6% pricier ≈ $1,050
- AnTuTu score 2,973,303 vs 2,670,664
- Battery capacity 7,000 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- Peak brightness 6,000 nits vs 3,500 nits
- Refresh rate 144 Hz vs 160 Hz
- Weight 215 g vs 191 g
- dotrising.com
- Phones
- Xiaomi 17
- Alternatives
Alternatives to Xiaomi 17
10 smartphones at a similar price that compete with the 17 — what each does better, what it gives up and how the price compares.
Alternatives to the 17
6% pricier ≈ $1,050
- Battery capacity 7,300 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- AnTuTu score 2,790,237 vs 2,670,664
- Wired charging 120 W vs 100 W
- Peak brightness 1,800 nits vs 3,500 nits
- Drop resistance class C vs A
Same price ≈ $970
- Optical zoom 4× vs 2.6×
- Screen size 6.8″ vs 6.3″
- Wireless charging power 80 W vs 50 W
- Geekbench 6 (multi-core) 5,169 vs 10,459
- AnTuTu score 1,725,229 vs 2,670,664
10% cheaper ≈ $870
- Measured brightness 2,113 nits vs 1,087 nits
- AnTuTu score 2,982,875 vs 2,670,664
- Battery capacity 6,510 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- Active use (test) 12.8 h vs 21.8 h
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 160 Hz
9% pricier ≈ $1,050
- Optical zoom 6.2× vs 2.6×
- Peak brightness 8,000 nits vs 3,500 nits
- Storage (base) 512 GB vs 256 GB
- Geekbench 6 (multi-core) 5,701 vs 10,459
- AnTuTu score 2,101,808 vs 2,670,664
13% pricier ≈ $1,100
- AnTuTu score 3,647,824 vs 2,670,664
- Battery capacity 7,100 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- Peak brightness 6,000 nits vs 3,500 nits
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 160 Hz
- Active use (test) 19.1 h vs 21.8 h
12% cheaper ≈ $860
- Battery capacity 7,000 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- Peak brightness 6,000 nits vs 3,500 nits
- Wired charging 120 W vs 100 W
- AnTuTu score 2,141,861 vs 2,670,664
- Storage (max) 512 GB vs 1,024 GB
Same price ≈ $980
- AnTuTu score 4,838,033 vs 2,670,664
- Battery capacity 8,000 mAh vs 6,330 mAh
- Geekbench 6 (multi-core) 12,688 vs 10,459
- Refresh rate 144 Hz vs 160 Hz
- Wired charging 90 W vs 100 W
18% pricier ≈ $1,150
- Measured brightness 2,262 nits vs 1,087 nits
- Peak brightness 7,000 nits vs 3,500 nits
- AnTuTu score 2,955,505 vs 2,670,664
- Refresh rate 144 Hz vs 160 Hz
- Active use (test) 20.4 h vs 21.8 h
14% cheaper ≈ $840
- AnTuTu score 2,914,061 vs 2,670,664
- Measured brightness 1,816 nits vs 1,087 nits
- Optical zoom 3.7× vs 2.6×
- Active use (test) 13.6 h vs 21.8 h
- Refresh rate 120 Hz vs 160 Hz