Phone RivalsClick on a rival to jump to it.

Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Galaxy S9+


  • Optical camera zoom

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 84.36 %)
  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi vs 568 ppi)

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Samsung Galaxy Note 8


  • Lots of RAM (6 GB)

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 82.98 %)
  • Optical camera zoom
  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi vs 522 ppi)

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Galaxy S9+


  • Optical camera zoom

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 83.32 %)
  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi vs 529 ppi)

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Galaxy Note 9


  • Big battery (4000 mAh)

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 83.51 %)
  • Optical camera zoom
  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi vs 516 ppi)

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Galaxy S9+


  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi)

Huawei P20 Pro Huawei P20 Pro


  • Big battery (4000 mAh)

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 82 %)
  • Optical camera zoom

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Galaxy S9+


  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi)

Apple iPhone X Apple iPhone X


  • Proprietary USB connector

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 82.35 %)
  • Optical camera zoom
  • Supports wireless charging

in-depth comparison



Samsung Galaxy S9+ Samsung Galaxy S9+


  • Optical camera zoom
  • Supports wireless charging
  • Extremely high pixel density screen (531 ppi)

OnePlus 6 OnePlus 6


  • High-resolution camera (16 megapixels)
  • Lots of RAM (8 GB)

Common for both Pros & Cons

  • High screen-to-body ratio (83.68 % vs 83.81 %)

in-depth comparison



More Rivals

Latest stories