptible in practice. The Redmi also adds Dolby Vision support — a certification absent on the Meizu 22 — which unlocks richer, dynamically tone-mapped content from streaming platforms that carry Dolby Vision libraries.

The Redmi Turbo 4 Pro holds the edge in this category. Its larger screen and exclusive Dolby Vision support are tangible advantages for users who consume a lot of video or prefer a more immersive display experience, while the shared brightness, refresh rate, and HDR10+ parity ensure no ground is conceded on core panel performance.

At the heart of both devices sits the same Qualcomm Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 — a 4nm chip with an identical 8-thread CPU configuration, Adreno 825 GPU, 16GB of LPDDR5 RAM at 4800 MHz, and a 12.5W TDP. Every architectural detail matches: cache sizes, memory bandwidth, GPU clock speed, API support. In practice, these two phones will feel indistinguishable in day-to-day tasks, gaming, and sustained workloads.

The Geekbench 6 scores reinforce this near-perfect parity. The Redmi Turbo 4 Pro posts a marginally higher single-core score of 2154 versus the Meizu 22's 2041, and a near-identical multi-core result of 6880 versus 6833. These differences fall well within normal run-to-run variance for the same silicon and carry no real-world significance — no user will perceive them in any application.

The one concrete differentiator in this category is storage: the Meizu 22 ships with 1024GB of internal storage compared to the Redmi's 512GB. For users who store large local media libraries, games, or video files, that distinction is genuinely meaningful. On raw processing performance, however, this is an effective tie — both phones deliver the same chip, the same memory architecture, and essentially the same benchmark output.

The camera systems reveal a meaningful philosophical split between these two devices. The Meizu 22 deploys a triple 50MP rear setup — all three lenses at high resolution — paired with a 3x optical zoom, giving users genuine telephoto reach without digital quality loss. The Redmi Turbo 4 Pro, by contrast, pairs a 50MP primary with a much lower-resolution 8MP secondary lens, and lists 0x optical zoom, meaning any zoom beyond the main lens is purely digital. For users who regularly shoot at distance, this is a significant practical gap.

The front camera tells a similar story. The Meizu 22 features a 50MP selfie shooter with an f/2.1 aperture, while the Redmi offers a 20MP front camera at f/2.2 — a narrower aperture that admits less light. For selfie-focused users or video callers, the Meizu 22's front camera resolves considerably more detail. The Redmi does counter with 3 flash LEDs versus 1 on the Meizu, which can improve flash-lit shots in dark environments, though this is a secondary consideration. Both phones share the same video ceiling of 4K at 60fps, OIS, phase-detection autofocus, and an equivalent manual controls feature set.

In this category, the Meizu 22 holds a clear advantage. A versatile triple-50MP system with real optical zoom and a higher-resolution front camera outweighs the Redmi's three-LED flash on virtually any photographic use case.

This is a rare case of a perfect spec-for-spec tie. Both the Meizu 22 and the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro run Android 15 and share an identical feature set across every listed OS attribute — privacy controls, productivity tools, customization options, and accessibility features all match without a single point of divergence.

The shared highlights are worth noting for buyers coming from older devices: both support on-device machine learning, dynamic theming, split-screen multitasking, Picture-in-Picture, and offline voice recognition. On the privacy front, both offer camera/microphone indicators, location controls, and app tracking blocks — a solid baseline for security-conscious users. Neither receives direct OS updates, meaning both depend on their respective manufacturers for Android patches, which carries the same long-term software support uncertainty for each.

There is no winner here — the data shows a complete tie in this category. A buyer's preference between these two phones should be driven entirely by the differences found in other specification groups.

Battery capacity is where the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro makes its most dramatic statement in this comparison. Its 7550 mAh cell dwarfs the Meizu 22's already-respectable 5510 mAh — a difference of over 2000 mAh, or roughly 37% more energy storage. In real-world terms, that gap is substantial: users who struggle to reach end-of-day on a 5500 mAh device will find the Redmi's battery a genuine two-day proposition under moderate use.

Charging speed is close but slightly favors the Redmi at 90W versus the Meizu 22's 80W — a modest gap that becomes more relevant given the Redmi's larger cell actually needing more energy to fill. The Meizu 22, however, counters with wireless charging support, a convenience feature the Redmi entirely lacks. For users who rely on Qi pads at a desk or bedside, this is a meaningful quality-of-life advantage that the raw wattage figures do not capture.

On balance, the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro holds a clear overall edge in this category — its massively larger battery delivers a longevity advantage that outweighs the Meizu 22's wireless charging capability for most users. The Meizu 22 remains the better pick only for those who specifically prioritize cable-free top-ups over endurance.

Neither phone includes a 3.5mm headphone jack or FM radio, so both users are committed to wireless audio. The meaningful distinction here comes down to which Bluetooth audio codec each device supports. The Meizu 22 offers aptX HD, while the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro supports standard aptX — and that difference has a real implication for audiophiles.

aptX HD transmits audio at a higher bitrate than standard aptX, targeting 24-bit quality over Bluetooth — a step up that is perceptible when paired with compatible high-resolution wireless headphones. Standard aptX, while a solid codec that improves on basic Bluetooth audio, operates at a lower bitrate ceiling. Neither phone supports the more modern aptX Adaptive or LDAC, which would have superseded both. The advantage the Meizu 22 holds is therefore real but conditional: it only matters if the user owns headphones that are themselves aptX HD certified.

For users invested in wireless hi-res audio, the Meizu 22 has a clear edge in this category by virtue of its aptX HD support. For casual listeners using standard Bluetooth headphones or earbuds, the gap narrows considerably, as both codecs deliver a clear improvement over baseline Bluetooth SBC in everyday use.

Across the broad connectivity landscape — 5G, dual SIM, Bluetooth 5.4, NFC, Wi-Fi 7, GPS with Galileo, infrared sensor, and fingerprint scanner — these two phones are virtually identical. For the vast majority of day-to-day wireless use cases, a buyer would notice no difference whatsoever between them.

Dig into the details, however, and two meaningful gaps emerge. First, the Meizu 22 supports Wi-Fi 6E, while the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro tops out at Wi-Fi 6. Wi-Fi 6E unlocks the 6 GHz band, which offers less congestion and higher throughput in dense environments — a tangible advantage in apartments, offices, or anywhere many devices compete for bandwidth. Second, and more significantly, the Meizu 22 features USB 3.2 versus the Redmi's USB 2.0. This is a stark real-world difference: transferring large files — videos, backups, raw photos — to a computer is dramatically faster over USB 3.2, while USB 2.0 can turn what should be a quick transfer into a lengthy wait.

The Meizu 22 holds a clear edge in this category. Both USB 3.2 and Wi-Fi 6E are practical, everyday advantages rather than niche specs, making the Meizu 22 the more future-ready and capable device on the connectivity front.

The Miscellaneous category for these two devices is a clean sweep of shared attributes. Both the Meizu 22 and the Redmi Turbo 4 Pro include a video light, and neither features a sapphire glass display, curved screen, or e-paper display. There is not a single point of differentiation in the provided data.

This is a complete tie, and the specs here carry limited decision-making weight regardless. The absence of a curved display is, if anything, a practical positive for most users — flat screens are generally easier to apply screen protectors to and less prone to edge distortion. The shared video light is a minor but useful addition for recording in low-light conditions.