Same price ≈ $520
- AnTuTu score 4,704,310 vs 3,531,378
- Storage (max) 1,024 GB vs 512 GB
- Pixel density 510 ppi vs 419 ppi
- Telephoto camera
- Wireless charging
- android.gs
- Android phones
- Xiaomi Redmi K100 Pro
- Alternatives
Alternatives to Xiaomi Redmi K100 Pro
10 smartphones at a similar price that compete with the Redmi K100 Pro — what each does better, what it gives up and how the price compares.
approx. price≈ $520
9.6
Alternatives to the Redmi K100 Pro
Same price ≈ $520
- Storage (max) 1,024 GB vs 512 GB
- Battery capacity 10,000 mAh vs 8,580 mAh
- AnTuTu score 3,991,174 vs 3,531,378
- Main camera 50 MP vs 200 MP
- Weight 229 g vs 218 g
Same price ≈ $530
- Peak brightness 8,000 nits vs 4,500 nits
- Optical zoom 3.5× vs 2.5×
- Pixel density 458 ppi vs 419 ppi
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 185 Hz
- Battery capacity 8,000 mAh vs 8,580 mAh
8% pricier ≈ $560
- Peak brightness 6,500 nits vs 4,500 nits
- eSIM
- Weight 192 g vs 218 g
- Battery capacity 7,000 mAh vs 8,580 mAh
- Telephoto camera
12% pricier ≈ $580
- Optical zoom 5× vs 2.5×
- Battery capacity 9,070 mAh vs 8,580 mAh
- AnTuTu score 3,722,803 vs 3,531,378
- Weight 238 g vs 218 g
Same price ≈ $530
- Battery capacity 12,070 mAh vs 8,580 mAh
- Pixel density 497 ppi vs 419 ppi
- Screen size 6.9″ vs 6.6″
- Peak brightness 0 nits vs 4,500 nits
- Telephoto camera
8% cheaper ≈ $480
- Storage (max) 1,024 GB vs 512 GB
- Optical zoom 3.5× vs 2.5×
- Weight 188 g vs 218 g
- AnTuTu score 2,078,850 vs 3,531,378
- Geekbench 6 (multi-core) 6,402 vs 10,594
8% cheaper ≈ $480
- Storage (max) 1,024 GB vs 512 GB
- Wired charging 120 W vs 100 W
- Pixel density 450 ppi vs 419 ppi
- Main camera 50 MP vs 200 MP
- Peak brightness 1,800 nits vs 4,500 nits
Same price ≈ $510
- Optical zoom 3.5× vs 2.5×
- 4K video frame rate 120 fps vs 60 fps
- eSIM
- AnTuTu score 1,720,916 vs 3,531,378
- Main camera 50 MP vs 200 MP
19% pricier ≈ $620
- Optical zoom 3.5× vs 2.5×
- Pixel density 450 ppi vs 419 ppi
- Weight 205 g vs 218 g
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 185 Hz
- Battery capacity 7,000 mAh vs 8,580 mAh