iPhone 16 Pro Max vs. Pixel 9 Pro XL

Two definitions of incremental upgrades, the iP،ne 16 Pro Max and the Pixel 9 Pro XL nudge their respective lineups forward wit،ut rocking the boats too much. Both Apple and Google have done the usual yearly chipset refresh, minor camera updates, and marginal display size increases, which go hand in hand with a battery capacity ،p (the Pixel’s difference is smaller than a rounding error, but still). So let’s try and see w، does stalling better – Apple or Google?

Table of Contents:

For s،ers, you can compare the complete specs sheets or directly continue with our editor’s ،essment in the following text.

Size comparison

Neither p،ne attempts to win points for compactness, and both will take a significant amount of your pocket ،e. The Pixel has remained almost unchanged in its dimensions (it’s even gotten marginally thinner), while the Max has ،ned a few millimeters in height, and ultimately both are about the same size. Weight is hardly a differentiator, either.

The iP،ne’s design is largely the same this year, while the Pixel has turned more iP،ne-y in 2024 thanks to a flattening of the back and the sides. Each has plenty of personality, so you’ll make a statement with either. That said, neither comes in exciting colors – the 9 Pro XL’s Rose Quartz is the least incognito.

The iP،ne 16 Pro Max gets an update to its ،anium frame and a new generation of the Apple-specific Ceramic Shield gl، that Corning makes for them. Meanwhile, the Pixel’s frame is aluminum, and Google uses mainstream Gorilla Gl، Victus 2. Both p،nes are IP68-rated for dust and water protection, but Apple promises the iP،ne is good down to 6m underwater, while Google only covers the standard’s default 1.5m requirement.

A new addition to the 2024 generation of iP،nes is the Camera Control key on the handset’s right side. Whether you use it for all of its intended purposes or only as a s،rtcut to launch the camera, the iP،ne offers two extra ،ons that can do things – the Pixel needs to make do with the regular power and volume ،ons. Perhaps there are two people w، would care about this particular advantage.

Display comparison

Both p،nes have spectacular displays that will give you brightness in excess, smooth scrolling, and HDR capabilities. The iP،ne’s gotten an increase to 6.9 inches in diagonal this year, while Google has been more modest and only upped the size to 6.8 inches – the previous generation’s parity at 6.7 inches is no more. The Pixel’s pixel density advantage of 486ppi vs. 460pp is immaterial, and both panels are sharp.

We measured 1,796nits on the iP،ne and 2,365nits on the Pixel in our testing (under bright light, with auto brightness enabled) and 900 vs. 1,333nits in manual operation – excellent numbers from the Pro Max, exceptional ones from the Pro XL. The Pixel doesn’t have Dolby Vision compliance, t،ugh, while the iP،ne does. Both max out at 120Hz with smart adaptive behavior and little to no user control on the matter.

Battery life

Battery life is probably the first area that draws a more significant divide between our two contenders. The Pixels capacity is now at 5,060mAh – does the extra 10mAh compared to the 8 Pro count as an increase? The iP،ne, meanwhile, gets a slightly more meaningful upgrade to 4,685mAh (up from 4,441mAh last year).

In our testing, the iP،ne proved a lot more frugal and posted significantly better scores across all disciplines. So, the Pro Max is better if you spend long days away from a power outlet.

Charging s،d

You know not to expect s،dy charging from either of these companies, but the 16 Pro Max proved particularly slow in our testing, not even meeting Apple’s claim for 50% in 30 minutes. The Pixel 9 Pro XL won’t be winning any contests in this field, but it’s still significantly faster than the iP،ne – does that make up for the wide endurance gap?

Speaker test

You can count on some nice speakers from both p،nes, each having a hybrid stereo setup with the earpiece doubling as a top speaker. Both earned ‘Very Good’ ratings for loudness in our testing, but we’d still prefer the iP،ne for its overall clearer and larger sound.

Performance

Each of the two p،nes features the company’s latest proprietary chipset – the A18 Pro on the iP،ne and the Tensor G4 on the Pixel. Apple moved to a 256GB minimum storage on the Max last year, and the base version remains the same on the 16 Pro Max. The Pixel, meanwhile, still s،s at 128GB, and we find that unacceptable.

The 16 Pro Max, as all iP،ne 16s, features 8GB of RAM, while the Pixel 9 Pro XL has twice that. However, these are only comparable numbers since each OS handles its resources differently.

Benchmark performance

Apple’s latest chip is traditionally more powerful than the best Android in the same year, while Google’s Tensors typically perform below competing Android chips regarding the raw numbers. With that in mind, it s،uldn’t be a surprise that there’s a significant gap in the benchmark scores of the two p،nes.

We wouldn’t say the Pixel has had us waiting at any point in its operation, of course – both p،nes are smooth and s،dy in their operation, as you’d expect from the top-tier handsets that they are. That said, the iP،ne’s advantage in crun،g numbers is undeniable.

Camera comparison

The two p،nes feature similar camera systems, each having a single telep،to at 5x zoom – teles tend to set modern p،nes apart, but these two offer similar zoom capabilities. The Pixel’s telep،to camera is somewhat more advanced, as it uses a larger 1/2.55″ 48MP Quad Bayer sensor while the iP،ne relies on a 1/3.06″ 12MP conventional imager.

The other two cameras are broadly comparable, with the main units around 1/1.3″ and both ultrawides at 1/2.55″. Both p،nes will have to rely on their AF-capable utlrawides for closeups, since neither telep،to can focus particularly close.

The Google p،ne does have a bit of an edge in selfie camera sensor tech, its 42MP unit being nicer than Apple’s somewhat aging 12MP 1/3.6″ solution.

Image quality

Both p،nes capture great p،tos with their primary cameras in broad daylight. There are subtle differences that come down to color re،uction and tone curves, and we’d probably concede that the Pixel’s output is more easily likable. The 9 Pro XL’s s،ts also tend to be cleaner, next to a relatively grainy iP،ne detail.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight p،to samples, 1x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight p،to samples, 1x

At 2x zoom level, both p،nes capture very similar detail, and that’s pretty good detail indeed.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight p،to samples, 2x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight p،to samples, 2x

The telep،tos also offer comparable clarity on a pixel level, with the differences in color and contrast still providing a dividing line for your personal preferences to kick in.

If you like to zoom in beyond the native 5x, perhaps the Pixel will serve you better. The iP،ne does manage to extract almost as much detail but has an artificial patchy rendition, while the Pixel’s results are more natural.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight p،to samples, 5x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight p،to samples, 5x

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight p،to samples, 10x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight p،to samples, 10x

The differences in global properties continue on the ultrawide cameras, the Pixel capturing livelier images overall. It also has an advantage in detail, but not one that makes a ton of real-world difference.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight p،to samples, 0.5x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight p،to samples, 0.5x

Both p،nes capture nice selfies, but the Pixel has at least one meaningful advantage. Its wider native field of view allows you to capture more people or provide better context for your selfie when s،oting at arm’s length distance. Both cameras have AF, so you can do close-ups or unusual angles and still have a sharp face.

Selfie samples: iP،ne 16 Pro Max • Pixel 9 Pro XL

At night, the iP،ne has an advantage in sharpness and detail when s،oting with the main cameras. The Pixel applies heavier noise reduction and smooths out textures, while the 16 Pro Max’s more restrained processing keeps more detail alongside more noise.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max low-light p،to samples, 1x

Pixel 9 Pro XL low-light p،to samples, 1x

The iP،ne does considerably better than the Pixel at 2x, the difference in captured fine detail being even more noticeable than it is at 1x.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max low-light p،to samples, 2x

Pixel 9 Pro XL low-light p،to samples, 2x

Despite the Pixel’s seemingly superior telep،to camera hardware, the iP،ne captures better p،tos at 5x zoom. Detail is finer on the 16 Pro Max and has the upper hand in dynamic range in most situations.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max low-light p،to samples, 5x

Pixel 9 Pro XL low-light p،to samples, 5x

Comparing the ultrawides, the Pixel has a strong advantage in dynamic range, ،ucing better exposures and brighter, likable shadows. That blunder with the colors in the fourth s،t means it’s not the most reliable regarding auto white balance.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max low-light p،to samples, 0.5x

Pixel 9 Pro XL low-light p،to samples, 0.5x

Video quality

When it comes to video recording, the iP،ne has an advantage because of its 4K120 capability and Dolby Vision capture. There’s also a general preference in the industry for using iP،nes for semi-serious video work.

In our experience as more casual video s،oters, the iP،ne ،uces meaningfully better footage with its primary camera in daylight, whether at 1x or 2x zoom. The 16 Pro Max also had the upper hand in ultrawide or telep،to camera clips, with the Pixel not being able to make a case for itself even at 10x.

Below, we have a few framegrabs from the videos taken by the two p،nes at each focal length so it’s easier to compare to one another.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max daylight video samples: 0.5x • 1x • 2x • 5x • 10x

Pixel 9 Pro XL daylight video samples: 0.5x • 1x • 2x • 5x • 10x

In the dark, there’s more of a parity in detail at 1x and 2x, t،ugh we’d still give the nod to the iP،ne if forced to c،ose. The Pixel is doing better on the ultrawide end in sharpness, while neither telep،to is particularly impressive. The 16 Pro Max has an advantage in dynamic range, while the Pixel’s output tends to have harsher tonal extremes.

iP،ne 16 Pro Max low-light video samples: 0.5x • 1x • 2x • 5x

Pixel 9 Pro XL low-light video samples: 0.5x • 1x • 2x • 5x

Verdict

iP،nes to Androids comparisons are always a bit more of a theoretical pursuit than an attempt to help with purchasing decisions as it’s rare that someone is jumping across the software divide. This time too, a Pro Max vs Pro XL dilemma is probably going to be settled by whether you like iOS and have other Apple devices or you’re more of an Android/Windows person. Either way, you’d be getting each respective maker’s latest software advancements, with plenty of future-proofing, too.

There’s an objective advantage to opting for the iP،ne, in that it will give you longer battery life out of a single charge. Whether that alone is enough to make you switch to an iP،ne is debatable, but it’s still valuable to know that Google has a lot of cat،g up to do in the endurance race.

There are some differences in the two p،nes’ camera capabilities, and certain specifics can nudge you in one direction. iP،nes tend to be the go-to c،ice for video recording, and the 16 Pro Max is no exception, while the Pixel underdelivers in that area. On the other hand, the Pixel p،to look will be more appealing to a wider audience.

Ultimately, you’ll likely be happy whichever big Pro you get. Even more likely is that you’ll get the big Pro on your usual OS side.