In 4x5 and LF films I always liked the PXP tonal scale, something Tmax
does not have. Tmax is probably sharper.

I'm assuming that you mean the 35mm still and 120 version of
Plus-X. Kodak makes or made a confusing number of different
films by that name.

Plus-x tends to look sharper than 100TMX even though it has
less actual resolution. I am actually now very happy with
the sharpness/acutance of TMX in XTOL 1:1, but before I tried
that combo, I wasn't very happy with TMX.

Plus-X is grainier than TMX, but still pretty fine grained.
T-max is a tabular grained film, which gives it lower grain
for similar speed, but also makes it somewhat more fussy
to work with.

Plus-x seems to me to be more tolerant of under-exposure than
TMX, though I would not recommend underexposing either of
these films. Kodak appears to claim that TMX has good
under-exposure characteristics, but I've never found this
to be true in practice. Many people find that both films
(and most other negative films for that matter) benefit from
slightly more exposure than the ISO speed of the film
indicates.

Peter.

I used to use 4147 Plus-X for its fine grain, but I hated its D/H curve:
it is all toe and slopes up forever, giving me inadequate shadow contrast
and way too much highlight contrast. Increasing exposure to put the shadow
detail further up the curve, and reducing development to prevent blocking
the highlights when printing, helped somewhat, but that messed up the mid
tones. I developped it in various things, but mostly HC-110, dilution B.

I now use the 4052 instead. When I develop it in Xtol 1+1 it gives the
straightest D/H curve I have ever seen. Of course, it is vital to expose
the shadows sufficiently, or it just plain falls off the bottom. There is
little tolerance for underexposure.