A comparison of specs, key information, reviews, and best pricing from top retailers
Last updated -- hours ago | Report incorrect information
Company ProductName Specs
Company ProductName Specs
What we think
The PerfectRec monitor team Learn more
Updated April 11, 2024·
If you're a competitive gamer looking for the best gaming performance with smoother motion and less blur, the Corsair Xeneon would be an excellent choice due to its higher refresh rate. However, if your focus is on productivity or media consumption with sharper text and more screen real estate, the Sony M9’s higher resolution might be more appealing. For HDR gaming and media, both offer good brightness and color range, but the OLED panel of the Corsair provides deeper blacks and better contrast. Those interested in digital photo editing will find both monitors suitable, but if color accuracy for print photo editing is critical, neither may be the best fit. Give Feedback
this description is based on the product variant with some specs and product variant with some specs. At the time of writing, the variant with some specs cost some dollars and the variant with some specs cost some dollars.
Advantages of the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED)
- Best in class for casual gaming
- Very good for competitive gaming
- Very good refresh rate
- Best in class contrast
- Best in class response time
Advantages of the Sony M9 (IPS FALD)
- Best in class for productivity
- Very good text clarity
- Very good image clarity
- Good brightness
- Good color volume
Key differences
Casual Gaming
9.5
7.3
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
695 nits
97.3 %
DCI-P3 COLOR GAMUT
67.7 %
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is best in class for casual gaming, while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is good.
Competitive Gaming
8.9
5.7
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
1.1 ms
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
8.0 ms
20 - 240 Hz
VARIABLE REFRESH RATE
24 - 144 Hz
No
STROBING / BFI
No
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is very good for competitive gaming, while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is poor.
Productivity
5.7
9.6
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
110 PPI
PIXELS PER INCH
163 PPI
Yes
ADJUSTABLE STAND
Yes
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is best in class for productivity, while the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is poor.
Cost
$900
$800
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) has a price of $900 and the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) costs $800.
Key similarities
Media Consumption
7.5
7.5
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
695 nits
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Sony M9 (IPS FALD) and Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) are both good for media consumption.
HDR Gaming and Media Consumption
Yes
Yes
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption.
Digital Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are suitable for digital photo editing.
HDR Video Editing and Color Grading
No
No
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are not suitable for HDR video editing and color grading.
Print Photo Editing
No
No
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are not suitable for print photo editing.
Give feedback
We’re constantly working to improve.
How the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) compare to other monitors
Spec Comparison
 |  | |
| Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) | Sony M9 (IPS FALD) |
GENERAL | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | |||
$900 | $800 | ||
Screen Size | |||
Screen Size | 27" | 27" | |
Resolution | |||
Resolution | 2560 x 1440 | 3840 x 2160 | |
Screen Type | |||
Screen Type | OLED | LED | |
Screen Sub-type | |||
Screen Sub-type | W-OLED | IPS FALD | |
Local Dimming Zones | |||
Local Dimming Zones | N/A | 96 | |
COLOR, CONTRAST & BRIGHTNESS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Native Contrast | |||
Native Contrast | Inf:1 | 1000:1 | |
SDR Peak Brightness | |||
SDR Peak Brightness | 113 nits | 432 nits | |
HDR Peak Brightness | |||
HDR Peak Brightness | 639 nits | 695 nits | |
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | |||
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | Yes | Yes | |
sRGB Color Gamut | |||
sRGB Color Gamut | 100 % | 100 % | |
MOTION CHARACTERISTICS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Total Response Time | |||
Total Response Time | 1.1 ms | 8 ms | |
Variable Refresh Rate | |||
Variable Refresh Rate | 20 - 240 Hz | 24 - 144 Hz | |
Strobing / BFI | |||
Strobing / BFI | No | No | |
Persistence Blur Score | |||
Persistence Blur Score | 8/10 | 6.6/10 | |
Ghosting Score | |||
Ghosting Score | 9.6/10 | 7.6/10 | |
TEXT & IMAGE CLARITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Pixels Per Inch | |||
Pixels Per Inch | 110 PPI | 163 PPI | |
Coating | |||
Coating | Matte | Matte | |
Text Clarity Score | |||
Text Clarity Score | 6.6/10 | 8/10 | |
Image Clarity Score | |||
Image Clarity Score | 7.1/10 | 8/10 | |
PORTS & CONNECTIVITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
HDMI 1.4 Ports | |||
HDMI 1.4 Ports | 0 | 1 | |
HDMI 2.0 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.0 Ports | 2 | 0 | |
HDMI 2.1 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.1 Ports | 0 | 2 | |
Micro HDMI Ports | |||
Micro HDMI Ports | 0 | 0 | |
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | |||
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | 0 | 0 | |
Give feedback
We're constantly perfecting our model
More comparisons for you
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW3423DWF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW2725DF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Cooler Master GZ2711 (W-OLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. KTC M27P20 Pro (IPS MiniLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. Innocn 32M2V (IPS MiniLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. MSI MAG 341CQP (QD-OLED)
VS
FAQs
Why trust us
This information was produced and vetted by the PerfectRec monitors team. We are a product research and recommendation organization that meticulously reviews and evaluates the latest monitor information and makes it digestible for you.
By the numbers
210
Monitors evaluated
10,500
Monitors stats compiled
15
Proprietary Monitors ratings developed
117,800
Recommendations made
17,670
Consumer hours saved
About the monitor team
Joe Golden, Ph.D
CEO and Monitors Editor
Joe is an entrepreneur and lifelong electronics enthusiast with a Ph.D in Economics from the University of Michigan.
Jason Lew
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Jason is a staff expert and software engineer that has been making laptop recommendations for 7 years and moderates one of the largest laptop subreddits.
Chandradeep Chowdhury
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Chandradeep is a staff expert and software engineer and expert in televisions and monitors. He’s been making monitor recommendations for ten years.
Featured in
