Side by side
qm6k pro vs TCL QM9K
qm6k pro
201 positive (78%) · 38 mixed (15%) · 19 negative (7%)
Trust + time weighted: +71%
AI summary — not a quote
The TCL QM6K Pro is widely regarded as a high-value mid-range TV, particularly when purchased through Costco. Users frequently praise its snappy Google TV interface, accurate out-of-the-box color balance, and effective anti-glare coating. While it shares the same HVA panel as some higher-end models, it is primarily distinguished from the flagship series by having significantly fewer local dimming zones, which can result in less impactful HDR highlights and lower contrast in dark scenes.
Pros
- Excellent value-to-performance ratio, especially the 65-inch model.
- Snappy and responsive Google TV platform performance.
- Effective anti-glare/anti-reflective coating on the Pro model.
- Good motion handling for sports like hockey with minimal blur.
Cons
- Significantly fewer local dimming zones (approx. 500) compared to the QM7K (approx. 2500).
- Contrast quality may diminish on larger screen sizes as dimming zone counts remain static.
- Unit tends to run warm during standard operation.
- HDR highlights and deep shadow scenes are less impactful than higher-tier models.
Top excerpts
Qm6k tends to run a little warm by default
I doubt you'd regret the QM6K. I'm really happy with my QM7 but the Q6 was much further behind than the QM6K is to the QM7K.
6K Pro has the same panel as the QM7K (though not as many local dimming zones so it won’t match the QM7K in HDR content and brightness/contrast) so it’s supposed to be brighter and better contrast than the regular 6K.
i just got the costco 75. the differences are the screen coating and all the hdmi ports are 2.1. the regular qm6k has 2 2.0 ports from what I've read.
The Costco version has the Crystglow HVA panel that is used in the 7K and 8K series. And Costco includes a 5-year warranty.
TCL QM9K
78 positive (76%) · 15 mixed (15%) · 10 negative (10%)
Trust + time weighted: +72%
AI summary — not a quote
The TCL QM9K is positioned as a flagship mini-LED TV featuring extreme peak brightness and a high number of local dimming zones. While it is praised for its vibrant colors and improved software over the QM8K, many users find its steep price premium difficult to justify, often citing only incremental real-world performance gains over its predecessor.
Pros
- Extreme peak brightness, with some users noting up to 6,500 nits
- High dimming zone count (6,000 zones) for improved contrast
- Vibrant color reproduction where 'colors pop' compared to lower-tier models
- Supports 144Hz at 4K for gaming
Cons
- Significant price premium over the QM8K that many users feel is not worth the cost
- Out-of-the-box color accuracy and skin tone tracking are reported to be inferior to competitors
- Reports of an audible buzzing sound during operation
- Potential panel uniformity issues, such as dark vertical lines visible on solid gray or blue screens
Top excerpts
I went with the QM8K because I did not need all that extra brightness the QM9K had, my room is light controlled.
The 9K is pretty much better in every way.
QM9K has a higher peak brightness, and more dimming zones.
The 9K has an amazing picture, trust me.
The 9K is amazing, keep it.