Xiaomi 17 Pro Max VS Xiaomi Redmi K90 Pro Max

In terms of physical form factor, the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max and the Redmi K90 Pro Max are remarkably close. The weight difference is just 1 g (219 g vs. 218 g), and the thickness gap is a mere 0.1 mm (8 mm vs. 7.9 mm). Height and width are also within a fraction of a millimeter of each other. In everyday handling, these differences are imperceptible — both phones will feel essentially identical in the hand and in a pocket.

Where a real-world distinction does emerge is in water resistance depth. Both carry an IP68 rating, but the certification thresholds differ significantly: the 17 Pro Max is rated to 6 m underwater, while the K90 Pro Max is rated to only 1.5 m. For most users, accidental splashes or brief submersion in a sink or pool are covered by either device. However, the 17 Pro Max's deeper rating provides a meaningful margin of safety for activities like snorkeling, poolside use, or drops into deeper water — scenarios where the K90 Pro Max's protection could be exceeded.

Neither phone offers a rugged build or a foldable form factor, so there is no structural durability edge on those fronts. Overall, the design specs are nearly a dead heat in ergonomics, but the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max holds a clear advantage in water resistance depth, making it the stronger choice for users who prioritize protection in or around water.

The display specs for these two phones are almost entirely identical. Both feature a 6.9″ OLED/AMOLED panel with a 1200 x 2608 px resolution at 416 ppi, a 120Hz refresh rate, branded damage-resistant glass, and full support for HDR10+ and Dolby Vision. In practice, this means both screens will deliver rich, accurate colors, deep blacks, and smooth scrolling — the kind of panel quality that holds up well even under direct sunlight and excels for HDR video content.

The one meaningful differentiator is that the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max includes a secondary screen, while the K90 Pro Max does not. A secondary display — typically mounted on the back of the device — adds genuine utility: it can show notifications, act as a viewfinder for selfies using the main camera, or display widgets without waking the primary screen. It is a feature that goes beyond specs-on-paper and translates into real, everyday convenience.

For pure display performance, both phones are evenly matched and either would satisfy even demanding users. However, the 17 Pro Max earns the edge in this category solely due to its secondary screen, which adds a layer of versatility the K90 Pro Max simply cannot offer.

Under the hood, these two phones are silicon twins. Both are powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 on a 3 nm process, paired with 16 GB of LPDDR5 RAM running at 5300 MHz and 1 TB of internal storage. The Geekbench 6 scores are identical — 3234 single-core and 10059 multi-core — which reflects a chip that sits at the absolute top of the mobile performance hierarchy. Real-world tasks like gaming, video editing, and AI workloads will feel indistinguishable between the two devices.

The GPU picture is equally uniform. Both carry the Adreno 830 clocked at 1200 MHz with 1536 shading units, and share the same 85.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8.2 W TDP. That TDP figure is particularly relevant: it sets the thermal ceiling for sustained performance, and since both phones share it, neither has a built-in advantage in maintaining peak speeds during extended gaming or benchmark sessions.

This category is a complete tie — every single performance specification is identical across the two products. A buyer choosing between the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max and the Redmi K90 Pro Max will find absolutely no reason to favor one over the other on the basis of raw performance alone.

The main camera systems are built on the same foundation — a triple 50 MP array with 5x optical zoom, OIS, laser autofocus, and a shared focal range that tops out at 115 mm. However, a few subtle differences matter. The 17 Pro Max's telephoto lens opens to f/2.6 versus the K90 Pro Max's f/3.0, meaning it allows more light in at longer focal lengths — an advantage in low-light zoom shots. The 17 Pro Max also starts slightly wider at 17 mm compared to 18 mm, offering a marginally broader field of view on the ultra-wide lens. Neither gap is dramatic on its own, but together they give the 17 Pro Max a small but consistent optical edge.

The selfie camera gap is more pronounced. The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max ships with a 50 MP front sensor, while the K90 Pro Max uses a 32 MP shooter. Higher resolution means more detail retained when cropping, and more flexibility for portrait-style processing. For users who prioritize video calls, social content, or front-camera photography, this is a tangible difference. On top of that, the 17 Pro Max supports HDR10 and Dolby Vision recording, while the K90 Pro Max supports neither — a significant omission for anyone shooting high-quality video intended for modern HDR-capable screens or streaming platforms.

The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max holds a clear advantage in this category. The combination of a higher-resolution front camera, a wider telephoto aperture, and full HDR video recording support makes it the stronger all-around imaging device of the two.

When it comes to software, these two phones are carbon copies of each other. Both ship with Android 16 and share an identical feature set across every tracked specification — from privacy controls like location and camera/microphone permissions, to productivity tools like split-screen, Picture-in-Picture, and offline voice recognition. Neither receives direct OS updates, and neither supports features like Wi-Fi password sharing or focus modes.

The shared privacy toolkit is worth noting: both phones offer app tracking blocks, clipboard warnings, and on-device machine learning, which collectively represent a solid baseline for users who care about data control on Android. The absence of cross-site tracking protection and Mail Privacy Protection on both devices is equally shared, so no advantage exists there either.

This category is an absolute tie — there is not a single differentiating feature between the two devices in the provided data. A buyer's software experience on the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max and the Redmi K90 Pro Max will be functionally indistinguishable, and this group should carry no weight in a purchase decision between the two.

Battery capacity is the one area where a number separates these two phones — but barely. The Redmi K90 Pro Max packs a 7560 mAh cell versus the 7500 mAh in the 17 Pro Max. A 60 mAh gap at this scale translates to a difference of well under one percent in raw energy storage, which would be entirely undetectable in day-to-day use. Both are exceptionally large batteries by any standard, comfortably placing either phone in the multi-day endurance tier for moderate users.

Charging is where the story becomes a clean tie. Both devices support 100W wired fast charging, 50W wireless charging, and 22.5W reverse wireless charging — an identical trio across the board. The 100W wired speed is particularly notable: at that rate, a near-empty battery of this size can realistically reach a full charge in well under an hour. The reverse wireless charging capability also means either phone can double as a charging pad for earbuds or a smartwatch.

This category is effectively a draw. The K90 Pro Max's marginal capacity lead is too small to influence any real-world decision, and every charging specification is shared. Users prioritizing battery and charging should consider both phones equal and look to other categories to differentiate.

Both phones ditch the 3.5 mm headphone jack and rely on stereo speakers for built-in audio output — a shared baseline that puts wireless listening front and center for both devices. This is where a significant gap opens up. The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max supports aptX, aptX HD, and aptX Adaptive, while the Redmi K90 Pro Max supports none of these codecs.

That distinction has real consequences for wireless audio quality. aptX and aptX HD deliver higher-bitrate Bluetooth audio than the standard SBC codec, reducing the compression artifacts that can make music sound flat or lifeless through wireless headphones. aptX Adaptive goes further still — it dynamically adjusts bitrate in real time to balance quality and latency, making it well-suited for both music listening and low-latency use cases like gaming or video. Users pairing either phone with a compatible aptX Adaptive headset will hear a material improvement on the 17 Pro Max that the K90 Pro Max simply cannot replicate.

The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max wins this category clearly. For casual listeners using standard Bluetooth headphones the difference may go unnoticed, but anyone who has invested in a quality wireless audio setup with aptX-compatible gear will get meaningfully more out of the 17 Pro Max than the K90 Pro Max can offer.

Across the core connectivity stack — 5G, Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, NFC, USB 3.2 Type-C, and dual SIM — both phones are identical, and the shared 10 Gbps download / 3.5 Gbps upload ceiling reflects top-tier 5G modem capability on either device. However, the 17 Pro Max adds Wi-Fi 6E support to its wireless stack, while the K90 Pro Max tops out at Wi-Fi 6. Wi-Fi 6E unlocks the 6 GHz band, which offers less congestion and lower latency in dense environments like apartments or offices — a practical advantage for users in crowded wireless environments, provided their router supports it.

The second differentiator is the barometer, present on the 17 Pro Max and absent on the K90 Pro Max. A barometer enables more accurate altitude readings, smoother GPS elevation tracking, and can contribute to weather-sensing features. It is a niche sensor for most users, but meaningfully useful for hikers, cyclists, or anyone relying on precise location data in elevation-heavy terrain.

The Xiaomi 17 Pro Max takes a narrow but clear edge here. Wi-Fi 6E is a genuinely useful upgrade for the right user, and the barometer adds a sensor the K90 Pro Max entirely lacks. Neither difference is a dealbreaker in isolation, but together they give the 17 Pro Max a more complete connectivity and sensor profile.

The miscellaneous specs for these two phones are identical across every tracked attribute. Both include a video light, and neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display. With only four data points in this group — and all four matching — there is simply no differentiation to analyze.

This category is a complete tie and offers no basis for preferring one device over the other. Buyers should weight this group accordingly and focus their decision on the more substantive differences found in other specification areas.