Manhattan Aero review

The Manhattan Aero might just be the streaming device you’re looking for. Especially if you want live TV without an aerial, as well as must-have streaming apps, 4K playback and user-friendly software.

The Manhattan Aero is a small streaming box packed with just about all of the essentials for UK viewers — more than 450 channels via Freely, as well as Netflix, Prime Video and all that good stuff. All you need is a Wi-Fi connection and a TV, and you're good to go. But is it actually worth buying? Here are my thoughts after a few days testing it out for myself.

Let me start by saying that the initial setup process for the Aero is extremely simple and speedy. Just hook the device up to your TVs HDMI port, plug it into the power, and you’ll be able to get started. From here, I followed some basic setup instructions, connected the box up to my network, and landed right on the home page.

Navigating through various menus is also incredibly easy with the included remote, which — in spite of a fairly plasticky and basic build — is responsive and effective in use. It comes with all the expected buttons, as well as shortcuts to certain streaming apps, and a voice control option too.

Voice controls are very intuitive on TiVo OS (which is what the Aero uses), and if you want some inspiration for what to watch, it’s a great tool. For instance, I tried saying: ‘show me films about cats’ and got an accurate selection of feline-related flicks.

Let’s loop back to the Manhattan Aero’s OS, though, and discuss TiVo for a minute. I’ve used this before on TVs like the Bush 43UT24SB, and I’m a fan. It’s pretty similar to a lot of the competition, and you can quickly find whatever channel or app you need without a hitch. Loading varying apps and channels is quick, and you can easily customize what apps you want to see on the homepage in the settings menu.

Speaking of apps, it’s worth noting that some of the heavy hitters are actually missing on TiVo. For instance, Apple TV+, Paramount+, NOW TV and Sky Go are all absent. These apps are available via devices like the Apple TV 4K set-top box, though.

Anyway, you may be wondering by now: how does the Manhattan Aero perform? Pretty well, actually — although you’ll need broadband speeds of at least 10Mbps to enjoy live TV and streaming at their best (Ethernet connectivity is available if needed). When watching broadcast TV, the Aero did a great job with all kinds of content. For instance, I watched a bit of Wimbledon, and the vivid green of the court jumped out, while finer details on players’ clothing were easy to make out.

News and the usual daytime TV channels also looked just about as good as on my Sky Glass Gen 2 TV, which uses Wi-Fi to show its channels too, rather than a dish or aerial. It’s also worth noting that the Aero supports HLG HDR, as used by BBC iPlayer.

With streaming apps, the Aero remains a strong performer, but there are a couple of sacrifices you’ll have to make. Namely, there’s no Dolby Vision support — no problem for Samsung TV owners, but something I would’ve liked to have seen, since pretty much all other TV brands use it.

There is, however, HDR10+ (and HDR10) compatibility, which is used on services such as Netflix and Prime Video — and the Aero supports AV1 natively for HDR10+ content, which is necessary for Netflix to work in this format. When watching Kung Fu Panda 4 in HDR10+, I thought it looked fantastic — colours looked punchy and accurate, textures were well-defined and sharp, and contrast was solid too.

I did experience a bit of judder while watching the movie, and motion appeared to be choppy at first. But after messing around with my TVs settings and activating the Aero’s Auto Frame Rate option, I was able to solve this, and experience the sort of quality I’d typically expect from Netflix and other streaming apps when built into the set.

When it comes to audio, there’s basic Dolby Audio support, and you can also enjoy Dolby Atmos content if you have a compatible soundbar or speaker system or similar connected up to your TV. You can also use one of the box’s USB-C ports to play stored media files, which is a welcome inclusion and not you'll find on much of the competition.

One question I’ve seen a few people ask about the Aero, is whether it can record TV programs — like you’d be able to do with a Sky Q box, for instance. The answer to this one is no — but that’s not a strike against Manhattan’s streaming box. And that comes down to one key thing: Freely is delivered as an internet stream rather than a broadcast signal, and broadcasters don’t allow such content to be recorded. It’s still worth bearing in mind, however, if recording is a must for you.

Before we wrap up, there are a few other things worth noting. There’s CEC volume control on offer here, which enables you to control the volume of your connected display and audio devices (like soundbars) using the Aero's remote with any extra setup needed, something that is pretty practical.

You can also connect Bluetooth devices, such as headphones, to the Aero, which is great if you don’t want to distract someone else while watching your favorite shows, if your TV doesn't support this option.

You can even connect wireless game controllers and play a few mobile style games — a feature I didn’t expect to see. In fact, Blacknut Cloud Gaming is arriving to the Aero shortly, giving gamers more options. Google Cast is also available if you want to beam content across from your phone.

So, is the Manhattan Aero worth the money? At £89.99, I think it is. There are cheaper options out there, such as the Roku streaming sticks, which can also plug into your TV’s USB port for a more discreet look, but these don’t offer Freely — the big selling point of the Aero.

Alongside its intuitive TiVo platform with handy voice commands, solid array of apps, and impressive picture quality, I’d argue that the Aero offers plenty for the price you pay, and if you have a TV devoid of smart apps or want access to loads of channels without the hassle of an aerial or dish, it’s a very practical device.

Manhattan Aero review: price & release date

• Released in February 2026
• Priced at £89.99

The Manhattan Aero released in February 2026 and is available with a wide range of UK retailers. However, there’s no stock available at Amazon right now — this may change in the future, though, so we’ll update this article accordingly if we see an increase in availability.

The streamer is priced fairly affordably, coming in at £89.99 — that's much less than the Apple TV 4K, though is more than the likes of the Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max.

Should I buy the Manhattan Aero?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Manhattan Aero review: also consider

How I tested the Manhattan Aero

• Connected to my Hisense 4K mini-LED TV
• I watched broadcast TV as well as content on streaming services
• Used across multiple days at home in everyday life

I spent a few days testing the Manhattan Aero streamer, testing it out at home to enjoy live TV and content via my usual streaming apps. I had it hooked up to a HDMI port on my Hisense U7K TV, which is a 4K mini-LED set.

During the testing period, I made sure to cycle through various channels when watching broadcast TV in order to assess performance for sports, news, movies, and more. However, I also dipped into apps like Netflix, where I watched content in 4K HDR10+, as well as Disney+ and YouTube.

More generally, I’ve spent years testing all kinds of gadgets here at TechRadar, including everything from Dolby Atmos soundbars like the JBL Bar 1300MK2 through to TVs like the Sky Glass Gen 2. I was also familiar with the TiVo interface before commencing this review, having used it extensively while testing the Bush 43UT24SB.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

TeraBox built its name on 1TB of free cloud storage, which is still the headline pitch. What's changed is everything sitting next to the storage. An AI Presentation Maker, an essay writer, a scanner, a transcriber, and a research tool called Deep Research are now baked into the same free account I've used for years.

Until recently, TeraBox functioned more like a toolkit than a dedicated AI assistant. Many of the tools only did one job, like generate a deck, paraphrase a paragraph, or scan a document — then handed back results rather than a conversation.

But now, Terabox has added a dedicated research assistant that can access the web and parse through complex queries for information. It can also generate graphics and create properly-formatted documents to help with your research tasks. It's neat, but the most capable versions of these tools sit behind a Premium+ subscription priced under $4 a month.

I've covered hosting, storage, and AI software for TechRadar Pro since 2012, including our 2026 buying guide for vibe coders. If you'd like to see a wider selection of dedicated AI tools to pick from, check out our list of 70+ other AI tools across different categories. For this Terabox AI review, I had access to a 7-day trial of Premium+, which let me try all of the platform's features in depth over the review period.

What is TeraBox AI?

TeraBox AI is the set of generative tools Flextech Inc. has added to TeraBox, the free storage app it took over from Baidu in 2020. Rather than one assistant, it's a handful of single-purpose tools, an essay writer, presentation maker, paraphraser, transcriber, scanner, and research assistant, living inside the app I use for backups.

I'd call it a productivity add-on rather than an AI platform in its own right. You pick a tool, type or upload your input, and get a finished result. That suits someone wanting a quick deck or a tidier paragraph, but the platform left something to be desired when it came to more complex tasks requiring advanced reasoning.

TeraBox AI: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You already use TeraBox for storage. The AI suite rides on cloud space you may already pay for, so the extra cost is small.
• You need quick scans and transcripts. AI Scan and AI Transcribe handle everyday OCR and meeting notes well for casual use.
• You want a fast presentation starter. One prompt turns into a usable slide deck in seconds, ready for further editing.

Don't buy it if…

• You need a serious writing or design tool. Dedicated tools go deeper than TeraBox's essay writer and paraphraser for professional output.
• Data jurisdiction matters to you. TeraBox's storage business began inside Baidu before Flextech took over in 2020, which still gives some professionals pause.
• You can't stand ads. The free tier's AI tools sit behind the same ad-supported experience as TeraBox's storage.

My time with TeraBox AI

I tested TeraBox AI through the web app and Android client, running presentations, transcriptions, and scans over several days. The Presentation Maker stood out. A one-line prompt about small business marketing trends produced a ten-slide deck, icons and chart included, in under a minute.

AI Scan and AI Transcribe felt the most useful day to day, turning a printed invoice into clean, editable text in seconds. Transcribing a short interview gave me a readable summary alongside the full transcript. The essay writer and paraphraser, by contrast, were serviceable but generic.

However, my experiences with the dedicated AI chat and Research Assistant were somewhat mixed. A simple query asking for Elon Musk's updated net worth returned accurate input, but a more complex task involving generating a graphic of his net worth over the years seemed to fail entirely.

TeraBox was able to offer the information as a table instead on further attempts, which led me to believe that the failure was a result of being unable to pull up the necessary integrations for data visualization rather than an error in the research itself. That does redeem it in my eyes given the price point, just don't go in expecting the same level of functionality as a dedicated AI platform like ChatGPT.

On value, Premium+ is an easy call. It costs under $4 a month and bundles 2TB of storage with the full AI suite. The caveat is that nothing here matches a tool built solely around AI writing or design.

TeraBox AI: Features

TeraBox AI isn't the best do-everything assistant, which also shows in how the features are organized. Presentation, writing, scanning, and research tools each live in their own corner of the AI tab, which keeps things simple but means there's no unified chat for mixing tasks together.

The Presentation Maker impressed me most, with Agent Mode generating decks up to 40 slides from a prompt or uploaded document, complete with citations when it pulls from web sources. A separate Beautify option restyles slides you've already made. For students or small business owners needing a deck fast, this alone might justify upgrading.

AI Scan and AI Transcribe are the most practically useful tools for office work, handling OCR, ID document capture, and on-the-fly translation on one side, and audio-to-text conversion with an AI summary on the other. Both worked reliably in my testing, needing only minor cleanup afterward.

Deep Research, the suite's research tool, builds a structured outline you can edit before it writes a full report. The output reads more like a market briefing than original analysis, so treat it as a starting point rather than a finished document.

The essay writer and Smart Paraphraser are the weakest links. Output reads competently but generically, and TeraBox doesn't disclose which model is doing the writing. Given the price for Premium+, the overall feature set still feels reasonably generous for a bundle riding on storage you might already want.

TeraBox AI: User experience

I got started in under a minute. I logged into my existing account, tapped the AI tab, and was generating a presentation within seconds, with no separate sign-up or onboarding flow to slow things down. Each tool opens to a simple prompt box, so the learning curve is close to zero.

But the experience feels bolted onto a storage app rather than designed around AI from the ground up. Switching tools means backing out to the main AI menu each time, and the free tier's ads occasionally interrupt what otherwise feels quick and uncluttered.

TeraBox AI: Customer support

Support looks decent on paper. Users across review platforms rate TeraBox's customer service 4.0+ out of 5 and Flextech representatives respond to public reviews directly, including the ones flagging slow replies.

I didn't need to contact support during testing, since the AI tools worked as expected. The bigger caveat is documentation, since TeraBox's help content for the AI suite leans on blog posts and FAQs rather than a structured knowledge base.

TeraBox AI: Pricing

• Free tier includes limited AI access, plus 1TB of ad-supported storage.
• Premium adds 2TB of storage and removes ads, but doesn't unlock the AI suite.
• Premium+ is the only tier with full AI access, priced from around $3.89 a month or $39.99 a year.

TeraBox's free plan gives a limited taste of the AI tools, including a small number of free presentation generations, on top of the full 1TB allowance. That's enough to test whether the tools suit your workflow before paying anything.

Premium+ is where the AI suite lives, bundling the essay writer, presentation maker, transcriber, scanner, paraphraser, and search tools alongside 2TB of storage for under $4 a month. TeraBox's official pricing page renders dynamically and didn't return visible data when I checked the source directly, so these figures come from cross-referenced third-party listings instead. There's no separate API pricing, since TeraBox doesn't offer developer access to the AI tools.

TeraBox AI: alternatives you should consider

• pCloud: A privacy-focused cloud storage service with optional zero-knowledge encryption, starting around $49.99 a year for 500GB, without TeraBox's bundled AI tools.
• Google Drive with Google AI Pro: Google's storage plans now fold Gemini directly into Drive, Gmail, and Docs, bundling 5TB of storage with AI access for $19.99 a month.
• Canva: A more polished option built for AI-assisted presentations and design, with Magic Studio included in Canva Pro for around $15 a month.

How I tested TeraBox AI

• Used the Presentation Maker, AI Scan, AI Transcribe, Deep Research, and Smart Paraphraser across free and Premium+ access.
• Tested the AI suite through TeraBox's web app and Android app over several days of regular use.
• Cross-checked pricing and ratings against TeraBox's official site, G2, and Capterra, noting where the vendor's pricing page wouldn't render visibly.

I focused testing on the tools most useful for a typical small business or student workflow, presentations, scanning, and transcription, rather than edge cases. Beyond the data obtained from their official website and documentation, I cross-referenced features across multiple third-party sources. as well as verified them during my own testing, to confirm consistency before including them here.

Brave Leo arrived in November 2023 as a sidebar AI assistant for the Brave browser, and it has grown into one of the more unusual offerings in the AI chat market. Unlike most platforms that treat privacy as an afterthought, Leo bakes it into the architecture: no IP logging, no conversation storage, and no requirement to create an account. In late 2025, Brave went further by introducing Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) powered by NEAR.AI and Intel TDX technology, giving users cryptographically verifiable assurance that requests are processed exactly as described.

Two features set Leo apart from the field. The Bring Your Own Model (BYOM) option lets you connect Leo to locally-running models via Ollama or your own API endpoints, which is rare among browser-native AI tools. The Skills feature, launched in December 2025, lets you assign keyboard shortcuts to frequently used prompts to cut down on repetitive setup.

Agentic browsing, which lets Leo autonomously navigate and complete tasks on your behalf, entered early testing across all Brave release channels in May 2026.

I've been covering AI platforms and B2B software at TechRadar Pro since 2018, including our 2026 vibe coding buying guide and the Microsoft Build conference this year in San Francisco. Here's how Leo holds up.

What is Brave Leo AI?

Brave Leo is an AI chat assistant built directly into the Brave browser, accessible from a sidebar panel, a full-page view, or the address bar. It's available on Windows, macOS, and Linux on desktop, and on Android and iOS on mobile. No separate installation, app, or account is needed to get started with the free tier.

Leo's defining quality is page awareness. It reads the content of the active tab, whether that's a webpage, PDF, Google Doc, Google Sheet, or YouTube video, and uses that content as context for your questions. You don't need to copy-paste anything or upload files to an external server.

Moreover, Brave Search pulls in real-time information from across the web when your question calls for it.

The platform targets privacy-conscious individuals, students, and professionals who want AI assistance without feeding personal data to third parties. It's also a practical option for people already running Brave who'd rather not switch tabs to reach a separate AI app.

Brave Leo AI: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You prioritize AI privacy above all else. Leo doesn't log your conversations, store your IP address, or use your chats for model training. For users handling sensitive research or confidential work, that's a real distinction from most AI chatbots.
• You're already a Brave browser user. Leo is built directly into Brave with no extra installation required. It picks up page context automatically, making web research faster with very little setup.
• You want model flexibility. The ability to switch between Llama, Claude, Qwen, and others, or connect your own model via BYOM, gives you more control than most browser-native AI tools offer.

Don't buy it if…

• You need AI across multiple browsers or tools. Leo only works inside Brave. If you regularly use Chrome, Firefox, or other apps, you won't have Leo available in those environments.
• You rely on intensive daily free usage. The free tier hits its ceiling quickly during heavy use. A Premium subscription is more or less necessary for anyone using Leo throughout the working day.
• You need enterprise features or team access. Leo is a personal assistant with no team accounts, admin controls, or organization-level management. Businesses looking to deploy it across multiple users will need individual subscriptions for each.

My time with Brave Leo AI

My first impression of Leo was how little friction there was to getting started. No account confirmation, no model selection screen, no onboarding pop-ups. Within seconds of opening the sidebar, I was summarizing a lengthy policy document open in another tab.

The sidebar stays out of the way until you need it, which I found more practical than switching to a dedicated AI app.

Automatic mode worked well in practice. Leo picked Claude Sonnet for a nuanced writing task and shifted to a faster model for a quick factual question, all without me having to intervene. I did run into rate-limit warnings during a longer research session on the free tier.

Those limits don't reset frequently enough for sustained daily use, and that was what ultimately pushed me to test the Premium plan.

The Skills feature was a useful addition for repetitive tasks. I set up a shortcut for a summarization prompt I return to frequently. After a few days, it saved real time.

New users may not find it easily, though, since it's tucked away and not highlighted in Leo's default interface.

Brave Leo AI: Features

Leo's feature set has expanded considerably since its 2023 launch. The platform covers summarization, translation, code generation, content writing, question answering, and document analysis across webpages, PDFs, Google Docs, Google Sheets, and YouTube videos. Image understanding was added more recently, and agentic browsing, which lets Leo autonomously complete multi-step tasks in an isolated browser profile, entered early access across all release channels in May 2026.

Page awareness is one of Leo's strongest practical assets. It reads whatever you're currently viewing and uses it as live context for your prompts. This works without uploading anything to a third-party server, which keeps the privacy model consistent across all use cases.

BYOM is a genuine differentiator. You can connect Leo to locally-running models via Ollama, to OpenAI-compatible endpoints, or to other third-party APIs. For developers or power users who want a specific model or prefer to keep everything on-device, this adds a level of control that most browser AI tools don't offer.

The Skills feature lets you save and trigger custom prompts with keyboard shortcuts. It's useful for repetitive workflows, though the current library of built-in skills is still relatively narrow. More customization here would strengthen the feature, and it's an area I'd like to see Brave expand.

Multi-tab context and Tab Focus Mode let Leo work across several open tabs rather than just the active one, which helps when cross-referencing multiple sources. The Brave Talk integration is a useful bonus for anyone using Brave's video conferencing tool: Leo can transcribe meetings in real time and produce summaries and action items without sharing data externally.

The one area where Leo falls behind dedicated AI platforms is memory. Leo doesn't retain context between separate sessions, so every conversation starts from scratch. Users who want a long-running assistant that remembers preferences or project history will find this limiting.

Brave Leo AI: User experience

The interface is clean and minimal. The sidebar slides open without disturbing your active page, and the full-page view at brave://leo-ai works well for longer sessions. Switching models takes a couple of clicks from the dropdown at the top of the chat.

Automatic mode removes the decision entirely if you'd rather not think about it.

The address bar integration is a small but practical touch: typing a question and selecting "Ask Leo" opens the response in full-page view without interrupting your browsing. Mobile support on Android and iOS covers the same core features as desktop, with voice input available on iOS. The experience is consistent across platforms, which isn't always the case with browser-based AI tools.

Brave Leo AI: Customer support

Brave handles Leo support through its Help Center at support.brave.app. The documentation is well-organized and covers most common scenarios, from initial access to advanced configuration options like BYOM and model settings. Articles are generally current, which is more than can be said for some AI products that update fast but leave documentation behind.

There's no live chat or dedicated support line for Leo. Community forums and the Help Center are the primary routes for getting help. For a free or modestly priced tool, this is standard, but business users with time-sensitive issues may find the self-serve model inadequate.

Brave Leo AI: Pricing

• Free tier: Access to open-source models (Llama, Qwen, Gemma), rate-limited usage, no account required
• Leo Premium: $14.99/month or $149.99/year, with a 7-day free trial. Includes Claude Haiku, Claude Sonnet, DeepSeek V3.1, and other advanced models; higher rate limits; early access to new features

The free tier works for light, occasional use. You get solid open-source models and full privacy protections without signing up for anything. Rate limits are the catch: they kick in faster than you'd expect during sustained sessions, and there's no way to pay for a small top-up without committing to Premium.

At $14.99/month, Leo Premium is cheaper than ChatGPT Plus ($20/month) and sits comfortably within range for an individual AI subscription. The annual plan at $149.99 brings that down to about $12.50/month, which is reasonable given the model access on offer. There's no team or enterprise pricing.

Leo also has no public API, so external workflow integration isn't an option.

Brave Leo AI: alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT Atlas: A Chromium-based web browser from OpenAI with built-in access to the most widely used AI assistant. However, it's only available to macOS users for now and has now Windows version.
• Microsoft Copilot: Built into Microsoft Edge and deeply integrated with the Microsoft 365 suite. The stronger pick for users already working in the Windows and Office ecosystem.
• Perplexity AI: A research-focused AI that delivers sourced, real-time answers from the web. Worth considering if web research and fact-finding are your primary use cases rather than general-purpose chat.

How I tested Brave Leo AI

• Used Leo's free tier for web research, PDF summarization, and content drafting over multiple sessions to assess response quality and the real-world impact of rate limits.
• Tested Premium-tier models including Claude Sonnet on complex writing and analysis tasks, comparing output quality against the default open-source models.
• Configured BYOM with Ollama, created custom Skills shortcuts, and put the multi-tab context feature through a multi-source research task.

Testing covered Brave Leo on desktop (Windows and macOS) and on Android, using both the sidebar and full-page chat modes. I evaluated response accuracy across summarization, factual questions, code generation, and writing tasks, and cross-referenced Brave's privacy claims against official documentation and third-party reporting from sources including The Register.

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO: One-minute review

If you follow my camera coverage at TechRadar, you'll need no introduction to Viltrox, a Chinese lens manufacturer who's rapidly becoming a major player by delivering high-quality and particularly affordable optics.

Viltrox's most recent efforts are the 75mm f/1.8 and 90mm f/2.2: a twin-like pair of lightweight primes for APS-C cameras from its mid-range 'EVO' series, available in Sony E, Nikon Z and Fujifilm X-mount versions.

Viltrox offered to send me a lens to test, and I strategically asked for the Fujifilm X-mount version of the 90mm f/2.2, because it was the only option with a proprietary alternative for me to pit it against: Fujifilm's XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR. A 'character rich' XF 90mm f/2 APD was also listed in a public poll earlier this year among lenses that Fujifilm would love to make — but we don't know if it will be made.

Could the Viltrox 90mm do the unthinkable — beat Fujifilm's legendary portraiture lens? I called in the Fujifilm lens, and tested the pair using a Fujifilm X-T5, and much of my test focuses on how viable an alternative the Viltrox lens is.

For context, a fast aperture 90mm lens for APS-C has a 135mm equivalent focal length in full-frame terms, meaning it's a mid-telephoto focal length, delivering a highly compressed background and dreamy bokeh — the hallmarks of high-end portraits. At this focal length, you'll need the freedom of moving a decent distance away from your subject, so it's not necessarily one for tight studio spaces.

I shot self portraits controlling the camera remotely from my phone using the Fujifilm X app, and various closeups with low-lying sunlight involved, plus a range of other shots just with the Viltrox lens. Overall, I've come away majorly impressed, especially when you consider just how small, lightweight and affordable the Viltrox 90mm f/2.2 is.

The bulkier Fujifilm lens wins for the dreamiest bokeh and will be worth the extra outlay for portrait specialists. If I had the choice, I'd probably still go for this lens. However, for most people, the Viltrox is a stellar alternative, and furthermore the only one of its kind for Sony and Nikon crop-sensor mirrorless cameras, and I highly recommend it for both — after all, Nikon especially has so few options for its crop-sensor cameras such as the Z50 II.

Once again, Viltrox has delivered an excellent value autofocus prime lens.

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO: Price and availability

• Costs $369 / £359 / Australia price TBC
• Available in Sony E, Fujifilm X and Nikon Z-mount versions

The Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO is available in Sony E, Fujifilm X and Nikon Z-mount versions, and I tested the Fujifilm version, not least of which because Fujifilm has its own legendary 90mm lens and I was keen to see how the two compared. Sony and Nikon have no such lens for APS-C — and the closest alternative would be a full-frame optic.

Viltrox's EVO lenses are almost always way more affordable when compared to the closest proprietary alternatives. Costing $369 / £359, that's certainly the case with the Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO, when you consider how the Fujifilm 90mm lens costs between 2-3x the price. It's the small, light, and affordable choice.

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO: specs

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO: Design

• Just 11.3oz / 320g — lightweight and compact for a lens of this type
• Modest 0.74m minimum focus distance — not one for closeup photography
• Very well-made, with rubber sealed mount

As an APS-C lens, the 90mm focal length is equivalent to 135mm in full-frame terms, which is a classic portraiture lens. I've tested my fair share of full-frame 135mm lenses, including Viltrox's own 135mm F1.8 LAB and indeed Fujifilm's own 90mm f/2 for APS-C, and the Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO is the smallest and lightest of the lot by some margin.

I've shared some comparison photos below alongside the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 to illustrate the difference — at 11.3oz / 320g, the Viltrox lens is not far off being half the weight. When paired with an X-T5, I thought both lenses balanced well, but with a rangefinder-style camera such as the X-E5, the Viltrox would win for balance.

Don't let its size and price fool you, though — the Viltrox 90mm is very well made, with an all metal body, rubber-sealed lens mount, while both control rings handle beautifully: the focus ring is smooth and light, the knurled aperture ring precise. No doubt it would be a bigger and heavier lens if it had a larger maximum f/2 aperture like the Fujifilm.

The metal barrel of some of the previous Viltrox lenses that I've tested has scratched easily. I didn't thrash the 90mm lens around particularly, so it remains mint. I'll update this review if I discover it also scratches easily.

Curiously, the X-mount version of the Viltrox 90mm f/2.2 EVO has no buttons or switches, whereas the Nikon Z and Sony E-mount versions (which I didn't ask to test) have three; an AF/MF switch, customizable function button and a click switch for the aperture ring.

Omitting the click switch especially is an oddity given that Fujifilm cameras also shoot video — Fujifilm X users here are stuck with a clicked aperture ring. As a result, despite being excellent value, it feels like Fujifilm users are shortchanged. That being said, however, the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 lens also has zero buttons or switches.

The STM stepping motor makes light work of the 10 lens elements in 8 groups, for snappy and quiet autofocus. Of course autofocus performance accuracy and speed are affected by which camera system and autofocus mode is in use, but I never felt like the lens was slowing down the X-T5 camera's autofocus.

Minimum focus is 0.74m, which delivers a maximum 0.14x magnification. Put simply, this is not a lens for closeup photography, though neither is the 75mm f/1.8 EVO which has a 0.12x magnification, nor most 135mm lenses I've used.

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO: Performance

• Optically very sharp
• Smooth bokeh, but with cats-eye shaping. Minor chromatic aberration and vignetting
• Snappy and quiet autofocus

I've included a range of photos taken with the Viltrox and Fujifilm 90mm lenses below, matching the lens settings where possible (though the Fujifilm lens has an extra photo at f/2), and you can read on for my analysis of the images.

Viltrox

Fujifilm

Viltrox's lens portfolio is split into various series, being topped by the LAB series of full-frame lenses, which is followed by its Pro series, and then below that the Evo series. Evo lenses are mid-range; small, lightweight, excellent value, with one or two concessions.

For me, all of the Evo lenses I've tested are an easy recommendation for enthusiast photographers, including the AF 90mm F2.2. Optically its sharp. Not the sharpest lens I've ever seen, but in a similar league as the pricier Fujifilm 90mm nonetheless.

Where sharp detail is top concern, stopping the aperture down to f/4 yields better results than wide open at f/2.2. You'll see a reduction in vignetting and chromatic aberration by doing so, too. Those lens distortions are only minor at f/2.2, but they are present.

The main topic for a wide aperture 135mm equivalent lens is bokeh — the quality of out of focus areas — and I have good news, with two caveats.

Viltrox

Fujifilm

Bokeh is deliciously smooth. You can see the smooth edges in the dappled light in my self portraits and the series of photos of a fern (above). This is the most important attribute of bokeh, and the Viltrox 90mm nails it.

Bokeh is clearly cats-eye shaped, mind you, not fully round like you might find in the very best portrait lenses, such as the Nikon Plena. Personally, I don't mind cats-eye shaping in bokeh at all, while you might think it's ugly — it's subjective. What's not subjective, is bokeh smoothness, and like I say, the Viltrox lens scores highly.

The other caveat is the maximum f/2.2 aperture, which is slightly smaller than the f/2 of the Fujifilm lens I was comparing the Viltrox lens with. While this minor difference doesn't particularly affect depth of field, I did find the Fujifilm lens' bokeh to be even bigger and rounder at f/2 compared to the Viltrox lens at f/2.2.

If bokeh is a top concern, money is no object and you don't mind a larger lens, then the Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 is the better pick (see comparisons, above).

I've included a general sample gallery and included notes with further comments on the lens quality.

Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO sample images

Should you buy the Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested the Viltrox AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO

• Viltrox sent me the X-mount version of the AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO lens
• I paired it with a Fujifilm X-T5 camera
• Fujifilm loaned me the XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR lens at my request, to make comparisons

Viltrox sent me the X-mount version of the AF 90mm f/2.2 EVO lens and I paired it with a Fujifilm X-T5 camera. It's also available for Sony E and Nikon Z-mount cameras.

I tested the lens over the course of two weeks, alongside the Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR lens, which Fujifilm loaned to me at my request, and I have shot like-for-like images with both lenses to make comparisons.

As with all of my lens reviews, I have put the Viltrox 90mm through a number of real world tests, including a series of the same image at the various aperture settings, and situations where strong light could induce lens distortions such as flare and chromatic aberration.

I always shoot in both RAW & JPEG format, and turn off in-camera lens corrections, checking the unprocessed RAW files. I also use each lens for the situations that it is designed for, in this case portraiture and for isolating subjects.

First reviewed: July 2026

HuggingChat is Hugging Face's free, open-source chat interface . It might be the most underrated AI tool available right now. You get access to over 120 open-weight models including Llama, Mistral, Qwen, DeepSeek, and Falcon, all without spending a cent. The newest addition is Omni, a routing layer that automatically picks the most suitable model for your request.

What makes HuggingChat worth paying attention to is the sheer scope of model access it bundles into a single free product. I've been reviewing B2B software at TechRadar Pro for the past 10 years and our team covers the AI space closely. Take a look at our 2026 best AI tools roundup and read our in-depth explainers on open-source platforms like OpenClaw and Moltbook.

What is HuggingChat?

HuggingChat is the conversational AI interface built by Hugging Face, the company behind the world's largest open-source AI model repository. Instead of locking you into a single proprietary model, it lets you chat with any of 120+ community-hosted, open-weight models directly from your browser.

It's aimed squarely at developers, ML researchers, and technically curious users who want to compare model outputs, test different architectures, or simply avoid handing their data to a closed-source provider. For anyone evaluating an open-weight model before self-hosting it internally, this is an obvious starting point.

The platform also works for general use cases: writing, coding help, document analysis, and Q&A. But it's at its best when the person on the other end knows what they're asking of each model.

HuggingChat: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You want to compare open-weight models side by side. HuggingChat is the fastest way to test how Llama, Mistral, and Qwen handle the same prompt without switching tools.
• You need a free AI chat tool with no usage caps. Unlike many free tiers, HuggingChat doesn't cut you off after a certain number of messages per day.
• Avoiding vendor lock-in matters to your organization. Every model on the platform is open-weight, meaning you can evaluate it here and self-host the exact same model later.

Don't buy it if…

• You want a polished, feature-complete interface. There's no canvas mode, no voice input, and no image generation. That puts it behind ChatGPT and Claude for everyday productivity use.
• Consistent response speed is critical. Inference speed varies depending on server load, and the free tier runs on shared infrastructure. Peak hours can slow things down noticeably.
• You need mobile-first access. HuggingChat is browser-only with no dedicated iOS or Android app, which limits how well it works on the go.

My time with HuggingChat

My first impression was that HuggingChat is more of a research tool than a daily driver. The interface is minimal: a chat window, a model selector, and a sidebar. That's about it. Once I got past the expectation of feature parity with ChatGPT, I found myself appreciating how little gets in the way of just talking to a model.

The Omni routing feature is a genuine improvement. Rather than guessing which model handles a given task best, In my testing, Omni made sensible choices more often than not. For users who don't want to manage model selection manually, it reduces friction considerably.

Where I ran into friction was speed. During busier periods, response latency was noticeably longer than on paid commercial platforms. For quick back-and-forth conversations, that's tolerable. For longer document analysis tasks, it started to feel slow.

HuggingChat: Features

The model catalog is HuggingChat's biggest selling point, and it's hard to overstate how much value that represents for free. At the time of writing, you can chat with 120+ models including Llama 3.1 405B, Mistral Large 2, Qwen 2.5 72B, DeepSeek V3, Command R+ from Cohere, and several Falcon variants. The list updates regularly as new community models are released.

Web search integration is available and works well enough for pulling in current information, which helps avoid stale knowledge cutoff responses. It's not as tightly integrated as Perplexity's approach, but it does the job without requiring a separate tool.

Custom Assistants let you set system prompts, attach knowledge bases via retrieval-augmented generation, and share a pre-configured assistant via a direct link. This is particularly useful for teams who want a repeatable AI workflow without paying for an enterprise platform. Document upload is also supported, which lets you drop in a PDF or text file and ask questions against it.

HuggingChat's limitations are harder to ignore if you're coming from a commercial product. There's no image generation, no voice mode, no plugin system, and no equivalent of ChatGPT's canvas or Claude's Projects feature. For general productivity use, those gaps matter.

HuggingChat: User experience

The interface is clean and gets out of the way quickly. A new conversation starts within seconds. The model selector is easy to find, and conversation history is accessible from the sidebar once you're logged into a Hugging Face account. There's no learning curve beyond understanding what each model is good at. That knowledge gap is real for non-technical users.

Hugging Face has been transparent in interviews about positioning HuggingChat as the open-source community's answer to proprietary chat products. That framing shows in the design decisions: the priority is access and transparency over UX polish. For the target audience of developers and researchers, that's a reasonable trade.

HuggingChat: Customer support

Support for HuggingChat itself is primarily community-driven, via the Hugging Face Discord and forums. There's no in-product live chat or dedicated help desk for the free tier, which means troubleshooting usually involves hunting through documentation or community threads.

Hugging Face Pro subscribers gain access to prioritized support channels, and Enterprise customers get dedicated support. For individual users on the free plan, the documentation is thorough but the response loop can be slow if you hit an edge case.

HuggingChat: Pricing

• Free: Full access to all 120+ models, web search, document upload, and custom Assistants with no daily message limits
• Hugging Face Pro ($9/month): 20x inference credits, 10x private storage, ZeroGPU priority access, Spaces Dev Mode, and early access to new features
• Team ($20/month per user) and Enterprise ($50/month per user): Adds SSO, audit logs, storage regions, SCIM provisioning, and dedicated support

The free tier is impressively generous and covers most use cases without restriction. Upgrading to Pro makes sense if you're a developer who also uses Hugging Face's broader platform for model hosting, inference, or dataset work. The credits and storage benefits extend well beyond HuggingChat itself.

There's no standalone HuggingChat subscription. The Pro plan is a Hugging Face platform upgrade, which means you're paying for the full platform rather than just the chat product. That's either good value or unnecessary overhead, depending on how embedded you are in the HF ecosystem.

HuggingChat: alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT (OpenAI): The most polished AI chat product on the market, with voice mode, image generation, and a canvas editor. Better for general productivity but fully proprietary and locked behind a subscription for advanced features.
• Claude (Anthropic): Strong at long document analysis and nuanced writing. More consistent response quality than most open-weight models, though it's closed-source and doesn't offer model selection flexibility.
• Perplexity AI: A strong alternative if web search and real-time information retrieval are your main use cases. Less flexible on the model side but more tightly integrated with live web data.

How I tested HuggingChat

• Ran identical prompts across Llama 3.1, Mistral Large 2, and Qwen 2.5 to evaluate output consistency and quality differences.
• Tested web search integration, document upload, Omni routing, and custom Assistant creation over multiple sessions.
• Ran tests across different times of day to assess latency variability on the free tier.

Testing covered both technical tasks (code generation, document Q&A) and general use cases (writing, research, open-ended reasoning) to give a representative picture of day-to-day performance.

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan: two minute review

Dimplex makes lots of floor, table and pedestal fans, and the Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan is designed to address one of their weaknesses: they can only go where your plug sockets or extension cables can go. This affordable fan works as wired one via its USB-C port but also includes a rechargeable battery delivering up to 15 hours of air, or around four hours at full speed. That means you you can take it into the garden on a hot evening or take it to your bedroom and run it overnight.

The Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan doesn't oscillate but you can tilt it vertically up to 90 degrees, and it folds down almost flat so it's easy to keep in a drawer or toss into a bag. There are four speed settings here but the high speed one is not recommended while charging, as it depletes the battery faster than the USB-C connection charges it.

The fan works well and is fairly quiet, but it does make a noticeable drone at all speed settings; on a hot day, running the fan at high was very distracting. Of course all fans make some noise, but as this is a small fan with a 6.7 inch / 17cm diameter and 5.1 inch 13cm blades, you need to have it close to you to feel the benefit. In my home office the Dimplex on quiet setting at half a meter distance was noticeably louder than a much larger air circulator running at 50% speed one meter from me. If noise annoys, this may not be the fan for you.

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: price and availability

• Launched July 2025
• UK only
• £34.99 (about $50 / AU$70)

The Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan, model DXRCFN, launched in the UK in July 2025. It has a recommended retail price of £34.99 (about $50 / AU$70), making it the most affordable model in the current range of Dimplex cooling fans and about £10 more expensive than a similarly sized wired desktop fan. It isn't currently available in Australia, and Dimplex doesn't sell its home cooling products in the US.

This fan has been cheaper – it was £25.45 during Prime Day 2026 – but I wouldn't expect to see any price cuts during the summer months in the UK.

Value for money: 4/5

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: design

• Supremely portable
• Finger-friendly grille
• USB-C charging

The design of the fan is rather clever. It's been made for maximum portability, folding in on itself to resemble a small squashed football for travel or storage. It charges via USB-C and takes about four hours to charge fully. Because it's USB you can charge it with a phone charger or power bank, which makes it a good option for travelling. The battery is sealed inside and is not user-replaceable.

In addition to its internal bladed fan there's a circular louvred grille on the front that rotates and enhances the airflow. Although it spins quickly, the front grille is finger-friendly and won't hurt you or a child if you or they touch it (although you can lock it in place if you don't want it to spin).

The Dimplex fan doesn't oscillate, but you can adjust its vertical tilt by up to 90 degrees by moving the fan section up or down. It stays put without having to be screwed in place. Controls are simple, with just two buttons: power and speed. There's no remote control and no smartphone/smart home features.

Design: 4/5

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: performance

• Decent airflow for its size
• Four speed settings
• Distracting sound

There are four fan speeds — quiet, low, medium and high — and I found that for my home office desk the quiet setting delivered a nice breeze without making me feel like I was in a wind tunnel. High speed was a bit intense up close but worked well from a little further away. Dimplex recommends only using High when you're on battery power as it can still deplete the battery when you're recharging it; at its lowest, quiet setting I managed 14+ hours from a single charge.

The Dimplex moves a decent amount of air for its size and it's fairly quiet in terms of its overall volume, which ranges from 36dB to 43dB. However, it does make a noticeable and constant droning sound that rises in pitch as you increase the speed. All bladed fans make some motor noise, of course, but desk fans are designed to sit very close to you, which means any noise is much more noticeable. For me it was too distracting at any speed when I sat it on my work desk, although in the bedroom at its lowest setting it didn't keep me awake.

Performance: 3/5

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: should you buy it?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: also consider

Dimplex Rechargeable Cordless Desk Fan review: how we tested

I tested this Dimplex fan for a week during summery weather as both a desktop fan in my home office, and as a bedroom fan overnight. Both locations are in my house, where indoor temperatures were around 69.8°F to 75.2°F / 21ºC to 24ºC during the daytime and around 66.2°F to 68.0°F / 19ºC to 20ºC at night.

First tested July 2026

Evil Dead Burn is the sixth installment in the horror franchise, and unfortunately, I found the new movie to be the weakest one of the bunch. Considering the 2013 reboot wasn't great, I think that speaks to how much I'm disappointed in the most recent entry.

On the surface, Evil Dead Burn looks promising. It was directed by Sébastien Vaniček, who is most well known for his movie Infested. I liked that one a lot (mostly because spiders terrify me), and so I was excited for his take on the iconic Evil Dead series.

Vaniček's Evil Dead Burn follows a woman named Alice (Souheila Yacoub) who is grieving over the loss of her husband, William (George Pullar), as she seeks solace with her in-laws. One member of her late husband's family is played by Hunter Doohan, who stars in Netflix's Wednesday, and I must admit it was cool getting to see him in a horror movie.

One by one, the family transforms into Deadites, the malevolent, parasitic demonic spirits we've come to fear throughout the Evil Dead franchise. But it goes in a direction I really wasn't expecting.

I do want to preface my mostly negative review by pointing out that there are some good things about this movie. Horror fans with a thirst for gory set pieces will no doubt have fun, as there are indeed some great moments. Some stand-out scenes involve a dishwasher and a car door, and just thinking about them makes me cringe uncomfortably.

Unfortunately, there's not much else to it beyond some standout gory moments that will stick with you. It's not a patch on the Bruce Campbell-led movies we know and love, and pales in comparison to its predecessor, Evil Dead Rise.

Evil Dead Burn centers around a family terrorized by Deadites, but there's a lot of confusion here surrounding how people become possessed. Sometimes you need a transfer of bodily fluids, and sometimes possession takes longer than others. The inconsistency throughout the movies might frustrate fans, as sometimes, a simpler answer is best.

When the family members are possessed, horrible things happen. It is a very unforgiving movie because the Deadites are particularly cruel here, often to an extreme degree. I should warn people now that yes, there is violence towards animals if that bothers you, and the movie feels nastier than its predecessors as a result.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, as we expect to watch a horror movie to feel uncomfortable and scared. But Evil Dead Burn really struggles to balance these shocking, brutal moments with an actual story, to the point where it feels like you're just watching a montage of gory scenes.

There's also a frustrating overreliance on jump scares here, which previous Evil Dead movies steered away from. There's nothing wrong with a good scare, and horror fans love them, but when you have excessive ones you saw coming a mile away, it becomes tedious.

Sam Raimi wove a really cool horror story when he first created The Evil Dead, but this sequel adds very little to the lore. It's basically a long movie where family members brutally attack and maim each other, and by the credits, I was left with more questions than answers.

Even the post-credits scene isn't really worth waiting for, and since there was a three-year gap between Evil Dead Rise and Evil Dead Burn, it's a shame that's all we got.

Ultimately, Evil Dead Burn is another divisive horror movie that will work for some and not others. It really depends on what you want from a horror movie, and if you're content with some over-the-top gore and repeated easy-to-spot scares, then you'll definitely have fun.

If you want more lore with your gore, then you might want to revisit the previous movies instead. Evil Dead Burn doesn't add much to a long-running franchise, and I found it to be a disappointment.

Express AI, launched on March 31, 2026, is ExpressVPN's attempt to answer a question many AI users haven't thought to ask: who can read your chats? The platform offers access to five AI models inside a confidential computing environment, where prompts and outputs are cryptographically isolated from everyone, including ExpressVPN itself. That's a bold claim in a category where privacy policies tend to be long on language and short on enforcement.

The platform comes bundled with ExpressVPN's Pro plan at no additional cost, positioning it alongside the company's password manager, secure mail, and identity protection tools. I've been covering AI platforms and business software for TechRadar Pro for years, including our 2026 buying guide for vibe coders and our guides on OpenClaw and Moltbook.

For this review, I spent time using Express AI across a range of everyday tasks: drafting, summarising documents, and reasoning through technical problems, to see how it holds up against better-known AI platforms.

What is Express AI?

Express AI is a multi-model AI chat platform built by ExpressVPN and accessible at app.expressai.com. At launch, it offers access to five general-purpose AI models, each selected for a different task type. What separates it from platforms like ChatGPT or Claude isn't the model lineup, but the underlying architecture: every interaction runs inside a confidential computing environment where encryption keys are generated inside the hardware itself, mathematically isolating conversations from cloud providers, model operators, and ExpressVPN.

The platform targets professionals and individuals who routinely share sensitive information in their AI chats, such as financial questions, work documents, and personal communications, and want guarantees that their data won't be retained or used to train future models. It's particularly well-suited to users already in the ExpressVPN ecosystem, since access is tied to the Pro subscription.

Privacy claims in the AI space are easy to make and hard to verify, which is why ExpressVPN commissioned an independent audit from Cure53, a German cybersecurity firm known for rigorous assessments. The pre-launch review, conducted in February and March 2026, covered penetration testing, source code inspection, and analysis of the platform's cryptography and key management. Cure53 confirmed that Express AI processes user interactions within confidential computing enclaves and found no unresolved vulnerabilities at launch.

Express AI: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You share sensitive information with AI tools. If your prompts routinely include personal, financial, or professional details, Express AI's zero-access architecture offers a layer of protection that mainstream platforms don't.
• You want multiple models without multiple subscriptions. The platform bundles five models covering everyday writing, document analysis, and coding in one interface, which reduces the cost and friction of juggling several accounts.

Don't buy it if…

• You're not already an ExpressVPN subscriber. Access requires a Pro plan, so you'd be paying for a full VPN suite alongside the AI platform. That's poor value if you only want an AI chatbot.
• You need API access or developer-level control. Express AI has no public API at launch, which makes it a non-starter for developers building on top of AI models.

My time with Express AI

The interface is spare and deliberately uncomplicated. You select a model, type your prompt, and get a response. There's no sidebar full of tools or settings buried three menus deep. I found the model-switching to be the most useful feature in practice: running the same prompt through DeepSeek R1 Distill 32B for a reasoning-heavy task and then Qwen2.5-VL 32B for document analysis took seconds rather than the tab-switching juggle that typically comes with using multiple platforms.

Ghost Mode worked as described: conversations disappeared after the session ended with no residual trace in the history panel. The encrypted vault stores past conversations behind a user-set password, which means chat history isn't accessible server-side, though a forgotten password loses the history permanently. That's a reasonable trade-off for the privacy guarantee, but it's something to keep in mind for anyone who relies on conversation history for workflow continuity.

One honest caveat: I couldn't independently verify the confidential computing claims beyond what Cure53 has stated in its public report. I'm taking the audit at face value, just as most users will. The 500 daily credits at one credit per prompt felt adequate for my testing but could frustrate users running long, iterative research sessions.

Express AI: Features

Express AI launches with five open-weight models rather than building proprietary ones from scratch. GPT OSS 120B handles everyday writing and reasoning; DeepSeek R1 Distill 32B is the pick for multi-step logic and research analysis; Qwen2.5-VL 32B reads and extracts data from images and documents; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B targets coding and complex prompts; and Nemotron 12B from NVIDIA handles technical and math-heavy workloads. In practice, having these in one interface means you can match the model to the task without maintaining separate accounts or API keys.

The side-by-side comparison tool is a standout. You can run the same prompt across multiple models simultaneously to compare outputs, which is especially useful when deciding which model to lean on for a recurring task type. Few standalone AI platforms offer this natively.

Ghost Mode and the encrypted vault address the two main categories of privacy risk. Ghost Mode auto-deletes conversations after each session, leaving no stored record at all. The vault stores history under user-controlled encryption: only the password set by the user can decrypt it, and neither ExpressVPN nor the model providers can access it. These aren't marketing claims; Cure53's February and March 2026 audit verified both mechanisms before launch.

File uploads are capped at 50 MB per file. The 2 GB of secure storage included with the Pro plan is sufficient for most document analysis tasks. I uploaded PDFs and images without friction, and Qwen2.5-VL 32B handled the analysis accurately in my testing. There's also a transparent credit tracker, which shows remaining daily usage clearly rather than burying it in account settings.

What's missing, at least at launch, is agentic capability. Express AI doesn't support tool use, web browsing, or multi-step autonomous tasks. It's a chat interface, and a deliberate one. For users who want AI agents to run workflows or integrate with external services, they'll need to look elsewhere. The no-API position also limits Express AI's appeal to developers, which may narrow the platform's audience more than ExpressVPN intends.

Express AI: User experience

The interface prioritises simplicity, which suits the platform's core audience. New users can start a conversation in under a minute. There's no onboarding tutorial or feature demo, but the layout is intuitive enough that most users won't need one. The Ghost Mode toggle and model selector are front and centre, so the two features that define the platform don't require hunting through menus.

In terms of design, it reads closer to a focused productivity tool than a full AI platform. That restraint works in its favour for privacy-conscious users who don't want complexity, but it may feel bare to anyone coming from ChatGPT or Claude's more feature-dense interfaces. ExpressVPN has described Express AI as part of a broader privacy ecosystem, suggesting the product will expand, but the launch version makes no concessions to power users hoping for immediate depth.

Express AI: Customer support

Express AI inherits ExpressVPN's customer support infrastructure, which includes 24/7 live chat via the main ExpressVPN site. Response times in my experience have been fast, typically under two minutes for live chat. Support agents are familiar with the VPN suite but may have limited depth on Express AI-specific technical queries, given how recently the platform launched.

The support documentation for Express AI is currently thin. The knowledge base covers setup and billing questions, but more detailed guidance on model selection, credit usage, and the encrypted vault is sparse. Given that this is a new product, that's understandable, but users who run into edge cases may find the documentation less helpful than they'd expect.

Express AI: Pricing

• Included with ExpressVPN Pro. Express AI is available at no additional cost to Pro subscribers, which makes it the most accessible pricing model for existing users.
• Pro plan starts at $7.49/month on a 2-year commitment, rising to $8.99/month on a 1-year plan and $19.99/month month-to-month.
• No standalone or free tier. There is no way to access Express AI without an active ExpressVPN Pro subscription.

The pricing is simple once you accept that Express AI is a bundled benefit rather than a standalone product. Pro subscribers get 500 daily credits, 2 GB of encrypted storage, and access to all five models alongside ExpressVPN's other features. For users who already pay for a Pro plan, Express AI costs nothing extra.

For users who don't need a VPN, the value proposition is murkier. The Pro plan at $19.99/month is competitive with some standalone AI subscriptions — ChatGPT Plus costs $20/month, for example — but you're paying for a VPN suite first and an AI platform second. ExpressVPN hasn't announced a standalone plan for Express AI, so that decision point will remain for the foreseeable future.

Express AI: alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT (OpenAI): The most widely used AI platform, with broader model access, API support, and agentic capabilities, but no confidential computing or zero-access architecture.
• Claude (Anthropic): A strong alternative for writing and reasoning tasks, with competitive privacy policies, though prompts may be reviewed for safety and model improvement purposes.
• Lumo (Proton): A privacy-oriented alternative from the makers of ProtonMail, worth watching as it develops its AI toolset for privacy-focused users.

How I tested Express AI

• Used Express AI for drafting, summarising, and answering research questions across multiple sessions to assess model quality and response consistency.
• Uploaded PDFs and images to test the Qwen2.5-VL 32B model's ability to extract data and answer questions about uploaded content.
• Tested Ghost Mode, the encrypted vault setup, and credit tracking to confirm they behaved as described in the official documentation and Cure53 audit summary.

For this review, I used Express AI as a day-to-day tool across a three-day period, testing each of the five models for their stated use cases and comparing the experience against mainstream AI platforms I use regularly. I reviewed ExpressVPN's official product documentation, the public summary of the Cure53 audit, and third-party coverage from the March 2026 launch to verify the platform's privacy claims and pricing.

Most AI assistants are built on a familiar arrangement: you get useful tools, the company gets your data. Lumo, launched by Swiss privacy company Proton in July 2025, refuses that deal entirely. Every conversation is protected by zero-access encryption, no logs are kept server-side, and your chats are never used to train the underlying models.

Lumo runs on a set of open-source large language models, including Mistral Small 3, OLMO 2 32B, and OpenHands 32B, with a routing layer that sends each query to the most appropriate model for the task. The client-side code is open source on GitHub and open to independent review. TIME named Lumo a Best Inventions 2025 special mention, recognizing the broader privacy architecture rather than raw AI performance.

TechRadar Pro has been reviewing business software since 2012. For more of our AI coverage, you can explore our AI tool roundup for 2026.

What is Lumo?

Lumo is an AI chat assistant from Proton AG, the Swiss company behind Proton Mail and Proton VPN. It handles everyday tasks: drafting text, summarizing documents, answering questions, writing and debugging code, and translating between languages. Unlike most mainstream AI tools, Lumo is designed so that neither Proton nor any third party can access your conversation history.

The platform targets individuals and teams who work with sensitive information and cannot pass it to Big Tech services. Lawyers reviewing contracts, journalists protecting sources, healthcare workers discussing sensitive cases, and privacy-conscious professionals who object to their inputs being fed into model training pipelines are all natural fits. Proton launched Lumo for Business in October 2025 to serve team deployments with admin controls and multi-user management.

A Lumo API is in development according to Proton's spring 2026 product roadmap, which would let third-party platforms embed private AI chat into their own workflows. For now, Lumo is available on the web at lumo.proton.me, and through iOS and Android apps.

Lumo: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You regularly handle confidential information. Zero-access encryption means even Proton cannot read your saved chats, which matters enormously for legal, healthcare, or journalistic work that no mainstream rival can match.
• You're already a Proton subscriber. Proton Unlimited members get free access to Lumo's base tier at no additional cost, making it a natural addition to an existing encrypted workflow.
• Your business needs GDPR-compliant AI. Lumo is hosted on Proton's Swiss servers, subject to European data protection law, a real advantage for teams with regulatory obligations.

Don't buy it if…

• You need frontier-level AI output. Lumo's open-source models are capable for everyday tasks, but they fall noticeably short of GPT-4o or Claude on complex reasoning and nuanced long-form writing.
• Image analysis is part of your work. As of mid-2026, Lumo does not support image uploads. If visual understanding matters to your workflow, you'll need a different tool.
• You're a light user unwilling to pay. The free tier's prompt limits create real friction for anything beyond occasional queries, and Lumo Plus is harder to justify if privacy isn't a top concern.

My time with Lumo

You don't need an account to get started, just open a chat as a guest at lumo.proton.me and start typing immediately. There's a single text input, a web search toggle, and a Ghost Mode button for sessions you want to vanish when you close the window. I found the onboarding frictionless by any standard.

For routine tasks like summarizing a PDF, drafting a short email, or explaining a technical concept, Lumo performed competently. Response times were reasonable throughout. Where I noticed the ceiling was in longer, more structured outputs: the model occasionally lost the thread in extended conversations, and answers on analytical questions felt thinner than comparable responses from Claude or ChatGPT Plus on the same prompts.

Ghost Mode is useful in practice and cleanly implemented. One click opens a session that leaves no trace on any server when you close it. That's a meaningful practical feature for sensitive queries, and I haven't seen any mainstream competitor offer it this simply.

Lumo: Features

Lumo covers the standard AI assistant toolkit: document analysis, code writing and debugging, text translation, email drafting, brainstorming, and general Q&A. The routing system automatically directs coding queries to OpenHands 32B, general conversation to Mistral models, and deeper reasoning tasks to OLMO 2. You don't choose the model manually; Proton's routing logic decides what handles each query.

The privacy architecture is the main event. Zero-access encryption means saved chats are only decryptable on your own device with your password, and no server-side logs are kept. Your inputs are never used to train the underlying models, and the optional web search feature routes through privacy-respecting search engines rather than ad-supported services.

Lumo 1.1, released August 2025, upgraded the model stack and delivered meaningful speed improvements. Version 1.2 in October 2025 added dark mode, bug fixes, and basic chat personalization. Lumo for Business followed that same month at $11.99 per user per month (annual billing), adding team admin controls, usage management, and data handling aligned with GDPR, HIPAA, and CCPA.

The feature gaps are real. There's no image input, no voice mode, no plugin marketplace, and no memory system for personalized responses across sessions. For privacy-focused everyday use those absences are manageable, but power users comparing Lumo to ChatGPT's tool ecosystem or Claude's extended context handling will notice the difference.

Lumo: User experience

The interface is minimal, fast, and easy to navigate. A new chat takes one click, history is searchable when signed in, and the settings panel is straightforward. Dark mode arrived in v1.2, and the mobile apps on iOS and Android closely mirror the web experience with no major feature gaps between platforms.

Customization options are sparse by design: no system prompt settings, no pinned model preferences, no memory configuration. The routing logic is entirely automated, and you largely have to trust Proton's judgment on which model handles what. Users who want fine-grained control will find that frustrating; those who just want to start typing will appreciate how quickly they can get going.

Lumo: Customer support

Proton covers Lumo support through its help center at proton.me/support/lumo, which includes getting started guides, feature documentation, and troubleshooting articles. A community forum on Proton's user voice platform lets you submit and vote on feature requests. Account-based support tickets can be filed through the dashboard.

There's no live chat or phone support at any tier, which may cause issues for business users dealing with time-sensitive problems. Lumo for Business likely offers more direct support access, but Proton hasn't published detailed SLAs for that plan. For most users, the self-serve documentation is clear enough, but enterprise buyers should confirm escalation options before committing.

Lumo: Pricing

• Free tier: Guest access (no account required) with a limited number of prompts per session. A free Proton account unlocks encrypted chat history and more daily messages.
• Lumo Plus: $12.99/month, or $119.88/year ($9.99/month effective). Includes unlimited chats, document uploads, history search, priority response times, and access to all available models.
• Lumo for Business: $11.99 per user per month, billed annually. Adds team admin controls and compliance-ready data handling for GDPR, HIPAA, and CCPA.

The free tier is functional for sporadic use but constrained enough that the weekly prompt limit becomes friction quickly. At $12.99/month, Lumo Plus sits below ChatGPT Plus and Claude Pro (both $20/month), and the value calculation depends on how much the privacy guarantee matters to you. If you're primarily after output quality and don't mind where your data goes, there are more capable options at similar price points.

Proton Unlimited subscribers ($14.99/month or $9.99/month on annual billing) get free access to the base Lumo tier as part of their existing plan. Lumo is also bundled into the Proton Workspace Premium business plan alongside encrypted email, VPN, and cloud storage.

Lumo alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT Plus ($20/month): OpenAI's platform offers stronger reasoning, image analysis, voice mode, and a plugin ecosystem. The privacy trade-off is significant, but capability-wise it remains the field benchmark.
• DuckAI (free): Duck.ai routes queries through multiple AI models via privacy-respecting proxies and requires no account. Encryption depth is less thorough than Lumo's zero-access approach, but it's a capable free alternative for casual use.
• Claude Pro ($20/month): Anthropic's Claude handles long documents and nuanced writing particularly well. It offers no comparable encryption architecture, but output quality on complex tasks is a step above Lumo.

How I tested Lumo

• Ran Lumo through document summarization, email drafting, code debugging, and general Q&A across multiple sessions to assess response quality and consistency.
• Tested Ghost Mode, web search with and without the toggle enabled, document uploads, and the iOS mobile app across both guest and signed-in access.
• Cross-referenced plans against Proton's official support documentation, product announcements, and other company material.

My testing spanned the web app and iOS client over several days. I compared output quality against Claude and ChatGPT Plus on identical prompts to gauge where Lumo sits in the current AI field. Privacy claims were assessed against publicly available documentation, open-source client code, and independent technical analysis.

Duck.ai is one of the only AI chat platforms where you can hold a conversation with GPT-5 or Claude Opus without registering an account. Launched by DuckDuckGo in early 2025, it sits inside the company's existing search and browser ecosystem. You can access it at duck.ai, through the DuckDuckGo browser, or via desktop browser extensions.

Two things set it apart from other AI chat tools. Every conversation goes through DuckDuckGo's anonymizing proxy before reaching the model provider, stripping out identifying information. Providers such as OpenAI and Anthropic are also contractually prohibited from using those chats for training purposes, which is a meaningful commitment that most direct-to-model platforms don't offer.

At TechRadar Pro, we've been reviewing business software since 2012. Our AI coverage includes an AI tools roundup and a 2026 vibe coding buying guide, among other platform reviews and news features.

What is Duck.ai?

Duck.ai is DuckDuckGo's AI chat service, designed so that you can talk to leading AI models without creating an account or sharing personal data. It's available at duck.ai, through DuckDuckGo's browser extensions, and inside the DuckDuckGo app on iOS and Android.

The service routes all conversations through a privacy proxy. Your prompts are anonymized before they reach the AI provider. DuckDuckGo also holds providers to strict contractual limits on data use, meaning chats are not stored on DuckDuckGo's servers and cannot be used for model training by either party.

It works for typical AI tasks: drafting emails, summarizing documents, answering questions, writing code, and general chat. Privacy-conscious professionals, freelancers, and anyone who wants frontier AI access without a recurring account will find it useful.

Duck.ai: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You want AI chat without an account. Duck.ai is one of few platforms giving you access to capable models, including GPT-5 mini, without registration or a credit card.
• Privacy matters to your workflow. DuckDuckGo anonymizes every chat through its proxy and holds AI providers to strict data-use agreements, making it a stronger privacy choice than signing up directly with OpenAI or Anthropic.
• You want multi-model value. The Plus plan at $9.99/month pairs GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 with a full VPN and identity protection, making it genuinely competitive.

Don't buy it if…

• You need a developer API. Duck.ai has no API. If you're building products or automations on top of AI models, go directly to OpenAI or Anthropic.
• You already have a VPN. The paid plans bundle AI with VPN and identity services. There's no AI-only subscription tier, so you may end up paying for things you don't need.
• You depend on predictable limits. DuckDuckGo doesn't publish exact daily message limits, which makes it difficult to plan for high-volume or time-sensitive work.

My time with Duck.ai

I tested Duck.ai across the free and Pro tiers over several weeks. On the free tier, the experience is clean and fast with no friction, no sign-up, and six models ready to go. Switching between GPT-4o mini and Claude 4.5 Haiku is a single click. Both handled research queries and writing tasks without issue.

The Pro tier adds Claude Opus 4.7 with extended reasoning. The improvement shows on complex tasks: I ran the same multi-step analytical prompt across the free and Pro tiers. Opus 4.7 returned a more structured and well-reasoned response. For everyday writing or quick lookups, the free tier is more than enough. Pro earns its keep on specialist, multi-step work.

My one persistent frustration was the opacity around usage limits. DuckDuckGo's policy is to keep limits vague to prevent abuse. During testing I didn't hit a ceiling on Pro, but I can imagine high-volume users running into walls without much warning.

Duck.ai: Features

The defining feature is the privacy proxy. Every message goes through DuckDuckGo before reaching the AI provider. The company holds providers to contractual restrictions on data use, which matters most if you're typing sensitive information into an AI: prompts about financial decisions, health issues, or confidential business matters are much less exposed than they would be via a direct provider account.

The free tier's model roster is unusually strong for a no-login service. Alongside GPT-4o mini and Claude 4.5 Haiku, you also get GPT-5 mini and OpenAI's gpt-oss-120b, both capable models that would cost real money through direct API access. Meta's Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Small 3 24B round out the lineup for users who prefer open-weight options.

Paid subscribers get meaningfully stronger models. The Plus plan adds GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6, which excel at long-context tasks and following detailed instructions. The Pro plan goes further with Claude Opus 4.7 and extended reasoning, suited to the kind of multi-step analysis that trips up smaller models.

Voice chat, launched in February 2026, lets you speak to an AI model through an encrypted relay connection. Audio is not stored by DuckDuckGo or OpenAI after the session ends, keeping the privacy principles consistent. The feature currently uses OpenAI as the model provider, so model choice for voice is limited.

File uploads are not yet supported, which is a gap compared to ChatGPT or Claude.ai. If you need to analyze a PDF or document, you'll need to paste content manually. DuckDuckGo has indicated uploads are on the roadmap.

Duck.ai: User experience

The interface is intentionally minimal. There's no dashboard, no settings maze, and no onboarding flow. The left sidebar shows your chat history, stored locally on your device rather than on DuckDuckGo's servers. You switch models by clicking the current model name at the top of the conversation. New users can start a chat in seconds.

AI features are also fully optional. DuckDuckGo lets you hide Duck.ai buttons and AI overlays in search settings, which is a meaningful gesture from a company that treats privacy as more than a marketing position. The option to disable AI without losing other features is something many platforms don't offer.

Duck.ai: Customer support

DuckDuckGo maintains detailed help documentation at its Help Pages site, covering Duck.ai's privacy policies, model availability, usage limits, and subscription management. The documentation is well-organized and answers most common questions without requiring you to contact anyone.

There's no live chat or phone support channel. For subscription or billing issues, you can reach support through the subscription settings menu, but response times aren't publicized. Businesses planning to rely on the Pro plan for critical work should factor this in when evaluating the service.

Duck.ai: Pricing

• Free: Six models, no sign-up, with unspecified daily usage limits.
• Plus: $9.99/month or $99.99/year, which adds GPT-4o, GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Llama 4 Maverick, plus VPN, Personal Information Removal, and Identity Theft Restoration.
• Pro: $19.99/month or $199.99/year, which adds Claude Opus 4.7, extended reasoning, and 2x usage limits versus Plus.

The free tier is one of the best no-login AI offers available right now. Getting GPT-5 mini and Claude 4.5 Haiku at zero cost, with genuine privacy protections, is a hard proposition to dismiss. The Plus plan at $9.99/month undercuts both ChatGPT Plus and Claude Pro (each $20/month) while providing access to frontier models alongside a bundled VPN.

The Pro plan at $19.99/month is harder to recommend to most users. Claude Opus 4.7 with extended reasoning is a premium experience, but only for tasks that genuinely require deep multi-step analysis. There's no standalone AI-only option, so if you already pay for a VPN elsewhere, you're likely paying twice. The subscription is available internationally with localized pricing: UK users pay £9.99/£19.99 per month for Plus/Pro respectively, and most EU countries are priced at EUR 9.99/19.99 per month.

Duck.ai: Alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT: OpenAI's direct interface costs $20/month for Plus and offers GPT-4o access alongside file uploads and image generation, two features Duck.ai currently lacks. The downside is that ChatGPT requires an account and uses conversation data for service improvements unless you opt out.
• Claude.ai: Anthropic's own interface gives you Claude Opus at $20/month on the Pro plan and is stronger for deep reasoning work. It requires registration, doesn't offer multi-model switching, and has weaker privacy protections than Duck.ai's proxy approach.
• Perplexity AI: A strong alternative if you want AI answers grounded in real-time web search. Perplexity Pro costs $20/month and supports file uploads, though it doesn't match Duck.ai on privacy routing.

How I tested Duck.ai

• Ran identical prompts covering research queries, email drafting, and complex analytical tasks across the free, Plus, and Pro model tiers to compare quality and speed.
• Reviewed DuckDuckGo's published privacy documentation, provider contracts policy, and help pages to assess how well its privacy proxy claims hold up.
• Tested the subscription sign-up, model switching, voice chat, and local history access on both desktop and mobile across several sessions.

Response latency on the free tier is slightly higher than a direct ChatGPT session, consistent with traffic being routed through a proxy. The difference was small enough that it wasn't noticeable mid-conversation. Pro-tier responses were fast regardless of model choice, with Claude Opus 4.7 taking marginally longer on extended reasoning tasks — which is expected given the additional processing involved.

DeepSeek landed like a thunderclap in January 2025, when its R1 reasoning model briefly dethroned ChatGPT as the most downloaded free app on the iOS App Store in the United States. Built by a Hangzhou-based AI lab backed by Chinese hedge fund High-Flyer, it claimed to match frontier AI performance at a fraction of the development cost. That claim sent Nvidia's stock tumbling 17% in a single session and sparked a global conversation about who was actually winning the AI race.

Since then, DeepSeek has grown to roughly 97 million monthly active users and released multiple model generations, most recently the V4 family in April 2026. Its API pricing stands out: the V4 Flash model starts at $0.14 per million input tokens, cheaper than most "lite" tier models from OpenAI and Google yet competitive on coding, math, and reasoning benchmarks. The open-weight licensing under MIT also means teams can self-host the models and sidestep per-token costs entirely at scale.

We've been reviewing B2B software at TechRadar Pro since 2012, with AI platforms among our most active coverage areas in recent years. Our AI tools roundup, vibe coding guide for 2026, and explainers on OpenClaw and Moltbook give you a sense of the tools we track. DeepSeek is one of the more polarizing platforms we've tested: impressive in many ways, but not without significant red flags.

What is DeepSeek?

DeepSeek is an AI chat platform and API service developed by Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., a Chinese company founded in 2023 and funded by the quant hedge fund High-Flyer. It offers a free web and mobile chat interface at chat.deepseek.com alongside a paid developer API, both powered by the same underlying model family.

The platform runs on DeepSeek's own large language models, specifically V4 Flash and V4 Pro, both using a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture. Only a subset of each model's parameters activates per token, which keeps inference costs low without shrinking the model's overall knowledge base.

V4 Pro has 1.6 trillion total parameters but only 49 billion active at inference. V4 Flash runs 284 billion total with 13 billion active, making it significantly faster and cheaper without sacrificing much on everyday tasks.

Developers, researchers, and cost-conscious businesses are the natural audience. The free chat tier suits individuals and small teams exploring the tool, while the API's aggressive pricing makes it attractive for anyone building AI-powered applications at scale.

DeepSeek: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You need a cheap, capable coding or reasoning API. V4 Flash at $0.14 per million input tokens is among the most affordable frontier-adjacent APIs available, and its benchmark results on coding and math hold up well against more expensive competitors.
• You want open weights for self-hosted deployment. Both V4 models are released under MIT license on Hugging Face, giving teams the option to run the model on their own infrastructure and eliminate per-token costs entirely for high-volume workloads.
• You're doing non-sensitive exploratory work. For individual researchers, students, or developers prototyping non-confidential projects, the free chat app offers web search, file uploads, and a 1M token context window at zero cost.

Don't buy it if…

• Your work involves confidential or regulated data. All user data is stored on servers in mainland China, subject to Chinese law, which permits government access without user consent. Multiple governments have banned DeepSeek from official devices for exactly this reason.
• You need consistent responses on sensitive topics. DeepSeek avoids certain politically sensitive subjects, particularly around Chinese domestic affairs. That content filtering can produce evasive or incomplete outputs on topics that other platforms handle straightforwardly.
• You're in a GDPR-regulated region. Italy's data protection authority blocked DeepSeek outright in January 2025 after the company provided what regulators called a "completely insufficient" response to data practice inquiries.

My time with DeepSeek

I tested DeepSeek's chat app and API across a range of tasks: code generation, document summarization, long-form reasoning, and general Q&A. On raw capability, the V4 models impressed me. Code outputs were clean and well-structured, long document summaries were accurate, and the one-million-token context window handled full-length PDF ingestion without complaint.

The thinking mode, accessible via Expert Mode in the chat UI, added visible chain-of-thought reasoning that proved useful for multi-step problems rather than theatrical.

What gave me pause was everything outside the model itself. Certain politically sensitive prompts returned conspicuously vague or deflective answers — the kind of behavior that wouldn't be acceptable in a professional context where consistent and complete information matters. I also found that the chat interface lacks the memory and personalization features you'd find in ChatGPT or Claude.

Value for money on the API side is difficult to argue with. A production app with well-structured prompts benefits substantially from the caching discount: cached input tokens cost just $0.014 per million for V4 Flash, a 90% reduction. For high-volume, low-sensitivity workloads, that arithmetic is compelling.

DeepSeek: Features

DeepSeek's core chat feature set covers the bases you'd expect: text generation, code writing and debugging, document summarization, mathematical reasoning, and web search. The web search integration is a manual toggle rather than always-on, which keeps responses faster by default but requires you to switch it on when real-time information matters. File uploads support PDF, DOCX, and TXT formats, with the model able to summarize and answer questions based on the uploaded content.

The standout capability is the 1M token context window introduced with V4, up from 128K in the previous generation. That's a meaningful jump for anyone analyzing long contracts, codebases, or research documents in a single session. Most competitors at comparable price points max out at 128K to 200K tokens.

V4 Flash covers both thinking and non-thinking modes, so you don't need to switch between separate models depending on task complexity. Non-thinking handles fast general responses; thinking adds structured multi-step reasoning for harder problems. That flexibility matters more than it sounds when you're toggling between casual tasks and complex analysis in the same workflow.

Where DeepSeek falls short is multimodal support. The platform does not currently support image generation or image understanding in the web app, putting it behind ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini on that front. Agentic capabilities are available in the V4 Preview but remain early-stage compared to dedicated agentic platforms.

DeepSeek: User experience

The chat interface at chat.deepseek.com is straightforward and fast to get started with. Signing up requires only an email address from a global provider like Gmail or Yahoo, and the default experience drops you straight into a conversation window. The distinction between Expert Mode (thinking-enabled, slower) and Instant Mode (faster, non-thinking) is surfaced clearly at the top of the interface, and mobile apps on iOS and Android mirror the web experience with file upload and web search included.

The learning curve is shallow for casual use. Switching between thinking and non-thinking modes takes one click, and the file upload workflow is drag-and-drop simple.

The API experience is less forgiving for first-time integrators. Unlike the chat app, the API is stateless, meaning every call must include the full conversation history in the messages array. DeepSeek's documentation covers this clearly, but it catches developers accustomed to managed conversation state elsewhere off guard.

DeepSeek: Customer support

Support options for free chat users are limited to a Discord community server and an email channel for API service inquiries (api-service@deepseek.com). Community responses on Discord can be prompt, but they depend on other users rather than official staff. There is no live chat or phone support.

API customers have slightly more recourse through direct email support, though response times vary. The official documentation at api-docs.deepseek.com is thorough and well-organized, covering model details, pricing, rate limits, and code examples in both Python and curl. For developers comfortable with self-service documentation, it's adequate.

DeepSeek: Pricing

• Chat app is free with no query limits. The web and mobile apps give you unlimited access to V4 Flash and V4 Pro at no cost, including web search, file uploads, and the full context window.
• New API accounts receive 5M free tokens, valid for 30 days, giving developers a zero-cost window to prototype and test.
• API billing is pay-as-you-go. V4 Flash costs $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens. V4 Pro runs $1.74 and $3.48 respectively at standard rates, with promotional discounts periodically dropping those to $0.435 and $0.87. Cached input tokens cost one-tenth of the standard input rate on both models.

The free chat tier is generous by any measure. Unlimited queries with a 1M context window puts it ahead of most free-tier competitors in raw access terms, and there's no paid chat subscription to worry about. Power users who need more control either stick with the free app or pay per token via the API.

On the API side, DeepSeek makes a strong case for developers managing costs at scale. Off-peak pricing discounts of up to 75% are available during 16:30–00:30 UTC, giving teams with flexible scheduling another cost lever. For production apps with well-structured prompts sharing a common system context, effective input costs can drop well below $0.02 per million tokens with caching applied.

DeepSeek: alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT (OpenAI): The most capable all-around AI platform, with image understanding, voice, and memory. API pricing is higher, but US-based data residency and enterprise data agreements make it a safer choice for sensitive business workloads.
• Claude (Anthropic): Particularly strong for long-form writing and document analysis, with comparable context windows and clearer data handling policies. Claude Pro starts at $20/month for individual users.
• Gemini (Google): Tightly integrated with Google Workspace and built for multimodal work across text, image, and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash offers competitive API pricing with no Chinese data jurisdiction concerns.

How I tested DeepSeek

• Used the free web app for code generation, document summarization, mathematical reasoning, multi-turn Q&A, and file analysis, covering both Instant Mode and Expert Mode across each task type.
• Ran API calls across varying prompt sizes to verify context window behavior, caching discounts, and response consistency, following DeepSeek's own temperature guidance for different task types.
• Cross-referenced DeepSeek's official privacy policy, third-party security research from NowSecure and SecurityScorecard, and regulatory actions from Italy, Australia, South Korea, and US government bodies to build a complete picture of the data risk profile.

Beyond hands-on testing, I reviewed DeepSeek's official API documentation, the V4 technical report published on Hugging Face, and benchmark data from the April 2026 release. Pricing figures were sourced directly from the official DeepSeek API documentation and corroborated against third-party tracking services.

8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller: Two-minute review

The 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller was primarily created for the Analogue 3D—a third-party console that emulates N64 hardware and requires real cartridges. However, it's also compatible with Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch 2, and PC (as well as Android devices).

Now, I don't own an Analogue 3D personally (limited stock and an even more limited wallet have seen to that), but I do have a Switch 2, and the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller shines just as brightly on Nintendo's current-gen machine. I've been playing Nintendo Switch Online's roster of N64 titles with it and found it to be a fantastic (and not to mention, cheaper) alternative to the official Switch Nintendo 64 controller.

The 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller comes in a wide variety of colorways, most of which are available to buy at the brand's Amazon store page. The standard black and white variants can be bought for $39.99 / £34.99 (around AU$60). Meanwhile, the version that bears the N64 controller's iconic color scheme (alongside several translucent models) is a touch pricier in the US at $44.99 / £34.99 (around AU$65).

I was sent the 'Grey' model for this review, and it perfectly mimics the look and feel of the original N64 controller. The grey finish of the shell and the colored Start, A, B, and C-buttons are all accurately rendered.

The major difference is that the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller opts for a more contemporary layout, sporting two controller grips as opposed to the original N64 controller's odd but strangely comfortable trident-esque design.

There are pros and cons to this approach. The 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller's more modern flourishes do make it comfortable to hold. Additions like a Hall effect thumbstick also make for a pad that's built to last. Basically, the thing won't fall apart after a few heated sessions of Mario Party. Though the stick retains that rugged, contoured design of the original, meaning your hand won't be any better off if you stick to the 'palm method' of getting high scores in certain minigames.

Where this modern design falters slightly, though, is in the triggers and shoulder buttons. While they feel perfectly fine, the default layout in some games might feel off if you're used to the original N64 controller. That's because, with Nintendo Switch Online, the 'ZR' button is reserved for the quick menu. This relegates the left trigger as the dedicated 'Z' button by default.

That kind of was the case with the original N64 pad, too, where the Z button sat at the center-rear for your left index finger to rest on. It can just make things feel occasionally awkward on the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller.

Take Star Fox 64, for example. Because the right trigger is reserved for the quick menu, it means the left trigger and right bumper are used to barrel roll by default. In GoldenEye 007, meanwhile, the left trigger fires your weapon, while the left bumper activates manual aiming. As a result, you might find you have to dive into the quick menu and adjust control schemes on a per-game basis, which can be a bit frustrating.

Thankfully, that's the only major issue I have with the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller, and it's one that wasn't hugely difficult to get used to. I did find myself bringing up the quick menu by accident, annoyingly often, though.

At least battery life is solid, at around 15-20 hours on a full charge. That's about standard for the brand's controllers like the 8BitDo Ultimate 2 and 8BitDo Pro 3. Not class-leading by any means, but certainly gets the job done.

8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller: Specifications

8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller: Scorecard

8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller: Should I buy?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller

I tested the 8BitDo 64 Bluetooth Controller for about a week, putting it through its paces with Nintendo Switch Online's dedicated N64 library. Titles played include F-Zero X, Ridge Racer 64, Star Fox 64, Pilotwings 64, Sin and Punishment, Mario Tennis, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

I tested the controller wirelessly on Nintendo Switch 2 to get a feel for battery life and connectivity, with my display of choice being the LG CX OLED TV. For audio, I find that wired is best on Switch 2 due to Bluetooth audio delay, and thus opted for the RIG R5 Spear Pro HS gaming headset.

First reviewed June - July 2026

Read more about how we test

Marshall Stanmore IV review

If you want to invite a speaker that looks as good as it sounds into your living room, then the new Marshall Stanmore IV could be a great pick for you. It aims to deliver everything its predecessor did, but better, with a broader soundstage, enhanced bass, and superior controls.

And as someone who owns (and loves) the previous model in this line, best believe I was expecting big things from the Stanmore IV. Luckily, it delivered, offering up impressive sound, a solid set of features, and an eye-catching design. But is it worth its relatively premium price tag? Here’s what I think after many hours of testing.

But before we decide whether the Marshall Stanmore IV can sit alongside the very best Bluetooth speakers, let’s take a look under the hood. This thing essentially uses the same setup as its sibling, the Marshall Acton IV, but crucially with a larger woofer. That means you’re getting a single 5-inch sub with 60W of amplification alongside two 0.75-inch tweeters with 25W of amplification. The result? Big, commanding, and engrossing sound.

I started by firing up Are You Gonna Go My Way by Lenny Kravitz, and the Stanmore IV handled it masterfully. Wailing electric guitars had excellent tonal accuracy and cut through with clarity; vocals also sounded driven and emotive.

Moving over to a deeper track, like Vision of Love by Lewis Taylor, and the Stanmore IV continued to impress. Deep bass pumping through the track hit with tremendous impact while remaining regimented and clean. But thumping low-end never came at the expense of sounds elsewhere in the frequency range. High-pitched drums sounded expressive and vibrant, while vocals in the mid-range were granted plenty of room to play in. Bass can even reach down to 38Hz, meaning you get brilliant, low extension — even sub-bass comes through with vigor and confidence.

LDAC is also on board now for higher-res Bluetooth listening, which helped to illuminate breathy vocal details in Black Eye by Allie X. And even though I’d argue the speaker has a more energetic sound signature, with a lot of focus on the hard-hitting low end, it still supplies a detailed, nuanced listen.

One of the limitations of the Stanmore IV’s little sibling, the Acton IV was its stereo playback. Although it whipped up a decent impression of stereo sound, its small size made it a little difficult to create the most meaningful sense of separation. But the larger, wider build of the Stanmore IV takes things up a notch, and in Jimi Hendrix's Foxey Lady I picked up on a stronger sense of separation, with lead guitar brilliantly placed on the right.

And, more generally speaking, the Stanmore IV whips up a broad, engrossing soundstage. Marshall has improved the tweeters and waveguides on this model to help disperse sound more evenly and provide room-filling sound. However the extra width has been achieved, it certainly gets the nod from me.

Marshall’s Dynamic Loudness tech also ensured that tracks maintained admirable clarity, even at higher volumes. Of course, you can still expect a bit of compression at 100%, say, but I was impressed with the speaker’s control in the upper echelons of loudness. The Stanmore IV is even better in this regard than the smaller Acton IV — perhaps thanks to its larger woofer and larger cabinet size.

Overall, the Stanmore IV provides powerful, driven, and exciting sound, with commendable depth and expression. It's bullish and confident, but still takes time to smell the flowers — and its wider soundstage and refined bass even helps it surpass its already impressive predecessor.

But now it’s time to move on from sound and look at a few of the features you can enjoy on the Stanmore IV. If you’ve already seen my Marshall Acton IV review, then you’ll get the gist of what’s on board. The Stanmore IV uses the newer Marshall app, enabling you to save three EQ calibrations (using a five-band equalizer), and you can use the M button to cycle between these if you like. The app also opens up placement compensation, enabling you to optimize the speaker’s audio output depending on its positioning, and there’s an option to change the brightness of the LED indicators.

Like the Stanmore III, there’s also RCA and 3.5mm connectivity, allowing you to hook up a turntable, or connect the speaker up to an AUX cable.

Something I wish the Stanmore IV did have is Wi-Fi connectivity. Not only does Wi-Fi provide the highest quality wireless listening experience, but it also prevents pesky sounds from your device — like phone calls and notifications — blasting from the speaker. What’s more, this is a home speaker, so it could easily have a stable connection to your home network at all times.

Marshall has multi-room covered with Auracast tech, which enables a bunch of its speakers to pair together, but I would’ve loved to have seen Wi-Fi onboard for the most seamless, quality-focused listening experience.

Another thing the Stanmore IV leaves out is voice assistant capabilities. Unlike models such as the Sonos Era 100 or Bose Lifestyle Ultra, there’s no smart voice control onboard. Although this is a function that I personally don’t tend to use on speakers, I know that some may wish for it on a model designed primarily for home use.

But something that’s sure to be a hit with most is the Stanmore IV’s design. This thing is an absolute beauty, and although it looks very similar to its predecessor, I’d argue that there’s no need to fix something that’s not broken. The new Stanmore stuns with a gorgeous faux leather exterior, beautiful speaker grille, and luxurious golden detailing. It looks like a true statement piece, and an item that will complement any living space (while still producing excellent audio).

As was the case on the Acton IV, buttons and control knobs are also perfectly responsive and pleasing to use, and there are also onboard EQ controls for altering bass and treble levels if you want to make some changes in a pinch.

So, now we come to the big question. Is the Marshall Stanmore IV worth the money? Well, it’s not the cheapest speaker around, with a price tag of $399.99 / £349.99 / AU$679, making it $100 / £90 / AU$180 more than the Acton IV. On the surface, that may seem like a significant jump for a speaker that’s almost identical — bar a larger cabinet and slightly larger woofer. But these seemingly small changes actually make a significant difference, in my view.

It maintains tighter control at the highest volumes, and also produces the seismic sound that Marshall has become associated with. And that’s not to do the Acton down — it’s just to say that I think you get your money’s worth when stepping up to the Stanmore. I’d also say that the Stanmore competes well against rivals in its price category, with a lower price tag yet more might than a rival like the Denon Home 400. I’d also argue it produces a more striking sound than a model like the Sonos Roam 2 — though you do miss out on Wi-Fi and a few smart features.

Overall, the Marshall Stanmore IV is a great speaker that produces energetic, impactful sound, alongside a stunning look and nifty companion app. Yes, I would’ve loved to have seen Wi-Fi on board, but with LDAC for higher-res Bluetooth streaming added into the mix, I’d still happily recommend this musical maestro from Marshall.

Marshall Stanmore IV review: price & release date

• $399.99 / £349.99 / AU$679
• First released July 2026

The Marshall Stanmore IV was released in July 2026, around four years after its predecessor hit the shelves. This newer model launched alongside the Marshall Acton IV, which is — in essence — a smaller version of the Stanmore. This model comes in at $399.99 / £349.99 (AU$580).

Marshall Stanmore IV review: specs

Should I buy the Marshall Stanmore IV?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Marshall Stanmore IV review: also consider

How I tested the Marshall Stanmore IV

• Spent days testing the speaker
• Used at our dedicated music testing space at Future Labs
• Mainly streamed music over Tidal

I tested the Marshall Stanmore IV over the course of a few days, during which time I listened to hours worth of music and exhausted every feature the speaker had to offer.

Most of the time, I used the Stanmore IV in our dedicated music testing room at Future Labs, where I mainly streamed tunes via Tidal on my Xiaomi 17. To begin with, I sifted through the tracks in our TechRadar reference playlist — which features songs from a wide variety of genres — but I also bumped a bunch of tunes from my personal library.

More generally, I’ve spent years testing audio gear here at TechRadar. I’ve reviewed everything from premium wireless headphones like the Sony WH-1000XM6 through to Dolby Atmos soundbars such as the JBL Bar 1300MK2. I’ve also tested more than 50 Bluetooth speakers, including lots of Marshall models, including the Marshall Middleton II and Acton IV.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

Austrian Audio The Arranger: Two-minute review

The Arranger by Austrian Audio are an attempt to at least begin to fill the gap that exists between the company’s highest-end headphones and its wildly successful entry-level stuff. In case that isn’t a big enough ask by itself, Austrian Audio wants this new gap-filler to be just as convincing as a pro monitoring tool as they are a domestic pair of headphones.

So the brand has come up with a light, comfortable and slightly oddly colored pair of (semi) open-backed headphones that are easy to drive, fold smaller than the norm and are fitted with mildly exotic DLC-coated dynamic drivers that deliver a prodigious 5Hz - 30kHz frequency response. About the only misstep (apart from the finish) is the lack of a balanced cable option — or, more accurately, the lack of a no-cost balanced cable option.

When it comes to performance, though, complaints like this become irrelevant. Without sacrificing anything where detail retrieval, organization or soundstaging are concerned, Austrian Audio has served up a pair of energetic, entertaining and thoroughly engaging headphones that are just as happy to deliver the excitement of a recording as they are to peer deep into the mix and examine it on a microscopic level. As a combination of analysis and enjoyment, The Arranger are very hard to lay a glove on.

Which is not to say they have the field clear, of course. Similarly specified, similarly priced products from brands with similarly credible reputations are, naturally, available among the best wired headphones — and when you’re talking about companies like Beyerdynamic and Meze Audio, you know the alternatives to The Arranger are going to be compelling.

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Price & release date

• Released June 2026
• Priced $1,299 / £899 / AU$1,899

The Arranger by Austrian Audio are on sale now, and in the United States they sell for $1,299 per pair. They’re £899 in the United Kingdom, and AU$1,899 in Australia. They're intended to fill a gap, but it means they come up against some pretty stiff competition, too.

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Specs

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Features

• 44mm DLC-coated dynamic drivers
• 3m cable with 3.5mm/6.3mm termination
• 25ohms impedance, 110dB sensitivity

Passive, hard-wired headphones are seldom groaning under the weight of all their features, and The Arranger are not in any way unusual. The feature-count is short but in this instance, at least, the few features here are all entirely fit for purpose.

The Austrian Audio are supplied with a 3m length of quite sturdily rubberized cable. It fits using the ‘click and turn’ method into the left ear cup, and at the other end there’s a 3.5mm termination that will happily accept the 6.3mm adapter that’s supplied. A 2m 4.4mm balanced cable and a 3m cable with an XLR termination are both available and, rather annoyingly, both will cost you additional money.

The information that travels along the cable is delivered to a couple of 44mm dynamic drivers. They have a diamond-like carbon coating on the diaphragm and also feature a proprietary ring magnet — the aim is superior impulse response, super-low distortion and significant bass extension. Austrian Audio suggests frequency response is 5Hz - 30kHz, which would seem to make ‘significant bass extension’ something of an understatement.

The Arranger are very forgiving headphones — impedance of 25ohms and 110dB sensitivity means they’re not even remotely difficult to drive. A dedicated headphone amp is always a good idea, of course, but even the 3.5mm socket on your laptop should have sufficient oomph to get the Austrian Audio up to speed.

• Features score: 5 / 5

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Sound quality

• Significant low-frequency substance and variation
• Open, organized and detailed sound
• Tremendous powers of analysis

Austrian Audio, it turns out, was not just talking. The Arranger really do function almost as well as a pair of monitors as they do when asked to simply entertain. In either circumstance, this is a very accomplished pair of headphones.

The (almost) open-backed arrangement means the presentation is spacious and airy, and the soundstage the headphones present is quite expansive, but not at the cost of unity or singularity. Despite being able to open up a recording like Natural Magic’s Galaxy Builder to the point that its constituent parts are individualized and easy to inspect, there’s a togetherness to the way The Arranger present the recording that makes it sound like a performance rather than simply a collection of discrete occurrences.

It helps that frequency response is nice and even, from the deep and almost extravagantly varied low end to the bright, substantial top end. The midrange projects well without forcing the overall response into any kind of ‘V’ shape, and the lack of coloration to the tonality allows every point of the frequency range to sound natural and unforced. Detail levels are high at every stage, and the amount of insight the Austrian Audio have into even quite complex recordings is never less than fully impressive.

As well as body and insight at the bottom end, there’s also unarguable control. The Arranger take a lot of care in expressing the attack and decay of individual bass events, and consequently have no problem in describing rhythms with absolute conviction. This sense of confidence and positivity is, in fact, apparent throughout the frequency range.

As well as being alert to the finest, most transient details that both build a complete picture of a recording and allow an engineer to understand a recording on a sort of ‘building block’ level, The Arranger are more than willing to handle the broader dynamics of changes in volume, intensity and attack. The distance they’re able to put between the quietest and most contemplative passages in a recording and the final all-out crescendo is significant.

It’s by no means an easy trick to entertain with the vigorous and engaging nature of your sound while simultaneously serving as a forensic tool of insight and analysis — it’s so difficult, in fact, that most headphone manufacturers don’t even bother trying. But it’s a trick Austrian Audio manages to pull off with something very much like aplomb.

• Sound quality score: 5 / 5

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Design

• (Semi-) open-backed configuration
• 320g without cable
• Just one, rather single-minded, option for finish

In many meaningful ways, the design of The Arranger is wholly successful. This is, at 320g without the length of cable attached, a light and comfortable pair of headphones, and thanks to come judicious choices where hanger arrangement, clamping force and padding of the contact points are concerned, it’s a pair of headphones that stays comfortable for hours on end.

The inside of the headband and the ear cups are of medium-density memory foam with a faux-suede covering. It’s soft, and it resists returning your own body heat longer after some alternative designs have started to warm your ears. Some sturdy articulation in the yokes means not only will the ear cups fold flat, but the frame folds in on itself too. This makes The Arranger much more compact in transit, and a far better proposition where portability is concerned.

To my eyes, though, there’s something quite inelegant and rather rustic about the width of the headband and the point where the headband chunkily meets the ear cups. The one available finish — a combination of black, something that thinks it’s gold and something that is unarguably beige — doesn’t exactly shout ‘premium product!’ either. The slats on the ear cups that result in the Austrian Audio being a quasi-open-backed design are a little more successful but, again, the color isn’t helping the headphones look as expensive as they actually are.

There’s absolutely no arguing with the standard of build and finish on display here but, then again, this is no more than you’re entitled to expect when paying over $1,000 for some headphones. The problem for The Arranger, I think, is about perceived value — and it comes up slightly short.

• Design score: 4 / 5

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Value

• Headphones for every occasion
• Light, comfortable and easy to wear…
• …although not quite as easy to look at

No, $1,299 / £899 / AU$1,899 is not an insignificant sum for a pair of headphones, even a pair from a company with the track record of Austrian Audio.

But when you consider their potency as a tool of analysis, factor in their energetic and enthusiastic attitude when you’re simply listening for pleasure, and then add in the build quality and the comfort that’s a by-product, they become pretty difficult to argue with on a value-for-money basis.

One or two options where finish is concerned wouldn’t go amiss, mind you — in fact, they might help The Arranger to become an even easier sell.

• Value score: 4.5 / 5

Should I buy the Austrian Audio The Arranger?

Buy them if...

Don't buy them if...

Austrian Audio The Arranger review: Also consider

How I tested the Austrian Audio The Arranger

• Connected to a FiiO M15S DAP
• Connected to a full-size system via Eversolo DAC-Z10 pre-amp
• Using music from many formats and of many styles

The FiiO digital audio player features lots of hi-res FLAC and DSD files, and lots of different styles and genres of music within those digital files. The Eversolo DAC-Z10, meanwhile, is the preamplifier for an Arcan ST25 network streamer, a Technics SL-1300G turntable and a Rega Apollo CD player.

Which means that content from internet radio stations, vinyl and compact disc are all available too - which, by extension, means The Arranger by Austrian Audio got about as thorough a work-out as a pair of headphones at this sort of money demands.

• First reviewed: July 2026
• Read more about how we test

Oukitel WP68 Air: 30-second review

The Oukitel WP68 Air lands as the accessible end of the WP68 family. Where the WP68 Pro chases a slim, cyber-styled design, the Air keeps things simple and in some ways more elegant.

Oukitel pitches this as a phone for anyone who wants rugged durability without the price tag of a flagship, and to that end, a 6.88-inch HD+ screen and an 8000mAh battery to do the heavy lifting.

On paper, its specifications undercut most of the rugged pack. The 12GB of RAM and 512GB of storage look generous for the money, and the 64MP main camera promises more than a token effort in daylight. Android 16 also puts it ahead of several rivals still shipping on older builds.

This is a classic rugged phone able to withstand what the environment can throw at it, and the owner being clumsy, but it tries to have a foot also in the practical camp for those who need a daily driver.

The screen is 6.88 inches, making it easy to read, but the resolution isn't great, and the 450-nit brightness isn’t ideal for working in sunlight. Another limitation is that video capture is only 1440p, not 4K.

If you don’t do much photography, these aspects might not be an issue for you, but it's useful to be aware of these things before purchasing.

However, the biggest issue with the WP68 Air is that, compared to some previous Oukitel phones with better SoCs and cameras, its asking price doesn’t make it a bargain. And a few other annoyances stop this from joining our hallowed collection of best rugged phones.

Oukitel WP68 Air: price and availability

• How much does it cost? $420/£270/€360
• When is it out? Available now in some regions
• Where can you get it? Direct from the maker

The asking price direct from Oukitel is $419.99, which doesn’t sound excessive for a phone with 12GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. For UK customers, that translates into £268.99, and for Europeans it's €359.99. But, at the time of writing, it's out of stock for the UK.

Also, this phone isn’t available on Amazon or AliExpress, as far as I can see.

But an even greater problem for the WP68 Air is that it's priced in some regions higher than the WP210, a phone from the same stable with better specifications.

On the German Oukitel outlet, the WP210 is priced at €319,99, a full forty euros less than the WP68 Air, a phone it crushes in every respect. On the UK site, the WP68 Air is £16 cheaper, but the more powerful SoC, better screen and cameras are easily worth the difference. And even with US pricing, the WP210 is only $30 more, and that’s still a better deal than the WP68 Air.

I’m sure there are equally competitive phones from other brands, but when a phone from the same brand undermines its own value, the WP68 Air is obviously in trouble.

There is a better phone for this money, or close, and it's also from Oukitel.

• Value score: 3.5/5

Oukitel WP68 Air: Specs

Oukitel WP68 Air: Design

• Conservative design
• Standard button layout
• No wireless charging

From the official images, the WP68 Air follows the familiar rugged phone formula. A reinforced frame surrounds the display, with a textured rear panel and a camera module set into a raised block on the back. It is offered in three colourways: orange, black and green.

I’m really pleased that rugged phone makers aren’t making devices that look like props from a cancelled-after-one-season sci-fi show, and for the most part, the WP68 Air looks like a large ordinary phone.

What dictates the size of this design is the headline 6.88-inch panel at HD+ resolution. That’s plenty of glass for the price, though HD+ on a screen this size will look softer than the FHD+ panels found on some competitors' phones.

The layout is strictly by-the-numbers, with the power button and volume controls on the right, the custom button and SIM tray on the left. That’s what most people expect from an Android phone these days, and unless makers have a good reason to do something different, it seems the sensible choice

While I’m not 100% certain of this, without dismantling the phone, I’m confident that the primary camera sensor is on the centerline of the phone, with the nightvision sensor to the left and the IR lights and flash to the right.

With the camera cluster all in a horizontal line, it would have been easy to see damage to the sensor projections if Oukitel had not foreseen the issue. Counterbalancing the projections along the top, the WP68 Air has a ‘heel’ at the bottom that lets the phone lie almost flat on a table.

I assumed, then I saw this arrangement, that it was done to leave the majority of the back flat for wireless charging, but this phone doesn’t have this feature, so it’s purely aesthetic.

Not sure why so many rugged phone makers don’t like wireless charging, but apparently, they don’t.

Another feature Oukitel added to this phone was a hard plastic bumper, and this is the second phone I’ve seen with one recently. Not only are these difficult to remove, but by their nature, any impact on them will be transmitted to the phone, not dissipated like they are by soft TPU-made bumpers.

For those thinking, why would you remove it? The answer is the SIM tray, which can’t be accessed with the bumper in place.

Getting it off is a challenge, due to the lack of flexibility, and I would expect some people will invariably break theirs in their attempt. I’m not a fan of this trend.

In many ways, this phone feels like a toned-down version of the WP66. While the WP66 was a heavier, thicker design, the WP68 Air is slimmer, has a larger display, a smaller battery, and a more modest primary camera sensor.

That makes the Air more ergonomic, but it reduces runtime and lowers screen resolution, even though it’s physically larger.

From a potential customer's viewpoint, the WP69 Air is aimed at someone who wants a rugged phone as a daily driver, not a special piece of hardware for working outdoors.

Design score: 4/5

Oukitel WP68 Air: Hardware

• MediaTek Dimensity 7025
• 512GB of storage
• 8000 mAh battery

I’ve given my assessment of the Dimensity 7025 too many times, since it’s a remarkably popular choice for phone makers.

Looking back at my records, I saw this SoC in the Oukitel WP300, WP66, WP61 Plus, WP60 and WP55 Pro, and also the RugOne Xever 7 Pro.

The problem with the Dimensity 7025 is that it’s not a current-generation chip, as it's based on 6nm technology first deployed in 2022 in the Dimensity 930.

Currently, MediaTek has 4nm and 3nm SoCs, and shortly, it will be moving to 2nm, which puts the Dimensity 7025 in perspective.

Where this is most evident in this design is the integrated PowerVR IMG BXM-8-256 GPU, a component that can’t handle all the functions of OpenGL or Vulkan, making this phone unsuitable for hardcore gamers and VR users.

What makes that GPU look slightly better to the user is the curiously low resolution of the display, being just 720 x 1640. That’s a much smaller display in pixel terms than most phones with 6.6-inch or larger displays will need to drive.

However, even with this slight advantage, the IMG BXM-8-256 is the Achilles heel of this SoC.

Where Oukitel spent the money it saved on the SoC was in the RAM and storage, which seems to contradict the current trend to reduce those to save money.

12GB of RAM is a useful amount, easily enough to ignore Oukitel trying to oversell it as 36GB using storage-mapped memory. And 512GB is also a decent amount of storage, making this phone good for 4K video capture, where file sizes can grow.

The storage capacity is also useful, because the SIM tray is dual SIM only if you don’t use a MicroSD card, which might negate that extra storage for those who need a work and home phone number.

The final jigsaw piece in the hardware of the WP68 Air is the battery, which, at 8000 mAh, is modest by rugged-phone standards. It’s more than an ordinary phone, but less than many rugged phones that often start at 10000 mAh and go up to 20000 mAh in some models.

Is it enough? That depends entirely on how you intend to use the WP68 Air, because it doesn’t sound ideal for a camping adventure away from civilisation for a week.

Due to the smaller battery capacity, this phone's marketing materials don’t mention reverse charging, as it doesn’t support that technology.

The flip side of the smaller battery is that the phone's overall weight is much closer to that of a standard smartphone, and it charges reasonably quickly with the provided 45W charger.

What gives me pause for thought is how this phone compares with the WP210 that Oukitel still sells. It weighs about the same, has 10% more battery, the same memory and storage, but a much more powerful SoC, an AMOLED screen, 108MP camera and reverse charging.

And, you get all that for $30 more from Oukitel. Based on the WP210, I’m not sure where those who set the price of the WP68 Air came from, but it’s a mismatch even compared to other Oukitel products.

• Hardware score: 3.5/5

Oukitel WP68 Air: Cameras

• 64MP, 8MP and 2MP on the rear
• 32MP on the front
• Four cameras in total

The Oukitel WP68 Air Ultra has four cameras:

Rear camera: 64MP OmniVision OV64B, 8MP Hynix Hi-846 nightvision , 2MP GalaxyCore GC02M1 macro
Front camera: 32MP Sony IMX616

Oukitel WP68 Air Camera samples

The best bit of the photo capture part of this phone is undoubtedly the 64MP OmniVision OV64B, since its pixel-binning solution for still images works remarkably well.

However, its limitation is that there are only two digital zoom levels selectable on the phone app, 1.0x and 2.0x, but 0.5x increments are possible, going all the way up to 10.0x. At least the camera doesn’t expect you to move around to create framing, if you are aware of what pinching the screen does in picture mode. It also has autofocus, which works well.

The 8MP Hynix Hi-846 Night-Vision sensor is one that’s new to this reviewer, and the results seem decent. And, it can zoom in 1.0x increments from 1.0x to 4.0x. The only limitation of this device is how far the IR illumination goes from the phone in darkness, which isn’t much more than four or five metres.

Easily the worst option is the 2MP Macro, partly because the resolution is poor, but also because it has a fixed focus lens that’s set at about 4cm. Getting that to convert into a focus-accurate image is extremely difficult, and I’d suggest using the standard lens in 64MP mode and cropping the image for better results.

As I’ve commented before, the 32MP Sony IMX616 is overkill for a selfie camera role, but it does what you expect, and the quality of the capture is good.

The big disappointment of this camera arrangement is that the highest resolution video it will capture is 1440p, or 2560 x 1400 at 30 fps. The OmniVision OV64B is rated for 4K at up to 60 fps or 4K at 30 fps with Electronic Image Stabilisation (EIS). So this limitation is entirely down to the Dimensity 7025, which does not support 4K video processing, only 1440p at 30fps. On this basis, it makes little sense that Oukitel use the OmniVision OV64B over a 32MP or even 16MP sensor.

And, if you hadn’t already guessed, this phone doesn’t support Widevine L1 encryption, so most big-name streaming services will only offer you 480p video. But since the screen is only 720 pixels high in landscape, it would only support 720p if it did have L1.

In short, the sensors are decent other than the Macro, but the SoC doesn’t allow them to be fully exploited.

• Camera score: 3.5/5

Oukitel WP68 Air: Performance

• 6nm SoC
• Mid-tier performance

Having another brand create a similar device that's better is one thing, but having the same brand steal the limelight seems unfortunate.

Due to their similarities in the market that they were both designed to succeed, I’ve matched the WP68 Air against its WP210 brother, and this picture isn’t pretty.

Performance-wise, the Dimensity 8200 eats the 7024 for breakfast. But then, since it’s a 4nm chip, and not a 6nm one, that’s to be expected.

But where the WP68 Air truly gets kicked to the kerb is when the tests involve graphics, since the Mali-G610 MC6 is superior in every respect to the IMG BXM-8-256.

The IMG chip can’t run some of the tests properly due to support issues with both OpenGL and Vulkan, which is why the GeekBench graphics scores are so abysmal.

Of all the tests, the only ones where the WP68 Air holds its own are in the PCMark Score and battery tests. Not sure why PCMark thinks it's nearly as good, but based on the battery capacity, it performs almost exactly the same as the WP210 when adjusted.

Though I have to wonder if the Dimensity 8200 did much more work in its 22 hours and 44 minutes than the 7025 managed over 19 hours and 58 minutes.

But the bottom line is that the WP210 is lighter, has more battery capacity, and lasts longer. The WP68 Air does charge a little faster, but with less battery to fill, that’s to be expected.

Overall, the WP68 is a shadow of the WP210, a phone that costs only a little more.

• Performance score: 3/5

Oukitel WP68 Air: Final verdict

With the price of everything that uses memory and flash storage increasing, for a casual observer, the $420 asking price for the WP68 Air seems reasonable. It’s a lightweight, rugged design that would be fine as a daily driver for many. The cameras are fine, and the amount of RAM and storage keeps it moving along quite smoothly.

However, there are a number of alternatives on the market, at least one of which is made by Oukitel itself, that seem to offer better performance and greater potential for around the same price.

I’ve concluded that Oukitel launches too many phones, and that makes the chance of them missing the obvious overlaps in their own range significantly more likely.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much about the WP68 Air that the WP210 didn’t do significantly better, so I’d recommend you get one of those instead.

Should I buy a Oukitel WP68 Air?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also Consider

For more ruggedized devices, we've reviewed the best rugged tablets, the best rugged laptops, and the best rugged hard drives

PSB iQ2: Two-minute review

‘Larger’ is not the same as ‘large’, and so while the PSB iQ2 is the larger of the two models in the newly refreshed iQ range, it’s still a very compact little pair of speakers. ‘Compact’ in this instance, though, in no way implies a shortage of features or a restriction on performance

The standard of build and finish is good, the looks clean and understated no matter which of the seven different finishes you choose. The iQ2 has everything you could realistically hope for in a wireless speaker system costing this sort of money. It has — deep breath — wired and wireless connectivity (including a moving magnet phono stage for use with a turntable, and a HDMI eARC socket for connection to a TV), one of the best user interfaces around in the shape of BluOS, a total of 270 watts of power, frequency response that belies the physical size of the speakers, and authentically high-resolution playback. That's a lot.

Though you don’t get everything you could realistically hope for where sound quality is concerned, the PSB nevertheless has plenty to recommend it. Through every input except its phono stage, it’s a lively, engaging and informative listen, can deal confidently with rhythms and tempos, has a fair amount of well-controlled punch, and doesn’t overlook the finer details when it comes to unpicking a recording.

It can sound a little cramped via Bluetooth, sure, and its phono stage is dull when every other input sounds energetic. But as long as you’re not expecting small cabinets with small drivers to deliver hangar-filling sound you'll get from the best stereo speakers on the market there’s plenty to enjoy here.

PSB iQ2 review: Price & release date

• $1,399 / £1,199 / $2,299 (approx.)
• Released in June 2026

The PSB iQ2 active wireless stereo speaker system is on sale now. In the United States it sells for $1,399 — unless you like the walnut veneer finish, in which case it'll set you back $1,499. The equivalent in the United Kingdom is £1,199 / £1,299. The pricing is yet to be confirmed for Australia, but you’re probably looking at AU$2299 / AU$2499 or thereabouts.

There is neither the time nor the space to reel off all the very many excellent products that PSB is going up against at this price.

PSB iQ2 review: Features

• 19mm aluminum dome tweeter, 100mm mid/bass driver
• 24bit/192kHz DAC
• Wireless and wired inputs

It’s compact, yes, but PSB's iQ2 has found enough space to ensure it's equipped to justify the asking price. No aspect of its specification is underpowered.

Getting your audio information on board in the first place can be done in a number of different ways. All physical inputs are on the rear panel of the ‘primary’ speaker. It has sockets for HDMI eARC, digital optical, USB-C, USB-A and a moving magnet phono stage on RCAs for use with a turntable (this input is switchable to line level in the control app). There’s also a pre-out for connecting to a subwoofer.

The wireless stuff is covered off by Bluetooth with aptX Adaptive codec compatibility. The iQ2 is compatible with the BluOS eco-system, which means wireless access to every worthwhile music streaming service, internet radio and any content you may have stored on a device connected to the local network.

Once it’s on board, the digital stuff is handled by a 24bit/192kHz digital-to-analog converter before it’s handed over for amplification — the analog stuff, of course, is passed straight through. There are 270 watts of TI Burr Brown-derived Class D amplification to power the driver array — 45 watts for each 19mm aluminum dome tweeter, and 90 watts for each 100mm mid/bass drivers. The latter, mildly unusually, are positioned above the former. This is an arrangement that, suggests PSB, is good for a frequency response of 64Hz - 20kHz.

• Features score: 5 / 5

PSB iQ2 review: Sound quality

• Lively and informative sound
• Well-organized soundstage but not the largest
• Sounds dull via its phono stage

There are caveats here, and they concern the out-and-out scale of sound the PSB is capable of generating (or not), and the efficacy of its phono stage. But it’s probably best to start with the things the iQ2 gets — there are more than one or two.

With a Tidal-derived stream of Geese’s Getting Killed playing as a 24bit/44.1kHz FLAC file, the iQ2 is an energetic, engaging listen with a stack of pertinent observation to make where tone, timbre and basic detail retrieval are concerned. It maintains a nicely even-handed tonality, neither adding to nor subtracting from the organic heat of the recording. At every turn, it is attentive to even the finer details of texture and harmonic variation.

It sounds very much like it extends further down the frequency range than PSB is claiming, and when it’s down there it punches with well-controlled determination (as well as no little variation) and has no problems expressing rhythms believably as a result.

Frequency response is equally well judged, so when the system modulates from low end to midrange there’s no apparent step change. Then, once it's there, the iQ2 invests voices with plenty of character and emotional attitude, as well as revealing the finer details of technique. Move up again into the highest frequencies and, though the PSB is not the most substantial where treble sounds are concerned, it manages to describe shine and bite without becoming hard or glassy. The DSP-assisted crossover occurs at around the 3Khz mark, but it’s basically imperceptible.

There’s a fair amount of dynamic headroom available, so as well as having the grunt to play good and loud, the iQ2 breathes deeply enough to put worthwhile distance between the quieter moments of a recording and the points of greatest intensity and attack. And it can manage these transitions without audible stress or compression, which is not something you can automatically say about some of its nominal rivals.

The soundstage it creates is well defined and properly organized, so even complex recordings are laid out coherently. It’s not the most expansive soundstage you ever encountered, though. These are small-ish cabinets featuring small-ish drivers, and quite obviously there’s a limit to the scale of sound you’re entitled to expect. Got a great big room you want to fill with sound? You’ll be needing bigger speakers than these.

And it’s definitely worth noting that the above applies to most, but not all, of the iQ2’s inputs. It can, inevitably, sound a little squashed when streaming via Bluetooth — this is hardly unheard of, even in systems costing plenty more than this. Yet the integrated phono stage is an authentic disappointment. It gives away the bulk of the vibrant, energetic attitude the system displays through all of its other inputs and replaces it with an altogether more pedestrian, vanilla alternative. No turntable = no problem, of course, but if you have a record player you’d like to use, try and hear the PSB’s phono stage before you commit to spending any money…

• Sound quality score: 4 / 5

PSB iQ2 review: Design

• 246 x 145 x 192mm (HxWxD)
• Choice of seven finishes
• Rear-firing bass reflex port

If a significant part of the appeal of systems like this is their relatively discreet nature, then PSB is onto a winner with the iQ2. Even by prevailing standards it’s notably compact at 246 x 145 x 192mm, and as long as you give each cabinet’s rear-facing bass port a little breathing space then it’s very adaptable and flexible when it comes to positioning.

As is generally the case with PSB, the standard of build and finish that’s on display here is more than acceptable. The cabinet edges are crisp and clean, and the combination of MDF and aluminum used in the construction allows the speaker to be fairly light (7.4kg per pair) but notably robust. The main sleeve is of MDF, the rear panel is of aluminum, and the front baffle (which is separated from the main body by a slim slice of brightwork) is MDF on aluminum.

There are seven available finishes, which means there really ought to be something to suit your interior design choices, but I can’t help thinking I got the short straw with my review sample's ‘sandstone’ beige. It’s a rather insipid and non-committal color. I haven't seen them but I’d suggest that any of the black, white, ‘boreal’ green, ‘granite’ gray, ‘ember’ red or (cost option) walnut veneer alternatives are likely to be preferable.

For me, anyway, the fact the iQ2 is supplied with four little magnetically attached grilles that cover only the drivers rather than the entirety of the front baffle is probably a good thing. Unless you’re actually trying to disguise the colour of the speakers in the first place…

• Design score: 5

PSB iQ2 review: Usability & setup

• BluOS control app
• A few physical controls
• Easy to create a multi-channel or multi-room system

The primary speaker, the one with all the physical and wireless connectivity, also features a few capacitive (and illuminated) touch controls on its top panel. They’re useful if you happen to be passing, but of much more wide-ranging use is the BluOS control app.

BluOS is an increasingly popular control and management interface, one that’s been adopted by quite a number of manufacturers, and it’s easy to see why. It’s a clean, clear and stable interface, logical in navigation and extensive in its functionality.

Everything you need, from initial set-up — telling the primary speaker if it’s the left or right channel, for instance — and EQ control to establishing a multi-channel or multi-room system using any BluOS-compatible product, can be taken care of from here. Integrating your favorite music streaming service(s), accessing internet radio, checking for updates, so on and so forth — they're all here.

A great operating system is not, in and of itself, a reason to buy a wireless speaker system but it certainly makes it easier when you’re making your mind up.

• Usability & setup score: 5 / 5

PSB iQ2 review: Value

• Great specification
• Very acceptable build and finish
• Energetic sound

Just because you don’t get a whole lot in physical terms, doesn’t mean the PSB iQ2 doesn’t represent very decent value for money.

The specification is good, the operating system is better still, the standard of build and finish is very acceptable indeed — and best of all, the sound is energetic and engaging through all but one of the input options.

If you want nicely poised and enjoyable sound from a system that won’t dominate your room, there’s authentic value to be had here.

• Value score: 4.5 / 5

Should I buy PSB iQ2?

Buy them if…

Don’t buy them if…

PSB iQ2 review: Also consider

How I tested the PSB iQ2

I put the iQ2 on some Soundstyle speaker stands for the majority of this test — from there they were attached to a turntable and a CD player (via the phono input and the digital optical input respectively), as well as streaming via Bluetooth and from Tidal using the BluOS app.

I also tried them on a shelf for a while, and listened purely wirelessly, but because my shelves are positioned in the traditional way, it was quite difficult to get the rear bass reflex ports far enough away from a rear surface…

• Read TechRadar's Reviews Guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

Mistral Vibe is one of the more interesting AI platforms to come out of Europe. The product, formerly called Le Chat, was rebranded by Paris-based Mistral AI in May 2026 to mark its shift from a conversational assistant to a full agentic platform covering chat, work automation, and cloud-based coding. It's a meaningful change, not just a naming exercise.

Two new operating modes, Work and Code, are the engine behind that ambition. Work Mode runs multi-step tasks across connected business tools. Code Mode handles remote coding sessions inside isolated sandboxes and delivers work through to a pull request. Together they put Vibe in more direct competition with ChatGPT and Claude than its Le Chat days suggested.

At TechRadar Pro, we've been reviewing business software since 2012 and our AI coverage has become some of our most-read work. That includes our AI tool roundup, our 2026 vibe coding buying guide, and deep dives on platforms like OpenClaw or Moltbook.

What is Mistral Vibe?

Mistral Vibe is a chat, work automation, and coding platform developed by Mistral AI. It's available via web browser and mobile apps on iOS and Android, and runs on Mistral's own model family, from the lightweight Small 3.1 to the flagship Large 3 and the reasoning-focused Magistral line.

The platform launched in February 2024 as Le Chat, originally a general-purpose assistant. Over the following two years, Mistral layered in web search, voice mode via its Voxtral audio model, a Canvas document editor, image generation through Black Forest Labs Flux Ultra, persistent memory, and project folders.

The May 2026 rebrand signals that Mistral sees Vibe as an enterprise-grade product. Work Mode and Code Mode are aimed at professionals who need an AI that can execute multi-step tasks across connected tools, not just hold a conversation.

Mistral Vibe: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You handle sensitive client or business data. No Telemetry Mode gives Pro subscribers a contractual guarantee that nothing they type is used to train Mistral's models. That level of assurance at $14.99 per month is unusual among major AI chat platforms.
• You want agentic features without enterprise pricing. Work Mode handles multi-step tasks across Gmail, Slack, Notion, and other connected tools. Code Mode manages full coding sessions through to a pull request. Both are available on the Pro plan.
• You're a developer watching API costs. Mistral Large 3 at $6 per million output tokens significantly undercuts GPT-5.4 ($15/M) and Claude Sonnet ($15/M) at the flagship tier, and the API bills only for tokens used.

Don't buy it if…

• The free plan is your entry point for serious evaluation. At around 25 messages per day with no canvas and no remote coding access, the free tier doesn't give you a fair picture of what the platform can do.
• Your team is embedded in Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace. Vibe connects to business apps via MCP, but native integration with the major office suites is not as developed as what you'd get from Copilot or Gemini for Workspace.
• You're assessing the Team plan for a small group. The jump from Pro ($14.99) to Team ($24.99/user/month) is steep, and the main additions (admin controls and more storage) may not justify the cost for teams of fewer than ten people.

My time with Mistral Vibe

I tested Vibe across its Pro plan over several weeks, using it for research tasks, document drafting, and code work. The chat interface is clean and approachable. Anyone familiar with ChatGPT or Claude will navigate it without confusion. What caught me off guard was how efficiently Work Mode handled complex, multi-step research requests, pulling from connected sources and drafting a structured Canvas output in a single run.

Code Mode held up well for the tasks I threw at it. I ran a session to scaffold a simple API integration, and the agent handled writing, testing, and preparing a draft PR inside the sandboxed environment. I stepped in twice to give it additional direction, but that's consistent with what you'd expect from any AI coding agent at this stage.

The No Telemetry Mode stood out as a differentiator. Enabling it took seconds and gave me real confidence when working with business-related documents. That kind of data control is typically reserved for enterprise tiers at other major platforms, so finding it on a $14.99 plan is a real differentiator.

Mistral Vibe: Features

Vibe's feature set has grown considerably since the Le Chat launch in 2024. Alongside standard chat, the platform now covers web search, image generation, voice input, a Canvas document editor, Deep Research, memory, and project organization tools. Pro subscribers get access to Work Mode and Code Mode, which is where the real differentiation lies.

Work Mode is the headline addition from 2026. It turns Vibe into an execution agent that can read emails and calendars, draft documents in Canvas, run recurring scheduled tasks, and push outputs to Notion, SharePoint, or Slack. Every step is visible in the interface. The platform asks for explicit approval before any action that modifies data or sends a message.

Code Mode targets developers specifically. It connects to GitHub, GitLab, Jira, and Linear, running sessions in an isolated sandbox. A /teleport command lets you move a session between the Vibe web app and a local terminal without losing context. Parallel sessions are supported on Pro and above, which is useful for running background jobs while staying in another workflow.

Memory, currently in beta, lets Vibe store your preferences and recurring context across conversations. You can view, edit, or delete these entries at any time, and turning the feature off is a single toggle in confidentiality settings. Image generation via Black Forest Labs Flux Ultra is solid for a chat platform.

The main gap in the feature set is transparency around usage limits. The free tier runs at lower quotas than Pro across searches, image generations, and messages, but Mistral doesn't publish the exact numbers on its pricing page. That makes the free-to-Pro comparison harder to assess than it should be.

Overall, Vibe covers more professional use cases than most platforms at this price point. The area where competitors like Copilot and Gemini maintain a clear lead is native productivity suite integration, which Mistral has not yet matched.

Mistral Vibe: User experience

The layout is straightforward: a left sidebar for conversation history and project folders, a central chat window, and model or tool selectors accessible from the input bar. Switching between chat, Work Mode, and Code Mode happens within the same interface rather than routing you to a separate product URL.

The mobile apps mirror the web experience closely. Search, canvas, image generation, and voice input all carry over, which isn't a given with AI chat platforms on mobile. Onboarding is minimal, which suits experienced AI users but may leave newcomers without much guidance on how to get started with the more complex agentic features.

Mistral Vibe: Customer support

Free and Pro users access support through the help center widget on the Mistral site. Response times are not published, and there's no live chat or phone support at these tiers. The help documentation covers the most common issues in reasonable depth, but for billing questions or edge-case technical problems, you're relying on ticket-based email support.

Enterprise customers get a dedicated support workflow with priority routing. Requests go through the same widget but are flagged and handled separately based on account type. For teams in finance, healthcare, or other regulated sectors where response time matters, that distinction is a real consideration when deciding between Team and Enterprise.

Mistral Vibe: Pricing

• Free plan: Around 25 messages per day with limited web searches, reduced image generation, no canvas creation, and no remote coding.
• Pro at $14.99/month: No Telemetry Mode, full canvas access, Work and Code Mode, 5x more web searches, more image generations, and pay-as-you-go Vibe coding beyond included limits.
• Team at $24.99/user/month (or $19.99 on annual billing): Shared workspaces, admin controls, domain verification, data export, and higher storage limits.

The free plan gives you a taste of chat quality and basic search, but the restrictions mean you won't get a representative experience. Pro at $14.99 is, by most comparisons, the cheapest premium AI chat subscription from any major provider. The No Telemetry Mode and agentic modes are hard to find elsewhere at this cost.

The Team plan's value depends on your use case. For small teams, the mainly administrative additions over Pro may not justify the per-user cost. Enterprise pricing is negotiated directly with Mistral and covers SAML SSO, on-premise deployment, custom model training, and dedicated support. The API runs on a fully separate billing track with no monthly minimums, making it accessible for developers at any scale.

Mistral Vibe alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT (OpenAI): The most established option for general productivity, with deeper Microsoft 365 integration and a broader ecosystem of plugins. It costs more at comparable tiers but suits teams already embedded in the Microsoft environment.
• Claude (Anthropic): A strong choice for long-document analysis and nuanced writing. Pricing is competitive and reasoning quality is high, though data privacy controls at the consumer tier are less explicit than Vibe's No Telemetry Mode.
• Gemini for Google Workspace: The best fit for teams already using Google's suite. Native Calendar, Docs, and Gmail integration outpaces what Mistral currently offers for Google-centric workflows.

How I tested Mistral Vibe

• Ran prompts across standard chat, Web Search, and Deep Research modes to evaluate response accuracy, source quality, and multi-step research handling across a range of topics and document types.
• Tested agentic task execution through Work Mode, including document drafting via Canvas and recurring task scheduling, and ran coding sessions through Code Mode against a GitHub-connected project to assess end-to-end agent performance.
• Verified plan details and API rates against Mistral's official pricing page, cross-referenced them with third-party pricing analyses where official documentation was vague, and assessed support options through the Mistral Help Center.

I tested Mistral Vibe on its Pro plan over several weeks using a mix of daily productivity tasks and structured feature evaluations. Pricing data was verified against the official mistral.ai pricing page, with third-party sources used for cross-reference on API rates and plan limits where Mistral's documentation was unclear. Support quality was assessed through available help center documentation and publicly reported user experiences.

Kimi is the AI assistant developed by Moonshot AI, a Beijing-based company that built its reputation on long-context processing long before that became standard. The platform runs on Kimi K2.6, an open-weight Mixture-of-Experts model released in April 2026, and it has made real inroads among developers looking for frontier-quality AI at a lower cost than OpenAI or Anthropic.

Two things set Kimi apart. Its API pricing sits around $0.55 per million input tokens against GPT-5.4's much higher rates, and its Agent Swarm architecture can coordinate up to 300 parallel sub-agents for large-scale automated workflows. The platform also covers the full office productivity stack with Slides, Docs, Sheets, and a website builder under one subscription.

We've been reviewing B2B software at Techradar Pro since 2012. You can also check out our other generative AI coverage, including our best AI tools roundup and our 2026 vibe coding buying guide.

What is Kimi?

Kimi is an AI chat assistant and agent platform from Moonshot AI. It launched in October 2023 with a focus on long-context processing, and its first version handled 128,000 tokens of context, which was exceptional at the time. The platform has since grown into a broader productivity suite covering deep research, document creation, coding, and multi-step agentic automation.

The underlying K2.6 model uses a 1-trillion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts architecture with around 32 billion parameters activated per token, keeping inference costs low while maintaining strong benchmark performance. It supports a 256K–262K token context window and processes text, images, code, and video natively.

Kimi targets developers, researchers, and teams running demanding workloads. Casual users get good value from the free tier, but the platform's design clearly aims at power users who need more than a chatbot.

Kimi: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You need a capable coding assistant at a lower price point. Kimi Code, available from the Moderato tier upward, pairs K2.6 with terminal and VS Code integration and holds up well on multi-file refactors.
• Your work involves very long documents. The 262K-token context window lets you work through large contracts, codebases, or research papers in a single session without manually chunking content.
• You're building agent-driven automation. Agent Swarm on the Allegretto plan can coordinate up to 300 parallel sub-agents across 4,000 coordinated steps, a serious option for teams with research or data processing pipelines.

Don't buy it if…

• You need live customer support. Kimi's support is self-serve through a help center and community channels, with no live chat or phone line.
• Data residency is non-negotiable. Moonshot AI is a Chinese company. Teams in regulated industries or with strict EU/US data sovereignty requirements should verify Kimi's data policies before committing.
• Agent Swarm is your main draw but you want entry-level pricing. Full agentic features only unlock at $39/month and above, while the free tier limits you to one concurrent task.

My time with Kimi

My first session was document-heavy. I dropped two long PDFs into the same conversation and asked Kimi to cross-reference specific sections. The results were accurate and well-organized, and the platform held up when I pushed with follow-up questions. That long-context handling is one of Kimi's strongest suits, accessible even on the free tier.

I also tested Kimi Code on a Python refactoring task. The output was clean, and when I asked it to explain architectural decisions, the reasoning held up. It's not quite at the same level as Claude Code for structured explanations, but the price difference makes the trade-off easy to accept for many workflows.

Agent Swarm on the Allegretto plan handled a competitive research task reasonably well, but the orchestration was not always transparent. A few sub-tasks returned incomplete results without flagging them as such, so I had to verify outputs manually. The platform has improved since K2.5, where tool call failures reportedly ran around 12%, but production users should still build in a review step.

Kimi: Features

Kimi's four response modes cover most use cases without requiring much configuration. Instant works for quick answers, Thinking for step-by-step reasoning, Agent for research and creation tasks, and Agent Swarm for parallel execution at scale.

Deep Research runs multi-step research workflows autonomously, pulling from web sources and producing structured reports. The output quality is good enough for first drafts, and the process shows which sources were used. Kimi Code supports multi-file editing and autonomous bug-fixing; Moonshot's documentation references coding sessions running continuously for over 13 hours on complex tasks.

The productivity suite covers Slides, Docs, Sheets, and Websites, giving Kimi a broader surface area than most chat platforms. The Websites tool generates full-stack sites from a single description, including frontend, backend, and database layers. These tools aren't the most polished in their respective categories, but having them integrated into one platform adds real convenience for teams with varied workflows.

Kimi: User experience

The main Kimi interface is clean and web-first. The four response modes are clearly labeled, and mode-switching during a conversation is straightforward. A memory system carries context across sessions when you want it to. Mobile apps on iOS and Android work well for basic tasks, though agent workflows are better suited to desktop.

There's no structured onboarding tutorial, so new users will spend time with the help center. It covers everything from getting started through API usage across roughly 12 categories. Community channels on Discord and Reddit are active enough that you'll usually find someone who's hit the same issue.

Kimi: Customer support

Support is self-serve. The help center at kimi.com/help covers memberships, billing, API usage, and troubleshooting in detail. Discord and Reddit communities fill in the gaps for newer features.

What's missing is human support. There's no live chat, no prominently listed support email for general users, and no phone line. For a platform targeting developers running production workflows, that's a gap worth knowing about before you sign up. Enterprise arrangements may exist but aren't clearly documented publicly.

Kimi: Pricing

• Free (Adagio): Basic K2.6 access, limited agent usage, one concurrent task, no Agent Swarm, no Kimi Code quota.
• Moderato ($19/month): K2.6, Deep Research, Kimi Code, Slides, Websites.
• Allegretto ($39/month): Adds Agent Swarm and a higher professional data quota.
• Allegro ($99/month) and Vivace ($199/month): High-volume tiers; Vivace includes 30x Kimi Code usage and 240 swarm uses per month.

The free tier has no hard daily message limit as of mid-2026, which compares well to ChatGPT's free plan. For developers, API pricing is where Kimi's value is sharpest: around $0.55 per million input tokens and $2.65 per million output tokens, with an OpenAI-compatible endpoint. Context caching cuts input costs by up to 75% for applications sending repeated prompts, making it one of the more cost-efficient frontier options for teams building at scale.

Kimi alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT (OpenAI): The most widely used AI assistant, with a mature plugin ecosystem. Its $20/month Plus tier is roughly equivalent to Kimi's Moderato plan, but API costs are significantly higher for developers building at scale.
• Claude (Anthropic): Claude Pro at $20/month is a strong choice for document-heavy workflows and structured outputs. Claude Code is well-regarded for teams that prioritize explainability in AI-generated code.
• Gemini Advanced (Google): A natural fit for teams already in the Google Workspace ecosystem, with strong document workflow integration through Drive.

How I tested Kimi

• Ran multi-document research tasks and stress-tested the context window with long technical files to evaluate accuracy across extended sessions.
• Tested the VS Code extension and CLI agent on Python and JavaScript tasks, including multi-file refactors and debugging workflows.
• Ran research and synthesis tasks using Agent and Agent Swarm modes on the Allegretto plan, checking output accuracy and how the platform handled incomplete results.

Kimi is available at kimi.com on a freemium model, with paid plans starting at $19/month. API access is available separately through Moonshot AI's open platform.

HIX.ai started as an AI writing assistant and has since expanded into something considerably more ambitious. The platform now markets itself as an "ultimate AI agent workspace," bundling tools for content writing, deep research, image and video generation, slides creation, coding, and multi-model chat under a single interface. It's a notable evolution, even if the transition has introduced some rough edges.

What sets HIX.ai apart from simpler AI chat tools is the sheer breadth of models on offer. Users can switch between GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V4, and others from within the same session. For teams or individuals who want to compare outputs or pick the right model for a specific task, that flexibility has real practical value.

We've been reviewing business software at TechRadar Pro since 2012 and AI platforms have become one of our most-covered categories. In recent months, we've also published our best AI tools roundup and deep-dives into platforms like OpenClaw and Moltbook. HIX.ai falls squarely in our coverage area.

What is HIX.ai?

HIX.ai is a web-based AI platform that consolidates multiple AI capabilities into one workspace. Its agents cover text generation, long-form article writing, email composition, image creation, video production, presentation slides, deep research, and coding assistance. You access everything through a shared interface rather than juggling separate subscriptions for each function.

The platform targets a wide audience: content marketers who need to produce copy at scale, students looking for a homework or essay tool, small business owners who want a single AI tool to handle email, social posts, and research, and knowledge workers who want to stay inside one tab instead of bouncing between apps.

HIX.ai also offers a browser extension that works across Gmail, Google Docs, LinkedIn, Twitter, and most major web platforms. A desktop app is available alongside the main web interface, making it one of the more cross-platform options in this category.

HIX.ai: At a glance

Buy it if…

• You want one platform for everything. HIX.ai removes the need for separate subscriptions for writing, image generation, and research. That consolidation saves both time and money for users currently paying for multiple tools.
• You want model choice without switching apps. The ability to call GPT-5.5, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek from a single interface is a real convenience, especially when different tasks call for different models.

Don't buy it if…

• Billing transparency matters to you. Multiple users across review platforms have reported being charged for annual plans they believed were monthly. HIX.ai's refund window is three days, which leaves little room for course correction.
• You need predictable usage. Credits don't roll over between billing cycles, and the "Unlimited" label on paid plans applies only to standard credits. Advanced features are still capped, which surprises users expecting truly open access.

My time with HIX.ai

I spent several sessions testing HIX.ai across its main agent categories. The multi-model chat interface impressed most immediately: switching from Gemini 3.5 Flash to Claude Opus 4.8 mid-conversation takes a few clicks, and responses feel snappy enough for practical work. The deep research agent was particularly useful, pulling together sourced summaries on a complex topic faster than a manual web search.

The browser extension held up well in Gmail and Google Docs. Highlighting a paragraph and getting a rewrite option surfacing instantly, without opening a new tab, is the kind of friction reduction that matters when you're working fast. The image generation tools produced serviceable results, though I found the credit consumption less predictable than I'd have liked.

Where the experience wobbles is in understanding what you're paying for. The credit system splits between standard and advanced buckets, and it isn't always clear which agent or model draws from which pool. New users should read the plan details carefully before committing to a billing cycle.

HIX.ai: Features

HIX.ai's feature roster is unusually wide. The platform covers AI chat across multiple frontier models, a long-form article writer, email and social copy tools, a paraphrasing and summarization engine, image generation via Midjourney, Flux, and GPT Image 2, video generation via Seedance 2.0, Veo 3.1, Sora 2, and others, a slides agent, and a deep research tool that produces structured reports with real-time internet access.

The deep research agent is one of the more differentiated offerings. Rather than a standard web search, it compiles structured, sourced reports on a given topic, making it useful for due diligence, competitive analysis, or academic research. Real-time internet access is included on paid plans, which keeps output current rather than frozen at a training cutoff.

On the writing side, the 120+ AI writing templates cover a broad range of formats, from ad copy to blog outlines to product descriptions. The long-form article writer handles structure and headings reasonably well, and the AI Writer agent supports markdown and rich text outputs, which makes it easier to paste results into a CMS or document editor.

The platform's weakest spot by reputation is HIX Bypass, its AI humanizer tool. Multiple independent reviews and user reports flag inconsistent results against modern AI detectors, particularly after Turnitin's 2025 updates. HIX.ai positions this as a key feature, but anyone relying on it for academic or professional compliance should test it carefully before committing.

The multi-agent coordination feature, available across all tiers, lets different agents pass context between tasks. In practice, a research output can feed directly into a writing task without manual copy-paste, which speeds up structured workflows considerably.

The video and image agents round out a platform that few competitors match in raw breadth. Whether that breadth delivers depth at every point is a fair question; some agents feel more developed than others. But for users who want to consolidate tools, the coverage is hard to beat.

HIX.ai: User experience

The interface is clean and navigation between agents is straightforward. The sidebar layout keeps the main workspace uncluttered, and the model switcher is tucked sensibly into the chat header rather than buried in settings. For new users, the onboarding path is light: a working chat session is within reach in under a minute.

The browser extension is where the experience stands out. HIX.ai has put real thought into how it surfaces inside other platforms: the quick-action bar appears when you highlight text, and the full sidebar opens on demand. For anyone doing a lot of writing inside web apps, this integration removes the switching cost that blunts many AI tools, and the learning curve for core features is minimal.

HIX.ai: Customer support

Support is available via email across all plans, with priority support reserved for paid subscribers. The HIX.AI Community forum is open to all tiers and covers common issues and feature requests. Response times on the email channel have drawn complaints in user reviews, with some reporting delays of multiple days for billing queries specifically.

The three-day refund window is short by industry standards. Platforms like ChatGPT Plus and Jasper offer more flexible cancellation terms. Given the annual billing complaints that appear consistently in user feedback, the lack of a longer trial-to-refund period is a genuine sticking point for new subscribers.

HIX.ai: Pricing

• Free plan: $0/month with 20 credits, enough to test core features but limited for sustained work.
• HIX AI Max: Billed annually; includes unlimited standard chat models, advanced models, video, image, and all agent features including deep research, AI slides, and priority support.
• HIX AI Pro: Billed annually at a higher tier, with different credit allocations across advanced features.

The free plan offers real access to the platform with no credit card required, though 20 credits runs out quickly once you start testing agents. Paid plans are priced on a credit system that splits standard and advanced usage into separate buckets. SoftwareSuggest, which updated its pricing data in April 2026, lists the starting price at $13/month on annual billing, with higher tiers scaling up from there.

HIX.ai's various product verticals (AI Writer, HIX Bypass, the browser extension, EssayGPT) each carry separate subscription structures for legacy users, adding complexity to an already layered pricing model. The newer unified workspace tiers (Free, Max, and Pro) simplify this somewhat, but the credit system still rewards careful reading before you subscribe. Annual billing delivers the best per-month rate, though it comes with the billing caveats noted above, and there is no public API for developers.

HIX.ai: alternatives you should consider

• ChatGPT Plus ($20/month): Similar multi-model access via GPT-5 and o3, with simpler pricing and a stronger track record on billing transparency.
• Jasper ($39/month billed annually): Focused on marketing and long-form content. Less breadth than HIX.ai but stronger output consistency on brand voice tasks.
• Perplexity Pro ($20/month): If deep research is your primary use case, Perplexity's research-first approach and real-time citations are hard to beat at this price point.

How I tested HIX.ai

• Ran multi-agent workflows across the chat, deep research, and writing agents to evaluate inter-agent handoffs and model-switching convenience.
• Tested the browser extension inside Gmail and Google Docs on multiple sessions, focusing on responsiveness and quality of inline suggestions.
• Evaluated output quality across standard chat, long-form article generation, and the image creation tools using consistent prompts to benchmark against competitor platforms.

I spent approximately two weekdays with HIX.ai across different workloads, including research tasks, marketing copy drafts, and content editing sessions. Pricing information was cross-referenced against the official HIX.ai pricing page and third-party review sources updated in 2026. Feature details were drawn from the platform's live interface and official documentation.

Garmin Forerunner 170: One minute review

The Garmin Forerunner 170 and 170 Music sit nicely between the cheaper Garmin Forerunner 70 and more expensive 570 and 970 duo, the latter of which features on our best Garmin watches guide. As such, both Music and non-Music versions are a bit of a halfway house; not quite cheap enough to be picked up on a whim by budget-conscious consumers, nor expensive enough to be stuffed with top-quality premium features.

However, it is stuffed with plenty of robust fitness features that will suit any active exerciser, especially runners. Sebastian Sawe, who who broke the world record by running a marathon under two hours in London, was toting a Garmin Forerunner 55 — Garmin’s cheapest, most stripped-back running watch.

What you’re paying for here is the Garmin Forerunner 70 — an excellent smartwatch on the cheaper end, and the successor to the popular Garmin Forerunner 55 — with additional smartwatch features attached. These include Garmin Pay, a virtual wallet which lets you pay with cards held on-watch, and the Smart Notifications feature, which allows you to view and manage alerts from a paired smartphone. The Forerunner 170 Music adds an extra 4GB of music storage.

If you’re largely uninterested in these features and you just want an excellent training tool, I’d get the Garmin Forerunner 70 instead, as it’s the best value of the three newcomers overall. But the Garmin Forerunner 170 Music does allow you to hit that Saturday morning parkrun, pay for your coffee, and jog home with headphones in — all without using your phone at all. It’s incredibly convenient, but not a package everyone will need or want.

Still, during my testing I found the watch good to use, comfortable to sleep in, and accurate against testing units like my Polar H10 heart rate monitor. Our writer Michael Sawh found the same with the Garmin Forerunner 70. You can read my full thoughts on the 170 Music below, but whichever watch you choose, you’ll be in good hands.

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Specifications

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Price and availability

• Garmin Forerunner 170: $299 / £259.99 / AU$479
• Garmin Forerunner 170 Music: $349.99 / £299.99 / AU$549
• Garmin Forerunner 70: $249.99 / £219.99 / AU$399

The Garmin Forerunner 170 without music storage costs $299 / £259.99 / AU$479.

The Garmin Forerunner 170 Music, the upgrade with 4GB internal memory for music storage, costs $349.99 / £299.99 / AU$549. The Forerunner 70, which doesn’t have the 170’s smartwatch features such as Garmin Pay and Smart Notifications, is cheaper at $249.99 / £219.99 / AU$399.

We’re zeroing in on the Garmin Forerunner 170 today, and I think the watch is generally good value for money compared to some of the seriously expensive premium Garmins in the lineup, but perhaps not compared to the 70, which is $100 / £80 / AU$150 cheaper for a very similar watch. If you don’t want Garmin Pay or notifications, you’re better off saving your cash and getting the 70.

None of the Garmins have a particularly wide feature set compared to watches from Apple and Samsung at a similar price point, but their batteries last far longer — up to 10 days for the 170 — and their workout credentials are fantastic. This ensures you can get multiple battery-sucking GPS workouts in each week while still retaining enough smartwatch functionality to matter, all without needing a charge for ages. Each Garmin watch is durable too.

I’d say it’s generally a good value prospect, even if it does edge into the expensive end with the 170 Music.

• Score: 4/5

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Design

• Iterates on existing Forerunner design
• Surprisingly dull AMOLED screen
• Elevate V4 heart rate sensor

The Garmin Forerunner 170 looks very much like every other Forerunner, but if this is your first Garmin that won’t mean much. It’s got a five-button configuration — up, down, light, start, stop or select, and back (or lap). You can use these, a touchscreen, or a combination of the two to navigate the watch, which is ideal if you’re wearing gloves.

It comes in a single size, with a 42.6mm screen, and its packing an AMOLED display rather than the duller digital-watch-style memory-in-pixel screen of older watches, but it’s not particularly bright even at full power. It comes with a silicon two-tone strap, and on the back it has one of Garmin’s older heart rate sensors, the Elevate V4. More expensive watches get the more accurate V5, but the V4 has been included here presumably to keep the cost down.

It’s very light, with a listed weight of 41g, and feels like less than that in the hand. A light watch is great for running and collecting wellness info as it’s easy to wear, and this checks the boxes.

Those familiar with Garmin products will be happy to know no liberties have been taken with the design of Garmin’s established software, either on-watch or in the Garmin Connect app. I think it’s the perfect mix of stripped-down and information-heavy, although there are a lot of menus to lose yourself in. The buttons make it fairly intuitive to navigate around for old hands. It’s a tried and tested design, that doesn’t break the mold in any significant way.

• Design score: 4/5

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Features

• Advanced running dynamics
• Limited smart notifications functionality
• 170 Music offers mp3 and streaming downloads

Plenty of running features abound here. As the name suggests, Garmin’s included its advanced running dynamics tools such as running power (a measure of your total running effort using motion data as well as heart rate), along with advanced statistics such as stride and cadence data after your run. During workouts, you can set up routes in Garmin Connect with virtual pacers to keep you on time.

You also get the usual health stuff, such as heart rate and sleep score, 80 workout modes (although not all have dedicated metrics or GPS enabled) and reports in the morning and evening that provide information about your training along with the weather and a motivational quote. The Garmin Forerunner 170 gets Smart Notifications, which allow you to answer some tests with simple replies and the Garmin Pay functionality which acts as a virtual wallet like Apple Pay.

The 170 Music’s 4GB of storage allows you to upload tunes directly onto the watch, including by saving playlists from the likes of Spotify. Even without the dedicated Music model, you can listen on apps like Spotify, Deezer, YouTube Music and so on through your phone, and control music on the watch there. The Garmin Connect IQ store has dedicated widgets for these services, along with thousands of other apps from a mixture of big-name brands and enthusiastic amateurs.

Otherwise, what’s missing? I wasn’t expecting full-color maps at this price, just the breadcrumb navigation and route direction common on most Garmin watches without maps, so I don’t feel like the feature is missing, as such.

However, to justify the price increase from the 70 to the 170 Music, I think it needs more hardware features. A microphone like the Garmin Forerunner 570, and the ability to take calls on watch and use Garmin’s simple voice assistant, would better separate it. As is, most people who want dedicated smartwatch features will just get one of the best Apple Watches or best Samsung watches instead.

• Features score: 4/5

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Performance

• Accurate against a heart rate monitor
• GPS works well against an Apple Watch Ultra 3
• Comfortable and easy to wear day-to-day

I checked the Garmin’s heart rate accuracy against an electrical chest-mounted Polar H10 heart rate monitor — the gold standard of heart rate accuracy — during a 25-minute treadmill test, and was very pleased to report that despite the older sensor, both average and maximum heart rate were within 1-4bpm of the heart rate monitor; a very acceptable margin for error and not a statistically significant one.

GPS was accurate compared to my Apple Watch Ultra 3, and battery life was representative of its claims, with total drain taking just over a week with multiple GPS workouts completed. I feel as though the ‘up to 10 days’ listed battery life is reflective of reality.

Being lighter and smaller than many Garmins I’ve tested, it’s comfortable to wear every day and fine to sleep in.

• Performance score: 4.5 / 5

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Scorecard

Garmin Forerunner 170 review: Should I buy?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested

I wore the Garmin Forerunner 170 Music for over a week, draining the battery down and using as many of its features as possible. I ran and used it for strength and yoga sessions, tested its smart features, and pitted it against multiple competitor devices, including a chest strap heart rate monitor.

While there are a few other brands, the hard drive market is essentially a three-horse race between WD, Seagate and Toshiba.

Having looked at WD and Seagate NAS HDDs recently, it seemed appropriate to look at what Toshiba offers that’s different to the other two.

Toshiba Electronics Europe launched the N300 NAS drive series in January 2017. By that point, Western Digital and Seagate had been in the dedicated NAS drive market for years. WD Red has been on sale since 2012, and Seagate IronWolf launched in 2016. Toshiba was late to this party, and that certainly coloured its product range from the outset.

The N300 launched at 4TB, 6TB, and 8TB, all carrying a 128MB data buffer and a 7200 RPM spindle. That last detail is the key one. Toshiba did not try to match WD and Seagate on their terms; instead, it went faster.

The N300 range runs at 7200 RPM on every capacity variant, from the smallest to the largest. That decision produces a drive with meaningfully higher sequential throughput. The N300 achieves up to 298 MB/s sustained transfer speed. The WD Red Plus manages around 180-190 MB/s. The IronWolf reaches 202 MB/s. The N300 leaves both behind in raw sequential performance.

And, this newer HDWG740EZSTC model covered here offers 512MB of cache, where older revisions had 128MB or 256MB.

However, there are tradeoffs here. On the hardware side, the additional rotational speed makes the N300 noisier, it generates more heat, and uses more power. That makes it less suitable for a NAS that’s sitting on the desktop, and more acceptable if you have a server room. And, the other awkward aspect of the N300 is that Toshiba has jacked the price up of this drive to around 50% more than what WD and Seagate are asking for the same capacity from some sources.

There are a few deals to be had on the N300, but it does make you wonder whether it's competing with the WD Red Plus and Seagate IronWolf, or the Red Pro and IronWolf Pro?

If only Toshiba would price the N300 more appropriately, it might become one of the best NAS drive options.

Toshiba N300 4TB: Price

Without doubt, the worst possible place to buy the N300 4TB drive is from Amazon.com and the Toshiba Store on that retailer.

The current asking price there is around $330, which is utterly outrageous. To put that into perspective, in January 2026, the price was $215.62, and in August 2025, it was $154.99. Therefore, it has seen a 212% price increase in just nine months. Given that I wouldn’t believe there is much interest in 4TB drives for Datacentres, this is purely corporate greed in action.

But what’s even more curious is that even in the US, you can get this drive for cheaper, since B&H Photo sells it for $244.99, and Newegg wants $299.

Outside of the US borders, the prices are still elevated but not as excessively. From Amazon.co.uk, the 4TB capacity is priced around the £200 mark, and across Europe on Amazon, it's €237.86, if they have stock.

For comparison, American customers on Amazon.com can pay $194.99 for the 4TB WD Plus drive, and the 4TB Seagate IronWolf is only $189.

In short, wherever you buy the N300, it's seen a much larger price increase than its competitors, and this is true across all regions.

One important difference to note is that the N300 is available in a much larger range of sizes than Red Plus and IronWolf. The smallest N300 is 4TB, and it is available in 6TB, 8TB, 10TB, 12TB, 14TB, 16TB, 17TB, 20TB and 22TB.

The Red Plus only goes from 1TB up to 12TB, and the IronWolf goes from 1TB to 16TB, with some truly odd sizes such as 7TB in between the usual capacity increases.

However, you look at the N300 pricing, this is an expensive drive that tries to go between the Red Plus/IronWolf and the Red Pro/IronWolf Pro product ranges.

What makes this more complicated is that while officially IronWolf Pro drives are made in 4TB capacities, I could only find 12TB and larger. But the 4TB WD Red Pro can be found for $249.99 on Amazon, which is cheaper than the N300 for the same capacity.  

What’s genuinely confusing about the N300 range is that if you go looking for drives of a particular capacity, you might find that drive with three different part numbers, one being the retail number, others being OEM, and I managed with some sizes to find ones with 128MB, 512MB and 1024MB caches. Obviously, the larger caches are better, especially on bigger capacity drives.

As an example of how messed up Toshiba is on Amazon.com, clicking “Visit the Toshiba Store” sometimes takes you to Toshiba kitchen products.

These prices need to be more consistent and gouge less.

Toshiba N300 4TB: Design

Since its launch, Toshiba has developed several proprietary technologies for the N300 and has kept them consistent across the product line.

These include Stable Platter Technology, which uses a tied spindle motor to secure the drive shaft at both ends. This reduces system-induced vibration and is directly comparable with WD's 3D Active Balance Plus approach. Both address the same problem, where in a multi-drive enclosure, vibration from one drive affects the others.

Also special to the N300 is Dynamic Cache Technology, a self-contained algorithm with on-board buffer management that optimises cache allocation between read and write operations in real time. From the outset, the N300 has typically had more cache than its competition, so managing the use of that is important for performance.

One of the hidden issues with faster-rotating drives is wear, and on the N300, this is addressed in a few interesting ways, one being Ramp Load Technology. This parks the read and write heads on a ramp outside the platter surface when the drive is idle. It reduces head wear during power cycles and protects the media surface.

Error recovery control has also been present since the original launch, limiting recovery time to avoid RAID array ejections in the same way that WD's TLER does.

All these features I’ve mentioned arrived with the first N300 drives, but since then, the N300 has undergone some subtle changes, one of which is the introduction of NASLink Technology.

This fine-tunes drive behaviour for rapid data access and includes firmware-level optimisation for RAID performance through improved disk coordination. The more drives you have in an array, the more important it is that they’re all moving to a common beat, and Toshiba has baked that into the N300 via firmware updates.

Having larger arrays improves performance, but it introduces vibrations that can migrate from one drive to those either side of it. To combat this, the N300 also carries three built-in rotational vibration sensors. These detect and compensate for the knock-on vibration effects that become a serious problem once a NAS enclosure has more than four drives installed.

Overall, while Toshiba hasn’t come up with anything like Seagate IronWolf Health Management. In other respects, this is probably the most sophisticated drive serving the home and small-business NAS market.

However, when Toshiba only offers a three-year warranty and 180TB/year workload, it doesn't seem much like it's that special.

Toshiba N300 4TB: Performance

Since Toshiba only provided two of these drives, there seemed little point in trying to work out what array advantages running the N300 offered. Therefore, I went with the same PC analysis that I used on the WD Red Plus and IronWolf drives

Here are my results:

Aside from PCMark10, all other tests show that the N300 is a country mile faster than either of the alternative NAS drives with the same capacity. I can put those results down to the increased rotational speed and also the 512MB cache on the N300.

One extra test I did perform on a NAS was to take a single drive on a Ugreen NASync DXP4800 Plus NAS, connect to it over a 2.5GbE LAN link, and bench test it from my PC.

I achieved read and write speeds over 285MB/s, which is the practical limit of 2.5GbE LAN ports. That with a single N300 drive, you can saturate a 2.5GbE Link is impressive, and it implies that with four drives in a RAID 5 configuration, you should be able to saturate a 10GbE LAN port. To do that on both WD and Seagate would involve moving up to their Red Pro or IronWolf Pro range.

Based on these numbers alone, the N300 might be worth what Toshiba is asking for it, depending on how your NAS is configured and if raw speed is important to that system.

However, I should also point out that the power consumption on the N300 is dramatically more than on the Seagate and WD drives. The current 4TB N300 draws 7.43W typical under active operating load, where the Red Plus only consumes 4.7W and the IronWolf 4.8W.

And, the N300 will be converting most of that power into heat, regrettably. If you already have a machine room where the cooling isn't coping, then maybe using these drives might not be the best plan. 

Toshiba N300 4TB: Final verdict

If this drive were cheaper and Toshiba had technology like the IronWolf Health Management scheme, there would be little debate about this being one of the best options.

However, there are a few things about NAS and RAID arrays that make this choice slightly more complicated.

For starters, the majority of NAS are bottlenecked by their LAN connections, so if you only have a NAS with a 1GbE or 2.5GbE LAN port, then you won’t see the improved performance of the N300 over the WD Red Plus or IronWolf. If you do have a 10GbE LAN port, it will be saturated with four drives; extra drives won’t make any difference unless you have multiple LAN ports and bandwidth aggregation.

What you do get with the N300 is internal NAS performance, which, if you are running AI on your NAS, might be a factor. However, most people using their NAS that way use NVMe drives for caching, allowing them to get higher performance from 5400RPM drives.  Rebuilds will be quicker, but the value of that comes down to whether the NAS is a point-of-service or other mission-critical function, and it assumes that a drive (or drives) dies in the first place to trigger the rebuild.

The fly in this ointment is the price, because for a four bay NAS, that’s a jump from roughly $800 in storage to $1200, and for that increase, you might consider Pro-level media.

Interestingly, currently the WD Red Pro 4TB is $250, offers 7200RPM spindle speeds, for less than the 4TB N300 on Amazon.com. And deals on IronWolf Pro models undercut Toshiba's pricing at that retailer.

In the UK, the IronWolf Pro 4TB is only £169.99, the WD Red Pro is £234.75, making the £195.15 N300 4TB a better deal than the WD, but much worse than the Seagate drive.

That’s the biggest issue here, because Toshiba aimed this product to hit the open ground between the entry-level NAS drives and the Pro series mechanisms, and now adjusted the price to compete with the premium layer. These Pro drives have 300TB/yr workload ratings and a 5-year warranty, whereas the N300 only has 180TB/yr and a 3-year warranty.

Based on these Toshiba defined ratings, it can't compete on reliability.

While I expect that if I tested the N300 against the Pro hardware, it would do well, since both of the competing brands typically only include 256MB of cache, not 512MB. But those who buy those mechanisms are looking for longevity above all else.

Overall, I liked the N300, as it takes less time to get operational on a NAS and in small arrays, the performance is excellent. But I can’t get on board with Toshiba’s pricing, which seems excessively high in some regions and lacks any consistency.

For more storage solutions, we've reviewed the best NAS devices.

If I'm going to watch yet another movie or TV show about a mafia-style gang in New York — because why bother in the wake of The Godfather and The Sopranos, right? — I want to come away from it having learned something new.

New MGM+ crime drama The Westies achieved this at conception, because I didn't know the first thing about the real-life Irish-American crime family of the same name. In fact, I didn't even know that they existed. But sure enough, they were known for racketeering, drug trafficking, and contract killing in Hell's Kitchen from 1960s-1980s.

I know what you're thinking: isn't Hell's Kitchen exactly where the Italian-American mob operated from in New York City. You'd be right in thinking that, and it's one of the main sources of dramatic tension across the show's eight-episode run.

Add in the fact that an FBI team has been tasked with tracking down our fictional version, led by family patriarch Eamonn Sweeney (J.K. Simmons), and you've got a proper old-school cat-and-mouse chase.

Interestingly, the biggest pro and con of The Westies is almost the same thing. While you're streaming it, you're engrossed — the storytelling itself is solid, dependable and superficially fun. But from the moment you switch it off, it will be completely erased from your mind.

Fans complained The Westies would be too tame just from the trailer — and I think they were right

After the above trailer for The Westies was released, I couldn't help but notice that the overwhelming fan response was to criticize scenes for being "too tame" compared to what mob behavior would have been like at the time.

Now that I've watched the entire season, I have to agree. Even if you don't know the story of the Westies, you're tuning into a gangster crime show expecting a severe level of violence — or even just an overarching sense of nasty brutality.

Of course, blood, guts and gore don't make a story any better objectively, but come on... we're trying to have some fun here. On top of that, it's difficult to invest in something new if you feel as though it is holding back, especially if it's aiming for a second season and beyond.

Still, the core storytelling is both engaging and well constructed. As Eamonn Sweeney's cronies face off against the local Italian-Americans, you're as engrossed in the inevitably fatal outcome as much as you are the complicated family dynamics.

The cast is stronger than its story

Bosch star Titus Welliver plays our ragged FBI lead Glenn Keenan, with an 80s "pornstache" so commanding that it might as well have had its own acting credit. When you can get past the facial accessories, you know you're in good hands... once Harry Bosch, always Harry Bosch, if you get what I mean.

If anything, I wish we had more of Simmons himself on screen. Sweeney isn't exactly the Don Corleone type, but it feels as though Simmons has somehow been a mobster boss in a former life. If you're selling him as number one on the call sheet, let's see that translated in each episode, please.

Really, I'm looking for holes when there aren't any — or at least I'm ripping tiny damaged flecks in the story's fabric into gaping tears. Because we've been so spoiled by shows such as Peaky Blinders and MobLand in recent years, we have to hold everything that comes after to an incredibly high standard.

Truthfully, The Westies just doesn't meet it. Not because there's anything wrong per se, but because the competition is so tough. It's kind of like studying really hard for an exam knowing you're going to get creamed by the kids who are naturally better at the same subject. Thems the breaks, so just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

The Westies begins airing on MGM+ from July 12.

Asus ProArt RTX 5090: Two-minute review

The Asus ProArt GeForce RTX 5090 32GB GDDR7 OC Edition is a specialised flagship GPU built for a niche audience and isn’t going to appeal to those looking for a premium upgrade for a gaming build. It’s aimed at creators, AI users and compact workstation builders who want full RTX 5090 performance without the bulk of larger 3.5 or 4 slot coolers.

The ProArt uses the normal RTX 5090 spec: 21,760 CUDA cores, 32GB of 28Gbps GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus and PCIe 5.0 support. The card has a 2482MHz default clock and a 2512MHz OC mode, and a 1000W power supply is recommended.

The 32GB of VRAM helps when rendering, running larger AI models or heavily modded 4K games would exceed the memory available on lower-tier cards. The ports — HDMI 2.1b, DisplayPort 2.1b and USB-C — give excellent monitor setup flexibility.

The 304 x 140 x 50mm, 2.5-slot SFF-ready design is a key selling point, as most flagship RTX 5090 cards are much chunkier, while the slimmer ProArt leaves more room for nearby expansion cards, side-panel clearance and power-cable routing.

Installation is straightforward: a 1-to-4 adapter is included and the 16-pin socket on the card is angled back for easy cable routing, plus the included adjustable GPU support can be used to help prevent sag.

Build quality is top-notch, with no obvious flex, and the GPU avoids gamer-style RGB lighting in favour of a subdued creator/workstation look with brown wood-patterned laminate trim and subtle ProArt gold markings.

Cooling is provided by two large Axial-tech fans, a vapour chamber, liquid metal on the GPU and a double-vented backplate. In OC mode, the GPU peaked at 76°C and memory at 86°C, with a 36dB peak sound level, which is reasonable for a slimmer RTX 5090 cooler. Unfortunately there was noticeable coil whine under heavy loads, and at times it was louder than the fans.

Standard mode was about 5% cooler and 6% quieter, but most importantly, barely slower, while Quiet mode was about 7% cooler and 6% quieter than OC mode, but gave around 2% less performance.

Overall performance is excellent, as expected from an overclocked RTX 5090. OC mode was about 3% faster than a stock RTX 5090, around 45% to 50% ahead of the RTX 5080 in compute loads, and up to 60% in gaming. The improvement is most obvious at 4K, in ray tracing and compute-heavy workloads.

The coil whine is frustrating given this is a card designed for creators, though it’s not so bad that you’d hear it outside a well-designed closed case.

Otherwise, the ProArt RTX 5090 OC Edition does a difficult job well. Yes, it’s expensive and specialised, but its slimmer design, quiet fans, 32GB of GDDR7 and top-end performance make it a capable choice for creators and high-end builders who can use what it offers.

That said, unless you can find it at a compelling price, it faces stiff competition from slim RTX 5090 cards that use AIO water cooling.

Asus ProArt RTX 5090: Price & availability

• How much is it? It retails for about $4,099 / £3,799 / AU$6,499
• When can you get it? The Asus ProArt RTX 5090 is available now
• Where is it available? You can buy it in the US, UK, and Australia

The Asus ProArt RTX 5090 is available now, retailing for about $4,099 / £3,799 / AU$6,499 depending on the region and retailer. That makes it around the typical price for a premium RTX 5090, though it sits above many cheaper air-cooled cards with the same spec.

While the ProArt would always be an expensive card, AI data centre demand has really pushed up prices, so it’s a tough sell unless you really need the features.

The premium price mostly gets you the compact ProArt design rather than a big performance uplift. You still get the full RTX 5090 spec, a mild factory overclock, 32GB of GDDR7, USB-C display output, a slimmer 2.5-slot cooler and a three-year warranty.

The main competition is from other RTX 5090 cards, and if you don’t need the SFF-ready form factor, cheaper air-cooled models will get you very similar core performance for less, while larger premium or all-in-one (AIO) water-cooled RTX 5090 cards may offer lower temperatures, less noise or more overclocking headroom for similar money.

If the compact creator-focused GPU is perfect for your next build, the ProArt may be a compelling buy. If you just want the cheapest route to RTX 5090 performance, wait for the price to come down a little, or look at alternatives.

• Value: 3.5 / 5

Asus ProArt RTX 5090: Specs

• Full RTX 5090 spec and 32GB of GDDR7
• Slimmer SFF-ready 2.5-slot design

• Specs: 4 / 5

Asus ProArt RTX 5090: Design

• Slimmer than most flagship RTX 5090 cards
• SFF-ready

The ProArt design is the main reason to choose this particular RTX 5090 over a more conventional option. Asus has kept the card to 304 x 140 x 50mm (12.0 x 5.5 x 2.0in) and a 2.5-slot thickness, which is much easier to work with than the very large 3.5-slot and 4-slot RTX 5090 designs.

It’s also SFF-ready, which means it fits Nvidia’s size guidelines for small-form-factor enthusiast builds rather than just being smaller than average. That doesn’t make it a tiny GPU, but it does mean the ProArt is built to work in more compact cases that support SFF-ready graphics cards, as well as larger systems where you want more room for other expansion cards or easier airflow.

Visually, it avoids the usual gaming-card look. The brown wood-patterned laminate trim and small ProArt gold details give it a more subdued workstation feel, and there’s no RGB lighting to worry about.

Cooling is handled by two large Axial-tech fans, a vapor chamber, liquid metal on the GPU and a double-vented backplate. That’s a decent cooling setup for a thinner RTX 5090, though the slimmer cooler does mean it has less heatsink volume than some of the much larger cards.

The card includes a dual BIOS switch for Performance and Quiet modes, a solid backplate and an adjustable GPU holder in the box. The 16-pin power connector is angled back toward the end of the card, which helps cable routing, but you’ll still need to be careful with bend clearance, especially in smaller cases.

Overall, the design feels practical, premium and nicely understated, but it only really makes sense if you specifically need a thinner RTX 5090.

• Design: 4.5 / 5

Asus ProArt RTX 5090: Performance

• About 3% faster than a stock RTX 5090
• Excellent cooling and low fan noise
• Very noticeable coil whine

The Asus ProArt RTX 5090 is at its best when you look beyond gaming and treat it as a compact high-end creator card. In Geekbench 6 Compute and Blender, it performs at the level expected for a tuned RTX 5090, with small but useful gains over the stock RTX 5090.

The gap is much bigger against older or lower-tier cards. Across the compute tests, the ProArt was about 50% ahead of the RTX 5080 on average, and around 40% ahead of the RTX 4090. The RTX 4090 is still a very capable GPU, but the ProArt’s combination of 32GB of faster GDDR7 and Blackwell architecture gives it a clear advantage in compute workloads and makes it a worthwhile upgrade.

While not the focus, gaming is still excellent, as you’d expect from an RTX 5090. Cyberpunk 2077 reached 98fps at 4K using Ultra Ray Tracing and balanced scaling, while Black Myth: Wukong hits 88fps at 4K with ray tracing, Cinematic settings and 50% upscaling. So while not the point of the ProArt, it’s a very capable gaming card.

Thermals are quite good for a slim RTX 5090. The ProArt peaked at 75°C, which is much warmer than larger 5090s with aftermarket cooling, which typically run about 10°C cooler. The VRAM reached 86°C, which is again higher than most 5090s but not in any way problematic.

Fan noise was also very low, with the ProArt peaking at just 36dB in my testing. That’s about the same as 5090s with big coolers.

All in all, Asus has done a good job tuning the ProArt to keep performance high and fan noise under control, even if that means letting temperatures sit a little higher than some larger cards. That trade-off is perfectly fine for a 2.5-slot RTX 5090, and the GPU and VRAM temperatures stay well within reasonable limits.

The catch is coil whine, which is an electrical buzz caused by components vibrating under heavy power load, rather than the fans themselves. In fact, most of the time it's louder than the fans themselves.

Some coil whine isn’t unusual on very high-power graphics cards, but it’s still disappointing on a premium creator-focused model where low noise is a key selling point.

Cyberpunk 2077: Ultra Ray Tracing, balanced scaling
Black Myth: Wukong: Ray Tracing, Cinematic, 50% upscaling

• Performance: 4 / 5

Should you buy the Asus ProArt RTX 5090?

Buy the Asus ProArt RTX 5090 if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested Asus ProArt RTX 5090

• I spent about a week testing the Asus ProArt RTX 5090
• I ran synthetic, compute and gaming benchmarks
• I compared it against the stock RTX 5090, 4090 and the Asus ROG Astral RTX 5080 OC

I spent about a week with the Asus ProArt RTX 5090, testing it in OC mode and comparing it against other high-end cards. The main comparisons were stock RTX 5090 and RTX 4090 performance and the Asus ROG Astral RTX 5080 OC.

I used 3DMark for synthetic performance, Geekbench 6 Compute and Blender for creator workloads, and games including Cyberpunk 2077 and Black Myth: Wukong for real-world gaming results.

• Originally reviewed June 2026

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: One minute review

Amazfit has been a company I’ve been keeping an eye on since their Bip 3 ‘budget’ smartwatch blew through all my expectations (and then some), followed by a slew of other watches across a range of price points, aiming to undercut the likes of Garmin — but most notably the $99 / £99 Amazfit Active 2, which earned five stars in our review. So when they put the word “Premium” on a product, it piques my curiosity.

Not only does the Amazfit Active 3 Premium have a bunch of excellent features that rival some of the biggest in the business, like excellent sleep and fitness tracking, but it’s also a fantastic-looking smartwatch.

The ‘Premium’ moniker signifies the addition of the super-tough sapphire glass coating, and the inclusion of the NFC payment feature. This was the distinction that the Amazfit Active 2 Premium used to separate itself from the base Active 2: however, there is no base Active 3, so even though this watch uses the ‘Premium’ model distinction, it’s the only watch in its range.

Despite this, it’s not an expensive buy. Sure, it’s pricier than the older Active 2, but it’s still undercutting the cheapest Apple and Garmin watches while delivering performance that belies its price. Another excellent example of a fitness tracker from Amazfit, a company which has by now shown itself to be a serious contender in the fitness tech space.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Specifications

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Price and availability

• Starts at $169 / £169 / AU$239
• Not Amazfit’s cheapest, but still cheaper than many rivals
• Available in three color options

It’s hard not to look at the Amazfit Active 3 Premium and not feel as though there’s a catch somewhere when it comes to its price, but it really is a sub-$170 / £170 / AU$250 fitness watch with the kinds of features and accuracy you’d have spent double that for not long ago. Our review unit is the Atlas Blue model, but it’s also available in Apex Silver and Aero White.

• Value score: 5/5

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Design

• Heavier than some alternatives
• AMOLED display

Regardless of your color choice, the Amazfit Active 3 Premium is a looker. It has a circular body with a metallic finish, with the underside color-matched to the bands for Atlas Blue and Aero White (Apex Silver would be my pick, but the whole body is silver with a black strap).

The strap itself is the standard polymer-style you’ll have felt on just about any other smartwatch, but the fact that the Amazfit Active 3 Premium uses a pin system like a more traditional watch adds a touch of class (and some minor fiddliness). It’s got a 1.32-inch display, which isn’t large —but it’s the same size as the Amazfit Active 2. I didn’t feel like I was losing much in terms of screen space compared to some of Amazfit’s larger watches, but I was surprised to find it’s slightly heavier than the Coros Nomad I tested recently.

With that said, I’m not sure I’d consider it rugged. I wasn’t prepared to hurl my review unit to the ground to test its durability, despite its sapphire glass and scratch-resistant coating. It might not be the watch you’ll want to take on an ultramarathon, but it’ll stand up to runs, rides and gym workouts with ease.

• Design score: 4.5/5

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Features

• Full-color maps
• HybridCharge is great
• 170 sports modes

Ok, so the Amazfit Active 3 Premium is a looker, but does it have the smarts to back it up? Despite the relatively low price, the answer is a resounding yes. You’ll need to use the Zepp app, and while I’ve tested it before and found it to be a little cumbersome, I am pleased to report that (at least in the time I’ve been away), it’s much slicker these days.

You can use it as a dashboard, and there are badges to collect that include step goals, monthly targets, and much more.

Fitbit Premium’s Daily Readiness Score has led the charge to distill a bunch of complex metrics into an easy-to-read number that calculates how hard you can push your workout on any given day, and Amazfit’s version is called “HybridCharge”.

It takes into account sleep, heart rate, activity, and recovery, as well as subjective inputs like stress, health, and more, to help you make a judgment on whether today is a workout day or a rest day, and it does so pretty well.

One day during testing, I’d struggled to sleep and had an early start at work, and the app and watch understood that maybe I needed to take it easy and recover that day. It’s something you used to need a premium subscription for with other manufacturers, but I’m glad to see it’s included in the price of the product here.

PAI is also back, so those looking for a quick look at a glance to see how their natural fitness is holding up can check it out by testing their heart rate zones. The watch supports basic notification features, and of course offers that NFC payment digital wallet feature for convenience. A barnstorming inclusion is full-color maps, offering turn-by-turn navigation. This is a premium feature crammed into a value package, offering turn-by-turn navigation during runs, rides and walks.

• Features score: 4.5/5

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Performance

• AMOLED display
• 12 days of battery life
• Excellent accuracy

Performance is uniformly excellent across the board with the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. Fitness tracking offers a deep suite of metrics, including running ones like stride length, ground contact, and just about anything else you could possibly ask for as a runner. And, if you’re just learning what all of these measurements are, fear not: Everything is handily explained within the Zepp app.

When you’re done, the app also does a great job at showcasing your fatigue level, which then feeds into the aforementioned HybridCharge metrics.

I very rarely check my sleep outside of Apple’s Sleep Score number, but the Amazfit Active 3 Premium does make me want to dig deeper — and offers plenty of data to do so. I was surprised at how often I was getting up in the night without realising it, and the Aura section of the Zepp app even includes relaxing music to help you settle back down.

Battery-wise, Amazfit claims you can get 12 days from a single charge. In my experience, it’s been closer to 10 days, but it’s still very respectable given the amount of data it’s collecting day in, day out. The AMOLED display is plenty bright for just about everything, even direct sunlight.

The only minor gripe I have with the Amazfit Active 3 Premium is that it doesn’t automatically offer to track a workout if you start walking/running/doing anything. As someone who still forgets to hit the button before setting out, it’s nice when devices like the Apple Watch give a nudge.

• Performance Score: 4.5 / 5

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Scorecard

Amazfit Active 3: Should I buy?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested the Amazfit Active 3 Premium

I’ve been testing the Amazfit Active 3 Premium while walking, hitting the gym for weights and cardio (primarily using the cross trainer), and wearing it for just about everything in life.

I tested the GPS across various areas of London and more remote areas like the countryside where I live, and wore it to bed, too. I tested many of its measurements by pairing it with my Apple Watch Series 11 on the opposite wrist.

Sony RX10 V: two-minute review

Just when you thought bridge cameras had been sunsetted, Sony returns after a nine-year gap with the new RX10 V — and it’s a genuine upgrade of the Cyber-shot RX10 IV, which was already the best camera of its kind.

We get the same winning combination of a 1-inch stacked 20MP sensor and 24-600mm F2.4-4 lens, but the mark V model has been enhanced with Sony's latest Bionz XR processor and AI chip, enabling improved burst shooting speed, 4K video features, and, most importantly, better autofocus performance.

Sony has also implemented multiple design tweaks to the control layout and ergonomics, and as a result the RX10 V looks much more like an Alpha camera than the RX10 IV, which feels more Cyber-shot compact, did. For a more detailed breakdown of the differences, check out my RX10 V vs Cyber-shot RX10 IV article.

There are additional exposure dials, an AF joystick has been added (thank you, Sony!), as has a USB-C terminal, and the higher-resolution viewfinder is larger, more pronounced, and easier to see.

Throw in a bigger and comfier grip, which hosts the larger NP-FZ100 battery for a 50% boost in shot life, and the RX10 V is all round a slicker camera than the discontinued RX10 IV.

It's not all good news, mind you, depending on which way you look at it — the weather-resistant body misses out on a built-in flash and top LCD, both of which were present in the older model.

And some of the old drawbacks remain, such as the relatively sluggish zoom of the lens, which is 'just' a 25x optical zoom. I like that range, but other lesser-quality bridge cameras zoom further, such as the Nikon Coolpix P1100.

A significant sticking point is price — the RX10 V had to cost more than its nine-year-old predecessor, which was already pricier than any other bridge camera available. It's a big price to pay for this type of camera, even if you are getting a lot of camera for your money.

All that said, I've thoroughly enjoyed my lengthy review period with the Sony RX10 V, during which I've shot everything from travel to bird and macro photography, with the camera handling those and other subjects with aplomb.

It's a neatly packaged camera, especially when you consider you're getting a 600m f/4 lens when fully zoomed in. The RX10 V is a dream all-in-one camera, especially for enthusiast wildlife photographers with deep pockets.

Sony RX10 V: price and release date

• Announced on July 9 2026
• It costs $2,300 / £2,200 / AU$3,499

Sony's premium RX10 bridge camera series was always pricey compared to lesser-quality alternatives, and the latest version, the RX10 V, is even pricier. I'm not surprised: the RX10 IV launched for $1,800 / £1,500 / AU$2,000 almost nine years ago, and we should expect an inflation-based price bump at least. Still, $2,300 / £2,200 / AU$3,499 for a camera of this kind is a fair whack of anyone's money, let alone the enthusiast wildlife photographers that this camera is practically perfect for.

So what else could you get for similar money? If you already own a Sony mirrorless camera, the 400-800mm super-telephoto zoom lens is worth a look, especially if wildlife and bird photography are key reasons why you're considering the RX10 V. Or, if its zoom range alone that you want, and you're less concerned about outright image quality, the Nikon CoolPix with its monster 125x zoom is another option, and it costs almost half the price.

All things considered, though, I think the RX10 V is reasonable value for money, considering what you get.

• Price score: 4/5

Sony RX10 V specs

Sony RX10 V: Design

• Same 24-600mm F2.4-4 optically stabilized zoom lens as the RX10 IV
• Larger and more pronounced EVF with higher resolution and refresh rate
• Improved ergonomics and joystick added, but flash and top LCD removed

People buy a bridge camera primarily to get a superzoom lens, and the RX10 V has the exact same 24-600mm F2.4-4 lens as the RX10 IV — that’s a 25x optical zoom, with macro focusing up to a 0.49x magnification. Put simply, you’re covered for everything from landscapes and bird photography to close-ups of insects.

While the RX10 V is the same form factor as the RX10 IV, it has had a fairly major brush-up, and it feels a much better camera for it.

For one, the grip is comfier. It's a new shape with better ergonomics, and that's able to fit a physically larger battery than the previous model could, with a 50% boost in shot life.

If you're familiar with the RX10 IV, the top plate of this camera will take some getting used to; there are additional exposure control dials (one of which can be locked off) making quick changes to settings easier, while the shooting mode dial has been shifted to the right-hand side where a top LCD used to be. Personally I preferred the old setup.

Another major change is that the built-in flash has been removed, though a hotshoe remains for use with accessories such as an external flash.

Also, the viewfinder is more pronounced, which makes it easier to look into, helped by the fact that it's a larger 0.5-inch unit with more-detailed 3.68m-dot display, whereas the RX10 IV has a 2.36m-dot 0.39-inch unit. Put simply, the viewfinder is a major upgrade.

On the camera's back side, an AF joystick has been added (Sony calls it a 'Multi selector'), which is a control I love to have for the likes of manual AF-point selection. For wildlife photography, I used it a lot, and can't imagine how I would have coped so easily in such a scenario with the older camera.

Spin to the side, and the camera's ports are now neatly tucked away under rigid protective doors, with headphone and mic ports, plus a USB-C terminal has been added. The fact that the RX10 IV doesn't have a USB-C terminal is likely a reason it was discontinued, as per the EU's common charger regulations.

The tilt touchscreen is again a 3-inch type. It gets a small boost in resolution, and while that in itself isn't much of upgrade, its improved touch functions, and the fact that you can switch to a vertical format, are.

It’s possible to customize some of the buttons, including a speed-boost function during burst shooting — you can temporarily increase a medium speed, say of 10fps, to the maximum 30fps when the action begins. It’s a neat feature inherited from Sony's pro cameras, which minimizes how many photos you shoot, but the button placement is awkward for this feature — I would have liked a custom button on the front of the camera instead. A tally lamp has been added for video recording.

• Design score: 4.5/5

Sony RX10 V: Performance

• Sony's latest Bionz XR processor with AI chipset
• Burst shooting upped to 30fps, with Sony's most up to date autofocus system that includes a wide range of subject detection modes
• Now uses Sony's NP-FZ100 battery, delivering a 50% boost in shot life

Power and speed are where the major improvements are at. The RX10 V uses the same Bionz XR processor as the Sony A7 V mirrorless camera, with a combined AI chipset. The result is improved burst-shooting speeds and autofocus performance, and what Sony says is better color accuracy.

Burst-shooting speeds are boosted from the RX10 IV's 24fps to 30fps, when using the electronic shutter — which, in a camera like this with a stacked sensor, I have no problem doing. I'd hardly call this improvement in speed a reason to upgrade, though, especially since the mechanical shutter's maximum 10fps speed is enough for most scenarios.

When I was photographing action, such as for my child's sports day, or at my local nature reserve doing bird photography, I generally kept the camera to its 10fps setting, with one of the custom buttons set to a 30fps speed boost for when the action got really interesting.

This has allowed me to minimize the number of photos I've taken, while the way the camera groups burst sequences in playback makes files easier to navigate.

Something that makes the RX10 V feel like a snappier camera than the RX10 IV is that there is no viewfinder blackout, even for the 30fps setting, which is supported by continuous autofocus with Sony’s latest subject-detection autofocus.

Compared to the RX10 IV, the RX10 V is able to detect a wider range of specific subjects with real-time recognition, including dedicated modes for birds, cats, and more.

I generally made sure I selected the specific subject when I knew that was my focus, such as with bird photography, and have been seriously impressed by how sticky autofocus is. Even when birds were small in the frame, the RX10 V was regularly able to pick them up with the camera's autofocus area set to wide.

I had more issues when photographing my child's sports day, given that there were so many faces in a lot of the photos. For such scenarios, a quick jig of the autofocus area to a small area can help to avoid the camera focusing on people in the background instead of the subject.

I've mentioned it already, but like most of its recent mirrorless cameras the RX10 V also uses Sony’s popular NP-FZ100 battery, which is a longer-lasting unit than the NP-FZ50 in the RX10 IV.

Sony quotes shot life as up to 630 shots compared to 400 for the RX10 IV, which is a huge performance boost. Add on-the-go UBS-C charging, and the RX10 V is a better camera for heavy photography days.

For me, all the above performance improvements are key for a camera that people typically buy as an entry point for wildlife photography.

• Performance score: 5/5

Sony RX10 V: Image and video quality

• Same 20.1MP 1-inch sensor and 24-600mm lens as used by the RX10 IV
• New processor boosts color and autofocus accuracy
• 4K video frame rates upped to 60fps (no crop) / 120fps (with crop)

Considering the versatility of the 25x optical zoom lens, image quality is impressively sharp, while the bright aperture helps with low-light quality, and is easily able to blur backgrounds when using the telephoto settings.

That being said, there are no major image-quality improvements over the nine-year-old RX10 IV; we're still getting 20.1MP photos in RAW & JPEG, and 4K video recording.

It's largely the indirect factors that positively improve image quality: better autofocus performance and subject recognition, enabling an increased hit ratio of sharp photos, and images with greater color accuracy based on detected subjects.

Other more direct improvements include a boost in 4K video frame rates: the RX10 IV was limited to 30fps, whereas the RX10 V goes up to 60fps with no crop, or 120fps with a crop. Like before, we still get a 240fps, but only in Full HD format.

And then there are the new color profiles to choose from, including Sony's popular S-Cinetone and S-Log3 for video, and the ability to import up to 16 custom LUTs profiles.

There are a bunch of extra features that make the RX10 V a better camera for video than the RX10 IV; a tally lamp, enhanced audio workflows, and it's also now possible to record an in-camera time-lapse sequence.

If you already own a mirrorless camera, you're probably wondering if the RX10 V's quality is sufficient to replace a supertelephoto lens for photographing distant subjects. I was curious to find out, so I took the same photos of birds with the Sony A7R V professional mirrorless camera and Sony's longest telephoto lens, the 400-800mm, which is a similar price to the RX10 V.

You can see the direct comparisons between the RX10 V and Sony A7R camera with 400-800mm lens in my separate write-up. But to summarize here — yes, the RX10 V's detail is impressively sharp for a camera of this kind, but there is a reasonably obvious gulf in outright clarity from the larger and pricier Sony mirrorless setup.

• Image and video quality score: 4.5/5

Sony RX10 V: testing scorecard

Should I buy the Sony RX10 V?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Sony RX10 V: also consider

How I tested the Sony RX10 V

• Sony loaned me the RX10 V for the three weeks prior to its announcement
• I took it travelling and on regular trips to my local nature reserve
• I've used all the major camera and lens settings, plus made direct comparisons with Sony mirrorless gear

I made the most of my lengthy review period to properly test the RX10 V. I took it travelling where it was used in bright sunlight and hot weather, to my child's sports day, to my garden for macro photography, plus I regularly visited a nearby nature reserve which is a very popular spot for birding.

Across the various scenarios, I tested the different lens settings — the entire zoom and aperture range. I shot 20MP stills and 4K video clips, pushed the 30fps Drive Mode to its limits, tested the camera's close focusing capabilities, and shot until the battery drained.

And because I feel most people are interested in the RX10 V for wildlife photography, especially bird photography, I tested the various subject detection autofocus modes and pitted the premium bridge camera against Sony's longest lens, the 400-800mm F6.3-8, to see how it fared.

• First reviewed: July 2026
• Read more about how we test

Alienware AW3426DW: Two-minute review

There's a new 34-inch ultrawide powerhouse in town, with the brand-new Alienware AW3426DW QD-OLED. After testing it with several games and movies, it's clear to me that this monitor stands well above its predecessors in terms of quality.

Unlike its predecessor, the Alienware AW3425DW, this display uses 5th-gen tandem OLED technology, delivering significantly higher brightness, improved efficiency, and better text clarity. The Penta (five-layer) tandem OLED stack also solves one of the biggest issues I've had with previous QD-OLED monitors, where brightness dimming from the automatic brightness limiter (ABL) would result in inconsistent brightness levels.

Frankly, coming from a 45-inch LG 45GS95QE QD-OLED ultrawide display that utilizes an 800R curve, I wasn't expecting to be blown away with greater immersion — but the AW3426DW delivers so much that I don't think I can do without a tandem OLED display going forward.

It also helps that Dolby Vision HDR support is included, which uses dynamic metadata to help shift brightness levels and tone mapping for each scene, and it's best used on games or movies that specifically support it.

For example, Battlefield 6's visual quality is elevated to a new level, specifically in sequences with chaotic explosions and fire particles that spread across the screen. You can see how good Dolby Vision is, when bright highlights are incredibly detailed, and since tandem OLED minimizes the need for ABL, there are no noticeable brightness dimming issues.

In games that don't support Dolby Vision, you can switch this off from the on-screen display (OSD) and enjoy HDR using the HDR Peak 1300 Bright or Display True Black 500 modes, although the former might have slightly more noticeable ABL. Other than a few errors that forced me to restart my PC after switching HDR modes and losing display signal, HDR functionality is great on the AW3426DW.

Without a doubt, this is one of the best gaming monitors money can buy, and certainly one of the best ultrawide monitors in 2026.

Alienware AW3426DW: Price & Availability

• How much does it cost? $799.99 / £709 / around AU$1,150
• When is it available? Available now
• Where can you get it? Available in the US and UK

For everything that the AW3426DW ultrawide has to offer, effectively making it one of the best ultrawide OLED monitors money can buy right now, the $799.99 / £709 price is more than reasonable. It's around the same price as its predecessor, the AW3425DW, but is much better, mostly thanks to its tandem OLED tech, but also thanks to its new anti-reflective coating.

Having used a far more expensive LG 45-inch ultrawide, which still sells at just above $1,000 / £1,000 (original retail price was $1,699.99 / £1,699.99), the AW3426DW is a steal in my book.

The LG display might have a virtual reality-like 800R curvature, but it's heavily limited in comparison due to its older WOLED panel, and utilizes the same 3440x1440 display resolution as the new Alienware 34-inch monitor does at 45 inches, which means pixel density is worse on the 45GS95QE.

If you're not ready to make the jump to the flagship Alienware AW3926QW 5K2K ultrawide launching later this year, especially due to the leap in GPU power requirements (it'll be more demanding than gaming at 4K), then the AW3426DW is the best monitor to opt for.

• Value: 4 / 5

Alienware AW3426DW: Specs

Alienware AW3426DW: Design

Dell has kept the design for the Alienware AW3426DW simple, and it's almost identical to the previous AW3426DW model. The new monitor features the same sturdy stand and base, and I love the shiny and sleek finish it has.

In terms of connectivity, it's effectively the same again with two HDMI 2.1 ports that support variable refresh rate (VRR), along with a single DisplayPort 1.4. Fortunately, you can charge your devices while using the display, thanks to the USB-C 5Gbps downstream port, with a charging output of 15 W.

I'd appreciate it if this display had a slightly deeper curvature (perhaps 1500R) over its 1800R curve; however, that's likely my own bias coming from near-constant use of an 800R curved monitor, which is overkill to say the least.

Most Alienware monitors keep OSD navigation easy via a simple button, and that's also the case here. However, one personal gripe of mine is the lack of a remote control.

Some of LG's UltraGear ultrawide displays come with a remote control, which eliminates the need to physically reach over to the monitor button to change display settings. Fortunately, though, the Alienware Command Center application on Windows acts as an alternative option to access and control some of the OSD options.

The biggest highlight of the AW3426DW's design is its new anti-reflective coating. There's almost little to no glare when using this display in a bright environment, even with sunshine beaming in from open curtains.

Yes, a lot of this is thanks to the 5th-gen tandem OLED panel and the display's high brightness levels, but the anti-reflective coating is just as important in this case, with a 30% glare reduction — and at night, brightness truly blossoms better than I've ever seen before.

• Design: 4.5 / 5

Alienware AW3426DW: Features

The AW3426DW has a wide range of features available via its OSD, notably multiple HDR modes: DisplayHDR True Black 500, HDR Peak 1300, HDR Peak 1300 Bright, and Dolby Vision. The latter is what I used for most movies, specifically those that are made for Dolby Vision, especially since it dynamically shifts brightness levels and tone mapping based on each scene — but more on HDR later.

I'm not a massive fan of Picture-in-Picture or Picture-by-Picture (PIP or PBP) modes on monitors, specifically with multiple inputs. However, there are several options available in terms of positioning and sizing, which are more than welcome on any ultrawide display, where productivity is one of the main appeals.

For competitive players, the eSports mode should come in handy, as it transforms the display into a 25-inch monitor, with the option to position the active area at the top, center, or bottom of the screen. It's a reasonable option to include in a monitor with a 280Hz refresh rate, and one that has a 0.03ms GtG response time, and helps simulate a 25-inch monitor gaming experience.

VRR works fine on both DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 inputs, ensuring frame rates are high, matching the 280Hz refresh rate, and reducing screen tearing. Nvidia's G-Sync is also enabled to improve smoothness and latency, so screen tearing isn't a concern on this display whatsoever.

• Features: 4.5 / 5

Alienware AW3426DW: Performance

I tested this monitor playing several games, such as Destiny 2, Crimson Desert, Dragon's Dogma 2, Resident Evil Requiem, and Battlefield 6, and I was left amazed at how impressive the AW3426DW performs. With Dolby Vision enabled in supported games (i.e., Battlefield 6), visuals are absolutely breathtaking, with highly detailed bright and dark areas on screen amid blood-soaked action.

With Dolby Vision enabled, there are effectively no ABL issues, or at the very least, if there are, it isn't very noticeable. Of course, it's not just Dolby Vision's inclusion alone doing the heavy lifting in this respect, but also the fact that this is a 5th-gen tandem OLED display, directly increasing brightness capabilities.

Not every game or movie has Dolby Vision support, and that's exactly why the other HDR modes are vital — and I'm happy to report that HDR Peak 1300 Bright is fantastic. It doesn't come without its faults, and in particular, gamers should be ready to deal with some level of ABL.

However, again, because of the tandem OLED layers, I could play games like Destiny 2 or Dragon's Dogma 2 and enjoy very bright experiences without losing detail in bright and dark areas on screen. It's also a huge benefit that the AW3426DW is seemingly well calibrated out of the box in terms of color profile and HDR calibration, as I hardly had to configure any settings in that regard.

Essentially, Dolby Vision should only really be used for movies and games where it's supported, and HDR modes such as HDR Peak 1300 and DisplayHDR True Black 500 for most games that don't support Dolby Vision.

There aren't many games that can reach the 280 frames per second mark (at least when playing on higher graphics settings), but if you have a powerful enough rig, it's a joy to experience a game that feels so smooth when in motion.

It's also pleasing to see that text clarity issues have been solved, which stems directly from the RGB stripe subpixel layout, and that makes this a great choice for any PC user looking for a QD-OLED display that caters to both work and play.

• Performance: 4.5 / 5

Should I buy the Alienware AW3426DW?

Buy the Alienware AW3426DW if…

Don’t buy it if…

Also Consider

MSI MPG 491CQP QD-OLED

While significantly bigger than AW3426DW QD-OLED, the MSI MPG 491CQP arguably provides more immersion via its 32:9 49-inch wide screen. It's not a tandem OLED; however, it's currently around a very similar price to Alienware's new display and still provides great quality in HDR performance.

Read our full MSI MPG 491CQP QD-OLED review

How I tested the Alienware AW3426DW

• Tested for a week
• Played several modern games and watched multiple movies
• Tested mostly using Dolby Vision and HDR Peak 1300 Bright modes

I used the Alienware AW3426DW for a week, mostly for gaming and watching movies. The games I tested include: Destiny 2, Resident Evil Requiem, Dragon's Dogma 2, Dead As Disco, Battlefield 6, and Crimson Desert. Some of the movies include Avengers: Infinity War and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

I also spent the same amount of time using the AW3426DW for work duties and found that it eliminates one of the biggest pain points on OLED monitors, which is text fringing. I had no issues with reading text or simply navigating on web browsers, and also found that both HDR and SDR are visually fine to use outside of gaming (or non-HDR activities).

The monitor was also placed in a brightly lit room for most of the review period, with direct sunlight positioned directly on it, and found that there was little to no glare, thanks to the anti-reflective display.

• First reviewed July 2026

Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S: two-minute review

The Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S is one versatile fan. It can be tall or short pedestal fan, or you can swap out the base and turn it into a desktop model. You can choose from a generous 11 speed modes, as well as six 'special modes', and horizontal or vertical oscillation (or both at once, turning it into a very effective air circulator).

You're spoiled for choice when it comes to control options, too — you can use the remote, touchscreen buttons on the top of the fan head, or adjust settings on your phone using the Dreo companion app.

In that app you'll find an absolute ton of customization options: I've tested some of the best fans on the market, and it's rare to see a fan that offers such precise control over when, where and how it blows. While Dreo does a good job of laying out the app so it's nice and useable, I do wonder how many people really need quite so many options.

So what about that basics? The Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S delivers an even, effective flow of air, with a great range of settings. The lowest speed is whisper-quiet and gentle yet still perceptible, and the highest is impressively punchy. The Turbo setting — separated out as a special mode — is a miniature tornado. At higher settings, it's not the quietest fan I've used, but neither is it excessively loud.

You're paying a premium for the versatile form factor, as well as the extensive customization options and smart functionality. If you don't need all those things, there are cheaper, equally effective fans that'll fit the bill better. However, if flexibility and precise control is what you're after, the Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S is a standout choice.

Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S review: price & availability

• List price: $159.99 / £169.99
• Available: US, UK

At list price, the Dreo Smart TurboPoly fan 765S costs $159.99 in the US and £169.99 in the UK (which equates to about AU$230, though at the time of writing it's not available in Australia). That puts in in the premium price bracket for fans, but it goes some way to justifying the cost with its versatile desktop-or-pedestal design and smart features.

That's especially true when you compare the wider market alternatives. For example, the original Shark FlexBreeze costs $199.99 / £199.99 / AU$249.99 at list price. The Shark option lacks smart features, but it can be used cordless (whereas the Dreo can't). Another alternative is the Meaco 1056P, at $189.99 / £149.99 (about AU$270). This is the model I have at home, and it's less versatile than the Dreo TurboPoly 765S, but quieter at higher speeds.

If you don't need app control and are happy to commit to either a desktop or a pedestal model, there are cheaper options available to you.

• Value for money score: 4 out of 5

Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S specs

Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S review: design

• Versatile design can be a desktop or pedestal fan or air circulator
• App control is excellent; buttons / remote best for basic functions
• Wide speed range, precise oscillation control and multiple special modes

As fans go, the Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S is one versatile performer. You can choose from a generous 11 speed modes, as well as six 'special modes', horizontal and vertical oscillation, and a timer option. You can direct the fan head at a specific target, or unleash the full range of oscillation to use it as an air circulator.

It can be used as pedestal fan, and in this mode it's possible to adjust the height to a taller or shorter floor-standing option. Alternatively, you can remove the base altogether and swap on a different one to turn it into a desktop fan. I especially like the design of the tabletop base — its opening mechanism protrudes so when you press it down on a flat surface the legs extend outwards to form a stable base.

The fan feels well-built and sturdy, and the pedestal base is reassuringly heavy, so I was never concerned about knocking it over. I also appreciated the inclusion of a moulded handle on the fan head, which makes it easy to carry it from the top.

Some competitors offer magnetic remotes that snap onto the fan itself when not in use, but that's not the case here. Instead there's a remote control holder that snaps onto the pole. It could feel more intentional but does the job perfectly fine.

There are a couple more advanced features the Smart TurboPoly 765S lacks. It can't be used cordless, so you'll have to commit to staying near a power outlet. There's also no misting capability — this is a newly popular concept in the fan world, and appears on a handful of modern fans including the Dreo 516S. It can be a bit of a game-changer if it's really hot.

App and controls

That 'S' in the product code tells me there's an app I can use to control this fan. I can't overstate how jam-packed with options this app is. You can use it to turn the fan on and off, switch modes or adjust fan speed, and change the angle of the fan head. You can also precisely set the oscillation angles, including an option for asymmetrical oscillation.

There's a scheduling area where you can either choose when the fan will go on or turn off, and you can also set it to come on at a certain time (and speed / mode) on certain days. One minor missed opportunity is that you can't then schedule when it turns off — I wanted to set it to run for a couple of hours each evening as I go to sleep, but that doesn't seem to be possible.

The app is well laid-out and easy to use, although the fact there are so many precise customization options means it can feel fiddly at times. If you don't want to get your phone out, you can also control the fan using the remote control, or via touchscreen buttons on the top of the head.

These are responsive, and, to a point, straightforward. Changing the speed, swapping modes or adjusting the angle the head is pointing in is easy. However, for fine-tuning I found it far easier to use the app. (In fact, I had such trouble working out some of the functions that I emailed Dreo's general customer services address to help — and they get major brownie points for replying quickly, with a clear answer.)

• Design score: 4.5 out of 5

Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S review: performance

• A little noisy on higher settings
• Great range of settings, including an ultra powerful Turbo mode
• Easy to direct the air exactly where you want it

Overall, I was very impressed with the Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan. The speed settings cover a good range, with level 1 delivering a gentle but perceptible flow of air, while level 11 is pleasingly powerful, and Turbo mode all-but blew me away. I can't imagine many situations where you'd need such strong airflow, but it's nice to have the option.

One small but welcome detail is the fact that the windspeed settings cycle from 11 straight to 1. That meant if I knew I wanted a higher setting, I could work backwards and save some button presses.

Also in its favor is how precisely you can adjust where the airflow is directed. In static mode, arrow controls enable you to easily change where the fan head is pointing. It's also possible to finely adjust the vertical and horizontal oscillation; even making it asymmetrical if you want. And of course, you can extend / retract the pole or swap from pedestal to desktop mode if you want to alter the height more dramatically.

I used it to keep me cool in my home office during two UK heatwaves, and adjusted it to a very narrow range of oscillation where it was essentially just blowing from side-to-side on my back. The effect was absolutely dreamy.

I also used it as an air circulator (in its full vertical and horizontal range of oscillation) to amplify the effects of our newly-purchased portable air con unit. It did an excellent job of rapidly distributing the cool air as it was being pumped in, filling the bedroom much quicker than the AC could manage on its own.

In terms of noisiness, I'd give the Dreo middling marks. On setting 1 it's whisper-quiet, but as I moved up the settings the sound ramped up, and on level 11 it was noticeably louder than my usual fan (a Meaco air circulator). It's certainly not the noisiest fan I've come across, though.

Moving on to the special modes. They are as follows:

• Normal: runs at fixed speed
• Auto: speed increases or decreases depending on room temperature
• Turbo: runs at maximum speed
• Natural: speed fluctuates to mimic a natural breeze
• Sleep: decreases speed after 30 mins, up to two times
• Custom (via Dreo app): speed changes at specified times or temperatures

I was pleased to see there's a Sleep mode included, and the setup for this one is pretty standard, allowing you an hour to drop off. It's worth pointing out that the lights on the Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S switch off automatically as standard a few seconds after you've finished adjusting them — something I appreciated as I hate to have a glowing LED illuminating my room as I'm trying to sleep. (You can change this setting if you prefer the display to stay on.)

Auto mode is useful, too, if you're using the fan throughout the day. The ambient temperature measurement seems accurate, and matched that of my other fan.

I wasn't so enamored with the Breeze mode. I've seen this mode listed on a few different fan models recently, and have always been curious about it. On test, though, I found the fluctuations in speed and accompanying shifts in noise distracting more than anything. That said, it did feel somewhat like a natural breeze, and I can imagine some people enjoying this effect.

• Performance score: 4.5 out of 5

Should you buy the Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested the Dreo Smart TurboPoly Fan 765S

I tested the Dreo Smart TurboPoly 765S over three weeks in June/July, which happened to encompass two UK heatwaves, with temperatures reaching 37C or higher (around 98F). I used it extensively during the day while working from home, as well as at night, and tested all the special modes. I also tried out all the control methods, including digging into the app. I compared my findings with other fans I've used, but predominantly my trusty Meaco air circulator.

Read more about how we test

• First reviewed July 2026

Razer Seiren V3 Pro two-minute review

When I look for a gaming microphone, my requirements are modest – I want my teammates to hear me clearly and my foes to know what I really think of them (just kidding, those obscene thoughts stay in my head). I’d wager that most gamers have similarly unpretentious needs.

Razer, however, thinks gamers could do with more – a lot more. And so it’s brought out the Serien V3 Pro, a microphone that’s stuffed to the gills with high-end features that take it way beyond your common-or-garden gaming mic.

But to be fair, it’s not just positioned for gamers. Razer pitches the Seiren V3 Pro as the perfect partner for “musicians, podcasters, and creators who demand more than entry-level gear,” and it’s outfitted its “studio-quality” device with a range of features that might tickle the fancy of users a little more discerning than your average CoD goon.

That includes 32-bit float. Razer has included this expanded capture range to rescue audio that’s been subject to a few too many what we might call “gamer moments.” It can handle more extreme volume spikes – the type that might be prompted by jump scares, frustrating moments and clutch kills – with the idea being that streamers won’t have to worry about clipping and distortion during their broadcasts.

Razer has supplemented this feature with a fistful of other premium addons, including dual 48kHz and 96kHz sample rates, a built-in shock mount and removable pop filter, and a 30mm dynamic capsule. There’s a digital signal processing (DSP) that enables features like an audio expander, compressor, AI noise removal, and more. Razer has also included an XLR connector in addition to USB-C, just in case you want to run your mic through a dedicated audio interface.

Again, it’s all geared towards pros and enthusiasts rather than your average video game enjoyer.

Audio performance is obviously the most important part of any microphone – you can have all the bells and whistles, but if you end up sounding muffled or distorted, they’re not much use to you.

Here, the Seiren V3 Pro impresses. My audio was crisp and clear right out of the box, with no adjustments necessary. Razer walks you through a brief set-up process in Synapse when you get started, and it’s worth doing so the mic can be tweaked to your surroundings. The AI noise suppression in Synapse did a great job cutting out the whirr of my desk fan, while the pop filter put a stop to most unwanted plosives throughout my recordings and voice calls.

The on-device controls worked well, especially the mute button. It’s large and touch-sensitive, so it’s very easy to press in a flash (just be careful you don’t accidentally activate it). Both the button and the mic’s RGB ring turn red when you’re muted, giving a clear visual cue. Only a small nub of the gain dial protrudes from the underside of the device’s body, though, which can make it tricky to find.

As far as visuals go, the Seiren V3 Pro blends understated looks with a few choice touches. Its matte black finish and angled stand are easy on the eye, while this wouldn’t be a Razer product without a smattering of RGB lighting – in this instance, it’s about halfway up. Above it is the removable pop filter cover that hides the mic’s grille and built-in shock absorber. There’s a large touch-sensitive mute button on the front and ports for USB-C and XLR on the bottom alongside a 3.5mm headphone jack and a gain dial.

The build quality feels rock solid, with plenty of reassuringly weighty metal to be found. There’s a hefty foot to keep the mic grounded on your desk, but you can opt to screw the mic onto a boom arm if you prefer. The absurdly long USB-C cable (3.15m at our count) ensures you can trail it far from your PC.

That’s the hardware, but what about Razer’s notoriously finicky software? 32-bit float is only available through Razer’s app, so love it or loathe it, you’ve got to use it to get the full experience.

Synapse is full of controls to tweak the mic to your needs. You can adjust EQ filters and frequencies, change the vocal bass and ramp up the vocal exciter, mess with the stream mixer levels for input and output, enable a noise gate, reverb and AI noise suppression, and even dial in the RGB lighting if required.

To the average gamer, this is all a bit excessive unnecessary, even daunting. But if you’re a podcaster or musician – or just someone who wants as much control over their audio as possible – there’s plenty here to play with.

And that sums up the Seiren V3 Pro as a whole, really. The mic’s high-level features and equally lofty price tag mean it’s simply off the radar for most gamers. But if you know you need it and are willing to pay, you’ll find there’s a lot on offer here.

Razer Seiren V3 Pro review: Price & release date

• Available to buy now
• Priced at $249.99 / £249.99 / AU$429.95
• Optional “Main Character Bundle” including the Seiren V3 Pro and Razer’s Kraken Kitty V3 Pro headset

The Razer Seiren V3 Pro is available now from Razer’s website or from third-party retailers. It’s priced at $249.99 / £249.99 / AU$429.95.

That makes it pretty expensive for a gaming microphone, so you should think carefully about whether you need all of its extra features before pulling the trigger. If you spend most of your time on video calls with family or yelling profanities at enemies in Call of Duty, you could probably make do with something more affordable.

Razer sells an optional “Main Character Bundle” that includes the Razer Seiren V3 Pro and the Razer Kraken Kitty V3 Pro headset. That’s sold for $429.98 / £429.98 / AU$759.90.

Razer Seiren V3 Pro review: Specs

Should I buy the Razer Seiren V3 Pro?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Also consider

How I tested the Razer Seiren V3 Pro

• I created test recordings and also analyzed the mic’s performance during games and on audio calls with friends
• The microphone was tested on both my PC and my Mac
• I also spent time testing out the microphone’s software features in the Razer Synapse app

I spent a week testing the microphone on both my PC and my Mac. I created various audio recordings, used it during gaming sessions and put it through its voice-calling paces with friends.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

"I just can't watch it... I don't want them to ruin what's already been" is a direct quote from my 60-year-old mother when I told her that Netflix was set to re-adapt the Western family drama classic, Little House on the Prairie.

The tales of Laura Ingalls Wilder's real-life childhood have always held a distinct sense of importance in my household. As a child, my mum raced through the original book series — and encouraged me to do the same when I was old enough — and voraciously watched all nine seasons of the 1974 TV show when she was 12.

As with any classic story that's being readapted for the umpteenth time without much in the way of explanation as to why, there was always going to be a valid sense of trepidation around bringing the Ingalls family back to life. But as an initial skeptic, my mind has been changed after watching all eight episodes.

Sure, it resembles the Hallmark series When Calls the Heart a little too much for my liking (and has a lot of underlying issues surrounding how it looks, but more on that later). But watching Laura Ingalls (Alice Halsey) navigate moving to a new town reminded me how important it is to be brought back to the core things that matter in life.

We so often get lost in overhyped marketing, complicated lore, and visual effects that the core components of storytelling no longer have merit on their own. There's no big dramatic narrative in Little House on the Prairie, just family, feelings, and a strained sense of love.

TV is stripped as far back as the Ingalls' bare wooden house, and I think 2026 viewers will really benefit from the show's no-frills style of storytelling. That being said, there's a lot left to be desired in the bigger picture.

Little House on the Prairie still serves purpose in 2026 — even if nothing really happens

Interestingly, Little House on the Prairie neither feels like gripping, unforgettable television, nor does it feel like placid, put-on-in-the-background streaming. Your mind can go blissfully numb while watching, but subconsciously, you're being recalibrated.

It's not perfect, but empathy, understanding, and a childlike sense of wonder are bursting from the seams here. Seeing life through Laura's eyes automatically realigns us to what's important in life — respect, understanding and a willingness to grow. Halsey is a knockout in the role, and you want to strive to be a better person just by watching her open heart expand even further.

Frankly, our child actors are running rings around the adult cast in general. Together, they carry the weight and heart of the show and have more chemistry between them than any of the parental figures, including dad Charles (Luke Bracey) and mum Caroline (Crosby Fitzgerald).

Youngest Osage member Good Eagle (Wren Zhawenim Gotts) is another standout and a testament to the suitable level of sensitivity when it comes to navigating Native American history. This could have so easily backfired or been grossly overlooked, but instead feels evenly tempered.

You couldn't pay me $1000 to pick Little House on the Prairie episodes out of a Netflix lineup

I'm honestly sick of complaining about this, but the biggest drawback of Little House on the Prairie is undoubtedly its look. This means that episodes look exactly like any other period drama or Western content that Netflix has ever made. But who is surprised?

Once again, this takes me back to my ongoing argument that the streamer uses the same lighting, visual style, and effects to mold its content into one, homogenised, cookie-cutter preset. Why? I still haven't figured that out. But if it's to brand Netflix content into a signature style, the result falls flat.

Netflix likens the new series to pre-existing hits such as Virgin River and Ransom Canyon, and if you took away the bonnets, you'd have a difficult time knowing which show was which. I yearn for a sense of individual creativity when it comes to this aspect of the streamer's creations, and it looks like I won't be stopping anytime soon.

This is also the closest Netflix has come to straying into Hallmark territory in its original content. What I mean by this is that the drama is often so twee that you'd expect someone to randomly burst into song like it's a production of Oklahoma!

It can be grating, but if you look past the form, the content is meaningful. Season 2 has already been renewed, and unexpectedly, I'm looking forward to it.

Little House on the Prairie is available to stream now.

Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7 review

I’m not going to sugar-coat this. I’ve been a big fan of Sony’s soundbars, but its latest generation can feel like a step backward, and that includes the Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7.

I genuinely like some of the choices Sony has made: these new speakers are simple and elegant, becoming one with your room. They’ve also got a much smaller footprint, making placement (both in front of a TV and on a wall) much easier.

The included remote has fewer buttons, giving it a friendlier feel than the previous models. And Sony’s 360 Spatial Sound Mapping might be the easiest room correction feature ever baked into a soundbar.

You get an HDMI input for passthrough as well as the HDMI eARC connection to the TV, which is a soundbar feature that’s becoming harder to find; it comes with every cable you need, plus a wallmount kit; and you no longer need to spend $1,000 to get up-firing drivers (an essential ingredient for convincing Dolby Atmos sound). They’re included in the $869 / £699 / AU$1,199 Bravia Theater Bar 7.

And yet despite these benefits, the Bravia Theater Bar 7 (AKA model HT-A7100) nixes some of my favorite features from the previous generation.

There’s no built-in subwoofer, no on-screen setup menus, no alphanumeric front display, no hi-res Bluetooth codecs, no ability to connect wireless headphones, no Chromecast support, no Google Assistant/Amazon Alexa compatibility, and no playback via USB storage or UPnP (for streaming music from a networked server).

Of these omissions, the one I noticed most is the lack of a built-in subwoofer. While it’s true that too much low-frequency sound can be, at times, unwanted — for instance, if you’re a condo-dweller with thin walls between units — I believe that’s a good problem to have. You can always dial the bass down if the neighbors complain. But not having enough bass to start with? That’s tough to accept, especially at this price.

It’s not that the Bar 7 has no low-end; it does. It’s just that it doesn’t get low or loud enough to provide what I think of as a truly cinematic experience, even with the available bass adjustment set to ‘max’.

The obvious and easy way to overcome this limitation is to buy the Bar 7 with Sony’s Bravia Theater Sub 7 wireless subwoofer, a combo that only costs $230 / £100 more. If you buy the Theater Sub 7 after the fact, it will cost you $329 / £249 / AU$299. Sony sent me a Sub 7 to test, and it does the trick, restoring the weight and punch that the Bar 7 lacks.

Still, if bass isn’t your thing, the Theater Bar 7 delivers crystal-clear mids and highs, and can do so at volume levels that are shockingly loud. Dialogue is crisp and well separated from the rest of the soundtrack. Sony deserves top marks for this — poor dialogue clarity has become something of an epidemic in the last decade, and the Theater Bar 7 really helps.

With dedicated up-firing drivers for height channels and side-firing units designed to bounce rear channel sound to your listening position, the Theater Bar 7 should deliver a compelling, immersive experience, especially when playing Dolby Atmos or DTS:X content.

I don’t want to be too harsh in my analysis; the Theater Bar 7 definitely creates a soundstage that is taller, wider, and deeper than non-Dolby Atmos speakers, but given its price, I expected more.

I use a number of different test clips when evaluating spatial immersion, such as the Aston Martin chase scene from No Time To Die, the opening of Mad Max: Fury Road, and the first sandworm reveal from Dune.

The Theater Bar 7’s strengths (its clarity and power) created a strong sense of energy and immediacy — both vital elements for enjoying cinematic sound — but these couldn’t overcome the soundbar’s struggles to place key effects like bullet impacts or whispery voices accurately in my space.

Normally, when a soundbar underperforms my expectations, I reach for the settings menus, where you can usually tweak everything from bass and treble to the levels of individual channels.

Unfortunately, Sony doesn’t provide any way to tweak the Bar 7’s tuning. There’s no equalizer, no set of bass/treble adjustments, and no EQ presets. If you find the sound signature too emphatic when it comes to the high frequencies (as I definitely do), there’s not much you can do about it.

All of this adds up to a soundbar that finds itself in the anti-Goldilocks zone. The less expensive Sony Bravia Theater Bar 6 may not be expandable, but out of the box it can deliver more cinematic punch thanks to the included wireless sub.

By the same token, if you spend just a little more than the price of the Theater Bar 7, you can get the Bravia Theater Bar 8. With its built-in sub, you get all of the sleek, single-speaker appeal of the Bar 7, with genuinely good low-end bass (and lots of expansion options).

Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7 review: Price & release date

• Released April 2026 (US), May 2026 (UK), July 2026 (Australia)
• $869.99 / £699 / AU$1,199

As the name suggests, Sony has priced the Bravia Theater Bar 7 to sit between the existing Theater Bar 6 ($699.99) and the Theater Bar 8 ($999.99).

While the Theater Bar 6 comes with its own subwoofer, it can’t be expanded later with optional surround speakers. If you want that, you’ll have to buy the more expensive Bravia Theater System 6, which comes with a sub and surrounds.

Both the Bravia Theater Bar 7 and Theater Bar 8 can be expanded with subs and/or surrounds, however the Theater Bar 8 has a built-in sub, which may provide enough low-end for some people (especially for those in apartments or other small spaces).

Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7 review: Specs

Should I buy Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7 review: Also consider

How I tested Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7

• Used the Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7 as my main audio system for one week
• Tested in my basement media room
• Sources: Apple TV 4K, Nvidia Shield 2019, and streamed music from various apps

After setting up the Sony Bravia Theater Bar 7, I used it as my main audio system for watching movies, TV shows, and music in my basement media room. Over the course of a week, I played a variety of Dolby Atmos test clips from movies such as No Time To Die, Ford v Ferrari, Mad Max: Fury Road, Dune, and Unbroken. I took careful note of details like dialogue clarity, surround sound, and height channel immersion.

I streamed most content from an Apple TV 4K connected via an LG OLED TV, which fed the Theater Bar 7 from its ARC output. However, I also connected an Nvidia Shield TV to the soundbar’s HDMI input to test Dolby Atmos in Dolby TrueHD, and see what, if any video passthrough issues came up.

I evaluated the effect of Sony’s limited sound modes as well as its 360 Spatial Sound Mapping room correction feature.

For music, I used a variety of apps, including Apple Music, Tidal, Qobuz, and Amazon Music, listening to a wide range of genres and formats, like Dolby Atmos Music. Some were played from apps on the Apple TV 4K and Nvidia Shield, while others were streamed wirelessly using AirPlay and Bluetooth.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

After almost 30 hours sailing the high seas in Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced, one of the series’ best games has its hooks in me all over again, and I can’t wait to play another 30 (or more) and complete every single activity a second time.

Embarking on a journey to remake one of the series’ finest entries and to ensure the story of one of the best protagonists stays true to its original, Ubisoft has largely succeeded with Resynced. The experience feels fresh and modern, but also has me feeling the same pirate-y feels that only the original ever could.

It’s not without flaws, though. Some particular bits of Black Flag remain that inject some unwanted repetition; some of the cut content is a little disappointing, and there are some rogue bits of oddness in the new additions, as well as overall balances of features.

But those are not huge complaints, and only apparent with close comparison to the original. Zoom out just a tiny bit, and it’s easy to appreciate what Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced is: a fantastically fun version of a brilliant game.

One of the best to ever do it

Revisiting the story of Edward Kenway, chancer and dreamer turned privateer and then assassin — perhaps the only protagonist who can hold a candle to series legend Ezio Auditore da Firenze — Resynced has largely kept the core narrative, characters, and experience as it was with the original. Which is the right approach, as all were excellent.

Bouncing from Caribbean island to Caribbean island with Kenway and his crew on the Jackdaw is the backdrop for a time-enduring Assassin’s Creed story that still holds up today and makes for a great swashbuckling adventure. There’s a certain satisfying way that the game’s narrative weaves living in the golden age of piracy and core characters within that with its own lore of the enduring Assassin’s vs Templar battle.

Exploring mysterious, overgrown islands searching for hidden treasures or hunting down stashes from messages in a bottle, traversing the high seas in the Jackdaw ship, and taking on huge ships from the Spanish and British navies, and following Kenway’s desire for fortune and experiencing him tracking down age-old secrets is all still fantastically fun and ensures the core experience remains exquisite.

The most tangible and clearest way that this core experience has been elevated is naturally the visuals. I said that Assassin’s Creed Shadows was the best-looking game in the series when I reviewed it last year, but now there's a new kid on the block. Resynced is simply wondrous, verdant, gorgeous, and incredibly detailed in its presentation of the Caribbean, and my eyes can’t get enough of it.

Being a new version of Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag, it’s still an absolutely fantastic video game and is the same brilliant original under the surface. But “not all treasure is silver and gold, mate”: it’s not just the impressive visual upgrade which makes the remake a success, as there have been loads of improvements, and a few notable changes or omissions which really make up the meat and potatoes of the differences Resynced offers over its original.

A modern assassin

Each change itself isn’t huge, but when you factor them all in, there’s a huge collection of improvements that paint a bigger, better picture are aesthetic or functional changes, whereas others are much-needed modernizations that bring the game forward a decade and a half.

At their most basic, the changes to menus, controls, and the inventory screen are almost all welcome alterations and bring the game up to speed with the likes of Mirage and Shadows in the modern Assassin’s Creed pantheon. Everything is slick and smooth. The use of the newer Anvil engine and what that allows, such as dynamic weather, a day-night cycle, and so on, is also put to great effect.

In-game minigames like Kenway’s fleet have been overhauled too, and even with the removal of that fun and cartoon-y one in the original, these changes are largely slick and well done. There are also dedicated locations to interact with such things in Kenway’s manor and base of operations on Great Inagua, which has been expanded to include dedicated spots for upgrading the manor or interacting with the fleet.

The island’s upgrades — your Harbourmaster, general store, etc — all have more depth and levels of upgrade to invest in. It’s not as comprehensive as the base-building systems in Shadows, but it’s still very satisfying and drives you to plunder more to unlock the best for your island and ship.

Combat and parkour are both areas with substantial changes as well. Parkour doesn’t look or appear brand new — and once again not as transformative as the change that came after Black Flag with Unity, sadly — but it does genuinely feel smoother and more fluid than before; where there once would have been brief pauses or stutters mid-run, there now aren't.

Combat has definitely taken inspiration from Mirage and largely works as a new style for Kenway. It’s a shame to see some omissions, as Kenway sticks only to cutlass weapons (which sometimes feel a bit messy and button-mashy) but the heavy and light attacks and parries combine to make something more engaging than the parry and finish of the original games. Even so, after a while, it can drag a bit and get repetitive — especially when you’re having to board and take ship after ship after ship to farm upgrade material — and lacks the dynamism of the original at times.

Opening up more of the world has been a success in Resynced, at least. The ability to dive anywhere and swim everywhere in the ocean opens up more areas for discovery and exploration, and the simple addition of a crouch button means that you can explore enemy compounds and warehouse locations rather than just murder your way through them.

A balancing act

More substantial changes to content are more mixed, though, and in the face of so many great updates, upgrades, and enhancements, Resynced has to walk a tightrope of new additions and working with — or avoiding — the original source material.

I really enjoy the new endings that some of the best characters in the game get through new side quests, for example — and there are even new lines, scenes, and actions back at Kenway’s headquarters after those too, which is a nice touch.

The new officer recruitment missions are also good fun; as well as offering a tangible benefit for new ship features or weapons, these are some quite good contained missions. However, the pacing sometimes feels a little odd as you successfully recruit the new officer, midway through their story, and even when they seem unconvinced about joining you.

The most noticeable change to content, however, has been unsuccessful, in my view: entirely removing the modern-day sections is a shame and a missed opportunity. I find myself longing for these bits where you are deep-diving into Desmond’s DNA and scoping out the modern-day Templar offices; the change of pace worked with the original game and played its own robust part in the lore and narrative of the series. While removing tube content was largely welcomed by many and may have seemed like a good idea, in the context of playing the game, it feels a bit of a shame. With Resynced being positioned by Ubisoft as a remake that semi-reinterprets but also modernises and improves parts of the original, it’s a wasted opportunity not to give the modern-day segments the same treatment as other areas of the game and to instead jettison it entirely.

Some 2013-isms remain in this 2026 game, too. Notably, the AI and enemies are as dumb as ever. Being able to whistle and attract a whole heap of guards to a single stalking location and murder all of them in one big bloody pile is still too easy. And while the tailing missions have been changed to be less punishing, you can now just murder your target, loot the info, and scarper just like any other objective in the game.

Despite the drawbacks, though, as a long-time Assassin’s Creed fan, this remake is a blast, and I cannot wait to seek out every corner of the Caribbean and solve every mystery all over again. Those of us who yearn for more from the stories of the Assassins in every game will be extremely happy, I’d wager, with Resynced’s re-look at one of the best games in the series, with the extra story beats for some of the best characters being such examples.

Despite a few creases here and there that raise the eyebrow, this is a solid remake and a wonderful game, and could offer an interesting insight into Ubisoft’s future approach to its older games, which is very exciting.

Should you play Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced?

Play it if...

Don't play it if...

Accessibility features

Ubisoft has done another great job of offering a whole host of accessibility options in its latest flagship game. You can easily alter difficulty settings with a number of sliders affecting different factors such as stealth, naval combat, and activities, and a number of playstyle assists are also present, such as aim assist, parkour assists, camera settings, and even unlimited oxygen to make swimming in the game easier.

The dedicated accessibility menu is broken down into five categories of accessibility presets: Motor (affecting number of actions or precision and timing), Motion & Camera (to reduce motion and camera effects like screen shake), Colors (text colors and so on, but also setting for Red-Green color blindness and Blue-Yellow color blindness), Vision (for changes to the HUD, and subtitles etc), and Hearing (volume, speaker names, etc). All offer substantial options, and accessibility needs are very well served indeed.

How I reviewed Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced

I played nearly 30 hours (and counting) of Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced on a PS5 Pro teamed with an Acer X32QFS gaming monitor and SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni headset for this review. I used a standard DualSense Wireless controller, and I also spent many hours playing the game on my PlayStation Portal.

I tested the game thoroughly in all its graphics modes and found that the balanced mode (offering high graphical fidelity and a targeted 40 frames per second) was by far the most enjoyable and my personal preference.

Having followed the Assassin’s Creed series for years and years, and playing a whole heap of them straight for a year a short while ago, I am very familiar with the games and what makes a good one, a great one, and a less good one, so I am well placed to cast an opinion over Resynced.

First reviewed July 2026

Bitdefender is a popular name in the online security market, primarily known for its robust antivirus solution. However, it also offers an all-around digital identity protection service called Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection.

If you’re an individual (especially a beginner) looking for an easy-to-use, affordable platform, Bitdefender could be the one for you. It helps you actively monitor your online identity, check for known breaches, and manage your financial accounts.

In this article, we will drill down into the various features of Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection, compare it with other products on the market, and examine its user experience. Read on to find out whether Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection is for you.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection and Bitdefender Digital Identity Protection are two separate products. This review will examine Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection. For our review of Bitdefender Digital Identity Protection, please click here.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection: Plans and pricing

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection offers two plans: Standard and Premium. The Standard plan costs $69.99 for a yearly subscription, which boils down to $5.83 per month, making it one of the cheapest identity theft protection solutions on the market. This is also cheaper than Norton LifeLock's entry-level plan, which costs $10.46 per month.

With this plan, you get basic features like breach monitoring, credit reports and score, lost wallet protection, and identity theft insurance up to $1 million, along with one-bureau credit reports and monitoring.

The Premium plan costs $99.99 ($8.33/month). In addition to everything in the Standard plan, you get sex offender registry monitoring, bank, credit card, and investment account monitoring, and an additional $50,000 in ransomware protection and social engineering scams. Along with this, the plan also offers three-bureau credit record monitoring.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection: Features

Bitdefender offers a bundled collection of features, ideal for anyone looking for all-around identity monitoring and protection. For starters, there’s a smart SSN tracker, which alerts you if an unfamiliar name or address is associated with your Social Security number.

Then there’s dark web monitoring, which scours thousands of websites, black market chat rooms, and other sources to alert you to any sale of your personal information. You can also access your credit reports and scores from all three credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion.

There’s also a pretty handy credit score simulator, which helps you plan your finances and see how your future financial decisions may impact your credit score. You are also promptly notified if your personal details are used to apply for new credit, utility payments, or loans.

Much like other platforms, even if you’re unlucky and end up getting your identity compromised, Bitdefender offers restoration services from certified protection experts around the clock. These experts help you with paperwork and legal procedures while actively assisting you through the challenging process of identity restoration.

With Bitdefender, you also get up to $2 million in identity theft insurance and an additional $25,000 for ransomware resolution and reimbursement in case you end up losing money due to ransomware attacks during your Bitdefender subscription.

Similarly, there’s a $25,000 social engineering resolution and reimbursement provision, which comes in handy if you fall prey to social engineering scams like phishing and end up incurring financial losses.

The Bitdefender website also lists credit freeze as one of its features. However, I found this to be a bit misleading, since Bitdefender only offers expert assistance with credit freezes. To actually place a credit freeze, you will have to contact the various agencies yourself. In comparison, platforms like Norton LifeLock allow you to instantly freeze your credit from the dashboard itself with a simple toggle button.

Bitdefender also offers a separate Digital Identity Protection product that gives you a 360-degree view of all your personal data. Much like its identity theft protection platform, digital identity protection also scans the public web and dark web for your personal data and sends you instant alerts if it finds any.

Besides this, there are simple one-click actions that help you close gaps in your digital footprint. You also get a graphic digital identity protection score, which tells you how well you are protected against common cybersecurity and identity theft threats.

We would have liked to see these features in the primary identity theft protection suite as well. But sadly, these essential features are missing. If you need them, you’ll have to get both products, but that would increase your total monthly cost to $9.16. Sure, that’s still pretty affordable, but managing two different subscriptions can be inconvenient in practice.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection: Interface and in use

In addition to being affordable, it’s nice that Bitdefender is also easy to set up and use. Once you have logged into your account, you will see a sleek and intuitive dashboard with all features suites listed on the left-hand side panel. You need to click on Identity Theft Protection to access all its functions.

Inside that, you'll find options such as Identity Vault, Breach IQ, Alerts, Credits, and Help listed on the top panel. Simply click on any of these options to access your data.

For instance, if you click on Credits, you will be able to see your credit score in the center of your dashboard, along with detailed credit summaries including open accounts, credit utilized, and hard inquiries made.

However, the in-use experience is pretty smooth. There are hardly any lags or complicated hidden menus, making the platform very beginner-friendly.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection: The competition

Identity Theft Protection’s biggest advantage is its affordable pricing, with plans starting at just $69.99 per year. Even if you’re looking for three-bureau data credit monitoring, you effectively pay only $8.33/month with its annual plan, compared to IdentityForce's $34.90/month or Norton LifeLock's $29.17/month.

That said, I found Bitdefender a bit barebones when it comes to its feature set. Sure, it has everything you need to protect your identity, but it does lack certain advanced features offered by competitors. For instance, Norton LifeLock comes with an automatic data broker removal service, where the platform scans top data brokers and submits periodic opt-out requests so your data is not shared or sold on third-party websites.

Also, while Bitdefender’s identity insurance coverage of $2 million is certainly nothing to sniff at, Norton LifeLock gives you up to $3 million whereas Aura up to $5 million.

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection: Final verdict

Bitdefender Identity Theft Protection is an ideal choice if you're an individual looking for basic identity protection services. The platform offers everything from social media monitoring, dark web monitoring, and identity breach alerts to credit monitoring and three-bureau credit reports. You also get identity theft protection of up to $1 million with the higher-end plan.

That said, if you're looking for identity theft protection for families, Bitdefender might not be the perfect pick, since it only offers individual plans. In that case, you'll have to look at other alternatives such as Aura or Norton LifeLock. Bitdefender also lacks certain advanced features, such as the ability to manage credit freezes from the dashboard and data broker removal services.

We've listed the best free antivirus.

You might want to be sitting down for this. The Asus ProArt PA32KCX clocks in at just under $8,800. Undoubtedly, this 32-inch monitor is a technical tour de force. But $8,800? Really?

The highlights among a long list of impressive specifications that go at least some way to justifying that staggering sticker price are 8K native resolution, an IPS panel with 4,032 dimming zones, 1,200 nits of peak HDR brightness, a motorised colorimeter for automated calibration and utterly comprehensive connectivity.

No question, then, this is one of the most highly specified displays on the market today. By some metrics, for instance, it positively blows away the likes of the Apple Pro Display XDR, which offers a mere 6K resolution and 576 dimming zones.

Speaking of 6K monitors, some models make for a rather uncomfortable comparison with the Asus ProArt PA32KCX. Take Asus's own ProArt PA32QCV. That's a 6K monitor that can be had for literally one eighth the price of this 8K monster. Can the jump from 6K to 8K really be worth that much?

And, more generally, how can this megabucks monitor justify itself against the best business monitors we've tested, all of which are far cheaper? Time to find out.

Asus ProArt PA32KCX: Design and features

• Utterly comprehensive connectivity
• Automated calibration
• Underwhelming build quality

When you're charging the thick end of $10,000 for a PC monitor, that does rather raise expectations. And the Asus ProArt PA32KCX doesn't meet them in every regard.

The main problem is distinctly underwhelming build quality. Compared to any given mainstream monitor, the plastic chassis is perfectly functional. But at this price point, it feels thoroughly low rent.

The I/O panel on the rear looks particularly cheap for such an expensive display and the usual plastic creaks and groans as you adjust the height, tilt or swivel of the display really stand out. Again, all of this is normal for, say, a $500 monitor, or even a $1,000 panel. But at $8,800, you might expect better.

No question, the Asus ProArt PA32KCX isn't even in the same galactic super cluster for build and engineering as Apple's Pro Display XDR and its lush all-alloy materials. That said, in terms of features, the ProArt has any Apple display comprehensively beaten.

Connectivity is a particular strong point with HDMI, DisplayPort, USB-C, Thunderbolt and more all included. There's also a KVM switch, display daisy chaining support and a USB hub. So, pretty much every eventuality is covered.

The motorised colorimeter is pretty nifty, too. It swings out from the bottom left of the display, allowing the ProArt PA32KCX to self-calibrate any among the long list of colour spaces it supports. What's more, that calibration can be scheduled to take place automatically at regular intervals.

You also get proper Mac support including brightness controls directly in MacOS when enabling HDR. In short, this is a very highly specced monitor, it's just not a beautifully engineered monitor.

Asus ProArt PA32KCX: Performance

• Incredible pixel density
• Local dimming is hit and miss
• Noticeable fan noise

For a lot of applications, 8K native resolution is overkill. Just to clarify, that's 7,680 by 4,320, over 33 million pixels or four full 4K grids crammed into this 32-inch display. The pixel density works out to a staggering 275 DPI. That's smartphone territory and double the density of a 32-inch 4K monitor.

In many ways, the most apt comparison is with 6K 32-inch displays, which come in a little over 200 DPI. In terms of aspects like text rendering, the benefit of 8K over 6K in daily use is marginal.

Likewise, you're not really getting any extra usable screen space. You'll likely use similar scaling settings whether you go for 6K or 8K. And, you can get 6K monitors for as little as around $1,000. So, where does the benefit of 8K come in?

That'll be professional video and image editing. Broadly, there are two upsides. For video, the 8K resolution allows you to view and edit content in full 4K while leaving oodles of space for toolbars, timelines and the rest. 4K video pixel-for-pixel at full resolution occupies just a quarter of the screen. Remarkable.

As for image editing, well, high resolution images look absolutely stupendous on this monitor. The detail really is breathtaking. There's a practical benefit, too, in the sense of more easily assessing image detail, less need for zooming in and so on. Frankly, once you've edited images on this thing, a 4K monitor feels a bit clunky.

The other really significant feature is the local dimming. This is an LCD panel with full-array backlighting rather than an OLED panel. Asus has configured it with 4,032 zones, which is very high by the standards of this type of mini-LED backlight. But it still isn't anything like per-pixel lighting.

The results are fairly mixed. I've certainly seen worse local dimming implementations. But you can still detect plenty of evidence of the backlight at work. There are lots of tell tale signs, even flaws, like the mouse pointer going dim over dark backgrounds, visible brightness gradients across the screen. In the right circumstances you can even see lighting zones popping on and off.

All of this is somewhat inevitable with mini-LED backlight tech. But it has to be said that Apple's backlight algorithms are definitely better. It's very notable when, for instance, you have a MacBook Pro with similar backlight technology next to this display, just how much more consistent and refined its backlight algorithm is.

Admittedly, the backlight mostly works really well for HDR video. This panel has some serious pop and with over 4,000 dimming zones and up to 1,200 nits of peak brightness, much of the time there's enough precision to do real justice to HDR content.

But, day-to-day, the shortcomings are obvious enough that you may actually want to turn local dimming off, at which point you are looking at an awfully expensive IPS panel with very limited contrast compared to an OLED panel.

Of course, it's a really lovely IPS monitor, with full 10-bit-per-channel and all that good stuff. But, wow, is it pricey. And, of course, it only runs at 60 Hz, which is another example of the ways in which you have to compromise to have that 8K resolution. As is the, on occasion, very noticeable and quite distracting noise from the cooling fans.

Asus ProArt PA32KCX: Final verdict

The Asus ProArt PA32KCX has some pretty obvious shortcomings. The build quality is ordinary and its local dimming algorithm could do with some work. For $8,800, those issues are pretty hard to stomach. Indeed, by several metrics including lighting control, speed, viewing angles and more, the latest 4K 32-inch OLED monitors comprehensively wallop this IPS monitor and its mini-LED backlight.

But here's the thing. If you want 8K, you simply can't have that with OLED technology. Indeed, there are very few options, period. And there are undoubtedly benefits to 8K in a content creation context. Once you've seen high resolution images on this panel, going back to 4K really does feel like a major step backwards.

So, the value proposition offered by the Asus ProArt PA32KCX won't make sense for most users, even most creative professionals. That's especially true when even the likes of Asus itself, not known for its sharp pricing, will do you a similarly sized 6K monitor for about an eighth the price.

Admittedly, this monitor is incredibly well specified when it comes to connectivity. Some creative professionals will also really appreciate features like automated self calibration. And if you have the kind of very particular workflows that will benefit from 8K specifically, well, you may just be able to make the numbers add up. But for everyone else, a 6K monitor for way less money such as Asus's own ProArt PA32QCV model almost certainly makes more sense.

For more ultra-high-resolution displays, we've reviewed the best 5K and 8K monitors.

Marshall Acton IV review

Marshall has refreshed its mid-sized home speaker, which promises enhanced bass, dynamic loudness tech and improved tweeters, among other things. Yes, the Marshall Acton IV looks to be quite the improvement over its predecessor, and after testing it for myself, I have to say, it certainly makes good on its promises.

Let’s start by taking a look at the tech specs. The Acton IV features a single 60W woofer alongside two 25W tweeters, helping it to produce powerful and energetic audio. It also has a frequency response of 37Hz-38kHz, meaning it can extend down seriously deep for such a compact speaker — and you can really feel the bass… more on that later.

One standout difference between the Acton IV and its predecessor is its inclusion of RCA connectivity. This makes it a great option for hooking it up to turntables, for instance, and it’s easy to switch between Bluetooth and RCA mode with the built-in source controls. 3.5mm connectivity is back too, if you want to access lossless audio — something I always look out for when testing the best Bluetooth speakers.

Although these connectivity options are all very welcome, it would have been great to see Wi-Fi playback, given that this is a speaker most people will likely keep at home. Streaming using your home's Wi-Fi network is ideal for such speakers because it provides an even more stable, higher-resoltuion quality than Bluetooth can offer, and means that notification sounds on your source device don’t play through your speaker. Still, there is LDAC this time out — something that Marshall has been keen to integrate into its consumer audio products recently, as we saw with the Marshall Milton ANC. This opens up higher-res wireless playback over Bluetooth (provided you've got a source device that supports it), and it works great if you’re streaming on platforms such as Tidal, for instance.

Despite the omission of Wi-Fi, the Acton IV does include Auracast, enabling you to create a multi-room setup with other products from the brand, such as the Marshall Heston 120 soundbar and Marshall Stanmore IV. Some older models, like the Marshall Acton III can also join the Auracast multi-room setup with the Marshall Heddon streaming hub.

I was also interested to find that the Acton IV connects to the newer ‘Marshall’ app, which has so far been restricted to the brand’s TV audio gear. It feels more intuitive and detailed than the standard app, and features a five-band equalizer, which enables you to set three presets of your liking. You can also customize the speaker’s M button to cycle between these. The app also enables you to cycle between different sources, optimize audio with a placement compensation tool, set a standby timer, and adjust the brightness of the speaker’s LED indicators. Good stuff.

One thing that may dissuade some from picking up the Acton IV is that it lacks baked-in voice assistant support. This means that it can’t act like a smart home speaker in the way that a Sonos model would, say.

But, by now, you must be wondering: just how good does the Marshall Acton IV sound? Well it’s good news, because it sounds pretty great. Something that instantly struck me, is that the speaker has a very exciting sound signature, with attention-grabbing and relatively prominent bass, as well as energetic, forward-sounding treble.

This was great for livelier genres like dance tracks. For instance, in Get It On by Jansons, higher-pitched drums came through with serious bite, hitting with speed and precision. Meanwhile, pumping bass came through with great impact without ever overshadowing vocal chops and synths in the mid-range. Even with some deeper house tracks, I was truly wowed by the Acton IV’s bass extension. It can reach down into deep dark depths with great confidence, and even the sub-bass was full-sounding and seismic.

Luckily, the Acton IV continued to perform well with more laid-back tracks. In Ned Doheny’s Sing To Me, soulful vocals were nicely weighted, and came through with solid clarity. They weren’t separated to the point that they occupied a unique pocket in the mix, although when I bumped things up in the mid-range, they had a little more space to express themselves. Bass definitely remained fairly weighty, and although this gave the tune a pleasantly funky edge, some may prefer to mess around with different EQ settings.

It’s also worth noting that the Acton IV has a stereo sound configuration, rather than the basic mono that a lot of Bluetooth speakers use. While it doesn’t produce the most amazing stereo imaging I’ve ever experienced, this is understandable for a smaller-sized speaker. In All Along the Watchtower by Jimi Hendrix, vocals were well-defined in the left channel, and percussion expanded well beyond the Acton IV’s limited confines. With LDAC on, I also appreciated the speakers attention to detail, with small vocal quirks and subtle percussive elements illuminated to impressive effect.

My main critique of the Acton IV’s audio output relates to its control at higher volumes. Despite including the dynamic loudness tech seen on the Marshall Kilburn III, for instance, I found that the speaker could sound a tad harsh at high volumes. At 90% and above, compression was more noticeable, with highs turning slightly shrill and bass lacking the control I’d experienced at mid-volumes. It's pretty standard for speakers to compress towards maximum loudness, though, and if you’re looking for meatier sound, the mightier Stanmore IV is available.

Moving on to an area where Marshall speakers always excel now: design. The Acton IV looks very similar to its predecessor, but that’s no bad thing. It has enticing faux leather casing, a neat speaker grille, and a gorgeous golden control panel. Its amp-inspired aesthetic makes it feel like just as much of a statement piece as it is a great-sounding speaker.

The buttons and control knobs are also highly responsive and satisfying to use, and there are even onboard EQ controls for the bass and treble if you want to make some changes on the fly.

But it’s time to address the most crucial question of all: is the Marshall Acton IV worth the money? Let’s start by looking at its price. The Acton IV comes in at $299.99 / £259.99 / AU$499. That’s by no means cheap, and puts the speaker in competition with the Wi-Fi equipped Sonos Play and home speakers like the JBL Authentics 200.

I’d argue that the Acton IV certainly sounds up to scratch for this money. It offers mighty yet refined bass, clean and detailed mids, and vivid highs. It's also decently powerful, and would make a great fit for a small or medium-sized space. However, the lack of Wi-Fi playback may prove to be a deal-breaker for some — it’s the connectivity method many will favor for home speaker use, and again offers better quality and seamlessness than Bluetooth.

Still, its brilliant design, solid set of features and, of course, impressive audio capabilities, means this is still a great home speaker. All in all, I’d recommend the Acton IV if you want a powerful and stylish speaker, even if you’re a little limited on space. If you want something more portable, the Marshall Kilburn III is a great alternative, though, coming with a handle, 50-hour battery life, and waterproofing at a very similar cost.

Marshall Acton IV review: price & release date

• $299.99 / £259.99 / AU$499
• First released July 2026

The Marshall Acton IV was released in July 2026, just short of four years after its predecessor came to market. It launched alongside the Marshall Stanmore IV, which is essentially just a larger variant of the Acton. It comes in at $299.99 / £259.99 / AU$499, representing a slight price bump in the US, but continuity in the UK, if we’re comparing it against the Acton III.

Marshall Acton IV review: specs

Should I buy the Marshall Acton IV?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Marshall Acton IV review: also consider

How I tested the Marshall Acton IV

• Tested across multiple days
• Used at our dedicated music testing space at Future Labs
• Mainly streamed music over Tidal

I spent days testing the Marshall Acton IV, listening to hours worth of music, testing its various features, and exhausting every option available in its companion app.

For the most part, I tested the Acton IV in our dedicated music testing room at Future Labs, where I mainly streamed tunes via Tidal on my Xiaomi 17. I started by playing tracks in our TechRadar reference playlist — which features songs from a wide variety of genres — but I also bumped a bunch of tunes from my personal library.

More generally, I’ve spent years testing audio gear here at TechRadar. I’ve reviewed all sorts of tech, from premium wireless headphones like the Sony 1000X The Collexion through to Dolby Atmos soundbars such as the JBL Bar 1300MK2. I’ve also tested more than 50 Bluetooth speakers, including lots of Marshall models, such as the Marshall Middleton II and Kilburn III.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: July 2026

Geekom GeekBook M16: 30-second review

Geekom's GeekBook M16 is a business laptop designed for - as the company states, "enterprise pro, a developer, or an AI enthusiast." You can add general content creators (but not creative professionals) into that mix.

I mostly agree with that, although it's not the AI machine it could've been due to the limitations of the Core Ultra 9 chip it's using.

It's an interesting budget machine in the space. A nicely built, machined chassis that handles general computing tasks well.

Given the $899 price point, there is only one USB4 port, the webcam is only 2MP, and the keyboard and touchpad aren’t the best quality.

That said, the underlying platform is solid, even if you can’t expand the memory, and with a USB 4.0 port, it can be attached to a Dock if you need more ports or more than two displays.

Geekom includes a basic USB-C Dock in the box, so those who need a wired LAN port won’t need a full Dock or adapter.

This isn’t the best business laptop I’ve tested, but it's far from the worst, and demonstrates that you can get relatively recent platforms in these form factors if you are prepared to compromise on some aspects.

Geekom GeekBook M16: Price and availability

• How much does it cost? From $899
• When is it out? Available now in the USA
• Where can you get it? Direct from Geekom or online retailers

The Geekom GeekBook M16 can be bought directly from Geekom or via online retailers like Amazon.com and Best Buy. Prices start at $899.

TechRadar Pro readers can save an extra 8% when purchasing direct from Geekom or on Amazon when using the code TRGBM168.

The laptop pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.

• Value: 4 / 5

Geekom GeekBook M16: Specs

Geekom GeekBook M16: Design

• Magnesium-aluminium chassis
• Diverges from the retail model
• Ports aren't labelled

The M16 is essentially the same machine as the GeekBook X16 Pro, but it comes with only a single SKU that offers less memory and storage. There may be some minor cosmetic differences, like the M16 doesn’t have a MicroSD card slot, but the core components are common, I suspect.

Geekom has machined the GeekBook M16 from a single piece of magnesium alloy, and that heritage shows in the finish.

The Titanium Gray coating feels warm rather than cold to the touch, and there is no flex anywhere across the lid or the keyboard deck. While not the highest quality finish, it doesn’t feel cheap either.

Where the design pitch starts to wobble is the weight. The review unit weighs a whopping 1.73kg on the scales, nearly half a kilogram heavier than the X16 Pro, and that difference is obvious the moment you lift it one-handed. A laptop sold on featherweight portability should not feel like this in the hand.

This weight discrepancy between this and the X16 Pro, I’m confident, is down to the battery that Geekom used in the review hardware, since very little else has changed.

Port selection is generous for something this slim, with two USB-C connections, two USB-A, a full-size HDMI, and a headphone jack.

The frustration is that none of them is labelled with a speed. One USB-C runs at USB4 and the other only at USB 3.2, and there is no visual way to tell which is which, short of plugging something in and checking. For a laptop aimed at people who might use a fast external drive or a high-bandwidth dock, that is a genuine oversight from Geekom, and worth calling out plainly rather than glossing over.

The keyboard includes a full number pad, which is a genuine convenience on a 16-inch chassis and something plenty of rivals leave out. Typing feel is a little on the spongy side rather than crisp, so anyone coming from a firmer keyboard may need a short adjustment period.

The keyboard is workable, but I’m less convinced by the trackpad. It does the job for general navigation and gestures, but it does not feel as refined as the rest of the machine, and precision clicking is not its strong suit.

Those buying a 16-inch laptop clearly want a good display, and the IPS panel on this machine offers 2.5K resolution, a 16:10 aspect ratio, and a 120Hz refresh rate. That extra vertical space suits spreadsheets, documents and code far better than a standard 16:9 screen, and scrolling feels smooth thanks to the higher refresh rate.

Geekom quotes 100 per cent sRGB coverage, which is close enough for everyday creative work without needing a color-calibrated reference screen.

Since many business machines get small upgrades during their working life, I like to take the backs off laptops to see what is possible on that front.

Removing the underside requires removing nine screws with a T5 screwdriver, but once they’re out, it's relatively easy to detach. Inside, the battery can be replaced, and there is an unoccupied M.2 2230 slot.

While the 2230 drive is an easy upgrade, the primary slot is 2280, so I’d probably recommend cloning the supplied drive to a larger one using that slot first.

The capacities of M.2 2230 aren’t great right now.

Also, these days, all memory comes pre-soldered, so the RAM in this system is the maximum it will ever have, even if the processors used on it can address 96GB.

Overall, this is one of those designs that is somewhat bland and lacks any sort of signature feature, but for many customers, that’s exactly what they want.

• Design: 3.5 / 5

Geekom GeekBook M16: Hardware

• Intel Core Ultra 9 185H
• Modest AI capability
• Wasted PCIe lanes

The Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is the flagship chip from Intel's first Core Ultra family, known internally as Meteor Lake. It packs sixteen cores across three types: six performance cores, eight efficiency cores and two low-power efficiency cores, giving it real flexibility between raw speed and battery-sensitive multitasking.

Turbo clocks reach 5.1 GHz, and in daily use, that translates into a chip that handles heavy browser sessions, office work, and moderate creative tasks without complaint. Cinebench multicore scores sit comfortably above a thousand points, proof that the hybrid layout genuinely pays off rather than existing purely as a marketing slide.

Graphics duties fall to an integrated Arc GPU built from eight Xe cores, clocked up to 2.35GHz. This was the point where Meteor Lake felt like a proper step forward. Games at modest settings run smoothly, video timelines scrub without stutter, and general graphical work feels far removed from the older Iris chips it replaced. It will never trouble a discrete GPU, but for a laptop chip doing double duty as a workstation and a light gaming machine, it earns its keep.

Then there is the NPU, which Intel calls AI Boost on this silicon. On its own, the dedicated neural engine delivers around 11 TOPS. Add contributions from the CPU and GPU, and Intel quotes a platform total of 35 TOPS. That was a genuinely new capability when Meteor Lake launched, letting local AI tasks like background blur, transcription and some generative features run without leaning on the cloud.

The trouble is that time moves fast in Silicon. Microsoft set the bar for its Copilot Plus program at 40 TOPS from the NPU alone, and the 185H simply does not reach it.

Intel's 200 series chips, split between Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake depending on the segment, push NPU performance well past 40 TOPS on the Lunar Lake side. The newer 300 series, built on Panther Lake, goes further still, pairing a stronger NPU with a genuine jump in graphics performance too.

So is the 185H still worth having? Yes, with a clear head about what it is.

It remains a strong general-purpose chip for everyday work, and its Arc graphics still beat plenty of rivals from its own generation. What it is not is a true Copilot Plus chip, and anyone chasing the latest on device AI features should look at the newer series instead. Judged simply as a capable, well-rounded laptop processor for typical work, there is still very little to complain about here. It has aged into a dependable middle child rather than a has-been, useful for exactly the sort of laptop you might have in front of you now.

Where this design isn’t well-served is that the Core Ultra 9 supports 28 PCI lanes (PCI 5.0 and 4.0), and the ports provided use hardly any of them. Given how much unused PCIe bandwidth was available, why is only one USB-C port USB4 spec? This chipset does support Thunderbolt, and if this were a Mini PC at this price point, I’d be expecting that, but only one USB4 port is poor considering the small army of unused PCIe lanes.

When I look at the number of mini PCs and laptops using this Meteor Lake silicon, I’m inclined to conclude that Intel made far too many of these wafers and now has unused bins clogging the channel they use to move 200- and 300-series chips.

If that’s an accurate analysis, then we’re likely to see more machines like the M16, where Intel attempts to off-load them before they’re four generations back.

• Hardware: 3.5 / 5

Geekom GeekBook M16: Performance