The fabulous Fujifilm X100VI is a major success story, being the most preordered camera in history, with a waiting list that stretched well beyond its first 12-months. Not bad for a fixed-lens premium compact camera that costs more than the latest flagship iPhone.

It was arguably the catalyst for a compact camera revival that saw a 35% surge in sales in 2025, the biggest yearly uptick in camera shipments since the dawn of smartphones, and the launch of the Panasonic Lumix L10, which was a surprise unveil at the 25th anniversary of Lumix event in May this year.

Just to be clear, Panasonic has long had skin in this premium compact camera game too. The new L10 is very much a spiritual successor to 2018's popular Lumix LX100 II. It's no mere refresh, mind you, but very much a camera for 2026, fitted with Panasonic's latest sensor, processor and autofocus.

The Panasonic Lumix L10 and Fujifilm X100VI serve the same market; premium compact cameras with retro design and high-end features, but both take a different swing at it. So which of the two is best for you? Let's take a run through the key features.

1. The lens

• Lumix L10: 24-75mm (equivalent) f/1.7 to f/2.8 with OIS
• X100VI: 35mm (equivalent) f/2.0, built-in ND filter

A major difference is the built-in lens that each camera uses. The X100VI has a fixed 35mm lens with a maximum f/2 aperture, while the Lumix L10 has a 24-75mm zoom lens with a maximum f/1.7 aperture at 24mm, which drops to f/2.8 at 75mm.

Zoom versatility wins for most photographers — the Lumix L10 is equally at home for portraiture and macro photography as it is, like the X100VI, for travel and everyday photography. During my lengthy review period with the Lumix L10, I was regularly drawn to its 75mm telephoto setting, and overall, I picture myself using the L10 more often than the X100VI.

The X100VI, to be fair, has twice the number of pixels and a handy digital crop mode. Punch in 1.4x to an effective 50mm focal length, and the resolution is still 20MP, matching the L10. The 2x digital crop mode offers the equivalent 70mm focal length at 10MP. The Lumix L10 also has digital crop settings, mind you.

A lot can also be said, however, for sticking with a single focal length, like what the X100VI offers. Not only are prime lenses typically sharper — the prime lens quality versus zoom lens versatility choice — but they can help users develop a style and an instinctive way of seeing, which is especially helpful for the likes of quick-fire street and reportage photography. If you typically stick with a single focal length, why go for a zoom?

One final note relayed to the lens is the X100VI's built-in ND filter, which is rated up to 4-stops, whereas the L10 doesn't have one. It's an especially handy feature for using the maximum aperture in bright sunlight and for video recording. For the Lumix model, you'll need a separate ND filter (43mm thread size).

2. Sensor

• Lumix L10: 26.5MP Micro Four Thirds (20.4MP effective)
• X100VI: 40.2MP APS-C with 5-axis stabilization up to 6EV

If it's photo quality you're after, there is seemingly little contest between the two cameras; the X100VI has a larger APS-C sensor with significantly more pixels.

Photo quality isn't, however, purely down to sensor size and pixels. For one, the pixels in the Lumix L10 are in fact 55% bigger than those in the X100VI, despite its smaller sensor — that's a 4.74µm pixel pitch to 3.04µm. Bigger pixels do in theory gather more light, which better supports low light photography.

Depth of field is also a consideration — a larger sensor gives you greater control assuming you're wanting to achieve a shallow depth of field and subject separation. Set the Lumix L10 to 35mm and its maximum aperture is f/2.3 to the X100VI's f/2 and the Lumix sensor is smaller — you can get blurrier backgrounds with the X100VI. However, the L10 can shoot at the 75mm focal length and f/2.8, at which setting you can get nice-looking portraits.

There's another major difference between the two sensors; the X100VI's is stabilized (in-body image stabilization aka IBIS), while the Lumix L10's is not. The X100VI is in greater need of enhanced stabilization because it has more pixels, which means softness in detail would typically be more obvious when shooting handheld. However, IBIS also enables slower shutter speeds for more creative shooting effects and working in low light.

The perceived strengths of each camera are countered by weaknesses, so there's really not a clear winner in the sensor department.

Another major consideration regarding image quality is the lens, which I've covered above, especially since both cameras have a built-in lens rather than being interchangeable lens cameras.

3. Handling

• Lumix L10: 504g, 127.1 x 73.9 x 66.9mm (W x H x D), not weather resistant, battery life up to 420 shots, hotshoe, delayed start up
• X100VI: 521g, 128.0 x 74.8 x 55.3mm (W x H x D), weather-resistant, battery life 450 shots (OVF) or 310 shots (EVF), hotshoe, quick start up

Held side by side, the cameras are essentially the same size and weight, meaning there's no reason to pick one over the other in this regard. Both are majorly attractive cameras too, but it's the X100VI that has the edge for build quality, retro goodness, plus it's weather-resistant.

Control layouts vary and, honestly, again, it's hard to recommend one over the other just from having a feel for each one. I like the Lumix L10 lens and its external controls, while I appreciate the X100VI's shutter speed /ISO dial and AF joystick.

Battery life is pretty similar between the two cameras, and above the typical average, depending on which mode you use the X100VI in. You see, the X100VI has a hybrid viewfinder (more on this, next), and a better battery life when using its optical viewfinder. Personally, I'm a fan of the X100VI's OVF, but most X100VI users I know typically stick with the electronic viewfinder (EVF), which results in lower battery life — much lower compared to the L10's.

Both cameras feature a fully functional hotshoe, making them compatible with accessories such as an external flash. The X100VI goes one step further and offers a built-in flash, but it's a modest LED type.

If you're looking for a quick draw camera, the X100VI is the better bet. From turning the camera on and it being ready to shoot, you're looking at somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 second, whereas the L10 is easily double that because of its collapsible lens, which takes time to extend on powering up. This very fact makes the X100VI a more suitable street photography camera if you need to be ready to shoot at any given time.

4. Viewfinder and displays

• Lumix L10: 2.36m-dot 0.39-inch OLED EVF with 0.74x mag, and a 3-inch 1.84m-dot vari-angle touchscreen
• X100VI: Hybrid viewfinder; OVF or 3.69m-dot 0.5-inch EVF with 0.66x mag, and a 3-inch 1.62m-dot tilting touchscreen

Both cameras pack a viewfinder and rear display, making them easy to use in practically any situation, but there are distinct differences between the two.

The Lumix L10 arguably has the better LCD — it's a vari-angle type with greater pixel density, whereas the X100VI's is a tilt-only touchscreen. Which display type is better for you depends on what you typically photograph; a tilt-only display can be better for waist-level shooting and discreet street photography, whereas the L10's vari-angle screen flips out to the side and can be rotated for selfies.

The X100VI has a unique hybrid viewfinder that offers both optical and electronic displays. I'm a fan of the optical display — it shows outside the frame of your final picture, which can be truly helpful for timing shots, say if you're waiting for the action to literally enter the frame. It's less helpful than an EVF if you simply want to know how your picture is going to turn out.

I marginally prefer the quality of the X100VI's EVF to the L10's; however, it's not enough reason to pick the Fujifilm model over the Lumix.

5. Video and autofocus

• Lumix L10: 5.6K 60p 10-bit, 5.2K 30p open gate, slow motion recording up to 240fps
• X100VI: 6.2K 30p 10-bit/ 4K 60p, slow motion recording up to 240fps

Both cameras are photo-centric by design, but they can both shoot highly detailed and attractive video, too.

The X100VI has the edge for resolution, being able to shoot 6.2K video at 30fps in 10-bit color depth. However, the Lumix L10 can shoot 5.6K video up to 60fps (the X100VI 4K 60fps), and 5.2K video up to 30fps in the versatile open gate (that's the full height and width of the 4:3 aspect ratio sensor), also with 10-bit color depth.

And there's nothing to split the cameras regarding slow-motion recording, since they can both shoot 240fps in Full HD.

Autofocus impresses in both cameras; hybrid phase detection autofocus offers a range of modes, including subject tracking for photo and video. I've not run direct comparisons yet, but the initial verdict among other trusted reviewers is that the L10's autofocus is, overall, more reliable, which is no surprise given that the L10 inherits the same autofocus skills, sensor, and processor as the excellent Lumix GH7.

6. Color

• Lumix L10: Real Time LUTs, Log, wide range of color profiles including Leica looks
• X100VI: Fujifilm film simulations, film recipes, wide range of color profiles

Fujifilm has rightly built up a name for its attractive color profiles, which mimic actual Fujifilm film stock, such as Veliva (vivid) and Provia (standard). But it's the film 'recipes' where photographers got really excited. These recipes are essentially customized versions of the film simulations, created and shared by Fujifilm users, and are a rapid way of getting the look you want with no editing required.

It would be easy to write Panasonic off, then, but the Lumix L10 enjoys Real Time LUTs profiles in addition to the wide range of in-camera profiles that include several 'Leica' looks. Real Time LUTs are a bit like film recipes, and there are plenty available for (free) upload from the Lumix Lab app.

Ultimately, color preference will always be creatively subjective. But in my experience, I find Real Time LUTs even more versatile for photo and video.

7. Price

• Lumix L10: $1,499 / £1,299 / A$2,599
• X100VI: $1,599 / £1,599 / AU$2,899

I'd hardly call either camera a great value or unreasonably expensive. Both cameras are certainly premium in terms of pricing, but the Lumix L10 costs less than the X100VI. The price difference varies depending on your region — being $100 / £300 / AU$300 less. As you can see from the prices noted above, it looks like the UK gets the best value for the Lumix model.

Two years since its launch, the X100VI costs the same as, if not more than, it did before. It has remained a popular camera, and it will hold its value very well. Lumix cameras do not tend to hold their value, but the L10 could be an exception if it's as popular as I expect it to be.

There have also been pricier limited edition versions of each camera, including the Titanium Gold special edition Lumix L10, which costs an additional $100 / £100 (but is not available in all regions) and comes with various extras, including an auto lens cover, leather shoulder strap, and custom lens cloth.

Another Lumix L10 alternative is the excellent Ricoh GR IV, which costs $1,499 / £1,199 / AU$2,199 — that's roughly the same price, depending on where you live. Like the Fujifilm model, it's a premium compact with APS-C sensor and sharp fixed-lens. Being much smaller, it's the only genuinely pocketable camera of the three, but it's overall performance is somewhat behind the other two models.

Conclusion

The Lumix L10 and Fujifilm X100VI sit in the same premium compact camera category; they look alike and are pretty much the same size. That's about where the similarities end.

The X100VI wins for prime lens quality, resolution, in-body stabilization, premium build quality, quicker start-up, and next-level retro aesthetics.

However, the Lumix L10 brings home a versatile zoom lens, exceptional Real Time LUTs profiles, while its burst shooting, autofocus, and video performance have the edge, plus it costs much less.

When listing pros and cons, I'm swayed to the X100VI — there are more areas where it wins. However, having used both cameras extensively, I feel like I'd get more use out of the Lumix L10. It's not an easy decision between the two!

I've covered the key features, and there are too many other little details that impact the overall user experience with each camera to sensibly include here. Have you used either camera? What do you particularly like about it that I haven't mentioned in this versus article? Which camera sounds best to you? Let me know in the comments below.

2026 could be a big year for foldable phones, as Apple is rumored to finally be launching a foldable of its own, reportedly called the iPhone Ultra.

This could push foldable phones into the mainstream, and Samsung — as well as welcoming the competition from its biggest rival — looks set to cash in, as it’s reportedly launching a foldable phone in a new wider form factor, so that it can better compete with Apple’s device, which itself is expected to be quite wide.

This new phone was once referred to as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Wide but is now rumored to be launching simply as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, with the more familiar, narrower model said to be landing as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra.

Obviously, we don’t know for sure how the iPhone Ultra and the Galaxy Z Fold 8 will compare just yet — nor even whether they'll officially launch — but thanks to leaks, rumors, and previous foldables, we’re starting to get a good idea of what to expect.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: price and availability

We haven’t yet heard much about what the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 might cost, but there’s a good chance it will either be in line with or slightly cheaper than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, since it will reportedly have one fewer camera and sit beneath the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra. That would mean a starting price of $1,999.99 / £1,799 / AU$2,899 or less.

As for the iPhone Ultra, leaks suggest that it might start at over $2,000 (around £1,485 / AU$2,785), which could mean it’s at least slightly more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8.

As for availability, it’s likely that the Galaxy Z Fold 8 will launch in July, alongside Samsung’s other 2026 foldables. If it really launches with that name, it will probably be available globally, though there's a chance Samsung could limit the Galaxy Z Fold 8 to a few regions to test the waters, just as it did with the Galaxy Z Tri-Fold.

The iPhone Ultra will probably launch in September alongside the iPhone 18 Pro series, though there has been some talk of a possible delay until 2027. Whenever it does land, it’s likely to be sold globally.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: design and display

The iPhone Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 might have quite similar designs, with both being rumored to have wider, shorter screens than typical book-style foldables like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7.

This form factor could give you a more widescreen experience when they’re unfolded, but would leave you with a slightly squat device when folded shut.

Going by dummy units, the iPhone Ultra might be 117.71 x 84.27mm when folded, and come in at 11.02mm at its thinnest point and 16.57mm at the camera bump. It could be just 5.24mm when unfolded, though some other leaks put it at a slightly slimmer 4.5mm when unfolded and between 9 and 9.5mm when folded. We’ve also heard repeatedly that there will be no visible crease on the iPhone Ultra.

Various leaks also suggest that it will have a roughly 5.5-inch cover screen and an approximately 7.8-inch foldable display.

As for the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, that phone might have a roughly 7.6-inch main screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio, and weigh around 200g according to TechManiacs. That same screen size, along with a 5.4-inch cover display, has been put forward by Android Headlines, which adds that the phone will be 123.9 x 161.4 x 4.9mm when unfolded and 123.9 x 82.2 x 9.8mm when folded.

So, Samsung’s phone might be marginally smaller — at least in terms of screen sizes — and thinner than Apple’s, though there’s a high chance it will also have a more visible crease.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: cameras

It’s expected that the iPhone Ultra will have two cameras on the back: specifically, a wide and an ultra-wide, both of which will be 48MP, according to leaker Digital Chat Station. The iPhone Ultra is also expected to have cameras in both its screens, and while no specs have been leaked yet, they might be 18MP like the selfie cameras on the iPhone 17 line.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 likewise looks set to have a dual-lens camera, and as with the iPhone, you’ll probably get wide and ultra-wide lenses. Leaks also point to similar numbers of megapixels, with both sensors apparently being 50MP. The phone is also almost certainly going to have a camera in each screen, with these rumored to be 10MP.

So, on paper, there might not be much to choose between these phones when it comes to the cameras, but it will be interesting to see how they compare in practice.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: performance and software

The iPhone Ultra will almost certainly have the same chipset as the iPhone 18 Pro Max if it launches this year, which likely means a top-end A20 Pro chipset. Leaker Fixed Focus Digital suggests the phone could also have a vapor chamber, which would further boost performance.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, meanwhile, is likely to have a Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset, which is also very powerful — this is what you’ll find in the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, for example.

So, both of these should be very powerful phones, though the iPhone Ultra, with its slightly newer chipset and rumored vapor chamber, could have the edge in terms of performance.

As for software, the iPhone Ultra will likely run on iOS — specifically the yet-to-launch iOS 27, if it lands in September — though there's a small chance that Apple could debut some foldable-specific software for its first foldable device.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, on the other hand, will run Android — most likely Android 17, overlaid with Samsung’s One UI. These are both highly capable operating systems, so it really comes down to personal preference as to which is best.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: battery

The iPhone Ultra could have a surprisingly high-capacity battery for a foldable phone, with one leak putting it at 5,800mAh. A slightly earlier leak from Lanzuk puts it at between 5,400mAh and 5,800mAh, but even at that lower end, it would still have a lot of foldables beat.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 is rumored to have a 4,800mAh battery — so not as good as the iPhone, though still better than the 4,400mAh-equipped Galaxy Z Fold 7.

iPhone Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 rumors: early verdict

Based on what we’ve heard so far, the iPhone Ultra could have a more powerful chipset and a bigger battery than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, as well as a less visible crease.

But it could also be thicker and have a higher price, and there may not be much to choose between the two phones' cameras and screens.

So, it’s sounding like the iPhone Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 might be quite evenly matched overall. We'll likely find out for sure before the end of the year, as we're expecting Samsung to debut the Galaxy Z Fold 8 in July, and Apple to debut the iPhone Ultra in September.

Which foldable phone are you most excited for? Let us know in the poll or comments section below.

In my in-depth Sony A7R VI review, I called it "the perfect camera"; but just how much better is it than its predecessor, the A7R V — and is it worth upgrading, or switching systems for, say from Canon and Nikon?

The previous A7R model launched in November 2022, so that makes three-and-a-half years between cameras, and gives me plenty to talk about. I'll cover the headline upgrades here, including the new sensor, design improvements and, notably, Sony’s first new battery for mirrorless cameras in nine years.

The answer to my 'upgrade or switch' question very much depends on what kind of photographer you are — so let’s dive straight into it…

1. Sensor

• A7R VI: 66.8MP stacked full-frame sensor
• A7R V: 61MP ‘standard’ full-frame sensor
• Canon and Nikon rivals have a 45MP stacked sensor

Sony’s ‘R’ nomenclature indicates resolution. If you buy an ‘R’ camera, you buy it for pixels — and lots of them — and images from both the A7R V and A7R VI are detail-rich.

With a stabilized 61MP full-frame sensor, the A7R V had the joint-most pixels in a full-frame camera, along with other Sony models including the A7C R and RX1R III, and some cameras from other brands, including Leica’s Q3 and the Sigma Fp L.

That 61MP sensor was debuted in the even older A7R IV, which is now seven years old (there's an updated A7R IVa still available for less than half the price of the A7R VI). Sony’s latest model has, however, upped the ante with a 66.8MP sensor, and it now leads the pack.

If it’s pixels alone that you’re concerned about, then that might seem like a small bump in resolution, especially when Sony rumors have regularly speculated about a 100MP sensor. A quick look at various Sony forums following the A7R VI's announcement makes it clear that some would-be upgraders are disappointed.

Is an extra 6MP worth upgrading for (read: spending a whole load more cash on)? On the surface, no. However, there’s more to a sensor than its pixels. The new sensor here is a ‘stacked’ type, which means it has a much faster readout speed, making it more capable for capturing fast-moving action and for video recording, with less rolling shutter distortion.

The A7R VI does, therefore, have the highest-resolution full-frame sensor, and it’s a speedy stacked type. It has stepped out of the ‘R’ series lane which prioritized quality, and into the speed and quality category occupied by Sony’s 50MP A1 II, which is slightly faster again but has less pixels.

In my book, the A7R VI’s sensor is the perfect marriage of speed and quality, and it's narrowed the market for the pricier A1 series to top sports photography pros. For everyone else, the A7R VI doesn’t miss a beat.

As for Sony and Canon rivals, their top cameras for detailed images include the Nikon Z8 and Canon EOS R5 Mark II, and those cameras max out at 45MP (as does the Lumix S1R II). Canon has a neat in-camera upscaling trick which quadruples resolution for pictures you’ve already captured to 180MP, but this is achieved by smart (and convincing I must add) upscaling.

2. Performance

• A7R VI: a stacked sensor and new Bionz XR 2 processor / combined AI chip
• A7R V: a regular sensor, Bionz XR processor and twin processor / AI chips
• Canon and Nikon rivals also feature a stacked sensor

The A7R VI’s stacked sensor has a faster readout speed than the A7R V, but Sony says the A1 II is even faster. Until lab testing is done, that’s as much detail as we have, because, unlike some other brands, Sony doesn’t divulge sensor readout-speed specifics.

A quicker sensor readout speed addresses rolling shutter distortion, making the A7R VI a better camera than its predecessor for video and fast-moving subjects when the electronic shutter is in play. Put simply, the A7R VI is more of an all-rounder than the A7R V, but there’s no advantage over the Nikon Z8 and Canon EOS R5 Mark II, which also have stacked sensors.

Following the lead of the Sony A7 V, the A7R VI has a combined Bionz XR 2 processor and AI chip, whereas in the A7R V the processor and AI chips are separate. Burst-shooting speeds are technically the same at 10fps using the mechanical shutter, and up to 30fps using the electronic shutter, but you should be able to squeeze out longer high-speed sequences with the mark VI versus its predecessor.

During my in-depth test of the A7R VI, I found that autofocus performance is marginally better too. It also adds an ‘auto’ subject-detection autofocus mode, meaning you don’t have to select a dedicated subject-detection mode, which is infinitely helpful when you’re regularly swapping between subject types.

The new processor and sensor combine for class-leading dynamic range, at least in theory, which is extended by one stop to 16 stops, with new dynamic range boost settings in the mix. Oh, and image stabilization performance has been marginally improved, measured at 8.5 stops to 8 stops (center) or up to 7 stops (periphery).

3. Battery

• A7R VI: New NP-SA100 battery with 2,670mAh capacity
• A7R V: The NP-FZ100 battery with 2,280mAh capacity
• Canon and Nikon rivals can't match the A7R VI’s battery life

Sony has introduced a completely new battery — the NP-SA100, which is physically bigger than the NP-FZ100 battery used in all of Sony’s full-frame mirrorless cameras for the last nine years. That battery was already legendary, delivering rival-beating capacity, and compatibility with a range of third party accessories such as external monitors.

The new battery is even better. How much better? It has 17% extra capacity at 2,670mAh compared to 2,280mAh. Battery life is one area where the A7R VI beats its predecessor, and indeed its rivals.

The bad news for existing Sony shooters is that the new battery is a different fit and physically larger, meaning there’s no forward or backwards compatibility with the older NP-FZ100 battery. If you’re looking at the A7R VI, your NP-FZ100 batteries are of no use, and additional batteries are going to be an extra cost to factor in.

4. Handling

• A7R VI: larger grip, illuminated buttons, brighter viewfinder, but otherwise much the same
• Both cameras feature a 3.2-inch 4-way vari-angle display and 9.44m-dot viewfinder

The larger battery is housed inside the camera’s grip, which is in turn physically larger than the one in the A7R V. I’m a fan of the larger grip, it’s even more comfortable to hold. Otherwise, the camera’s design is pretty similar to that of the A7R V’s — it’s a game of spot the difference.

Playing that game, I’ve found a few welcome tweaks. There’s a new lamp button on the top plate. Press it, and the control buttons around the body light up. I love this feature for low-light shooting, which makes locating buttons all the easier.

Speaking of lights, there’s also a tally lamp on the A7R VI, which is a handy visual aid letting you know the camera is recording, whereas the A7R V doesn't have one.

The displays are mostly the same. The 3.2-inch 2.1m-dot touchscreen has a four-way tilt hinge — you can tilt it up from the body, or pull it out to the side and rotate it for selfies, for vertical and horizontal shooting at just about any angle. The EVF is again a 9.44m-dot unit, but on the A7R VI it's 3x brighter, and I can attest that it’s an even nicer viewfinder to use — the best I’ve used on a camera this size, and up there with the very best of any camera I’ve used.

On the side of the new camera, each port has its own rigid door now, whereas some share a door in the A7R V. By the way, I much prefer this type of door to the soft doors found in most other cameras, which can get in the way.

5. Price

• A7R VI: Body-only: £4,500
• A7R V: Now £3,000 (launched at £4,000) while the A1 II is £6,200
• Nikon Z8: Now £3,000 (launched at £4,000)
• Canon EOS R5 Mark II: £4,500

Compared to the A7R V, the A7R VI is a pricier upgrade, especially since the A7R V is over three years old, and its price has dropped by about 25%. It started out at £4,000, but can now be had from Sony’s site and other leading retailers for around £3,000.

I’m not surprised by the bump in price, considering the time between the two cameras and the A7R VI's new sensor and battery.

The A1 II is much pricier than either, costing around £6,000, and making the A7R VI look like excellent value by comparison. That being said, Sony’s latest ‘R’ camera costs the same as the Canon EOS R5 Mark II, and is in turn pricier than the Nikon Z8 which is closer in price to the A7R V.

In summary, the A7R V costs significantly less, but the A7R VI gives you more camera, and offers decent value compared to rival models.

Conclusion

I already loved the Sony A7R V, with its 61MP full-frame sensor and speedy autofocus. The A7R VI is, however, better on both the quality and speed fronts, and even plants a foot on A1-series turf.

For me, as someone who shoots a wide range of photography genres, covering anything from landscapes to portraits and sports, the A7R VI is a dream camera, and it now tops my Sony camera wishlist.

Before the A7R VI was announced, I would have opted for Canon and Nikon rivals, given the various compromises in its predecessor, but the A7R VI changes the equation. It's a strong upgrade for a range of photo and video subjects, and could even be worth switching systems for. It also offers superior battery life, and a range of lenses for all budgets that Canon and Nikon owners wish they had. For me, the A7R VI is the professional camera to beat.

Summer is here, and Shark and Dyson have both launched portable fans to keep you cool as the temperature rises. But which one should you choose — the three-in-one Shark ChillPill, or the sleek Dyson HushJet Mini Cool?

I was expecting these two fans to be closely matched, but having tested both fans extensively, for me the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool is the clear winner. It's much more powerful than the Shark ChillPill, and comes with a better set of accessories (including a pouch to protect the fan in your bag). It's also less expensive, which might come as a surprise, since Dyson products are often pricier than their Shark counterparts.

The Shark ChillPill isn't without its appeal. It's slightly quieter than the Dyson fan, and has three swappable attachments that include a misting fan to enhance the cooling effect of the airflow, and an actively cooled metal plate (called the Instachill Cryro Plate), which you can press against pulse points. However, for me it ultimately couldn't compete with the Dyson's sheer cooling power. Read on for the full low-down on both devices.

Price and availability

The Shark ChillPill launched in March 2026, with a list price of $149.99 in the US, or £129.99 in the UK. That converts to about AU$210, but at the time of writing it's not yet available in Australia.

Dyson revealed the HushJet Mini on April 9, 2026, and it was available to buy a few weeks later. It's significantly cheaper than the Shark ChillPill at $99 / £99.99 / AU$169.

Design

The HushJet Mini Cool follows Dyson's usual 'form follows function' approach. It's a tubular device, with an angled nozzle on top, which rotates so you can direct the airflow. It can be held in one hand, stand upright on a desk (by itself, or in its charging stand) or worn around your neck.

It's operated using two simple switches: one to turn the power on and off, and another to adjust the airflow. The current airflow setting is shown by a row of small white LEDs.

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool comes in three colorways: Ink/Cobalt, Carnelian/Sky, and Stone/Blush (shown here). At the time of writing, Stone/Blush is the most widely available.

The Shark ChillPill is a stranger-looking device, made up of two cylinders that pivot in the middle so you can change the direction of the airflow when it's sitting on a flat surface. It resembles a small pair of binoculars, and although each cylinder is shorter than the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool, its total size is larger.

One of the ChillPill's cylinders houses the fan motor, while the other contains the rechargeable battery, an LED screen, and the controls. You press the screen to switch it on, and twist it to adjust the fan speed. You can lock the controls using a switch on the body of the cylinder.

The ChillPill also has two attachments that twist onto the fan unit. One is a misting fan, which contains a small water reservoir, and can emit a fine spray intermittently or continuously. The other is an actively cooled plate, which you can press against pulse points when you're feeling uncomfortably hot.

The Shark ChillPill is available in six colors: Carbon, Glacier, Haze (shown here), Dragon Fruit, Matcha, and Iced Latte.

Features and performance

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool has five power modes, plus a boost option for extra cooling. During my tests its volume ranged from 46dB on its lowest setting through to 67dB on the highest. That's even quieter than Dyson's claimed 52dB to 72.5dB — though since Dyson tests its devices with professional-grade microphones in an anechoic chamber, I'm inclined to trust its figures more than mine.

The Shark ChillPill has 10 speed settings, but the airflow isn't as concentrated as that from the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool. The ChillPill is slightly quieter (our reviewer measured 43.4dB at the lowest speed setting and 70.5dB the highest), but Dyson's HushJet technology does a better job of cancelling out high frequencies, which I found easier on the ear.

The ChillPill's misting feature is a particularly nice touch, increasing the cooling effect of the fan without making your hair wet or frizzy. The Instachill Cryo Plate is also effective, becoming noticeably cold within a few seconds, though personally I found the mist more effective.

However, there's no denying the fact that Dyson's fan is much more powerful. The Shark ChillPill can reach up to 25,000rpm, while the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool can reach 65,000rpm, and that's a difference you can really feel, even on the lowest settings.

Accessories

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool has a charging stand, which keeps the fan in a stable upright position, and is useful when you just want to use it free-standing on a desk or table. It also comes with a strap that allows you to wear it hanging around your neck. Slide the ring onto the body of the fan (it has a gap that allows it to pass over the buttons), put the cord over your head, and adjust the length. The strap has a section of faux leather that's comfortable against your skin, and you can adjust the direction of the nozzle so the breeze blows onto your face.

The HushJet Mini Cool also has a soft carry case, which is made from black velvet and tightens with a ribbon that matches the color of your fan. A universal mount and clip grip for the fan are sold separately.

The Shark ChillPill comes with three swappable fan attachments — the standard fan, misting fan, and cooling plate — plus a packet of spare misting wicks. These fit into a black velvet bag supplied with the device, but the bag isn't quite large enough to hold the ChillPill itself (it will just about fit inside, but is too large to allow you to tighten the drawstring).

A hard case for the ChillPill is available to buy separately, along with other accessories including a wrist strap, cross-body strap, clip (for attaching to clothing and bags), and clamp (for objects such as gym equipment and pushchairs). You can also buy replacement fan caps and misting wicks.

Both fans charge via USB-C and come with their own charging cables.

Conclusion

I own the Shark ChillPill, and although I don't regret my purchase — it's an effective tool, particularly for use on public transport during a heatwave — if I could choose again I would pick the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool. Although the ChillPill is marginally quieter, and its misting and cooling plate accessories are nice additions, it doesn't have anywhere near the power of the HushJet Mini Cool.

Dyson also provides a better set of accessories, including a case that fits the whole fan and a neck strap, whereas Shark sells these separately. Add in the fact that the Dyson fan is considerably less expensive, and it's an easy choice.

Last week, Ninja launched its first automatic espresso machine — the Ninja AutoBarista Pro. It offers a menu of 13 customizable drinks, with hot and cold brewing and automatic milk frothing. However, it's also much more expensive than the company's previous flagship coffee maker, the Ninja Luxe Café. Not sure which one is right for you? I'm here to sketch out the key differences between the two, so you can make the best choice. I'd also recommend taking a look at TechRadar's complete guide to the best coffee makers, so you can weigh up your options from other brands, such as De'Longhi, Breville, KitchenAid and Philips.

Price and availability

• Ninja Luxe Café Premier: $599.99 / £549.99 / AU$799.99
• Ninja Luxe Café Pro: $749.99 / £699.99 (about AU$1,040)
• Ninja AutoBarista Pro: $949.99 / £899.99 (about AU$1,320)

There are two Ninja Luxe Café models, one of which costs considerably more than the other. The original Ninja Luxe Café launched in June 2024, and was followed a few months later by the Luxe Café Pro, which has a lever on the side for tamping down your coffee grounds, plus extra coffee- and milk-frothing options.

To differentiate between this new machine and the original, the company renamed the original coffee maker the Ninja Luxe Café Premier.

The Ninja Luxe Café Premier has a list price of $599.99 / £549.99 / AU$799.99, while the Ninja Luxe Café Pro is $749.99 / £699.99. That works out at approximately AU$1,040, but at the time of writing the Ninja Luxe Café Pro isn't available in Australia.

Now that they're a couple of years old, you'll often find both models at a discount, particularly during sales events like Amazon Prime Day — Amazon just confirmed its next Prime Day event for June 23-26 — and Black Friday.

The Ninja AutoBarista Pro was released in May 2026, priced at $949.99 / £899.99. That's about AU$1,320, but again, this machine isn't yet sold in Australia. At the time of writing (June 2026) the AutoBarista Pro is brand new, so it hasn't received any price cuts yet. You'll find today's best deals on all three coffee makers below.

Features

• Ninja AutoBarista Pro brews coffee at the press of a button
• Ninja Luxe Café requires you to get a bit more hands-on
• Both steam milk automatically, but you need to pour it yourself

The Ninja Luxe Café is a semi-automatic coffee maker, while the Ninja AutoBarista Pro is fully automatic. Both take whole beans and let you make coffee with no prior experience, but the Luxe Café is a little more hands-on.

The Ninja Luxe Café grinds your coffee into a portafilter, which you then move under the brewing group (the part of the machine that dispenses hot, pressurized water). With the AutoBarista Pro, the entire brewing process happens inside the machine, so you only have to press a button and wait for your drink to be dispensed.

The Ninja AutoBarista Pro has two bean hoppers, so you can switch between coffee types on the fly (particularly handy if, like me, you prefer to drink decaf in the afternoon), whereas the Ninja Luxe Café only has one.

Both machines have steel burr grinders. The Ninja Luxe Café has 25 grind settings, while the AutoBarista Pro has 50 settings, giving you more control over the rate at which your coffee is extracted — and therefore the final flavor. Both machines guide you to help achieve the optimal grind size for your chosen coffee, but the AutoBarista Pro takes into account extra factors such as the age of the beans, tweaking the settings accordingly.

Both machines are capable of brewing espresso and drip coffee (which is quite unusual), as well as cold-brewed coffee. Both can also produce creamy foamed milk for lattes and cappuccinos, with different texture settings. Alternatively, you can raise the steam wand of either machine a few degrees and steam milk manually.

Neither coffee maker will dispense milk into your cup; whether you use the auto foaming function or use the steam wand manually, you'll need to pour it in yourself. This is particularly unusual for a fully automatic coffee maker, but has the advantage that you can experiment with pouring latte art.

Maintenance

• Both machines are designed for easy cleaning
• AutoBarista Pro has a fan to keep components cool and dry
• Both have user-friendly descaling programs

Fully automatic coffee makers usually take more effort to maintain than semi-automatic models because of the heat, moisture, and coffee grounds inside the case, but all of the AutoBarista Pro's removable components are dishwasher-safe, and there's a fan inside to keep everything cool and dry (something I've never seen before on a coffee machine).

The Ninja Luxe Café is also easy to keep clean; just wash the portafilter and basket, clean the drip tray, purge and wipe down the steam wand, and flush the group set with hot water to keep it fresh.

Conclusion

• Ninja Luxe Café for price
• Ninja AutoBarista Pro for convenience

If price is the most important factor, then you can't go wrong with the Ninja Luxe Café. It's an excellent coffee maker that gives you far more features than many other models in the same price range. Personally I'd choose the Premier model rather than the Pro. Although the tamping lever is a nice addition that's satisfying to use, and means you're never in contact with loose coffee grounds, tamping coffee by hand isn't hard and I don't think it's worth an extra $150 / £150.

If time is more valuable to you, and you want a machine that can brew your coffee while you tackle other tasks, the Ninja AutoBarista Pro is a better choice, handling the whole process for you. It's also easier to keep clean and hygienic than most automatic coffee makers, so you won't have to sacrifice time later in the day washing components by hand and drying the interior.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max and Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra are the two most obvious choices if you want a no-compromise flagship phone in 2026.

Both are big, powerful, expensive, and built around the same basic promise: you get huge displays, elite cameras, long battery life, high-end performance, and a growing number of AI tools if you're willing to pay the high asking price.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max and Galaxy S26 Ultra are also very different phones. Apple’s flagship is the cleaner, more tightly integrated option, offering iOS and MagSafe. Samsung’s Ultra is the more maximalist device, with the S Pen, a sharper display, a more flexible camera setup, and a software experience packed with Galaxy AI and Google-powered features.

For many people, this choice will come down to ecosystem.

If you already use Apple products like the Apple Watch, MacBook, and iPad, the iPhone 17 Pro Max has an obvious pull. If you prefer Android, multitasking, stylus support, and more control over how your phone works, the Galaxy S26 Ultra makes a very strong case.

But there are still big differences in price, design, display, cameras, performance, software, and battery life between these two phones — so let’s break them down.

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: specs comparison

Before we dig into the details, here’s an overview of both phones’ key specs:

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: price and availability

The iPhone 17 Pro Max went on sale in September 2025, with prices starting at $1,199 / £1,199 / AU$2,149 for the 256GB model. The 17 Pro Max is also available with 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB of storage, with the top configuration rising to $1,999 / £1,999 / AU$3,799.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra arrived later, in March 2026, and starts at $1,299 / £1,249 / AU$2,149, making it slightly more expensive than Apple’s flagship in the US, slightly more affordable in the UK, and level in Australia at launch.

It's worth noting that the Galaxy S26 Ultra's storage runs from 256GB to 1TB; there is no 2TB option, unlike with the iPhone.

Both phones are widely available through their makers, carriers, and major retailers, so this is less about finding stock and more about finding the right deal that suits you.

Winner: Tie — unless you specifically need 2TB of storage, in which case the iPhone 17 Pro Max takes it.

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: design

There is no getting away from the fact that these are both very large phones, but Samsung does more to make its Ultra feel slightly more manageable.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra is slightly taller and wider than the iPhone 17 Pro Max, but it is much thinner at 7.9mm and noticeably lighter at 214g.

The softened corners also help it feel less slab-like than older Ultra models, while the built-in S Pen remains Samsung’s clearest hardware advantage.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max has the more dramatic redesign versus its predecessor. Apple moved to an aluminum unibody (which facilitates the inclusion of a new vapor cooling chamber), added a full-width camera plateau, and kept both the Action button and Camera Control.

As such, the 17 Pro Max feels like a clearer break from the previous few Pro Max models, and the new thermal design gives the changes a practical purpose beyond looks.

Still, the Galaxy S26 Ultra is the easier phone to live with day-to-day, giving you the same 6.9-inch screen size in a slimmer, lighter body, while also finding room for a stylus.

Winner: Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: display

Both phones give you an almost tablet-sized 6.9-inch OLED display with an adaptive 120Hz refresh rate, so either one is built for streaming, gaming, editing photos, reading, and general big-screen phone use.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max has the brighter panel on paper, with a peak outdoor brightness of 3,000 nits, which gives it an edge if you often use your phone outside.

Samsung fights back with resolution and features. The Galaxy S26 Ultra’s screen is sharper than the iPhone’s display, and its 1-120Hz refresh range gives it the same smooth scrolling and power-saving flexibility you would expect from a top-end flagship.

Samsung's new Privacy Display feature also gives it a practical advantage in public spaces, especially if you often work from cafes or public transport.

Winner: Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: cameras

The iPhone 17 Pro Max has a simpler camera pitch: it's got three 48MP rear cameras, covering main, ultra-wide, and telephoto shots, plus a new 18MP Center Stage front camera.

Apple is offering a more balanced system than previous Pro Max models — especially now the telephoto camera can handle 4x optical zoom and 8x optical-quality shots — and the selfie camera is also a real upgrade; it uses subject tracking to automatically keep you in the frame, and lets you switch between portrait and landscape modes.

Samsung gives you more hardware to play with. The S26 Ultra has a 200MP main camera, 50MP ultra-wide, 10MP 3x telephoto, and 50MP telephoto for longer-range shots, plus a 12MP selfie camera with a wider field of view.

Its camera setup is less of a clean overhaul than Apple’s, but the extra lens and longer zoom range make it more flexible, especially if you often shoot subjects at a distance.

For video, the Galaxy S26 Ultra supports 8K shooting at 30fps, whereas the iPhone is capped at 4K at 120 fps. That said, with its Apple ProRes and ProRes RAW support, the iPhone 17 Pro Max is our favored option for consistent, high-quality video results.

This comparison is a close call because the iPhone 17 Pro Max has the stronger selfie upgrade, a very consistent rear camera setup, and impressive video capabilities. The Galaxy S26 Ultra still has the edge for pure versatility, with more lenses, more zoom reach, and the bigger main sensor.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17 Pro Max camera samples

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra camera samples

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: performance and software

The iPhone 17 Pro Max runs on Apple’s A19 Pro chip, with improved cooling to help it hold high performance for longer.

The 17 Pro Max feels built for heavy use, from gaming and video editing to AI features, and iOS 26 also benefits from Apple’s usual joined-up approach, with the chip, hardware, software, and wider ecosystem all working together.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra counters with the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, plus either 12GB or 16GB of RAM. It is a true ultra-premium Android flagship, with more flexibility for multitasking, split-screen apps, S Pen notes, customisation, and productivity.

Samsung is better for flexibility, stylus support, and Android customisation, but the iPhone’s combination of Apple silicon, iOS, cooling, and ecosystem integration gives it more cohesive performance in our testing.

Winner: iPhone 17 Pro Max

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: battery

The iPhone 17 Pro Max has a 5,088mAh battery, based on reported capacity figures (Apple does not share these details officially), and Apple rates it for up to 37 hours of video playback.

In our day-to-day use, it's comfortably an all-day phone, with enough headroom for heavy camera use, navigation, streaming, and gaming. It also supports fast USB-C charging and 25W MagSafe/Qi2 wireless charging.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra has a 5,000mAh battery, so there is very little difference between these two devices in terms of raw capacity, and indeed it carried well past 24 hours of operation in our testing.

Samsung has the advantage for wired charging, with 60W speeds that should get you topped up faster than the iPhone. The S26 also supports 25W wireless charging, putting it on par with Apple there, though there's no MagSafe-style wireless charging to speak of.

So, this comparison is close... again. The iPhone has excellent endurance and the convenience of MagSafe, but Samsung’s faster wired charging is more useful when you need a quick refill before heading out.

Winner: Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: verdict

The iPhone 17 Pro Max and Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra are — unsurprisingly — close enough that the “best” choice depends less on raw power and more on how you actually use your phone.

Choose the iPhone 17 Pro Max if you want the smoother all-round experience. Its biggest strengths are consistency, ecosystem integration, long-term performance, and a camera system that feels easy to trust. It's also the better fit if you already use Apple's other products.

Choose the Galaxy S26 Ultra if you want the phone that simply does more. The S Pen, sharper display, lighter design, longer camera reach, faster charging, and broader AI toolkit make it the more versatile device, especially for power users.

Overall, the Galaxy S26 Ultra wins more individual categories, but the iPhone 17 Pro Max may still be the better buy for many people. Samsung has the stronger spec-sheet argument; Apple has the more cohesive flagship experience.

Winner: Tie (sorry!)

Recently, I got my hands on the JBL Go 5 — the latest edition of the audio specialist’s smallest, and most affordable Bluetooth speaker. And to say it impressed me would be an understatement.

With exceptional sound quality in a small package, top-tier durability, and enticing LED lights, it proved that JBL is still king of the mini Bluetooth speaker world. It’s also available at a very low price…

However, with the Go 5 finally on the market, you can now easily swipe the previous-gen JBL Go 4 model with major discounts that could easily tempt you to go for that option instead, saving a bit of cash.

Given that the Go 4 was already one of the best Bluetooth speakers in the small-size category, I can see a lot of people being torn on which one to buy. So is the JBL Go 5 worth buying over its predecessor even at a higher price?

After testing both side-by-side, for me the JBL Go 5 is the better buy, even if you have to pay up to 30% more for it — because that difference isn't actually a lot of money, but the speaker itself is a big improvement. Let me break it all down for you.

JBL Go 5 vs JBL Go 4 specs at a glance

How do the JBL Go 5's features & design differ from the Go 4?

First of all, let’s take a look at the key differences between the Go 5 and Go 4.

Both models have a similar, rectangular build and feature the JBL logo at their core. Buttons are layered on the outside edges, enabling you to swiftly turn your speaker on, control playback, and pair via Bluetooth. They also feature a loop for hooking the speaker to something, which are constructed from hardy fabric in both cases.

The differences in terms of build are quite minor, really. The Go 5 is slightly larger, the logo pops a little more, and there are raised 'feet' on the back for when you’re laying the speaker flat. It also has IP68 dust and waterproofing, meaning it's fully protected against dust ingress, and can survive a 30 minute dunking under a meter and a half of water.

The Go 4 is IP67-rated, meaning it can only swim under a meter of water safely, but that level of protection will be more than enough for most.

The obvious and major difference between the Go 4 and Go 5 is the latter’s inclusion of lighting. You can select from a number of lighting effects in the JBL Portable app, and enjoy ambient effects while listening to your tunes. It’s a nice touch, but if you’d rather turn it off to conserve battery life, you can do so.

Speaking of battery life, you get a bit more out of the Go 5 than its predecessor. JBL’s new model supplies eight hours of playtime, with an additional two available using PlayTime Boost.

The Go 4 gets close, with seven hours — and up to nine with playtime boost on — so you should get enough charge to keep the tunes going for a cookout.

Otherwise, things are fairly similar across the two models. You’ll get multi-point connectivity, EQ tweaking in the JBL Portable app, fast-pairing, and Auracast connectivity for multi-speaker pairing.

Usefully, though, the Go 5 supports AirTouch, which enables you to instantly stereo pair to another Go 5 unit just by tapping them together.

Sound quality: more of a difference than you may expect

So, other than the Go 5’s lighting, a lot of the feature and design differences are the sort of incremental things you’d expect from a next-gen refresh. However, when it comes to sound quality, the upgrade is a lot more substantial than you may expect.

I’ve appreciated the Go 4’s sound since I first heard it a couple of years back — it was pretty clear and punchy given the model’s limited confines. But the Go 5 has redefined what is possible for a small-sized speaker.

The Go 5 has a much more open, detailed quality to its audio playback — the Go 4 sounded compressed and restricted in comparison when I used both side by side.

In tracks such as Marco Castello’s Editto Dal Sottoscoglio, I was treated to a much more full-sounding presentation on JBL’s newer release — the definition of dreamy vocals, the sharp, expressive hit of hi-hats, and the tonality of gliding guitars just came through with so much more life and color.

Even though bass is inherently limited on the Go 5, it’s also a bit cleaner sounding against the relatively punchy but slightly less powerful Go 4.

You’ll also be able to get more powerful sound from the Go 5, as its output power has increased to 4.8W from 4.2W, and the speaker does reach pretty impressive volumes — both models will succumb to compression at peak loudness, though.

Unlike the Go 4, you can also make use of wired audio on the JBL Go 5, with USB-C audio passthrough. This unlocks lossless playback, resulting in even more agile, responsive bass, surprisingly detailed mids, and controlled treble. Most will probably stick with Bluetooth, but this sort of feature is great to see regardless.

Verdict: here’s how I’d spend my money

So, in the end which speaker do I think is worth buying? Considering that the JBL Go 5 has a modest list price of $54.95 / £39.99 (about AU$75), representing a very small increase over its predecessor in real terms, I’d say there’s no contest.

With appealing, customizable lighting, incremental feature enhancements, and considerably better sound, the JBL Go 5 is almost like a blueprint on how to do an upgrade right.

Sure, the Go 4 is often on sale now, and I’ve seen it drop below $40 / £30 / AU$50 regularly, so saving the extra $15 / £10 will be tempting. And it still offers solid sound quality, a durable design, and phenomenal portability.

But the audio improvement alone makes the Go 5 worth choosing over its ancestor. For me, it’s the best little Bluetooth speaker that money can buy.

Keen to get started on your running journey? Well, you're in luck. Garmin has dropped three new contenders for our best Garmin watch list, and they're all affordably priced and brimming with running-focused features.

The Garmin Forerunner 70, 170 and 170 Music officially release on May 15. You might have pre-ordered one already, but if you're still looking, you also might be weighing up which model is right for you. Do you need the Forerunner 170 Music, or can you save money and opt for the cheaper Garmin Forerunner 70? I break down all the differences below, with a brief bit of context to explain how they compare to other Garmin watches in the range.

Note that I haven't yet had an opportunity to test the watches myself — I've looked at the statistics and feature lists from Garmin's official websites and promotional materials to put together this comparison.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170: Specifications

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170: Price

The cheapest watch of the three is the Garmin Forerunner 70, replacing the aging Garmin Forerunner 55 as Garmin's entry-level running watch du jour.

As you can see in our table above, it costs $249.99 / £219.99 / AU$399, while the more feature-rich Forerunner 170 (which replaces the older Garmin Forerunner 165) starts at $299 / £259.99 / AU$479. If you want the Music capabilities, you can pay an extra $50 / £40 / AU$70 for the Forerunner 170 Music.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170: Design

All three watches have a similar design language, and there are few physical differences. There's a single gram of difference in weight between the Garmin Forerunner 70 and its 170 siblings, and all three are only available in a 42.6mm screen size.

They all have the same 1.2-inch AMOLED touchscreen display, and use the same five-button configuration as many of Garmin's other watches, such as the Garmin Fenix 8, which makes it easy to operate the watch even while wearing gloves — perfect for running in all weathers.

Embossed Forerunner logos adorn the bands for all three models, while all three are available in a variety of colors, including Black, Whitestone and two-tone models. Each has at least one unique color option too — the Forerunner 70, for example, is available in a pale-yellow Citron color.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170: Features

Here's where it gets interesting. Each watch has the usual suite of heart rate and fitness-tracking features, such as calories burned, sleep tracking, steps counted and 80 sports profiles. They also all have built-in GPS, Glonass and Galileo satellite network connectivity, to make sure the watch is accurately tracking your runs.

Each one offers Daily Suggested Workouts and personalized training plans via Garmin Coach, the service in the Garmin Connect app. Other training features include advanced metrics perfect for runners such as stride, cadence and elevation, along with Running Power — a metric you may not know about. It's a measure of how much power your body's putting out during a run, measured in mechanical watts.

Garmin works out running power using the watch's motion sensors, GPS and barometer. Using heart rate to determine your performance is considered inferior, because it measures your body's response to the run, not the power of the run itself.

All three watches have wellness features galore, such as sleep tracking, nap detection, Training Readiness and Recovery scores to better plan your training calendar around. Course Planner helps you train at the correct distances, creating routes around your neighborhood, and the Race Predictor feature estimates your time based on a course added to Garmin's database and your historic data.

There are some differences, but they aren't major. The Forerunner 170 appears to have all the training features of the 70, while adding Garmin Pay and Smart Notifications features. Smart Notifications allows you to reply to texts when you're on the move (on Android phones), manage notifications from apps and emails, and screen calls, while Garmin Pay is a virtual wallet on your wrist, and works in a similar way to Apple Pay on one of the best Apple Watches.

These appear to be the only differences, aside from the colorways, between those two watches.

The Forerunner 170 Music adds 4GB of internal memory, allowing you to store songs on your wrist. When connected to Bluetooth headphones, you can listen to music right from your watch, without using your phone as a go-between. Combined with Garmin Pay, this means you can leave your phone at home or in a bag, run while listening to music, and even buy a coffee once you're finished.

Early verdict

The Garmin Forerunner 70 is shaping up to be a pretty great training tool, and if you're not looking for a smartwatch to use for notifications and a digital wallet, this is the model for you.

If you are looking for those things, the Garmin Forerunner 170 or 170 Music is going to be the best choice for you, unless you want to go up in price and opt for a more expensive smartwatch like the Garmin Venu 4.

Last week, Google launched the Google Fitbit Air, its much-rumored screenless fitness tracker designed to be its entry into the set-and-forget 'focus wearable' market. I should say re-entry really, as the original Fitbit and Fitbit Flex bands were exactly this type of device: minimalist pucks or bands, with very limited scope for interaction, and no screens to speak of.

Right now the category of simple, screenless wearables is dominated by the likes of the best smart rings and by fitness trackers such as Whoop, which is undoubtedly the most popular of the wrist-based screenless fitness bands out there. Whoop has been in the screenless tracker game for years, and is a popular choice for serious athletes, biohackers and wellness enthusiasts alike.

But Whoop's offering isn't cheap, as you don't buy the device outright; instead you get it as part of an annual subscription to the Whoop app, with the subscription tiers increasing in price as more features are included.

While I haven't yet had any hands-on time with the Google Fitbit Air (I'm expecting a review unit very soon), we can compare the listed specs, features and subscription prices to identify which fitness tracker is right for you.

Google Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Specifications

Above is a table comparing some of the specifications of the Google Fitbit Air to the Whoop 5.0 and premium Whoop MG bands. Perhaps a good place to start here is the weight, as Google states that the Fitbit Air weighs just 12 grams with a band or five grams on its own, hence the name. The Whoop devices weigh more than double that. The Fitbit is also far better for diving, as according to Google it's water resistant up to 50 meters.

The Google Fitbit Air can last for a week, while the Whoops offer only a few days of battery life each. However, they do come with a battery pack that can slot onto the device while you wear it to charge the device, which means you can get 14 days of constant data with no need to take the device off to charge it at all. In theory, the only time you'd ever need to take your Whoop off is to change the band, should you want to.

As more expensive devices, the Whoops incorporate stainless steel into their clasps, whereas the Fitbit is all plastic.

Google Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Price & value

Where Google wins off the bat is that the Fitbit Air is relatively cheap — you can pre-order it now for $99.99 / £84.99 / AU$199. Even if you choose not to subscribe to Google Health Premium —Google's fitness service, which gives you access to its comprehensive AI Health Coach feature — after the free trial included with your Fitbit Air is over, you can still log your data using the band on the Google Health app's free tier and use it as a basic, screenless fitness tracker.

If you do choose to subscribe, you're essentially paying for the tracker again on an annual basis in order to get all the AI features and unlock advice to help you use those metrics. There's no doubt this is intended to be a core feature rather than an optional extra, but you do have the option not to subscribe. You could also pay monthly, but you end up paying around $20 US dollars more per year than an annual subscription (international pricing is TBC).

Whoop, on the other hand, requires a subscription to work at all, starting at a fairly reasonable £169 / $199 / AU$299 per year for the base Whoop One subscription, which comes with the Whoop 5.0 device but locks metrics like Stress and Whoop Age behind a paywall.

You get those (along with a nicer Whoop MG band and a wireless charger puck) with a Whoop Peak membership, which costs £229 / $239 / AU$419 per year. Then at the highest level you get the Whoop Life subscription plan, at £349 / $359 / AU$629 per year, which comes with the Whoop MG band and heart health features.

There's no doubt about it: over time, the Whoop will be pricier than the Google Fitbit Air by a significant margin. While the Google Fitbit Air is the cheaper option of the two, the breadth of the AI Coach's features might make it a better value prospect too, unless you want specific features like Whoop's Stress score, workout builder or the MG's electrocardiogram (ECG) functionality.

Google Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Features

The Fitbit Air, Whoop 5.0 and Whoop MG all pack PPG LED heart rate sensors, and all the best smartwatch features such as heart rate, step counting, calorie burn estimation, skin temperature and blood oxygen monitoring. I haven't tested the accuracy of Fitbit's sensor yet.

The key difference between the two Whoops, however, is that the Whoop MG has an advanced 'Heart Screener' sensor functionality which can be used for ECG scans, which can aid in detecting atrial fibrillation or irregular heart rate. According to Whoop, it "meets and exceeds clinical-accuracy standards".

The Fitbit Air doesn't have this functionality, but the Fitbit Charge 6 does — so if you're looking to keep an eye on your heart health, you'll need to opt for the Charge series or a more expensive Whoop MG.

The Google Fitbit Air's feature set includes a lot of the same stuff from the Fitbit app, including historic graphs of your movement and sleep data along with a Daily Readiness score, but many of the actionable insights are locked behind the Google Health Coach, the AI coaching service that comes with a Google Health Premium subscription. The Coach shows you demonstrations for different exercises, advises you on how to get better sleep, can generate meal and exercise plans, and can incorporate medical records.

Whoop also has an extensive laundry list of features to rival this. In terms of the amount of features on offer, it exceeds Google's, with all manner of scores for metrics like strain, recovery, sleep (along with actionable insights on how to reduce sleep need), Whoop Age (your body's biological age, only accessible if you subscribe to the mid-tier Peak subscription or the Life subscription), Cardiovascular Age, and lots more.

Whoop's AI coach offers useful, actionable insights too, and its workout builder is based on a comprehensive library of fitness moves that also includes demonstrations. While Google allows you to upload your medical records to the app, serious biohackers can send away for blood tests in the US via the Whoop app, to get results for biomarkers such as hormone levels and vitamin deficiencies that Whoop's AI can incorporate. New features are rolling out that will also allow you to contact licensed clinicians through the app.

However, despite Whoop having a longer list of features, I'm looking forward to spending time with Google's health-focused LLM Coach to identify the breadth of its capabilities. I'm willing to bet that the flexibility of the Coach service, together with the ability to feed it your data, will make it an excellent value proposition.

Early verdict

The Google Fitbit Air is a fairly cheap tracker that looks like a great-value proposition for those who don't want to shell out for a pricey Whoop subscription, especially as over time, it looks like the expense of a Whoop will only increase when compared to the Fitbit's cheaper subscription and one-time purchase. As a consumer, you also have the choice of whether to subscribe to the AI coach or just use the device as a tracker.

The Whoop devices do have some innovations that Fitbit doesn't have, such as that innovative charger, the metallic physical elements and a more comprehensive feature set, but during testing I'll be specifically testing the breadth of the Fitbit's AI coach, trying to see if it can replicate some of the Whoop bands' best features.

If you’re in the market for a high-end OnePlus phone, then you now have two devices to choose from — there’s the flagship OnePlus 15 and the OnePlus 15R, the latter of which is both slightly newer and a fair bit cheaper.

These are both impressive devices on paper, and we know they impress in practice too, especially the OnePlus 15, which is among the few phones we’ve awarded a full five-star review score to.

But exactly how do they compare? What’s different between them? And which should you buy? To help you answer those questions, we’ve compared the OnePlus 15 and OnePlus 15R in full below.

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: specs comparison

Before we look in depth at these two handsets, the chart below gives you a glimpse of all their key specs.

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: price and availability

The OnePlus 15 launched in October 2025, and it’s available now in the US and UK. It starts at $899.99 / £849, for which you get 12GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, but there’s also a model with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage for $999.99 / £979.

The OnePlus 15R was announced in December 2025 and began shipping in January 2026. It starts at $699.99 / £649, which gets you a model with 256GB of storage, and that price rises to $799.99 / £729 for one with 512GB — in both cases, you'll get 12GB of RAM.

That makes the starting price of the OnePlus 15R some $200 / £200 less than that of the OnePlus 15. Neither phone is available in Australia.

Winner: OnePlus 15R

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: design

The OnePlus 15 has an aluminum alloy frame, a glass back (unless you grab the fiberglass-reinforced plastic ‘Sand Storm’ model), and comes in at 161.4 x 76.7 x 8.1mm and either 211g or 215g (depending on the finish you choose).

The phone has Gorilla Glass Victus 2 protection on the front, either Gorilla Glass 7i or Crystal Shield Glass on the back, and it has both IP68 and IP69K ratings, giving it extensive water resistance.

As well as Sand Storm (a very pale brown), it’s available in Infinite Black and Ultra Violet colors, and it has a squarish camera block, with our OnePlus 15 review describing the phone as having “extreme durability and classy looks.”

The OnePlus 15R also has an aluminum alloy frame, along with either a glass back or a fiber-reinforced plastic back, and it has Gorilla Glass 7i protection for the screen.

It comes in at 163.4 x 77 x 8.3mm and either 214g (for the Charcoal Black model) or 215g (for the Mint Breeze version). It also has more water resistance than most phones, with both IP68 and IP69K ratings, and it has a similar overall design to the OnePlus 15, just with a smaller, more rectangular camera block.

In all, the OnePlus 15R is marginally less durable, due to the use of Gorilla Glass 7i rather than Gorilla Glass Victus 2 protection on the front, and it’s slightly thicker too. But otherwise, there isn't much to choose between these two phones as far as their designs and builds go, and all that water resistance makes both of them tougher than the average handset.

Winner: OnePlus 15

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: display

The OnePlus 15 has a 6.78-inch 1272 x 2772 AMOLED screen with a 165Hz refresh rate, around 450 pixels per inch, and an 1,800-nit high brightness mode, while the OnePlus 15R has an even larger 6.83-inch 1272 x 2800 AMOLED screen that can match the OnePlus 15’s for refresh rate, pixels per inch, and brightness.

So, there's little to choose between these two screens other than their size, with our reviewer saying the OnePlus 15R has a "very responsive and colorful" display, while our review of the OnePlus 15 said its “excellent display is bright and colorful”.

Winner: tie

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: cameras

The OnePlus 15 has a 50MP f/1.8 wide camera, a 50MP f/2.0 ultra-wide camera (with a 116-degree field of view), a 50MP f/2.8 telephoto camera (offering 3.5x optical zoom), and a 32MP f/2.4 front-facing camera.

The OnePlus 15R, on the other hand, has the same 50MP f/1.8 wide camera, but it’s joined by an 8MP f/2.2 ultra-wide (with a 112-degree field of view) and a 32MP f/2.0 front-facing camera.

For video, both phones can record in up to 4K quality at up to 120fps, but the OnePlus 15 can additionally record in 8K quality at 30fps.

So, this is one area in which there are major differences between the two phones, with the OnePlus 15R lacking a telephoto camera and having far fewer megapixels in its ultra-wide camera than the OnePlus 15, as well as slightly worse video recording capabilities.

In our OnePlus 15 review, we said its “excellent camera quality beats anything at this price range”, which is something we can't quite say about the OnePlus 15R. Still, we found that phone to be capable of capturing natural colors and impressive low-light photos, albeit with the main camera, rather than its (non-existent) zoom lens.

Winner: OnePlus 15

OnePlus 15 camera samples

OnePlus 15R camera samples

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: performance and software

The OnePlus 15 has a top-tier Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset paired with either 12GB or 16GB of RAM, while the OnePlus 15R has a Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 chipset (so not the ‘Elite’ version) and 12GB of RAM.

The OnePlus 15, then, has the more powerful chipset, and it tops out at 4GB more RAM. In our review, we said this phone offers “stellar performance”.

But while the OnePlus 15R can't quite match it for on-paper power, both its chipset and RAM amount should allow for a very decent amount of power. Indeed, as our reviewer noted, "the OnePlus 15R feels every bit like a flagship phone in everyday use. Scrolling through apps is as smooth as you’d want it to be, and when running multiple apps at one time through Open Canvas, the phone never buckled under the pressure.

"The only instance where I could see a noticeable gap between the Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 and the even more powerful Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 was when loading in larger areas in Honkai: Star Rail. This is quite a demanding game for those who haven’t played it, but I was impressed to see that, outside of those moments, the combat and exploitation ran to a high standard on the OnePlus 15R."

As far as software goes, there's nothing to choose between the two phones, with both running OxygenOS 16, which is OnePlus’s take on Android 16.

Winner: OnePlus 15

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: battery

Interestingly, the OnePlus 15R actually has the on-paper edge when it comes to battery capacity, as it has a 7,400mAh cell, while the OnePlus 15 has a 7,300mAh equivalent. But because the OnePlus 15R also has a slightly bigger screen and a less efficient chipset, its actual battery life is worse than that of its more premium sibling.

Neither of these phones should run out of juice fast, though. Indeed, our OnePlus 15 reviewer managed to eke out three (yes, three!) days of use from the phone, which is among the longest battery life we've ever recorded in testing. The OnePlus 15R, meanwhile, managed to last for a similarly respectable two days, which is mightily impressive given the phone's mid-range price.

One other advantage the OnePlus 15 has over the 15R is charging power, as it supports up to 120W wired charging, 50W wireless charging, and 10W reverse wireless charging. The OnePlus 15R, on the other hand, tops out at a still impressive 80W wired charging and doesn’t support wireless or reverse wireless charging.

Neither phone has built-in magnets, but OnePlus does sell MagSafe-compatible cases for both.

Winner: OnePlus 15

OnePlus 15 vs OnePlus 15R: verdict

The biggest difference between the OnePlus 15 and the OnePlus 15R might simply be their respective prices, with the 15R costing $200 / £200 less than its flagship sibling.

So, what do you miss out on as a result? The OnePlus 15R lacks a telephoto camera and has fewer megapixels in its ultra-wide lens; it tops out at less RAM, and uses a slightly less powerful chipset.

Its charging power is also lower — but it still has most other phones beat — and there’s no wireless charging.

But other than that, most things are the same or similar, and the OnePlus 15R actually has a marginally larger screen, so it has some advantages over its pricier sibling.

So, while the OnePlus 15 is undoubtedly the better phone overall, the OnePlus 15R is a very tempting alternative to a superb flagship.

Trying to decide between the MacBook Pro and the Mac Studio? While both Apple devices have seen significant updates since the release of the M4 and M2-powered models, these older machines are still exceptionally powerful. And you can even save some money choosing them over the latest devices.

This article comprehensively compares the MacBook Pro M4 and Mac Studio M2, examining their strengths, weaknesses, and ideal use cases to help you determine which machine is best suited for your specific needs.

For the latest models, see our MacBook Pro 14-inch (M5) review and Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) review.

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Specs

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Prices & availability

The MacBook Pro (2024) was released late in 2024 and is available in two display sizes: 14 inches and 16 inches. The 14-inch model offers an entry-level M4 chip or a mid-range M4 Pro chip. The 16-inch model has either the M4 Pro or the M4 Max chip. Additionally, all models allow you to customize RAM and storage options.

Prices for the older M4 laptops are around $2000 / £2000 depending on configuration. To compare that, the new M5 models start from $1699 at Apple for the 14-inch laptop and $2699 for the 16-inch. In the UK, it's the same story, starting from £1699 and £2699 depending on the size.

The Mac Studio with an M2 Max or M2 Ultra chipset will typically cost around $2000 / £2000.

However, the new models, which have the M3 Ultra and M4 Max chips cost from $1999 and from $3999 from Apple depending on the chipset and configuration. In the UK, prices start from £1999 for the M4 Max and £4199 for the M3 Ultra direct from Apple.

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Portability

Regarding portability, the MacBook Pro M4 stands out as the winner. Designed with mobility in mind, this laptop is easy to take to work, school, or any other location. In contrast, the Mac Studio M2 is designed as an all-in-one desktop computer. While its slim, aesthetically pleasing design is appealing, it is intended to stay in one place. You cannot easily pack it in a backpack or take it on a plane.

If portability is a priority, the MacBook Pro is the best choice. However, if you need a stationary machine with a larger screen and are willing to sacrifice portability, the Mac Studio M2 is an excellent option.

Winner: Not surprisingly, the MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Performance

While both the MacBook Pro M4 and the Mac Studio M2 are powerful machines, the Mac Studio generally provides superior performance, especially for demanding tasks. This advantage comes from key differences between the two devices.

Firstly, the Mac Studio can be equipped with the M2 Max or the even more powerful M2 Ultra chip, which features significantly more CPU and GPU cores than the M4 Pro or M4 Max found in the MacBook Pros. This results in a considerable edge in demanding activities such as video editing, 3D rendering, and executing complex simulations.

Secondly, the larger chassis of the Mac Studio allows for a more efficient thermal design, enabling it to maintain peak performance for longer periods without overheating or throttling.

However, both machines are high-speed and responsive for everyday tasks like web browsing or document creation. Ultimately, the best choice will depend on your specific needs and the workload you expect to handle.

Winner: Mac Studio

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Display

By design, the Mac Studio doesn't come with a display. The Mac Studio, with its powerful M2 Max or Ultra chips, can drive some awe-inspiring displays. For the best experience, consider high-resolution options like 4K or even 5K and 6K monitors. These will provide crisp visuals, ample screen real estate for multitasking, and accurate color reproduction, which is especially crucial if you're doing creative work. If you're a video editor or 3D artist, consider an 8K display for the ultimate detail.

Beyond resolution, look for displays with wide color gamuts (like P3 or Adobe RGB) for vibrant and accurate colors. Features like HDR support can enhance your viewing experience with greater dynamic range and contrast. Don't forget about connectivity! The Mac Studio offers Thunderbolt 4 and HDMI, so prioritize displays with these inputs for optimal performance and compatibility.

Ultimately, the best display for your Mac Studio depends on your specific needs and budget. However, aiming for high resolution, accurate colors, and modern connectivity will ensure a fantastic visual experience.

Winner: the MacBook Pro, of course, if you want a built-in display

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Upgradeability

When it comes to upgradeability, the Mac Studio M2 has a clear advantage over the MacBook Pro M4. The Mac Studio allows you to choose your preferred configuration of RAM and storage at the time of purchase. However, the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard, which means it cannot be upgraded later. On the other hand, you can easily expand storage by using the multiple Thunderbolt 4 ports on the Mac Studio to connect external SSDs, providing flexibility for future needs.

In contrast, both the RAM and storage in the MacBook Pro M4 are soldered onto the motherboard, making them non-user-upgradable. This means you'll need to determine your ideal configuration from the beginning, as you won't be able to change it later. Therefore, if you anticipate needing more storage or potentially wanting to increase RAM in the future, the Mac Studio offers a more flexible upgrade approach.

Winner: Mac Studio

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Connectivity

In terms of connectivity, the Mac Studio M2 offers a more extensive range of ports compared to the MacBook Pro M4. Both devices feature Thunderbolt 4 ports (with the M2 Ultra Mac Studio having two on the front), but the Mac Studio goes further by including a 10Gb Ethernet port, an HDMI port, and two USB-A ports.

This wider selection of ports accommodates various peripherals and workflows, particularly for users who need faster networking speeds or support for older devices. In contrast, the MacBook Pro M4 primarily relies on Thunderbolt 4 and includes only a headphone jack, making it more streamlined but potentially requiring dongles or docks for connecting certain devices.

Overall, the Mac Studio M2 provides greater connectivity flexibility right out of the box, while the MacBook Pro M4 emphasizes portability and a minimalist design.

Winner: Mac Studio

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Studio M2: Verdict

The "better" choice between a MacBook Pro M4 and a Mac Studio M2 truly depends on your needs and priorities. If portability is key for you, then the MacBook Pro M4 is the better option, as it's a powerful machine you can take anywhere. Additionally, if battery life matters and you require a laptop that can last for hours unplugged, the MacBook Pro will meet those needs perfectly. It's also suitable if your workflow is moderately demanding, handling tasks like photo editing, web development, and light video editing. Finally, if budget is a concern, you'll find that the MacBook Pro M4 generally starts at a lower price point.

On the other hand, if raw power is paramount for your tasks, you should consider the Mac Studio M2. This machine excels in demanding activities such as professional video editing, 3D rendering, and game development. Connectivity is also crucial, as the Mac Studio offers avariousports for peripherals and displays. If upgradability matters to you, the Mac Studio allows for future storage expansions, making it a more flexible option. Finally, if you primarily work at a desk and don't need a portable machine, the Mac Studio M2 is the ideal choice.

Ultimately, the best choice depends on your specific workflow, budget, and how you plan to use the machine. The MacBook Pro M4 is a fantastic choice if you prioritize portability and battery life. However, the Mac Studio M2 is the way to go if you need maximum performance and connectivity.

Winner: Mac Studio

In the ever-evolving world of Apple devices, selecting the right machine for your needs can be exciting and overwhelming. Two of Apple's standout offerings, the 2024 MacBook Pro with the M4 chip and the 2024 iMac with the M4 chip, present a compelling choice for those seeking power and performance.

Both devices benefit from the impressive capabilities of Apple silicon, but their distinct designs and features cater to different priorities.

This article compares these two machines, examining their strengths and weaknesses across key areas such as performance, display, portability, connectivity, and upgradeability. The goal is to help you make an informed decision.

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Specs

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Prices & availability

The MacBook Pro (2024) was released in 2024 and has since been superseded by the M5-powered models - although it's not an essential to upgrade, given how good the M4 chip is even now.

The laptop is available in two display sizes: 14 inches and 16 inches. The 14-inch model offers an entry-level M4 chip or a mid-range M4 Pro chip. The 16-inch model has either the M4 Pro or the M4 Max chip. Additionally, all models allow you to customize RAM and storage options.

Prices start from around $2000 / £2000 depending on which machine you choose. For comparison, the latest M5 models are priced from $1699 in the US and from £1699 in the UK, with the 16-inch models running from $2699 / £2699.

The iMac is offered in four configurations. Only the base model features an M4 chip with an 8-core CPU and an 8-core GPU. The other three models are equipped with an M4 chip that has a 10-core CPU and a 10-core GPU.

Prices start from $1299 direct from Apple in the US, while in the UK, it costs from £1299 at Apple.

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Portability

Regarding portability, the MacBook Pro M4 is the clear winner. Designed for mobility, this laptop allows you to take it to work, school quickly or anywhere else you need. In contrast, the iMac M4 is an all-in-one desktop computer.

While its slim design is aesthetically pleasing, it is meant to stay in one place. You won’t be able to pack it in a backpack or take it on a plane. If portability is a priority for you, the MacBook Pro is the best choice.

However, the iMac is an excellent option if you need a stationary machine with a larger screen and are willing to sacrifice portability.

Winner: Of course it's the MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Performance

The MacBook Pro M4 and iMac M4 feature Apple's impressive M4 chip, but the two have minor performance differences. The iMac M4 has a base 8-core CPU and 8-core GPU, whereas the MacBook Pro M4 has a more powerful 10-core CPU and 10-core GPU. This gives the MacBook Pro an advantage in graphics-intensive tasks like video editing and gaming.

However, the MacBook Pro and the iMac can be configured with up to 24GB of unified memory. This extra memory can significantly enhance performance for demanding workflows that involve multitasking and memory-intensive applications.

Winner: At the base model level, the MacBook Pro. Otherwise, it's a tie.

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Display

It's important to note some significant differences between the MacBook Pro M4 displays and the iMac M4. The MacBook Pro features a smaller 14.2-inch Liquid Retina XDR display with a higher resolution of 3024 x 1964 and a superior refresh rate of up to 120Hz, thanks to ProMotion technology. This results in smoother scrolling, more responsive animations, and a more fluid visual experience overall.

In contrast, the iMac M4 has a larger 24-inch Retina 4.5K display with a resolution of 4480 x 2520, but it only offers a standard refresh rate of 60Hz. While the iMac's display is still sharp and vibrant, it does not include ProMotion technology or the high refresh rate found in the MacBook Pro.

Ultimately, the best display for you depends on your preferences. The iMac has an advantage if you prioritize a larger screen with sharp visuals. However, the MacBook Pro's display is the better choice if you value a smoother, more responsive experience and portability.

Winner: For size, the iMac

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Upgradeability

Both the iMac M4 and the MacBook Pro M4 have significant limitations regarding upgradeability. Neither device allows user upgrades to the processor or graphics, as these components are integrated into the M4 chip. This means you must select your desired specifications at the time of purchase.

Memory upgrades are also impossible on either machine, as the RAM is soldered directly to the motherboard. This means you are locked into the amount of memory you initially choose.

The only component of the iMac M4 that might be user-upgradeable in some configurations is the storage. However, Apple does not officially support this process, and it can be pretty complex, potentially voiding the warranty.

In summary, the iMac M4 and MacBook Pro M4 offer limited upgradeability. Before purchasing, consider your needs for processing power, graphics performance, and memory; upgrading these components later will not be straightforward.

Winner: iMac

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Connectivity

The iMac M4 and MacBook Pro M4 have notable differences in connectivity. The MacBook Pro M4 offers a consistent array of ports across all configurations: three Thunderbolt 4 ports, an HDMI port, an SDXC card slot, and a headphone jack. This provides a comprehensive range of options for connecting displays, peripherals, and storage devices.

In contrast, the iMac M4 comes in two different configurations. The base model is limited to just two Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, which may not be sufficient for some users. To enjoy a more extensive range of connectivity options—featuring four Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, Gigabit Ethernet, and a Magic Keyboard with Touch ID—you must choose the higher-priced configuration.

While both machines offer modern and fast connectivity options, the MacBook Pro provides a more consistent and versatile set of ports from the start.

Winner: MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs iMac M4: Verdict

The 2024 MacBook Pro M4 and iMac M4, powered by the same Apple silicon, provide distinct experiences tailored to different needs. A key differentiator is portability; the MacBook Pro is designed for mobility, while the iMac is a stationary desktop. In terms of performance, the MacBook Pro generally has a slight advantage due to its standard 10-core GPU and higher maximum memory configuration, although the iMac features greater memory bandwidth.

Regarding displays, the MacBook Pro boasts a 14.2-inch Liquid Retina XDR display with ProMotion technology, offering a smoother and more responsive visual experience. In contrast, the iMac features a 24-inch Retina 4.5K display, which provides more screen real estate.

Neither machine allows for user upgrades to the processor, graphics, or memory. Regarding connectivity, the MacBook Pro offers a consistent set of ports across all its configurations, while the iMac M4 comes in two configurations with varying port options. Choosing between these devices depends on whether you prioritize portability and an exceptional display experience (MacBook Pro) or a larger screen with an all-in-one design (iMac).

Most folks would probably get more use out of the MacBook Pro, although you are likely to pay more.

Winner: MacBook Pro

While the M5-powered models of Apple's popular laptop line may be out, both the 14-inch and 16-inch M4 versions still deliver an exceptional experience, boasting high-performance, an impressive Liquid Retina XDR displays, and a sleek design aimed at professionals and creatives.

However, differences in size, portability, and price can make selecting the right MacBook Pro challenging. In this article, we will provide a detailed comparison of the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4) models, examining their key features, performance capabilities, and overall value. This analysis will help you decide which option best suits your specific needs.

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Specs

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Prices & availability

The 14-inch MacBook Pro (M4) is available with either an entry-level M4 chip or mid-range M4 Pro chip. After deciding on which chip you want, you can also adjust the machine's RAM and storage.

Expect to pay around $2000 / £2000 depending on the configuration. For comparison, the base model of the latest MacBook Pro (M5) costs from $1699 at Apple, and from £1699 in the UK.

When purchasing a 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4), you can choose between an M4 Pro or M4 Max model. From there, you can select your RAM and storage.

Prices are typically around the $2300 / £2300 mark here. If you're buying the M5 version direct from Apple, prices start from $2699 in the US and £2699 in the UK.

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Portability

Regarding portability, the 14-inch MacBook Pro has the upper hand. Its smaller size and lighter weight make it much easier to slip into a bag and carry around, whether commuting, traveling or simply moving between workspaces. While the 16-inch model is still manageable to transport, its larger dimensions and additional weight can become noticeable, especially during extended use or travel. This difference might not matter to everyone, but for those who prioritize portability and frequently move around with their device, the 14-inch model is undoubtedly the more convenient choice.

However, it's essential to consider how you typically use your laptop. If you primarily work at a desk and rarely take your computer on the go, the 14-inch model's portability advantages may not be as significant. Ultimately, the best choice depends on your individual needs and preferences.

Winner: MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4)

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Performance

Regarding raw performance, the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models offer similar capabilities; however, the experience largely depends on your chosen chip. The 14-inch model has either the entry-level M4 chip or the more robust M4 Pro. In contrast, the 16-inch model offers mid-range M4 Pro or high-performance M4 Max options.

Apple's M4 series chips significantly improve performance and energy efficiency for Mac computers, reflecting the company's commitment to pushing the boundaries of computing technology. Each chip in this lineup is designed to meet varying needs and budgets, ensuring users can find a model that suits their requirements.

The M4 chip is the base model, striking an excellent balance between power and efficiency. It is ideal for everyday tasks such as web browsing, email management, and light productivity. Users who primarily engage in routine computing will find the M4 sufficient for their needs, providing smooth performance for day-to-day applications.

Upgrading to the M4 Pro significantly enhances performance, particularly in graphics processing and multi-core tasks. This chip is tailored for professionals who engage in more demanding workflows, such as video editing, 3D modeling, software development, and other intensive applications that require robust computational power. The M4 Pro's ability to handle complex processes makes it an excellent choice for creative professionals and developers seeking to push their limits.

At the top of the lineup lies the M4 Max, designed for those who demand the absolute best from their machines. With increased CPU and GPU cores and superior memory bandwidth, the M4 Max is a powerhouse capable of managing the most demanding workflows. Whether performing high-resolution video editing, running complex simulations, or conducting extensive scientific research, the M4 Max delivers unparalleled performance. Its architecture allows for exceptional multitasking and resource management, making it the ultimate choice for film production, data analysis, and AI development professionals.

Ultimately, the choice between these chips comes down to your needs, workload, and the power required for your daily tasks. Assessing the complexity of your projects and the intensity of your computing requirements will guide you toward the right MacBook Pro model, ensuring you have the performance necessary to excel in your endeavors.

Winner: It depends on the chip. The M4 Max is the "best," but that doesn't mean it's the one most people need to buy.

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Upgradeability

The 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4) models are virtually identical regarding upgradeability. Neither allows for user upgrades to RAM or storage after purchase. Both come with Apple's unified memory architecture, which integrates the RAM into the chip. This design prioritizes performance and efficiency but eliminates the possibility of user-installed RAM upgrades. Similarly, the SSD storage is also soldered onto the motherboard, making post-purchase storage upgrades impossible.

Therefore, it's crucial to carefully consider your RAM and storage needs before purchasing either model. Choosing the ricorrectonfiguration at the outset is essential, as you won't be able to expand these components later. This limitation is consistent across the 14-inch and 16-inch models, so upgradeability shouldn't be a deciding factor in choosing between the two.

Winner: It's a draw

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Connectivity

The 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4) models are essentially identical in connectivity. Both offer a comprehensive suite of ports, including three Thunderbolt ports, an HDMI port, an SDXC card slot, and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. They also support Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 for fast and reliable wireless connectivity. This extensive array of ports ensures compatibility with a wide range of peripherals and accessories, catering to the needs of professionals and creatives who often require diverse connectivity options.

The only minor difference lies in the power adapter. The 16-inch model has a more powerful 140W USB-C power adapter than the 96W adapter included with the 14-inch model. This allows for faster charging on the 16-inch MacBook Pro, which is beneficial given its larger battery. However, both models support fast charging via either MagSafe or the USB-C port, providing flexibility and convenience for users.

Winner: 16-inch MacBook Pro (M4)

MacBook Pro 14-inch (M4) vs MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4): Verdict

First, let's assume you're not upgrading to the M5 laptops - and, honestly, given the power inherent in the M4 MacBook Pro laptops, it's absolutely not essential unless you want the latest in the line.

The 14-inch MacBook Pro (M4) is ideal for users who prioritize portability and value. Its smaller footprint and lighter weight make it a perfect companion for those who are frequently on the move or who prefer a more compact machine. Students, frequent travelers, and those who work in various locations will appreciate its easier handling and transport. Additionally, the 14-inch model offers a more accessible entry point with its lower starting price, making it appealing to budget-conscious users who still desire a powerful and capable machine.

While it lacks its bigger sibling's slightly larger screen and enhanced thermal management, the 14-inch MacBook Pro doesn't compromise performance. It still packs the potent chip, delivering exceptional power for demanding tasks. If portability and affordability are key considerations, the 14-inch MacBook Pro (M4) is the clear winner.

The MacBook Pro and Mac Pro are powerful machines, but they are not the same simply because they share the "Pro" designation. The MacBook Pro (2024) is available with the M4, M4 Pro, or M4 Ultra chipset. However, the newer M5-powered models are now available.

In contrast, the Mac Pro, which has not been updated since 2023, comes equipped with the M2 Ultra chip. It has since been discontinued. Despite it, if yhou can find it, it's an impressively powerful machine for creative professionals.

This comparison guide will show you where the real differences between these two machines lie.

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Specs

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Prices & availability

The 2024 MacBook Pro models come in two sizes: 14-inch and 16-inch, with the entry-level M4 chipset available exclusively in the 14-inch model. For the 16-inch model, you can choose between the M4 Pro or M4 Max chips.

Unified memory options range from 16GB to 128GB, and storage can go up to 8TB. The MacBook Pro is offered in silver and space black as previous versions.

Prices for these machines will start at around $2000 / £2000 for the base model. For comparison, the new M5 models direct from Apple are priced from $1699 in the US and £1699 in the UK, with costs increasing depending on size and chipset.

The Mac Pro model was designed to be highly customizable but is significantly less so than previous Intel-based models. There a few configurations around, including machines with a 60-core or a 76-core GPU, 64GB and 192GB RAM, and storage ranging from 1TB to 8TB.

Unfortunately, you can no longer purchase it from Apple - but expect to pay around $5000 / £5000 at least.

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Portability

The MacBook Pro M4 and the Mac Pro M2 differ greatly in terms of portability. The MacBook Pro M4 is a laptop designed for easy transport, featuring a built-in screen, keyboard, and trackpad. Its slim and lightweight design allows it to be carried in a backpack with ease.

In contrast, the Mac Pro M2 is a desktop computer that requires a separate monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Its tower design is intended to sit on a desk, making it significantly larger and heavier than the MacBook Pro, and therefore, it is not portable.

Essentially, the MacBook Pro M4 is tailored for users who need to work on the go, while the Mac Pro M2 is meant for stationary use in a workspace.

Winner: Not surprisingly, the MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Performance

When comparing performance, the M2 Ultra should be evaluated against the current M4 chips: M4, M4 Pro, and M4 Max.

Despite having fewer cores, the base M4 chip offers surprisingly competitive performance. While the M2 Ultra holds a slight edge in multi-core benchmarks, the difference is narrower than expected, thanks to the M4’s architectural advancements.

The M4 excels in graphics tasks due to its new GPU architecture with hardware ray tracing, leading to smoother gaming, faster 3D rendering, and improved efficiency. This results in longer battery life and lower power consumption. Although the M2 Ultra has advantages in memory bandwidth and maximum RAM capacity for professional workflows, the M4 provides an impressive balance of performance and value.

The M4 Pro also shows noteworthy performance, surpassing the M2 Ultra in multi-core benchmarks due to its advanced architecture. Like the base M4, it features hardware ray tracing, enhancing graphics performance, especially in gaming and creative applications.

The M4 Max further outperforms the M2 Ultra in several areas, particularly in multi-core performance, thanks to similar architectural efficiencies. It also benefits from hardware ray tracing for better performance in graphics-intensive tasks. While the M2 Ultra remains strong in memory capabilities, the M4 Max stands out as a high-performance option.

Winner: It depends on the chip, but even the base M4 stands up well against the M2 Ultra.

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Display

To use the Mac Pro, you'll need to purchase a separate monitor. Given the Mac Pro's immense power and versatility, it's essential to pair it with a monitor that can keep up.

For professionals seeking top-tier visual fidelity, the Apple Studio Display is an excellent choice. Its 5K Retina resolution, wide color gamut, and impressive brightness deliver stunning visuals. However, some may be concerned about its high price tag and limited ergonomic adjustments.

Alternatively, the Dell UltraSharp U2723QE offers outstanding image quality with its 4K resolution and IPS Black technology, which provides deeper blacks and better contrast. It is also more affordable and features a highly adjustable stand.

For those looking for a larger display, the BenQ PD3225U is a 32-inch 4K monitor known for its excellent color accuracy and a wide range of connectivity options. It is particularly well-suited for creative professionals due to its support for Mac-friendly color spaces, like Display P3 and M-book mode.

Ultimately, the right monitor for your Mac Pro will depend on your specific needs, budget, and desired screen size.

Winner: the MacBook Pro, of course, if you want a built-in display

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Upgradeability

The Mac Pro and the MacBook Pro (2024) serve very different purposes when it comes to upgradeability. The Mac Pro is a modular powerhouse, equipped with multiple slots for RAM, PCIe cards, and even GPUs.

This design allows for significant expansion and customization, enabling you to upgrade components as your needs change. In contrast, the MacBook Pro prioritizes portability and sleek design. Its RAM and storage are soldered onto the logic board, making upgrades impossible after purchase.

While this limits its long-term flexibility, it contributes to the laptop’s compact form factor.

The Mac Pro functions like a desktop tower, built for customization and expansion, whereas the MacBook Pro is a streamlined laptop that focuses on performance and portability over user upgrades.

Winner: Mac Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Connectivity

Both the MacBook Pro M4 and the Mac Pro M2 offer a good range of ports, but the Mac Pro provides more extensive connectivity options. Both machines include Thunderbolt 4 ports, with the MacBook Pro featuring three and the Mac Pro offering an impressive eight. Additionally, the Mac Pro has two HDMI ports, which are not available on the MacBook Pro, enabling more versatile display setups.

The Mac Pro also includes two USB-A ports and a headphone jack on the front panel for easy access, whereas the MacBook Pro positions these on its sides. Furthermore, the Mac Pro's modular design allows for additional connectivity through PCIe cards, offering a level of versatility that the MacBook Pro cannot match.

Ultimately, the Mac Pro is better suited for power users with demanding workflows, as it provides greater flexibility and a wider range of connectivity options.

Winner: Mac Pro

MacBook Pro M4 vs Mac Pro M2: Verdict

The 2024 MacBook Pro and Mac Pro serve different needs and priorities. The MacBook Pro, equipped with M4 series chips, excels in portability and efficiency, delivering impressive performance in a sleek, compact design. It is ideal for users who prioritize mobility and need a powerful device for everyday tasks, creative work, and even light professional workloads.

In contrast, the Mac Pro, powered by the M2 Ultra, is a workstation designed for maximum performance and expandability. Its modular design allows for extensive customization and upgrades, making it perfect for professionals who require the highest level of power and flexibility for demanding tasks such as video editing, 3D rendering, and software development. While the MacBook Pro focuses on providing a streamlined experience, the Mac Pro offers unmatched power and customization for those who push the boundaries of their workflows.

Winner: Honestly, it all depends on your needs and budget. Both are fine machines, but they cater to vastly different users. The real issue is finding a Mac Pro now that Apple has discontinued the line.

The iPhone 17 and iPhone Air fill out the middle of Apple’s current smartphone lineup, as they’re both more expensive than the iPhone 17e but cheaper than the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max.

Of the two, the iPhone Air commands the highest price tag, but it’s actually a worse phone in some ways, with Apple prioritizing its weight and slimness over other specs. In other words, even if money is no object, it might not be the right choice for you.

So, to help you decide whether to buy the iPhone 17 or iPhone Air, we’ve compared them in full, having used both phones extensively since their release in September.

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: specs comparison

You’ll find a deep dive into the specs and features of the iPhone 17 and iPhone Air — along with their respective prices — below, but first, here’s a look at how their key specs compare:

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: price and availability

The iPhone 17 and iPhone Air were both announced alongside their Pro siblings in September 2025, and they’re both available globally. However, their prices differ.

The iPhone 17 starts at $799 / £799 / AU$1,399, while the iPhone Air starts at $999 / £999 / AU$1,799. For full pricing of every configuration, check out the charts below.

So, the iPhone Air is $200 / £200 / AU$400 more expensive than the iPhone 17 in the configurations they’re both available in, and the Air can cost even more if you go for its top 1TB capacity, which isn’t an option with the iPhone 17.

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: design

While iPhones from the same generation tend to look quite similar, there are actually quite a lot of differences between the iPhone 17 and the iPhone Air.

The iPhone 17 has a dual-lens camera on the back with the lenses arranged vertically, while the iPhone Air has just one rear camera, but there’s a raised camera block running horizontally across the rear.

The iPhone Air is — surprise! — also a lot slimmer and lighter than the iPhone 17, coming in at 156.2 x 74.7 x 5.6mm and 165g, while the latter phone measures 149.6 x 71.5 x 8mm and 177g. This is, of course, the USP of the iPhone Air; it feels better than any iPhone (maybe ever?) in the hand, and we'd recommend going into an Apple Store and picking one up before dismissing its design as gimmicky.

Despite its slim frame and light weight, the iPhone Air is actually taller and wider than the iPhone 17 thanks to its larger screen (more on this in the next section), so you also get more display real estate for that higher price tag.

Plus, the iPhone Air should be slightly tougher, as while both phones have Ceramic Shield 2 on the front, the Air additionally has Ceramic Shield on the back, and it has a titanium frame, while the iPhone 17 uses aluminum.

Their colors differ too, with the iPhone 17 being sold in Black, White, Mist Blue, Sage, and Lavender, while the iPhone Air is available in Space Black, Cloud White, Light Gold, and Sky Blue (beware, though, that Light Gold is very subtle).

Beyond that, most design elements are similar — both phones have flat screens with a Dynamic Island, similar curves to their corners, and the same selection of buttons. They also both have an IP68 rating for water and dust resistance.

However, if you’re outside the US, then the iPhone 17 will likely have a physical SIM card slot, whereas the iPhone Air is eSIM-only in all regions.

So, these are both good-looking phones, but the iPhone Air is undoubtedly the most stylish, with our iPhone Air review describing it as “Apple’s most exciting refresh in years.”

Winner: iPhone Air

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: display

The iPhone 17 has a 6.3-inch 1206 x 2622 OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate, a peak brightness of 3,000 nits, and around 460 pixels per inch. The iPhone Air’s display is a bigger 6.5-inch 1260 x 2736 OLED panel with a 120Hz refresh rate, a peak brightness of 3,000 nits, and roughly 460 pixels per inch.

So, the two phones have the same pixel density, the same OLED display technology, the same maximum brightness, and the same maximum refresh rate. They both also support always-on display, and have the same Ceramic Shield 2 protection, with the main difference simply being that the iPhone Air’s screen is a bit bigger.

Our iPhone 17 review described its screen as delivering “excellent visuals”, while our iPhone Air review called its display “punchy, sharp, and smooth.” So you won’t go wrong with either phone.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: cameras

When it comes to cameras, the iPhone 17 is the clear winner. Not because the iPhone Air’s cameras are bad, but because the phone has just one on the back. Specifically, it has a 48MP f/1.6 wide camera, whereas the iPhone 17 has both that camera and a 48MP f/2.2 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view — and both phones have an 18MP f/1.9 camera on the front.

So, with the addition of an ultra-wide lens, the iPhone 17 is the more versatile shooter, and when it comes to video, the iPhone Air doesn’t have an advantage either, as both phones are capable of recording in up to 4K quality at up to 60fps, or in 1080p at up to 240fps.

Still, while the iPhone 17 wins for photos, the iPhone Air isn’t a bad snapper by any means, with our iPhone Air review saying that its camera “delivers sharp, natural photos and impressive portraits”, while we described the iPhone 17 as having “two excellent cameras.”

You're most likely going to use the wide camera more than the ultra-wide anyway, so the difference between the two phones (in terms of photography) isn't as dramatic as the Air's single camera suggests. Still, the iPhone 17 wins here.

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17 camera samples

iPhone Air camera samples

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: performance and software

On paper, the iPhone Air has a definite performance advantage over the iPhone Air, with this phone having an A19 Pro chipset and 12GB of RAM, whereas the iPhone 17 has a slightly lesser A19 chipset and 8GB of RAM.

But in practice, for most use cases, there’s little noticeable difference, with us finding that the A19 chipset in the iPhone 17 is “plenty fast for now and should last well into the future”, and us similarly noting that the iPhone Air’s A19 Pro chipset “should keep it running smoothly for years.”

So, ultimately, both of these are very powerful phones, and in real terms, there’s little to choose between them. But the iPhone Air’s slight specs edge gives it the performance win.

When it comes to software, there’s even less to differentiate the two phones, with both running iOS 26 out of the box, and both likely to receive the same number of updates.

Winner: iPhone Air

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: battery

One of the compromises Apple made to get the iPhone Air so slim was the size of its battery, with this phone having just a 3,149mAh cell, while the iPhone 17 — which also has a smaller screen to power — has a 3,692mAh one.

Unsurprisingly, then, the iPhone 17 does have better battery life. According to Apple, you can playback videos for up to 30 hours with the iPhone 17, compared to 27 hours with the iPhone Air. And if you’re streaming those videos, you can do it for up to 27 hours with the iPhone 17 and up to 22 hours with the iPhone Air.

Our own tests yielded similar results, with our iPhone 17 review finding that it delivered all-day life, while the iPhone Air could make it through a workday but not consistently to bedtime.

However, Apple does sell an iPhone Air-specific MagSafe battery, which you can attach to the phone without adding much bulk, and this improves its battery life substantially. But it also means the phone is no longer super-slim, and it’s an extra expense.

The iPhone 17 also charges faster, with Apple claiming it can reach a 50% charge in 20 minutes with a 40W or higher adapter, while the iPhone Air can reach a 50% charge in 30 minutes with a 20W or higher adapter. Though when using wireless charging, both phones can reach 50% in 30 minutes with a 30W or higher adapter.

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17 vs iPhone Air: verdict

Overall, the iPhone 17 is probably the better buy for most people. It’s cheaper, while having an extra camera, better battery life, and a similarly good screen. The iPhone Air is more powerful, but the real-world difference is negligible, so the only major advantage it has is its slim and light design.

So, if aesthetics are of utmost importance to you, then the iPhone Air is the clear choice — and even in the areas where it loses to the iPhone 17, it’s far from terrible.

But if you want a well-rounded phone at a more palatable price, our vote would be for the iPhone 17. It might not turn as many heads, but it’s the more consistent and versatile — if less exciting — option.

The Mac Studio and Mac Pro feature variations of Apple’s M2 chip. Now, as of 2026, Apple has discontinued the Mac Pro - the most up-to-date model comes with the M2 Ultra chip. However, the Mac Studio continues to receive updates, and currently comes equipped with the M3 Ultra and M4 Max processors (we reviewed the Mac Studio M3 Ultra here).

Having said that, if you can find the M2 versions of each, they're still impressively powerful machines for high-performance workloads.

This article compares the Mac Studio with M2 Max and M2 Ultra to the Mac Pro with its M2 Ultra configuration to help you determine which of these desktop giants reign supreme.

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Specs

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Prices & availability

The current Mac Pro model is designed to be highly customizable but significantly less so than previous Intel-based models. You must start by choosing between a tower and rack model. After that, you must decide whether to purchase the Mac Pro with the M2 Ultra chip, which offers a 60-core or a 76-core GPU. Both configurations include a 24-core CPU and a 32-core Neural Engine.

You can select from 64GB to 192GB of unified memory and 1TB to 8TB of storage.

Expect to pay at least $5000 / £5000 - but it could be more, especially as with Apple discontinuing the line, they're becoming rarer finds.

The Mac Studio is available with an M2 Max or M2 Ultra chipset. From there, you can make adjustments to the RAM and storage.

Pricing tends to be around $2000 / £2000, depending on the configuration. For comparison, the latest M3 Ultra and M4 Max models are available direct from Apple, with prices from $1999 in the US for the base model and from £2099 in the UK.

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Portability

The Mac Studio is a desktop computer designed to remain in a single location. It requires external peripherals such as a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. In contrast, the Mac Pro is also a desktop but is larger and heavier, which makes it even less portable.

While it offers greater expandability and customization options than the Mac Studio, this comes at the cost of portability. If portability is a priority for you, neither of these options is ideal; in that case, a MacBook Pro would be a better choice.

Winner: Tied

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Performance

While Mac Studio and Mac Pro can be configured with the M2 Ultra chip, the Mac Pro generally offers better performance, especially under sustained heavy workloads. This is mainly due to its superior thermal design.

The Mac Pro's larger chassis allows for a more robust cooling system, preventing the M2 Ultra from throttling its performance to manage heat, as can sometimes happen in the more compact Mac Studio. This translates to the Mac Pro maintaining higher clock speeds for extended periods, resulting in faster rendering times and smoother performance in demanding tasks like video editing and 3D rendering.

However, for most everyday tasks and even moderately demanding workflows, the performance difference between the two machines with the M2 Ultra chip will be negligible. Also, unlike the Mac Pro, the Mac Studio has a less expensive M2 Max chip option.

Winner: Mac Pro (just)

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Upgradeability

When it comes to upgradeability, the Mac Pro clearly stands out. While neither machine allows users to upgrade the M2 chip or the unified memory, the Mac Pro features PCIe slots for expansion. This means you can add dedicated graphics cards, networking cards, and high-performance storage solutions in the future.

In contrast, the Mac Studio is limited to its internal configuration and whatever external devices can be connected via Thunderbolt. Therefore, if you expect to need to expand your system’s capabilities down the line, the Mac Pro offers significantly more flexibility.

Winner: Mac Pro

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Connectivity

Regarding connectivity, the Mac Pro and Mac Studio M2 models offer similar ports, but some key differences exist. Both models feature multiple Thunderbolt 4 ports—8 on the Mac Pro and 6 or 8 on the Mac Studio, depending on your chosen chip—allowing for high-speed connections to external displays, storage devices, and other peripherals.

Additionally, both include an HDMI port and at least two USB-A ports. However, the Mac Pro has an advantage with two 10Gb Ethernet ports, compared to the Mac Studio’s single 10Gb Ethernet port, providing greater flexibility for high-bandwidth network connections.

Furthermore, the Mac Pro includes PCIe slots that allow for the addition of specialized cards, which can expand connectivity options for professional audio interfaces or support for legacy connections. Overall, the Mac Pro offers slightly more built-in connectivity and greater potential for expansion than the Mac Studio.

Winner: Mac Pro

Mac Pro M2 vs Mac Studio M2: Verdict

For most users, the Mac Studio with the M2 Max chip is the better choice. It strikes an exceptional balance between performance and practicality, making it ideal for a wide range of tasks, from everyday computing to more demanding content creation workflows. The M2 Max chip delivers unparalleled processing power and graphics capabilities, allowing for smooth multitasking and efficient handling of intensive applications such as video editing software like Final Cut Pro and graphic design tools like Adobe Photoshop.

In terms of design, the Mac Studio is significantly more compact than the Mac Pro, making it a perfect fit for users with limited desk space or those who prefer a minimalist setup. Its sleek, modern aesthetic blends well with various environments, whether at home or in a professional setting. Additionally, the pricing of the Mac Studio is more accessible for most users, providing a high-end performance experience without the premium cost associated with the Mac Pro.

While the Mac Pro does boast superior thermal management, which allows for sustained performance during heavy workloads, this feature is mainly beneficial for users with very specific needs, such as high-end 3D rendering, scientific simulations, or extensive computational tasks that require advanced hardware configurations. The Mac Pro's expandability also allows for customizable enhancements, which may be appealing to niche professionals who frequently upgrade their systems or need specialized hardware.

However, unless you anticipate requiring substantial upgrades in the future or regularly pushing your hardware to its absolute limits, the Mac Studio offers a more balanced combination of performance, size, and price. It caters to creative professionals and casual users alike, ensuring that you can tackle demanding projects efficiently without the unnecessary overhead that comes with the Mac Pro. In summary, for the vast majority of users, the Mac Studio is not only a practical choice but also a powerful one that will meet most computing and creative demands with ease.

Winner: For most users, the Mac Studio. For ultimate creatives, the Mac Pro

While not the latest models, the Mac Studio M2 and the iMac M4 still exemplify this dedication with powerful M-series chips and sleek aesthetics. Although they share a common heritage, these machines are designed to meet different needs and preferences.

This article compares the Mac Studio M2 and the iMac M4, focusing on essential aspects such as design philosophy, portability, upgradeability, and connectivity options.

By exploring these factors, we aim to provide clarity for those looking for the perfect Apple desktop to support their creative projects or everyday computing tasks. Whether you prefer a compact powerhouse or the elegance of an all-in-one, this comparison will equip you with the knowledge needed to make an informed decision.

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Specs

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Prices & availability

The Mac Studio is ideal for creative professionals, such as video editors, graphic designers, and musicians, who need a robust and compact machine. It's also an excellent option for developers and other power users who demand high performance. As of 2026, the most modern version of the desktop computer run the M3 Ultra and M4 Max chips.

Expect costs for the older machine to run to around $2000 / £2000. The current model, however, is priced at from $1999 at Apple and from £2099 for the base model from Apple UK.

The iMac M4 was released in 2024. Each model is equipped with an entry-level M4 chip. However, the two standard configurations vary based on the number of CPU and GPU cores. You can also customize RAM and storage options from there.

Direct from Apple, it's priced at $1299 in the US and £1299 in the UK.

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Portability

Regarding portability, the Mac Studio and iMac M4 reside on opposite ends of the spectrum. The Mac Studio, with its compact design, is surprisingly portable for a desktop computer. At just 7.7 inches square and 3.7 inches tall, it can easily be slipped into a backpack or carrying case for transport between locations. This makes it a viable option for creatives working on projects in different settings or those who prefer a minimalist workspace. However, it's important to remember that the Mac Studio is still a desktop and requires a separate monitor, keyboard, and mouse, which adds to the overall bulk when moving.

In contrast, the iMac M4 is an all-in-one design, meaning the computer is integrated into the monitor. While this offers a clean and streamlined setup, it inherently limits portability—the 24-inch display, though thin and light for its size, is not designed for frequent travel. The iMac M4 is best suited for a stationary setup where it can serve as the centerpiece of a workspace. The Mac Studio offers greater portability for a desktop, while the iMac M4 prioritizes a sleek, integrated design at the expense of easy transport.

Winner: Mac Studio M2

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Performance

Mac Studio M2 and iMac M4 utilize Apple silicon, but their performance capabilities differ significantly due to variations in their chips and intended use cases. The Mac Studio M2 can be configured with the M2 Max or the more powerful M2 Ultra chip, making it ideal for demanding workflows. These chips offer more CPU and GPU cores and increased memory bandwidth, allowing the Mac Studio to excel in tasks such as professional video editing, 3D rendering, and software development. It can easily handle complex projects, delivering exceptional speed and responsiveness.

In contrast, the iMac M4 features the M4 chip, a competent processor designed for efficiency and balanced performance in everyday tasks. It excels at web browsing, email, office productivity, and even light creative work like photo editing. While the M4 chip can manage some demanding applications, it may not match the raw power and speed of the M2 Max, or Ultra found in the Mac Studio, especially when dealing with resource-intensive workloads. In summary, the Mac Studio M2 prioritizes maximum performance for professionals, while the iMac M4 provides a smooth and efficient experience for everyday computing needs.

Winner: Mac Studio M2

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Upgradeablity

When considering long-term use and potential upgrades, the Mac Studio M2 and iMac M4 differ significantly in their approach to upgradeability. The Mac Studio M2, although not user-upgradable in the traditional sense, does offer some customization options at the time of purchase. Buyers can choose from various configurations of unified memory and SSD storage to meet their anticipated needs. However, once this initial configuration is set, the internal components—including the M2 Max or Ultra chip—are not designed for user replacement or upgrades. As a result, users may eventually need to replace the entire machine as software and workloads evolve.

In contrast, the iMac M4 exemplifies an all-in-one design where upgradeability is not a priority. Its tightly integrated components, including the M4 chip, memory, and storage, are not meant for user upgrades. This limitation reduces its long-term flexibility, as users cannot independently upgrade components to extend the iMac's lifespan. Essentially, the iMac M4 represents a more static investment, while the Mac Studio M2, despite not being user-upgradable, provides some initial customization options to address specific performance needs.

Winner: Tie (neither are good on this point)

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Connectivity

The Mac Studio M2 and iMac M4, designed for modern workflows, offer different approaches to connectivity, reflecting their distinct purposes. The Mac Studio M2, with its professional focus, boasts a comprehensive array of ports. On the rear, you'll find four Thunderbolt 4 ports, two USB-A ports, an HDMI port, a 10Gb Ethernet port, and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. Additionally, the front panel offers two USB-C ports or Thunderbolt 4 ports, depending on whether you choose the M2 Max or M2 Ultra configuration, along with an SDXC card slot for quick access to media. This wide selection caters to power users who require high-bandwidth connections for multiple displays, external drives, and other peripherals.

In contrast, the iMac M4 adopts a more streamlined approach to connectivity, befitting its all-in-one design. It offers two rear Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. Higher-end configurations also include two additional USB 4 ports. Notably, Gigabit Ethernet is available as a configurable option and is built into the power adapter. While this selection adequately covers essential connections for everyday use, it may not satisfy users who require a wider variety of ports or high-bandwidth interfaces for specialized equipment. The Mac Studio M2 prioritizes extensive connectivity for professionals, while the iMac M4 provides a more focused set of ports for general users.

Winner: Mac Studio M2

Mac Studio M2 vs iMac M4: Verdict

The choice between the Mac Studio M2 and the iMac M4 ultimately depends on individual needs and priorities. The Mac Studio M2 is designed for professionals and power users who need high performance for demanding tasks such as video editing, 3D rendering, and software development. Its powerful M2 Max or Ultra chip, extensive connectivity options, and compact design make it a flexible and future-proof investment for those looking to enhance their creative workflows.

On the other hand, the iMac M4 stands out with its elegant all-in-one design, vibrant display, and efficient M4 chip. It is an excellent choice for everyday users who appreciate a streamlined aesthetic and a seamless experience for tasks like browsing, emailing, and productivity. Its integrated design and eye-catching display make it ideal for those who prefer a clean and minimalist workspace.

Considering these key differences, users can confidently choose the Apple desktop that best meets their requirements and computing style.

We rated the DJI Mic Mini as the best small wireless mic when it was launched in 2024, and it now has a successor in the shape of the Mic Mini 2. Both are 5-star products for content creators wanting an affordable, lightweight, and simple mic for better audio on the go.

If you already own a Mic Mini, there's very little reason to upgrade to the Mic Mini 2 because performance is practically the same; both mics feature clear 24-bit audio, two-level noise reduction, a transmission range up to 400m, healthy battery life, and a lightweight 11g build.

So what exactly is new? I've pinpointed the key differences below, chief among them being much better pricing this time around, plus a new bundle for mobile creators.

Surprisingly, however, DJI also revealed in its Mic Mini 2 press release that a Mic Mini 2S is in the pipeline for later this year. The 'S' version will add welcome upgrades missing in current models: internal recording, plus the capacity to sync up to four mics with one receiver. That's all we know about the Mic Mini 2S for now, but it sounds like it'll be worth the wait for Mic Mini upgraders.

Let's now see how the Mic Mini and Mic Mini 2 compare. You can find out more about each product in our full reviews via the links above.

1. Design

Both products are tiny, discreet, and lightweight — the Mic Mini 2 weighs just 11g by itself (not including the magnetic attachment). However, there's one new design trick in the Mic Mini 2 that could be worth an upgrade, depending on the user: magnetic covers.

The Mic Mini 2 has a magnetic surface that accepts covers, with a wide range of colors available, as you can see in the lead image of this article. There are further limited edition covers too (see above). There's a selection of covers included in the 2 TX + 1RX + Charging Case bundle (details below), while additional covers can be purchased separately.

If you're style-conscious and like the sound of a wireless mic that matches the color of your outfit, then this new feature could be worth the upgrade alone. However, if you don't mind the standard black or white options, then this upgrade could feel like a bit of a gimmick.

2. Voice tone presets

DJI has added three voice tone presets to the Mic Mini 2: regular, rich, and bright. The idea is that each preset optimizes audio quality based on the recording environment. However, our reviewer found that there was so little difference between the sound in each preset that it's barely worth the upgrade.

So if customizable colors aren't your bag, nor do the voice tone presets entice, there's essentially no reason to upgrade to the Mic Mini 2 from the Mic Mini. However, for those buying new, the biggest reason to be excited is a significant price cut, along with a new bundle designed for mobile creators.

3. Pricing and bundles

When the Mic Mini was unveiled in 2024, the 2 TX + 1RX + Charging Case bundle cost $169 / £145 / AU$245. It seems hard to believe, then, that the equivalent Mic Mini 2 bundle costs just £89 / AU$149 — that's a huge price cut, likely due to increased competition. As is the way with DJI currently, there's no US pricing or availability at launch.

There's also a new bundle designed for solo mobile creators, which comprises one mic, one mobile receiver (see our DJI Mic series mobile receiver hands-on), and a charging case, available for just £49 / AU$89. This kit includes a sleek receiver that slots into your phone's USB-C, whereas the bundle above includes the standard receiver, which is much clunkier when connected to a phone, and is a better fit for proper cameras.

The price for the mobile bundle is the same price that DJI was asking for a single mic when it launched the original Mic Mini. Sadly, it's not possible to buy a solo Mic Mini 2 mic just yet.

All that being said, the price of the original Mic Mini complete kit mentioned above has continually dropped during its two-year life, and can now be found for as little as £65 / AU$124 — that's less than the new version with its additional colored covers.

For me, those Mic Mini 2 prices are super competitive. Yes, the second-gen model is a tiny upgrade (customizable covers aside), but it led the way for value in an increasingly competitive space and is my new favorite small wireless mic. Whether or not the Mic Mini 2S reveal rains on the Mic Mini 2 parade, we'll have to wait and see.

I’d actually heard about the Bevel app before Whoop, makers of some of the best fitness trackers (albeit also some of the most expensive) filed a lawsuit against the creators of the app. It was mainly through ads on my Instagram feed. I eventually bowed to the pressure and downloaded it to see what it was all about.

Then news broke that Whoop had sued Bevel for various things including patent infringements and creating an app that had a likeness to Whoop’s app. So it felt like an apt time to see whether Whoop had a reason to be annoyed to the extent that it had to get legal about it all..

Bevel, which is described as an AI health companion app and a competitor to some of the best fitness apps, launched in 2024. Whoop launched in 2012, so has been out in public for a lot longer than Bevel. Like its hardware, Whoop’s companion app has gone through some changes. Whether those changes were influenced by Bevel or vice versa is a matter that will no doubt be heavily discussed as part of that lawsuit.

I wanted to see for myself if the Bevel app was exactly like the Whoop one. Here’s what I found out after using it for a few weeks.

Before talking about the app, it’s worth explaining how Bevel actually works. Unlike Whoop, there isn’t Bevel hardware you need to buy. Instead, it lets you sync data from wearables you already own. That currently includes the Apple Watch, Oura Ring 4 and the best Garmin watches. It also works with Strava if you mainly track your workouts there too.

It will actually let you sync data from multiple devices and also ensure you’re not pushing duplicate data from those devices into the app. So if you take your Oura to bed to track sleep and do everything else with your Apple Watch during the day, you can have all the data in one place.

The app is free to use, with a subscription element also available to unlock additional features. The subscription works out to paying $79.99/£49.99 a year to subscribe. To put that into context, the cheapest Whoop subscription tier costs £169/$199 a year.

Bevel does give you the option to trial the premium version for 14 days as well before deciding whether you want to pay up. I decided to try the free version first before moving onto premium to see what you gain from upgrading.

How Bevel works

The Bevel app is essentially broken into four sections. You have the main Homescreen where you’ll see a snapshot of your data. There’s also a journal page, a place dedicated to collating your fitness data and a tab for showing more health and nutrition-centric metrics like weight and heart rate variability baselines.

As mentioned, all of this data is driven from the device you decide to pair to it. So if your device can’t track a particular piece of data, it won’t be shown. I was testing it with a Garmin Forerunner 970, so only the data I didn’t see was weight. Had I been manually inputting that into Garmin’s Connect app, then that would’ve been pulled through as well.

Straight off the bat, that homescreen does scream Whoop app. Mainly through the inclusion of Strain, Recovery and Sleep progress rings, helping you understand the strain you’ve put on your body, how much recovery time you need and how much sleep you’ve banked. Whoop uses the same metrics, it just orders them slightly differently on the homescreen.

Bevel has a journal feature, just like Whoop has. It also has a health monitor section that hones in on similar data such as temperature, resting heart rate and SpO2 levels. There seems to be a bit more of an emphasis from Bevel on your fitness data, simply because it’s able to harness that data from devices that are more complete in sports tracking terms compared to Whoop, which doesn’t record GPS data. You also have the ability to build workout templates inside of Bevel’s app.

When you go Premium, you’re basically turning on Bevel’s AI-powered intelligence insights to get more tailored guidance and recommendations from your data. Again, this is a feature that Whoop offers through its own companion app, with the premium subscription built in. These insights appear below the Strain, Recovery and Sleep rings on the homescreen. You can expand the insights to launch Bevel’s AI coach that you can ask about your data or even whether it’s the smart move to workout that day or put it off for another day.

Does Whoop have a case?

’ll start by saying that I’ve really liked using Bevel. It’s great that you can pull in data from multiple devices. I know my Oura Ring 4 is a better, more reliable sleep tracker than my Garmin watch. I also know that I can trust the heart rate data from my Garmin, especially as I pair it to a heart rate monitor during exercise. I also appreciated Bevel’s approach to collating fitness data. It made identifying good or bad trends in my data an easy and straightforward thing to do.

On the premium front, Bevel’s AI coach is one of the better examples of an AI coach I’ve experienced on a fitness app. The insights felt refreshingly concise and engaging enough to pay attention to. Crunching your data to respond to queries can be a little slow at times, but what it generates can be useful enough to shape decisions made about your day or night.

So does Whoop have a case? Well, there’s no doubt that many of Bevel’s features look a lot like Whoop’s ones. The rings, health monitor and journal definitely stick out as being presented in a similar way. The big question is who did them first? There are suggestions that Bevel might have been first to include some of those elements that also appear in Whoop’s app.

Fundamentally, while Bevel’s app is similar in look, my experiences have still felt different enough. Whether that’s the presentation of certain data or the fact Whoop seems to place a bit more focus on aspects like sleep compared to Bevel, which imports data from other fitness ecosystems.

If someone asked me for recommendations for an app that feels like Whoop and doesn’t require a Whoop, Bevel would instantly spring to mind. However this lawsuit plays out, I’m hoping Bevel is still around after it. The free version has certainly been good enough to stay on my phone homescreen.

If you’re in the market for a new iPhone and have the means to spend big, you’re probably deciding between two very different products: the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air.

The former is a feature-packed powerhouse with excellent cameras, while the latter is among the most interesting iPhones, design-wise, Apple has ever made.

So, which should you buy? I’ve used both the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air for months at a time, meaning I’m well-placed to walk you through each model’s strengths and weaknesses. You’ll find my overall verdict at the bottom of the page, but rest assured that, whichever model you choose, you’ll be getting a powerful and durable iPhone that should see you through the next few years with ease. Let's get into it.

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: specs comparison

Before we dig into the details, here’s an overview of both phones’ key specs:

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: price and availability

The iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air both launched in September 2025 and are available globally. The former retails for $1,099 / £1,099 / AU$1,999, and the latter for $999 / £999 / AU$1,799. Both phones come with 256GB of storage as standard, and can be configured with up to 1TB of storage (or 2TB if you choose the iPhone 17 Pro Max).

Full pricing is as follows:

So, the iPhone 17 Pro is $100 / £100 / AU$200 more expensive than the iPhone 17 Air in every configuration. And in fact, if you’re shopping for an unlocked device, Apple’s super slim iPhone is also on sale at third-party retailers a lot more frequently than the iPhone 17 Pro, so that price gap is often even wider.

Winner: iPhone Air

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: design

Surprise! The biggest differences between the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air come in the design department.

The iPhone 17 Pro is smaller, thicker, heavier, and has a much larger camera block — or ‘Camera Plateau’ — that runs vertically across the width of its rear panel. Both this camera block and the phone’s frame are made of aluminum, and the iPhone 17 Pro also has a rectangular glass cutout on the back for MagSafe and wireless charging.

The 17 Pro does actually look very different from the 16 Pro before it, and it feels great to hold in the hand. In any other year, it would be the standout iPhone in terms of design. But the iPhone Air is another level of premium.

First, it’s improbably thin. Measuring just 5.64mm at its thinnest point, the iPhone Air is 31% smaller than the iPhone 17 Pro and some 41g lighter, despite boasting a larger 6.5-inch display, which we’ll come to later.

As on the 17 Pro, Apple houses all of the Air’s core components in a rear ‘Camera Plateau’, though here that module is pill-shaped and made entirely of glass. Glass is also the material of choice for the whole rear panel, and the iPhone Air is housed in a titanium frame rather than an aluminum one.

In the hand, Apple’s super slim iPhone feels like nothing else before it, and if you don’t think you’ll care about the Air’s thickness (you will), you’ll definitely appreciate its weightlessness. I’ve had to double-check my pockets at times just to remind myself that the Air is in fact where I left it, and when you do take the phone out of your pocket, it’ll definitely attract more attention than the Pro — which again, looks great, but it’s a different type of great.

What’s more, despite the Air’s thin and lightweight design, Apple still makes room for the Action button and Camera Control, so you won’t lose out on either feature by choosing not to go Pro.

Both phones are also protected by Ceramic Shield 2, which is way more scratch-resistant than previous versions of iPhone glass, and both get an IP68 rating, meaning they’re water-resistant to depths of six meters for up to 30 minutes, and dust-proof.

As for the slightly more subtle design differences, the iPhone 17 Pro has stereo speakers at the bottom of its frame, while the iPhone Air has a single mono speaker in the earpiece area.

The 17 Pro also ships with a SIM card tray in the UK, Europe, and Australia, whereas the Air is eSIM-only in every region.

As for colors, the 17 Pro comes in Silver, Cosmic Orange, and Deep Blue, while the Air ships in Sky Blue, Cloud White, Space Black, and Light Gold (though beware: the gold is not very gold).

Winner: iPhone Air

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: display

From the front, both the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air look nigh-on identical, save for their different screen sizes.

Like the regular iPhone 17, the 17 Pro uses a 6.3-inch OLED panel (2622 x 1206), while the Air uses a 6.5-inch OLED panel (2736 x 1260), which is unique among the iPhone 17 lineup. If you go for the 17 Pro Max, you’ll get an even larger 6.9-inch display.

Both of these screens boast 120Hz refresh rates and Apple’s always-on display technology, as well as the Dynamic Island cut-out for live alerts, background activities, and app controls.

Both the 17 Pro and iPhone Air also share an outdoor peak brightness of 3,000 nits, so you won’t struggle to see either phone’s screen in bright sunlight.

In other words, this section is a straight tie, though personally, I think the iPhone Air’s 6.5-inch screen size is the sweet spot for a smartphone display.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: cameras

Now we come to the first big compromise of the iPhone Air: it only has one camera.

Apple’s marketing will tell you that the Air’s 48MP Fusion lens is both a wide-angle lens and a telephoto lens in one, but this 2x optical-quality crop is no substitute for the true 4x telephoto zoom you’ll get on the iPhone 17 Pro.

Apple’s latest flagship also offers optical-quality zoom up to 8x, and you’ll be thankful for that extra versatility when filming at concerts, sports games, or basically anywhere that has you far away from the subject.

The 17 Pro also offers a 48MP ultra-wide lens, which makes it easy to capture landscapes, buildings, and small spaces, while the iPhone Air has no such lens.

Lastly, the 17 Pro can capture video in 4K at up to 120 fps, while the Air is limited to 4K at 60 fps, so content creators will probably want to opt for the former.

On paper, then, the iPhone 17 Pro wipes the floor with the Air in the camera department, and it’s true that the 17 Pro is among the best camera phones money can buy.

However, it’s worth thinking about what type of photos you regularly take before dismissing the iPhone Air out of hand. When swapping from the Pro to the Air, I was worried about how much I’d miss the former’s telephoto lens, but actually, I found the wide lens to be perfectly fine in 80% of situations. The lack of a proper zoom lens did prove frustrating at times, but I didn’t really notice the lack of an ultra-wide lens, and the portability gained by having only one camera on the iPhone Air is worth bearing in mind.

Both phones also share the same excellent 18MP selfie camera, which uses subject tracking to automatically keep you in the frame and lets you switch between portrait and landscape modes on the fly.

Winner: iPhone 17 Pro

iPhone 17 Pro camera samples

iPhone Air camera samples

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: performance and software

The iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air both use Apple’s latest A19 Pro chipset, meaning they’re two of the most powerful phones on the market. But there are some slight differences in terms of how they handle all that power.

The chipset inside the 17 Pro actually has an extra GPU core, though you’ll never notice the difference while scrolling, streaming, or web browsing. Where the 17 Pro does pull away from the Air is in its management of heat.

Apple’s latest flagship features a dedicated vapor chamber cooling system for better sustained performance, while the super slim Air features no such system.

Again, you won’t notice the benefits of this vapor chamber while scrolling through TikTok or watching YouTube, but it does keep the 17 Pro much cooler than the Air while gaming for sustained periods or recording video in 4K.

The Air also has a tendency to heat up during extended FaceTime sessions or when you download multiple apps in one go, which isn’t really a problem, but it’s definitely a noticeable difference versus the iPhone 17 Pro.

The 17 Pro’s stereo speakers are also much better than the single mono speaker in the iPhone Air, and for data transfer, the Pro gets USB 3 speeds, while the Air is limited to USB 2.

As for software, both phones offer an identical experience, supporting iOS 26 out of the box and likely supported with updates until at least 2030.

Winner: iPhone 17 Pro

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: battery

You won’t be shocked to learn that the iPhone 17 Pro (4,252mAh) features a bigger battery than the super slim iPhone Air (3,149mAh). Apple says you’ll get up to 33 hours of video playback from the 17 Pro, and up to 27 hours from the Air, and both of those figures are accurate if you do nothing but stream video on either phone.

Sustained web browsing over 5G will knock both of those numbers down significantly, and in our lab testing — where we used a proprietary app to cycle through a series of 22 websites until the phones’ batteries had completely drained — the 17 Pro lasted for 15 hours, and the iPhone Air lasted for just over 12 hours.

In other words, the 17 Pro is a true all-day phone (you’ll probably get nearer two days of use if you use it casually), whereas the iPhone Air needs to be charged every night.

Again, that’s not a deal-breaker — I put my phone on charge every night as a matter of routine — but it’s true that the 17 Pro has noticeably better battery life than the iPhone Air, so in a straight endurance shootout, Apple’s flagship takes the crown.

As for charging, the iPhone 17 Pro supports fast wired charging up to 40W, and wireless charging up to 25W. The iPhone Air tops out at 20W charging regardless of the delivery method. That sounds like a dramatic difference, but in reality, you’ll be able to juice up the 17 Pro to 50% in around 20 minutes, and the Air to the same figure in around 30 minutes.

Neither phone supports reverse wireless charging.

Winner: iPhone 17 Pro

iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone Air: verdict

Overall, then, the iPhone 17 Pro is the smarter buy on paper. It’s got two more cameras than the Air, better thermal performance, longer battery life, and faster charging. But you’ll pay for those extra features via a higher price tag, and it’s worth remembering that the iPhone Air is on sale much more frequently than the iPhone 17 Pro, so the price gap between the two phones will likely be more than the official $100 / £100 / AU$200 difference.

The iPhone Air, meanwhile, is the slimmer, lighter, and much more eye-catching device, with a display and main camera that match those of the iPhone 17 Pro. For me, those are the features I use most often on any phone, and so my experience of using the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air has been largely comparable.

The real difference is how the iPhone Air makes me — and, maybe, you — feel. It’s a lovely piece of craftsmanship that gives me a pang of excitement every time I take it out of my pocket, and that’s not a feeling I’ve felt about any iPhone for a long time.

The iPhone 17 Pro is a truly exceptional phone, and probably the device I’d be more confident recommending to most people, but choosing between these two iPhones is like choosing between head and heart. Which one do you trust more?

Have you noticed? We are entering a new era of wearables, as the screen-free tracker trend picks up the pace.

Everyone from Fitbit (an official tracker teased by Steph Curry) to Garmin (leaked information on the in-development Garmin Cirqa) has one cooking. These lifestyle wearables won’t pull your attention away with flashing notifications. And they will record your daily stats and exercise sessions while demanding no intervention at all.

While there are plenty more in-development, let's take a look at the best of the bunch out there right now. Whoop has become the best-known name in this area and is, miraculously, a decade into its existence. Some other compelling contenders have finally entered the field, though, including the Polar Loop and Amazfit Helio Strap.

Similar concept, different approach. Whoop has matured from an athlete-first wearable to a general lifestyle guide, with a highly-polished app that makes swathes of complex information easy to digest. On the other hand, the Polar Loop is a stylish and stripped-back wearable out to court those looking to get away from constant screen use. Crucially, it’s cheaper than the Whoop with no subscription fee.

And the Amazfit Helio Strap? It is by far the most affordable of the trio, being cheaper again than the Polar Loop. The design isn’t flashy, but it is not short on features. Let’s dig in further.

Price and availability

The Polar Loop and Amazfit Helio Strap are a reaction to the success of Whoop. But they’re based around a totally different kind of business model.

When you buy a Whoop you join one of three memberships, dubbed One ($149 / £169 / AU$249), Peak ($239 / £229 / AU$399) and Life ($359 / £349 / AU$599). That includes either a Whoop 4.0/5.0 or Whoop MG band, and a year’s access to the respective service plan — you pay more, you get more advanced data.

Once the year’s up, you’ll need to fork out for another year, or pay a monthly subscription depending on your desired tier: $25 for Whoop One, $30 for Peak or $40 for Whoop Life (available in “select renewal scenarios” according to Whoop).

There’s none of that nonsense with the Polar and Amazfit options. A Polar Loop costs $199, the Amazfit Helio Strap just $99.99. And there’s no obligation to pay more after that, and you can access all your core stats without a subscription. Bliss.

Of course, this being 2026 there are still premium subscriptions on offer from both Polar and Amazfit. Polar has the €9.99 euro Fitness Program (around $11.50 / £8.50 / AU$16) , but as it provides training plans it’s really a better fit for a hardcore Polar fitness watch than the Polar Loop. Amazfit offers the Zepp Aura Premium subscription, at $11.99 (around £9 / AU$17 a month) or $69.99 (around £55 / AU$100) for the year. Its focus is on sleep and wellness, and provides many soundscapes to help you get some rest. It’s neat, but not really necessary for most Helio Strap owners.

• Winner: Amazfit Helio Strap

Design

Whoop set the standard for screen-less wearable styling in 2015 with its first band, and very little has changed design-wise since then. The Amazfit and Polar wearables take a similar approach. There’s effectively a fitness tracker ‘brain’, sensor array and a Bluetooth chip attached to a fabric strap, sending information to your phone.

Whoop actually claims the Polar design is too close to its own, having sued the company on that very point. Tech brands sue each other at every possible opportunity, though, and these three are clearly not clones of one another.

Their designs also give clues as to their three personalities — after a fashion — which bleeds through into their feature list too. The Polar Loop is the least hardcore of the trio, and has the look to match. The mottled fabric finish and metal accents throughout suggest Polar thinks people care about style as well as functionality. It weighs 29g including strap. Not heavy.

Whoop’s Band 5.0 continues the series’s signature style, as pretty much the only recognisable screen-free tracker these days. It too is part-metal with a fabric strap, and weighs 29g.

While it’s the classic screen-free wearable, we are not actually massive fans of one key element, the clasp. Its grip is not all that firm, and has a habit of coming undone by itself which is very annoying. This extends to its more premium sibling the Whoop MG, which we pointed out in our Whoop MG review.

The Amazfit Helio Strap is a little different. Its almost all-plastic design brings weight down to a super-low 20g. This makes it “disappear" on the wrist while wearing it, at least from the wearer’s own perception of additional weight. And while it has the plainest basic design of the three, it’s also available in a Hyrox edition with a luminous highlighter-yellow patch up top.

All three bands have effectively fairly similar water resistance. All are OK for pool swimming, but shouldn’t be used for scuba diving or anything similar. A Whoop 5.0 is rated at IP68, and for submersion at up to 10m depth. Polar rates the Loop at WR30, for “bathing and swimming” but not snorkelling or diving. The Amazfit Helio Strap has a 5ATM rating, which is the norm these days for all but the toughest wearables. It’s a case of three different standards that end up in the same place: you don’t have to take these wearables off to shower, or when at the swimming pool.

• Winner: Tie

Features

The Helio Strap’s sporty design is the best clue as to what the Amazfit wearable is about. It’s positioned as the most fitness--driven of the three bands in the way the companion Zepp app presents data has more of a focus on workouts versus rest and recovery. It uses an Amazfit-created stat called Biocharge, which offsets exertion against sleep and rest quality.

The wearable’s image is that of a tool for busy folks who might realistically be at risk of overtraining if they don’t watch their training load. But it will also do the job as an all-round lighter fitness tracker.

Despite Amazfit’s Zepp Aura Premium being all about wellness and relaxation, there’s less sense of long-term holistic health tracking here. You do get a VO2 Max reading, which is handy for long-term fitness tracking. But the impression the software gives is more of a classic exercise-first fitness tracker, just without the display.

It does have a couple of neat extras not always seen in these screenless wearables, though. The Amazfit Helio Strap has a vibrate motor, for timers, alarms and “find my device” emergencies. It can also live-share its heart rate data with other devices that support the feature, which is useful.

Deeper insight is all part of the Whoop pitch, and part of why it claims to be worth a chunky paid ongoing subscription.

Subscribe to the mid-tier Peak Whoop membership or above and you get stats like your Whoop Age, as well as the Strain score supplied across all three of Whoop’s plans. There’s menstrual cycling tracking too, made possible using a skin temperature sensor.

Or to go all-out, the Life membership adds blood pressure observations and ECG, although this involves using a completely different Whoop MG wearable (it looks similar, admittedly). With that plan you end up paying an awful lot for stats some more conventional wearables do as standard, though, such as the best Garmin watches.

The Polar experience is a bit less focused than that of Whoop or Amazfit. In the Polar Flow app you see “cards” based on your recent activity, and of key stats the band has recorded.

There are zero extras here, though. The Polar Loop won’t share its heart rate readings, and doesn’t have a vibration motor. There’s no skin temperature sensor either, which rules out features like menstrual cycle tracking.

• Winner: Whoop

Performance

The Polar Loop, Amazfit Helio Strap and Whoop 5.0 may come across as part of a newly-popular category, but their sensor hardware is just like that of other wearables. All the stats rely on an optical heart rate sensor (which uses LEDs to estimate heart rate from information taken from your wrist) , motion sensors to determine movement and estimate step count, and for the WHOOP Band 5.0, a skin temperature sensor.

I compared the results of these screen-less trackers with one of the better Garmin watches out there, the Garmin Venu 4, which uses Garmin’s latest Elevate V5 heart rate sensor. We’ve tested this against top-of-the-range watches including the Apple Watch Ultra 3, as well as a Polar H10 chest strap, to determine accuracy, and have no qualms about the validity of the Garmin’s readings.

The results for heart rate tracking were commendably similar between the Garmin and the three other wearables we’re testing against. When peak heart rate results for automatically-tracked with the Amazfit Helio Strap and Polar Loop were typically within 2bpm of those of the Garmin Venu 4. And with early 2026 firmware, there were no obvious classic optical heart rate issues such as the first few minutes of a workout having entirely inaccurate readings, which often happens when the wearable struggles to tell the difference between your heart rate and run cadence.

Even in a static bike class (which can be tricky for bands), the Garmin, Amazfit and Polar wearables all recorded the same 167bpm maximum heart rate score. It’s a reassuring result.

When you use these screen-less wearables, though, it becomes pretty clear we’re not meant to obsess over heart rate date in too much fine detail. After all, for the most part it’s going to be down to the software when any specific activity ends, which will impact average heart rate stats across a session.

What about Whoop? We’ve had a bit more of a mixed experience with the Whoop bands, and the top-tier Whoop MG in particular had a few issues.

We find Whoop competitive with its peers for general heart rate accuracy during workouts and excellent for recovery tracking, but we did have a few issues with its ECG readings. Namely, it would often fail to register a recording. And unlike a watch with a screen, you don’t get that immediate feedback as to why this is the case

The core appeal for Whoop fans is the Strain score, though, and that doesn’t rely on ECG but the basics of the HR tracking. This is where Whoop wins, on generating cogent and actionable advice in the app that feels useful, right down to its in-app workout builder.

It tries fairly hard to insinuate its way into your life, though. You’ll be nagged to go to bed at the right time, and to put the band back on if you take it off, through phone notifications. Is that what you want? Our original reviewer wasn’t quite so sure.

Amazfit’s Zepp app is solid, but ultimately feels a bit more like standard fitness tracker fare than Whoop, leaning on Biocharge, Sleep and Exertion stats alongside familiar numbers including steps, VO2 max and your exertion load. It has a very sporty flavour, which may appeal to some.

Polar we had some more issues with. The Flow app feels less intuitive than either the Amazfit or Whoop apps, bombarding you with graphs rather than a slick interface full of helpful context. And over the months of testing we’ve had a few different issues.

Initially, pairing and sync’ing were intermittently clunky and/or problematic. More recently we’ve experienced issues with the Android app crashing completely when you try to look into a specific exercise session entry. There have been a few too many issues and irritations for what is one of the longest-standing names in fitness wearables.

And battery life? Here things are a bit more consistent. Whoop says the Band 5.0 can last up to 14 days, and with fairly intense use we got around nine days from it. Polar claims eight days for the Loop, and we got a week out of a charge. Amazfit was bang on the money with its 10-day claim too.

While Whoop was the furthest from its battery life claims, it’s also important to remember you can have more of an interactive participation with a Whoop (at its higher tiers) thank to the ECG support, which is a manual process. Whoop also allows you to charge it without taking it off your wrist via the charging puck.

• Winner: Whoop

Verdict

Is the screen-free life for you? Polar, Whoop and Amazfit can all provide their own take on the trend. And all deliver a largely fuss-free experience, with automatic activity logging and long battery life.

There are some other points to note, though. We’re not persuaded Whoop’s highest tier is necessarily worth it for many. It’s just a lot to pay, an an ongoing subscription, particularly when we had a few issues with collecting readings.

Polar’s key issue is in the software, which doesn’t have the slickness or information coherence of the other two — at least as of March 2026.

That leaves us with the Amazfit Helio Strap, the cheapest of the bunch, and perhaps the easiest to recommend if you want to try out the screen-free wearables life. No subscription, solid HR accuracy and an app that while a bit fitness and athlete-focused for some, doesn’t demand too much from you.

Apple and Google have spent the past few years making their cheaper phones feel less like compromises and more like smart buys in their own right.

The iPhone 17e and Google Pixel 10a are good examples of that shift – both aim to give you the core experience of their flagship siblings without asking flagship money, but they get there in very different ways.

On paper, the Pixel 10a makes the louder case for value, undercutting the iPhone on price, giving you a bigger and smoother display, and adding extra camera flexibility that budget buyers will actually notice day to day.

The iPhone 17e, meanwhile, leans on familiar Apple strengths: strong performance, long battery life, generous base storage, and the appeal of staying inside the wider iPhone ecosystem.

So, which cheap phone actually makes more sense in 2026? We've compared the iPhone 17e and Pixel 10a across price, design, display, cameras, performance, battery life, and software support to find out.

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: specs comparison

Before we dig into the details, here’s an overview of both phones’ key specs:

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: price and availability

The Pixel 10a is the cheaper phone at launch, starting at $499 / £499 / AU$849, while the iPhone 17e starts at $599 / £599 / AU$999. Both are available globally.

Apple’s counter is storage. The iPhone 17e starts at 256GB, whereas the Pixel 10a starts at 128GB, so the gap narrows once you compare like for like.

Move up to a 256GB Pixel 10a, and you are effectively in iPhone 17e territory on price, which makes Apple’s higher entry cost easier to justify than it first appears.

Still, in a straight budget-phone comparison, the Pixel 10a has the stronger opening argument.

Winner: Pixel 10a

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: design

Apple has kept the iPhone 17e close to the familiar iPhone formula: it's got a compact 6.1-inch build, an aluminum frame, Ceramic Shield protection, and IP68 water and dust resistance.

The 17e is also the lighter of the two phones, which counts for a lot if you want something that disappears in the hand and pocket rather than constantly reminding you it's there.

The Pixel 10a goes in a slightly different direction: while it is larger and heavier, its completely flat back and lack of a camera bump give it a cleaner, more practical shape than most modern phones.

This distinctive rear design also helps it stand out in a market full of near-identical rectangular slabs, even if the iPhone still feels a touch more premium in the hand. You don't lose out on the iPhone's IP68 durability rating either.

Ultimately, then, this one comes down to taste, but the Pixel 10a’s flush design feels more original and more useful day to day than Apple’s safer approach.

Winner: Pixel 10a

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: display

This is one of the easier sections to call.

The Pixel 10a gives you a larger 6.3-inch display, a 120Hz refresh rate, and far higher peak brightness, while the iPhone 17e sticks with a smaller 6.1-inch screen and a 60Hz panel.

In everyday use, that leaves Google’s phone feeling smoother, punchier, and better suited to bright outdoor viewing.

That is not to say the iPhone 17e has a weak screen: its OLED panel should still look sharp, crisp, and colourful enough for most people, and Apple rarely gets the basics wrong here.

The problem is that, in 2026, 60Hz is no longer easy to excuse on a phone at this price when a direct rival offers a noticeably slicker experience for less. To get a 120Hz screen on an iPhone, you'll have to spend upwards of $799 / £799 / AU$1,399, but Google is offering that experience for $499 / £499 / AU$849.

Winner: Pixel 10a

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: cameras

Google's Pixel 10a has the more versatile camera setup.

Both phones use a strong 48MP main camera, but the Pixel backs that up with a 13MP ultra-wide, while the iPhone 17e relies on a single rear lens and sensor cropping for its 2x option.

For anyone who likes shooting landscapes, buildings, or tighter indoor scenes, that extra lens gives the Pixel an immediate advantage.

The iPhone 17e is, however, still impressive if your photography is mostly centred on the main camera. Apple tends to be reliable for quick point-and-shoot photos and video, and the 17e adds improved portrait tools on top.

Even so, in a comparison like this, the Pixel 10a offers more hardware to play with without forcing you up to a pricier model.

You'll also get some neat software features like Camera Coach (above) on the Pixel 10a, which uses AI to help improve your photo-taking abilities. There's no such feature on the iPhone 17e.

Winner: Pixel 10a

iPhone 17e camera samples

Google Pixel 10a camera samples

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: performance and software

Apple takes the lead (finally!) on performance.

The iPhone 17e runs on the Apple-made A19 chip, and that alone gives it the stronger long-term case if you want a cheap phone that should still feel fast a few years down the line. For reference, the excellent iPhone 17 also uses this chipset, so you won't be left wanting for power.

Google’s Pixel 10a uses the older Google-made Tensor G4 instead, which is perfectly serviceable for everyday apps and tasks — you won't have any problems scrolling through TikTok or watching YouTube — but AI processes like image editing or summarization take a bit longer, especially if they’re handled on-device. The same goes for video exports or more intensive photo edits.

The Pixel 10a is more convincing on the software side. It offers a plethora of genuinely useful AI tools, including Call Screen, which automatically screens unknown callers, or Hold for Me, which lets Google Assistant wait in a queue so you don’t have to. Google's Magic Eraser tool is also miles better than Apple's Clean Up equivalent.

The Pixel 10a comes with Android 16 as standard, and Google promises seven years of software and security updates, which is still one of the strongest support commitments in this part of the market.

Apple, meanwhile, is known for supporting its iPhones for many years, and the same is likely to be the case with the iPhone 17e. iOS 26 is also impressively slick and easy to use, but it lacks the breadth of AI features that you'll find on the Pixel 10a.

The Pixel 10a, then, has the more impressive software pitch, but the iPhone 17e is the faster and more capable phone overall. If you're a keen mobile gamer, it's the better pick of the two phones.

Winner: iPhone 17e

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: battery

The battery life battle is a close-run affair.

The Pixel 10a has a much bigger battery than the iPhone on paper (5,100mAh vs 4,005mAh), and we easily made it through a full day of replying, photo-taking, and light gaming while using the phone. In our lab tests, the Pixel 10a lasted for 15 hours and 16 minutes.

Mind you, the iPhone 17e also offers decent battery life, despite the smaller size of its cell (you can thank that A19 chipset), and as our review notes, it likewise made it through a full day of use with ease, "even on busier days filled with video exports, FaceTime calls, and plenty of texting while on the go."

Charging helps separate the two phones a little.

The Pixel 10a supports 30W charging via USB and wireless charging up to 10W, though it doesn't feature any MagSafe-style ring system, so you won't be able to stick any accessories to the back of the phone.

The iPhone 17e, meanwhile, does support Apple's excellent MagSafe system (which wasn't true of the iPhone 16e) and wireless charging up to 15W. USB-C charging is a little slower than on the Pixel, at 20W, but that's offset by the greater versatility brought about by the iPhone 17e's MagSafe compatibility.

Overall, then, there are battery-related pros and cons to both phones, so you'll need to decide which aspect (endurance or charging) you value most.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17e vs Google Pixel 10a: verdict

The Pixel 10a makes more sense for more people.

Google's budget smartphone is cheaper to buy, has the better display, offers more camera flexibility, and feels like the stronger value pick if you are simply trying to get the most phone for your money in 2026.

But the iPhone 17e still has a clear audience, and is the better choice if you want the comfort and security of iOS, stronger chipset performance, or the reassurance of staying inside Apple’s wider ecosystem (MagSafe, too, is a big plus).

Apple also softens the price gap by starting at 256GB, which makes the 17e look less expensive than it first seems once storage enters the conversation.

Taken as a straight cheap-phone comparison, though, the Pixel 10a comes out ahead. It gives up less, costs less, and feels more competitive in the areas that matter most.

Overall winner: Google Pixel 10a

If the fancy features and high price of the Galaxy S26 Ultra don't speak to you, then Samsung's new affordable phones might be more up your street.

First up, there's the Galaxy A37, a low-priced little gem that'll likely end up in the middle of the eventual Galaxy AX7 series. Then, for a little more power, you've got the Samsung Galaxy A57, which could well end up being the top A-series model of 2026. This Galaxy A56 successor steps up the specs — but the price too, so it might be more than some buyers want.

To help you decide which of these two cheap Samsung phones is best for you, we've compared their prices, specs, and key features below. We haven't put either device through our full review process just yet, but you can find our initial impressions of the pricier model in our Samsung Galaxy A57 hands-on.

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: specs comparison

Before we dive into the specifics of each phone, let's take a look at their key specs.

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: price and availability

While Samsung's A-series phones have spotty availability across the globe — different combinations go on sale in different regions — it seems that both the Galaxy A37 and Galaxy A57 will get wide releases when they hit shelves on April 10. They'll be available in different color and storage varieties, though.

What's in a name? Well, in this case, a clear indication of how these phones compare. This is the 7th-gen wave of Samsung's Galaxy A series, hence the second number, but the first refers to their placement in the line-up. Naturally, 5 is better than 3.

So, you can buy the Samsung Galaxy A37 for $449.99 / £399.99 / AU$599. That's for its base model, with 128GB storage and 6GB RAM, but there's also a model with 256GB storage and 8GB RAM. This sells for $539.99 / £459.99, but won't be coming to Australia.

Now for the Samsung Galaxy A57, and it gets a little bit confusing as there are different sizes in different regions.

In the US, the base model has 8GB RAM and 128GB storage, and goes for $549.99, while in Australia it sells for AU$749, but this model isn't on sale in the UK. The next step up has 8GB RAM and 256GB storage, and it sells for $609.99 / £529.99 / AU$849.

In the UK, there's also a £699.99 model with 512GB storage and 12GB RAM. That's not cheap, and it's bordering on Galaxy S26 territory.

Winner: Galaxy A37

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: design

To the naked eye, these phones are near-identical; when I saw and photographed the Galaxy A57 and A37 ahead of release, I failed to tag all my pictures, and now have about 20 images that could be either device. I've no way of telling.

Perhaps the colors are one giveaway. The Galaxy A37 comes in Charcoal, White, Lavender, and Graygreen (all prefixed by 'Awesome', in classic Samsung Galaxy A-style), while the A57 arrives in Icyblue, Navy, Lilac, and Gray variants. Not all colors are available in all regions, mind you.

The Galaxy A57 also has a slight 'gradation' effect on its rear panel, which should appear like a flickering and shiny gradient, but it's quite hard to see.

Picking the phones up does reveal one difference. While they're both IP68-rated, with metal frames and Gorilla Glass Plus front and backs, the A57 is thinner. It's just 6.9mm across, compared to the A37's 7.4mm, and it feels more slender as a result. That's the biggest design difference between the two.

Winner: Galaxy A57

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: display

The Samsung Galaxy A57 and A37 again match (for the most part) when it comes to their displays.

Both have 6.7-inch 1080 x 2340 displays that reach 120Hz, and are broken up by a punch-hole cut-out at the top for the front camera.

They also get the same screen upgrades over their respective predecessors. Their brightness goes to 1900 nits, and they enjoy what Samsung calls Vision Booster tech, which bumps up the brightness and vibrancy when you're watching content outside.

However, the A57 gets one enhancement: instead of using Super AMOLED for its panel, as the A56 did (and as the A37 does), it gets AMOLED Plus. This squeaks out a little extra color, so content will look a tiny bit better.

A more dramatic difference can be seen in their respective bezel sizes: both have smaller bezels than their predecessors, but on the A37, it's still noticeable as a thick ring around the display. On the A57, it's minimal, like in a flagship phone.

Winner: Galaxy A57

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: cameras

One of the key upgrades that both the Samsung Galaxy A57 and A37 enjoy over their predecessors is that they have an enhanced ISP, or Image Signal Processor. This is the brain that optimizes pictures you take for brightness, saturation, contrast, and the like.

They also both enjoy new Low Noise modes, changes to in-app camera zoom (it now feels more seamless), and faster shutter speeds.

The actual cameras, too, are almost identical: both have a 50MP main and 5MP macro camera, and the A37 has an 8MP ultra-wide while the A57 bumps that to 12MP.

Both phones also have a 12MP selfie camera. So, it's close, but the A57 gets some extra pixels.

The Samsung Galaxy A37 does enjoy some upgrades over the A36, including a bigger main camera sensor, HDR boosts, and advanced portrait modes. But these just bring it closer to its pricier sibling, instead of giving it an edge.

We'll be able to give a proper verdict on the camera quality of both phones (and share image comparisons) when we've tested them fully.

Winner: Galaxy A57

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: performance and software

The differences between these two phones have so far been minor, but that changes now.

Not with software, mind, because both are identical on that front. They come with One UI 8.5 installed out-of-the-box, and Samsung has pledged 6 years of operating system and security updates to both models.

The phones have Bixby-powered AI, Voice Transcription on calls and in the Recorder app, and shared actions across apps. However, other than enhanced Circle to Search functionality, most of the key S26 tools don't make their way across to these mid-range devices: there's no Audio Eraser, Privacy Display, or Finder upgrades.

It's the performance department that sets these phones apart from one another.

The Samsung Galaxy A37 has an Exynos 1480 chipset, while the Galaxy A57 has an Exynos 1680 chipset. Both are made by Samsung itself, and the numbers give the game away: the Exynos 1680 is, quite simply, a more powerful chipset. If you want more power, the A57 is the way to go.

The A37 certainly won't stutter during everyday tasks like streaming or scrolling, but as soon as you boot up some demanding mobile games or attempt any form of video editing, the Exynos 1680 chipset in the A57 will reveal its superiority (though if you want real smartphone power, you'll need to choose one of the best Samsung phones).

Winner: Galaxy A57

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: battery

When comparing two very similar phones, it's natural to have a lot of ties or close calls, but here we've finally got a department where the cheaper of the two can shine.

Both the Samsung Galaxy A57 and Galaxy A37 have the exact same battery size: 5,000mAh, the same as the Galaxy S26 Ultra.

Due to the A57 having a more power-hungry chipset and a more advanced display, it'll likely go through its battery a little quicker. Now, the difference could be pretty minimal, coming down to just minutes of real-world time, but it's a point in favor of the A37.

Of course, we'll need to conduct some proper lab testing to confidently say that one is better than the other, but with the A37 being markedly cheaper than the A57, it edges the A57 in this department.

Both have Samsung's Super Fast Charge 2.0, too, so will power up at 45W. There are no wireless charging capabilities to speak of in either, unfortunately.

Winner: Galaxy A37

Samsung Galaxy A57 vs Samsung Galaxy A37: early verdict

When comparing the Samsung Galaxy A57 and Galaxy A37, we're putting two differently-priced members of the same family head-to-head.

It's only natural that the Galaxy A57 is a better phone than the A37 in a lot of ways: it costs more. Its cameras and display show marginal improvements over the A37, while its design and processor reveal bigger ones.

But it's not that much of a step up over the A37, and you're getting a very similar package at a lower price point in its sibling. We've only given the A37 the advantage in the battery and price sections, but it's a close competition in every quarter.

If you're conscious about cost, you wouldn't be losing that much by opting for the A37. But if you want the objectively better phone, then the A57 is the way to go.

Again, we still need to put both devices through our full review process, so stay tuned to TechRadar for our full verdicts on each. Both phones will be available from April 10.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra has arrived, and on paper, it looks like exactly the kind of update Samsung likes to make to its biggest flagship: it's slimmer, faster, and a little smarter, but doesn't stray far from a formula that already worked. Put it next to the Galaxy S25 Ultra, and you're looking at a more polished version of one of the best phones money can buy.

That leaves the Galaxy S25 Ultra in an awkwardly strong position: it's still a premium, hugely capable phone with excellent cameras, outstanding battery life, and more power than most people are ever going to need. The newer model may be thinner and more advanced, but the older one has not suddenly become less impressive, especially if it starts showing up with discounts or generous contract deals.

So, which device makes more sense for you? In this Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Galaxy S25 Ultra face-off, we've compared their price, designs, displays, and more key features to help you answer that question.

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: specs comparison

Before we dig into the details, here’s an overview of both phones’ key specs:

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: price and availability

Samsung launched the Galaxy S26 Ultra in March 2026, with prices starting at $1,299.99 / £1,279 / AU$2,199 for the 256GB model, rising to $1,499.99 / £1,449 / AU$2,199 for the 512GB model. A 1TB version is also available for $1,799.99 / £1,699 / AU$2,649.

The Galaxy S25 Ultra arrived a year earlier and started at $1,299 / £1,249 / AU$2,149 for 256GB, then $1,419 / £1,349 / AU$2,349 for 512GB, and $1,659 / £1,549 / AU$2,749 for the 1TB option above that.

That leaves the basic shape of this contest pretty clear. In the US, Samsung has effectively held the line at the entry level, but in the UK, the Galaxy S26 Ultra has edged up in price, and the gap gets wider once you move beyond 256GB.

The newer S26 Ultra is not wildly more expensive, but it is still asking for more money in a category where the S25 Ultra already felt firmly premium.

Winner: Galaxy S25 Ultra

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: design

At a glance, these two phones are clearly cut from the same cloth, but the Galaxy S26 Ultra does make a better first impression.

To start with, it's slightly thinner and lighter than the Galaxy S25 Ultra (at 7.9mm and 214g), and Samsung has softened the corners a touch, which helps it look and feel a little less severe in the hand.

There is also a new raised camera surround on the back, giving the S26 Ultra a fresher look without pushing into full redesign territory.

Mind you, the Galaxy S25 Ultra still looks and feels every bit the premium flagship, with its strong titanium frame, built-in S Pen, and more squared-off Ultra styling. You won't be disappointed by the appearance of either phone.

Interestingly, the two phones do actually use different materials, with Samsung moving from titanium on the S25 Ultra to Armor Aluminum on the S26 Ultra. That sounds like a downgrade, but in real-world use, aluminium has slightly better thermal performance than titanium.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: display

This is one of the closest sections in the whole comparison.

Both phones pair a 6.9-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2X display with a 1440 x 3120 resolution, a 1Hz–120Hz adaptive refresh rate, and a peak brightness of 2,600 nits, so the core experience is much the same on paper.

Essentially, the Galaxy S25 Ultra already had one of the best screens around, and the Galaxy S26 Ultra does not try to reinvent that formula.

The new twist is Samsung’s built-in Privacy Display on the Galaxy S26 Ultra, which narrows viewing angles to make the screen harder to read from the side, giving the newer phone a genuinely useful extra. Of course, you can get this effect on other phones using a special screen protector, but it's nice to have the option to turn it on or off on the Galaxy S26 Ultra.

The trade-off is that our testing found the S26 Ultra to be slightly dimmer than the S25 Ultra in practice, even if the difference is small enough that most people are unlikely to notice it day to day. Some users have also complained of headaches being caused by Privacy Display, though that's not something we've experienced ourselves.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: cameras

2026 is not a year in which Samsung has ripped up its flagship camera hardware and started again.

Both the Galaxy S26 Ultra and S25 Ultra give you a 200MP main camera, a 50MP ultra-wide, a 10MP 3x telephoto, a 50MP 5x telephoto, plus a 12MP selfie camera, so you're covered at a very high level with both phones.

On paper, in fact, the two camera setups look almost identical, but the S26 Ultra does slightly pull ahead when you dig into the details.

Samsung has widened the main camera’s aperture from f/1.7 on the Galaxy S25 Ultra to f/1.4 on the S26 Ultra, and the 5x telephoto moves from f/3.4 to f/2.9, which helps both lenses gather more light in darker scenes.

Samsung claims 47% more brightness for the main camera and 37% more for the telephoto, and while those figures don't make the S26 Ultra a drastically better camera phone than the S25 Ultra, our review found the S26 Ultra to be a touch clearer and cleaner in low light and at longer zoom ranges.

Video is strong on both phones, too. The Galaxy S25 Ultra can shoot in up to 8K at 30fps, so it's not missing any headline capture mode, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra builds on that with more advanced video tools aimed at people who want to do more than just point and shoot (like the APV codec).

The newer phone also boasts an amazing Super Steady mode, which uses a gyroscope and accelerometer to hold the horizontal plane even as you turn the S26 Ultra a full 360 degrees. It's quite something in reality.

Of course, the S25 Ultra is not suddenly a weak camera by any means, and indeed, it featured on our list of the best camera phones for most of 2025. But in a head-to-head shootout, the Galaxy S26 Ultra is the more capable photography package, even if the upgrade is more about refinement than reinvention.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Camera samples

To help you visualize the similarities and differences between the two phones' cameras, here's a selection of similar images taken by TechRadar's Editor-at-Large, Lance Ulanoff, with the Galaxy S26 Ultra and Galaxy S25 Ultra.

Galaxy S26 Ultra camera samples

Galaxy S25 Ultra camera samples

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: performance and software

The Galaxy S26 Ultra has the easy but potentially undeserved win here.

The device runs on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, comes in a choice of either 12GB or 16GB RAM, and ships with Android 16, giving it the stronger spec sheet and a little more long-term breathing room.

Samsung also claims meaningful gains in CPU, GPU, and NPU performance, which matters less for basic day-to-day use than it does for gaming, heavy multitasking, and the growing pile of AI features.

That said, the Galaxy S25 Ultra is hardly struggling: it already felt excessive for most people, with a Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy chip, 12GB of RAM, and more than enough power for demanding apps, photo editing, and years of use.

The performance gap, then, is real but not dramatic in everyday use. In truth, 99% of users won't be able to tell the difference in power between these two phones.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra looks better equipped for the long haul (you'll also get one extra year of software support), but the Galaxy S25 Ultra continues to offer more power than most buyers will ever truly need. Both are powerhouse performers.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

S26 Ultra vs S25 Ultra: battery

When it comes to battery life, the Galaxy S26 Ultra doesn't change much on paper, but it still has a small advantage, keeping the same 5,000mAh battery as the Galaxy S25 Ultra but adding faster charging at up to 60W wired and 25W wireless.

As with performance (and cameras, and display...), the Galaxy S25 Ultra is hardly weak in this area. Its 5,000mAh battery already delivers excellent stamina, and 45W wired charging plus 15W wireless charging is still solid by flagship standards.

Indeed, in our testing of the S25 Ultra, it managed to run for 18 hours and 35 minutes at the standard 60Hz refresh rate, only dropping to 17 hours and 15 minutes when we switched to the more resource-intensive adaptive refresh rate.

It's a similar story for the Galaxy S25 Ultra, which we found comfortably lasted beyond 24 hours in normal use, even with the brightness pushed up, the refresh set to 120Hz, and the resolution at QHD+. In a similar screen-on lab test, it would surely last just as long as the S25 Ultra, if not longer.

For many buyers, battery life is unlikely to be a deciding factor between these two phones, because both are built to go the distance.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

S26 Ultra vs S25 Ultra: verdict

In short, the Galaxy S26 Ultra is — surprise! — the better phone overall. It's slimmer and lighter, adds a couple of useful camera upgrades, brings faster on-paper performance, and charges more quickly, all without losing the core strengths that made the S25 Ultra so easy to recommend last year.

The catch is that the Galaxy S25 Ultra has not dropped far behind: it's still a brilliant flagship with a huge, high-quality screen, excellent cameras, top-end power, and battery life that remains hard to fault.

If the official price gap is wide enough, or you find a strong deal on the older model, it's arguably the better pick. But in a spec-by-spec comparison, the newer Galaxy S26 Ultra takes the crown.

Overall winner: Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

If you want Google's classy stock Android package and all of its AI tools (plus a few more tricks besides), then you no longer need to buy the Google Pixel 10: a cheaper alternative has entered the fray.

We're talking about the Google Pixel 10a, which, in classic A-series fashion, strips back the main-series phone and offers a comparable package in a cheaper shell. We saw Google take the same tack with the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9a, and Google has once again presented budget-conscious buyers with a welcome dilemma.

So, to help you figure out which of Google's latest Pixel phones is best suited to your needs, we've compared their specs, features, and overall value propositions. And remember, if you're after a true flagship experience, there's always the pricier Pixel 10 Pro to consider.

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: specs comparison

Before we dive into the specifics of each phone, let's take a look at their key specs.

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: price and availability

The Google Pixel 10 and Pixel 10a are both globally available phones, though they didn't release at the same time: the a-model's March 2026 release makes it six months older than its sibling, which launched in August 2025.

The base Google Pixel 10 goes for $799 / £799 / AU$1,349, and that's for 128GB storage, while there's also a 256GB model available for $899 / £899 / AU$1,499.

Naturally, the Pixel 10a is cheaper; it starts at $499 / £499 / AU$849 for the model with 128GB of storage, and $599 / £599 / AU$999 for 256GB.

So, whichever model you choose, the Pixel 10a is $300 / £300 / AU$500 less expensive than the Pixel 10. It's the cheapest model in Google's Pixel lineup, and not by a small margin either.

Winner: Pixel 10a

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: design

Squint, and the Google Pixel 10 and Pixel 10a look pretty similar. They're similar in size and roughly offer the same aesthetic: a plain slate with an oval-sized camera bump at the top.

This camera bump is, however, wider on the Pixel 10, and it protrudes further too. There's no denying that it makes the phone scream "camera powerhouse" to the eye, but this bump might also catch on your trouser pocket, and it stops the phone from sitting flat on a table.

The Pixel 10a's camera bump is flush with the back of the phone. Plus, the device is a little lighter overall, so you're getting a more svelte package.

As for colors, the Pixel 10 comes in black, white, blue, or yellow, while the 10a swaps out the yellow option for a bright red 'Berry' shade.

Winner: Pixel 10a

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: display

There's little to distinguish the Google Pixel 10a and Pixel 10 in the display department.

Both have the same 6.3-inch 1080 x 2424 display, which can hit a 120Hz refresh rate. At 3,000 nits, the max brightness of the Pixel 10 is technically 300 nits higher than the 10a's, but that'll mean little in practice.

At play here is Actua, a display tech made by Google that focuses on high-brightness OLED panels. Our testers for both phones complimented the vibrancy and easy-viewing of their respective Actua panels, with our Google Pixel 10 review noting that "Google’s Pixel displays have quietly taken the crown as the best screens you’ll find." High praise indeed.

The screens are, in both cases, broken up by a punch-hole display at the top, which houses a front-facing camera. Neither is very big, so it won't steal your pixels.

Winner: tie

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: cameras

Both Google phones have the same 48MP main camera, and we've praised the color and lighting of pictures taken with this lens. Indeed, our Google Pixel 10a review notes that "the 48MP camera is excellent for everyday shots — whether that’s snapping a quick photo of your dog, capturing a meal, or taking a portrait of a friend."

The 13MP ultra-wide camera — which we described as "great for landscapes, group photos, or architecture" — is also a common feature between the two phones.

And when you look at the front-facing cameras, the Pixel 10a actually pulls ahead: it has a 13MP sensor to the 10's 10.5MP one, though the photographic results are largely similar.

But the Pixel 10 earns its stripes as a bona fide camera phone thanks to its zoom capabilities. It boasts a 10.8MP telephoto sensor that supports a 5x optical zoom, making it a great option for distance or macro shots. The Pixel 10a has no such telephoto module to speak of.

For Google, camera software often seems just as important as camera hardware, and luckily, the killer feature of the Pixel 10, Camera Coach, is also on the A-series model.

Camera Coach gives you advice to improve your shot, pointing you to change your framing or angle in ways that'll create a better result. It's not onerous or tyrannical, and offers pointers that really help.

Winner: Google Pixel 10

Google Pixel 10a camera samples

Google Pixel 10 camera samples

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: performance and software

Software-wise, both the Google Pixel 10 and Pixel 10a present the same package. They both come with stock Android 16, and Google has pledged up to seven major OS updates to both phones.

That means, whichever phone you pick up, you've got equal access to Google's suite of smart software tools, including customization features, shortcuts, and Magic Cue, which scrapes your data (privately) to give in-app suggestions in texts and messages. In our Pixel 10 review, we said that Magic Cue "isn't perfect [but] isn't in the way," so make of that what you will.

It's easier to tell these two phones apart in the performance department. The Pixel 10 uses Google's newest chipset, the Tensor G5, while the 10a uses the Tensor G4, which we saw in the Pixel 9. Neither is blindingly fast — gamers need not bother with Pixel phones in general — but the G5 definitely offers a little extra oomph.

We noted in our Pixel 10a review that you'll be "able to perform nearly all daily tasks on the 10a," though Google’s AI features will likely load more snappily on the Pixel 10.

That's because — as our Pixel 10 review notes — "the G5-equipped phone is running many more machine-learning models on the device itself." The more a phone can rely on its own power instead of tapping the cloud for help, the faster it will feel. Sure, the difference will be negligible most of the time, but the Pixel 10 is an objectively more powerful device than its cheaper sibling.

Winner: Pixel 10

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: battery

On paper, the Google Pixel 10a beats its premium sibling by a hair in terms of battery size. It has a 5,100mAh battery, compared to the Pixel 10's 4,970mAh cell.

In our reviews of the two phones, we said the Pixel 10 "usually lasted through a full day of testing", while the Pixel 10a "will easily last all day". Our lab test, however, revealed a slight advantage for the Pixel 10a, which lasted for 15 hours and 16 minutes to the Pixel 10's 13 hours and 15 minutes. So, it's clear that the 10a lasts a bit longer.

However, the Pixel 10 wins outright on charging speed. It's a closely-run affair in the wired charging department — the Pixel 10 gets 25W wired charging, while the Pixel 10a gets a comparable 23W — but the pricier phone also has 15W wireless charging. No such option exists on the Pixel 10a, meaning owners of the cheaper phone won't be able to make use of Google's MagSafe-like Pixelsnap accessories.

Winner: tie

Google Pixel 10a vs Pixel 10: verdict

This is certainly a hard one: the Google Pixel 10 won out in two sections, as did the Pixel 10a, and two sections were a tie. Even split!

That's not normal when comparing mainstream phones against their budget counterparts; in most cases, the top-end model wins outright in all departments except for price. Yet the Pixel 10a has a better design than the Pixel 10, and beats it for battery life (though that section was a tie, thanks to the Pixel 10's superior charging capabilities).

That all goes to show that the Google Pixel 10a is a genuinely attractive alternative to the Pixel 10, and if you decide to opt for it, you're not getting a worse device for your cash. You really only lose out on the pricier phone's zoom capabilities, capacity for wireless charging, and slightly speedier chipset.

• The Instax Mini 13 arrives around three years after the Instax Mini 12
• It keeps the same low price of around $94 / £79 / AU$139, with shipping expected from June 25
• The key upgrade is a handy new self-timer mode

Fujifilm has quietly unveiled the Instax Mini 13 — the latest model in its long-running series of budget instant cameras. It looks like a modest refresh of the Instax Mini 12, which has occupied the top spot in my best instant camera guide for three years, thanks to its excellent value and easy handling.

The Instax Mini 13 comes three years after the Mini 12, and Fujifilm has stuck with a winning formula — and, thankfully, a winning price. The Instax Mini 13 will cost $94 / £79 / AU$139 when shipping starts, which is expected to be on June 25.

Like the previous version, the Mini 13 has a playful design and comes in a variety in pastel colorways, which for this model are Candy Pink, Frost Blue (see above), Clay White, Lagoon Green and Dreamy Purple.

The Minis are fully analog instant cameras, shooting onto Instax Mini paper and equipped with automatic exposure, a built-in flash, a close-up mode and a selfie mirror. So how exactly do the two cameras differ? And what new features does the Mini 13 bring to the table?

Calling the new Mini a minor upgrade is fair, and the improvements are mainly around making selfies even easier. Let's take a look at what's new.

Me, myself and I

You'll notice from the images of the Mini 13 and Mini 12 above that Fujifilm has tinkered with the camera's design. The Mini 13 has a puffer jacket-like exterior, versus the bubble-like exterior of the Mini 12. Both have a smooth finish, and if the Mini 13 is anything like its predecessor, I suspect I'll find that the finish could do with being a little grippier. The new version is a fraction heavier and bigger, but those differences are negligible.

The key new feature is a self-timer mode, which makes taking selfies much easier, especially if you want to go hands-free for larger group shots. There's a 2-second or 10-second timer option, selected by twisting the lever that surrounds the shutter button.

The shutter button now has an LED trim too, which illuminates to indicate when the timer is active, and which looks like a really neat feature for such a low-cost camera.

There's still no tripod thread, meaning no easy way to support the camera for hands-free selfies. However, Fujifilm supplies the Mini 13 with a matching strap, which features an Instax-branded wedge on the end, which can be used to prop the camera up on surfaces and for micro adjustments to the angle of the camera (see below).

We again get a mirror next to the lens as an aid for composing selfies, plus a 0.3m close-up mode which will get you the best results for handheld selfies. Fujifilm says parallax correction for this mode makes composing close-up shots through the viewfinder easier.

That's just about all you need to know. In summary, the Mini 13 adds a useful timer mode with LED guide, but is otherwise very much the excellent budget instant camera the Mini 12 was and still is.

I would have preferred to see a switch to USB charging, but alas the Mini 13, like the Mini 12, requires 2x AA batteries. Perhaps the best news is that the price is unchanged, and potentially even lower than the Instax Mini 12, depending on where you live in. As such, I expect the Mini 13 to quickly become one of the best-selling instant cameras.

I’ve said it before, but choosing a Bluetooth speaker in this day and age is a very challenging task. Simply put, there are just so many amazing options – not good for those of us who struggle with choice paralysis.

Luckily, I’ve tested more than 40 Bluetooth speakers, so I have a good idea of what to look out for when selecting your next portable audio companion. Today, I wanted to compare two speakers that may have premium price tags and offer great sound, but actually have a whole host of differences: the Bose SoundLink Plus and the Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen.

Now, both of these speakers are excellent and received stellar reviews from us here at TechRadar. They both also compete with the very best Bluetooth speakers around. But which one should you buy? I’ll walk you through their unique qualities, and compare them across areas like features, sound quality, design, and value, to help you make the right call.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: price and availability

The Bose SoundLink Plus was released in June 2025, and is typically priced at $269 / £249 / AU$429. And sure, that’s a fairly steep price to pay, but you do get an awful lot of quality in return. On top of that, I’ve seen the SoundLink Plus go on sale in the past – even dropping as low as $180 / £180 in some sale events.

Meanwhile, the Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen dropped in May 2025, and is typically a little pricier than its Bose rival. It has a list price of $349 / £299 / AU$639 – a luxury cost for an equally luxurious product. This model goes on sale pretty rarely, but I’ve seen it discounted in some territories, like the UK, for close to £260.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: specs

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: features

You’d expect an expansive feature-set from any speaker in the $200 - $300 / £200 - £300 price bracket, and both of these models supply that – at least for the most part.

The Bose SoundLink Plus comes with the usual good stuff like multi-point connectivity and Google Fast Pair, but if you download the Bose control app, you can unlock even more. For instance, you can customize the handy shortcut button, rename the speaker, or adjust EQ.

Personally, I think Bose’s EQ settings are a little simplistic. You can select a preset that either boosts or reduces the bass or the treble, or you can manually alter the level of the lows, mids, or highs. But a lot of rivals offer genre-specific presets too, and often have five-band or higher EQ customization, enabling you to better customize sound to your taste.

Still, most of the stuff you’d want from a modern Bluetooth speaker is here. And audiophiles will appreciate the option to stream music at a higher resolution using the aptX Adaptive codec – though you’ll need a compatible device. Otherwise, it’ll be SBC or AAC.

The Beosound A1 3rd Gen also comes with support for the aptX Adaptive codec, which I always find gives a pleasantly detailed take on my favorite tunes. But where Bang & Olufsen takes it up a notch is with the inclusion of USB-C audio passthrough. This provides lossless, higher-fidelity listening than the SoundLink Plus can offer – a model that skips on 3.5mm connectivity too.

On top of this, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen provides a step-up in the EQ department, with mood-based presets like Bright, Relaxed, Energetic, and Warm. You can also go for a custom setup if you’d prefer, although I think this model sounds great out of the box. Its app is also a bit more fleshed-out, with some fun inclusions like integrated radio stations available.

I’m not trying to be mean to the Bose SoundLink Plus, but B&O has it beat in other areas too. For instance, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen has built-in microphones for clearer hands-free calls – something omitted by its Bose counterpart. You also get 24 hours of battery life from B&O’s circular speaker, while Bose only provides 20 hours of playback.

It’s not all one-sided, though. For example, the Bose SoundLink Plus offers very solid multi-speaker pairing capabilities, with the ability to link with an identical unit for stereo sound, or with other models – like the Bose SoundLink Flex Gen 2 – for some added volume. The B&O can pair with an identical unit, or the Beosound A1 2nd Gen for stereo playback, but it lacks the ability to link up with other models. Still, I think we’ll hand the first category to the A1 3rd Gen, all things considered.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: sound quality

Here’s where things gets juicy. See, it may look like the smaller Bang & Olufsen speaker would struggle to compete with the stockier and blockier Bose model, but they both boast plenty of power. Whichever model you pick, you’ll get enough volume to keep the vibes strong, even at a gathering or small party.

But which model sounds better? Well, let’s start by taking a look at the Bose SoundLink Plus. This speaker largely impressed me during testing, and took a satisfyingly revealing approach to playing my music. When listening to Clair-Obscur by Alice Duport-Percier and Lorien Testard, soaring, layered vocals intertwined beautifully, while expressive and emotive acoustic guitars glided through the track with beautiful rhythm and tonality. Instruments and vocals were separated to impressive effect, yet there was a strikingly cohesive quality to the speaker’s output.

The speaker tackles treble well too, offering expressive yet controlled highs, even when creeping towards peak volumes. When listening to heavier tunes, I never felt that thrashing drums sounded shrill or tinny – they were aggressive in a way that felt true.

In the low-end, my views remain largely positive, though I have a few notes. In general, you get a pretty punchy performance from the SoundLink Plus – the low-end comes through clearly and doesn’t sound underpowered, especially with a custom tuning. But when I listened to house tunes, like Touch Me by Luke Dean and Max Dean, I was left wanting a little more. The bass didn’t have that full-sounding thump that I was craving, and could sometimes fall short of the presence and dynamism I’d expect.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think that the SoundLink Plus performs decently in the depths of the frequency range, but it could be better.

When it comes to the B&O speaker, I wouldn’t say the same about its bass output, though – for me, it nails it. For a speaker of its size, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen offers seriously impactful low-end sound – it’s mighty, direct, and even immersive. I’d even issue a warning here – make sure you’ve got a solid surface for this thing to sit on, because it can cause less stable constructions to shake at higher volumes!

I tried listening to a lot of house music on the B&O model, and in tracks like Breather by Chris Stussy, I was astonished by the agility and complete-sounding bass on offer – I could hardly stop listening when using it while testing for my best Bluetooth speakers buying guide.

But unlike Meghan Trainor, I don’t think it’s all about that bass. See, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen offers balanced all-round sound, with commendable detail across the frequency range. In tunes like A Horse With No Name by America, I was instantly impressed by the way vocals and the strumming acoustic guitar occupied almost separate pockets. Subtler percussive sounds also came through sounding gentle yet perfectly weighted . As the tune built, the speaker kept its composure, and delivered a layered, intricate, and emotive performance.

Treble is tight and vivid too, with M-High’s Harmony In the Distance showcasing the B&O’s ability to serve up expressive highs while pumping out imposing bass and hypnotic synths – all without a single element impeding the other.

The Bose SoundLink Plus is a very good performer overall, and I want to pay kudos to its open, spacious sound. But the Beosound A1 3rd Gen is a cut above in the bass department, and it offers that extra layer of separation required to wow the listener. Another B&O win.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: design

When it comes to looks, these two couldn’t be much more different. See, the Bose SoundLink Plus assumes a more traditional cuboid form, with a fabric loop on the side if you want to fasten it to something like a hook or bag. However, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen has a circular build, with an upward facing speaker grille and a versatile leather strap. And the differences don’t stop there.

For instance, the Bose SoundLink Plus has a rubber exterior as well as a powder-coated steel grille, giving it a brilliant combination of drop-proof practicality and a premium finish. It’s available in a simply stunning set of colors too, including Citrus Yellow and Blue Dusk, but there’s also a basic Black if you’d prefer.

The B&O can’t quite offer the same vibrant, eye-catching look of its Bose rival, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. This model opts for the more understated, classy approach, and is available in colorways like Wam Granite, Green Eucalyptus, Natural Aluminium, and my personal favorite, Honey Tone. All of these look excellent and fit the luxurious look of the model to perfection.

The Beosound A1 3rd Gen is also constructed masterfully. The lower half of the speaker is constructed from hard-wearing polymer, while the upper segment is made of textured pearl-blasted anodized aluminum. We stated it clearly in our review, but I’ll repeat it here: the pride of ownership you experience with this speaker – not only from its sound, but from its build – is precisely what makes it so special.

While the B&O may have a durable exterior, it may be a little more prone to scratches and scuffs than its Bose rival. Still though, both are pretty rugged – something symbolized by their shared IP67 rating. This indicates that both models are fully dustproof, and can be submerged in up to a meter of water for as long as 30 minutes. Perfect for shower listening sessions or pool parties.

Both of these speakers have great designs – they even have neat button placement and LED lights to indicate aspects like remaining battery life. But the model you prefer will be a personal thing. If you want something bright and colorful with top-tier durability, then the Bose is where it’s at. However, I’m going to give the edge to the B&O once more – the quality of its materials, its iconic circular build, its distinctive color options… it’s all to die for.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: value

As I mentioned at the start, both of these speakers come with premium price tags, but which one is actually worth splashing out on?

Well, the Bose may seem like the obvious choice at first due to its typically lower cost. At $269 / £249 / AU$429, it’s not exactly cheap, but remains a very tempting option. It offers revealing sound with hi-res Bluetooth streaming support, it’s well-built with a vibrant look, and can link up with other Bose models to boot. I think the feature-set could be a little more expansive, and bass could be a little more refined, but it’s still a fantastic model all things considered.

Meanwhile, the Beosound A1 3rd Gen comes in at $349 / £299 / AU$639. And I won’t beat around the bush: that’s an awful lot to spend on a speaker of this size, especially when that amount of cash could typically land you a larger model like the JBL Xtreme 4 or an on-sale Bose SoundLink Max.

But even if it’s pricey, I still think you get what you pay for with this B&O speaker. It’s made of luxurious materials, and has equally luxurious sound quality to match. It's highly waterproof, comes with an amazing companion app, and supports genuinely lossless audio via USB-C.

Even though the Beosound A1 3rd Gen is expensive, I’m yet to test another Bluetooth speaker that’s got it beat for quality in its size class. And by B&O’s lofty standards, this speaker is definitely on the more affordable end of the spectrum anyway. There’s a lot to like about the Bose SoundLink Plus – I just think I’d want slightly better battery life and features at the price, so I’d edge the B&O model here.

Bose SoundLink Plus vs Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen: verdict

So, there you have it. After winning the vast majority of the above categories, victory goes to the Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 3rd Gen. It’s hard to think of a better looking Bluetooth speaker, and its infectious, immersive sound is seriously hard to top. Yes it’s pricey, but it actually feels worth the expenditure – and if you can grab it in a rare sale, I’d strongly suggest doing so.

As for the Bose SoundLink Plus, I want to be crystal clear: this is a very good speaker indeed. It has a rough and ready design, is popping with color, and its sound quality – although not quite perfect – is still very strong, with impressive detail levels and aptX Adaptive support. If you want something a little cheaper than the B&O, I’d happily recommend this model, especially if you can get a discounted unit.

Apple’s iPhone 17 lineup is now complete, with the iPhone 17e having joined the base iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max on store shelves.

A direct successor to the iPhone 16e, the iPhone 17e is intended to be an affordable, no-frills entry point into the iPhone ecosystem, but how does it compare to the next-cheapest model in Apple’s newest lineup, the iPhone 17?

In this guide, we’ll be comparing the two phones’ key specs and features to help you decide which iPhone 17 model is best for you. If you’re willing to spend a bit more money, you can also check out our iPhone 17 vs iPhone 17 Pro comparison.

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: specs comparison

Before we dig into the details, here’s an overview of both phones’ key specs:

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: price and availability

Both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 are available globally; the former was released in March 2026, while the latter hit shelves in September 2025.

The iPhone 17e retails for $599 / £599 / AU$999 for 256GB of storage, and $799 / £799 / AU$1,399 for 512GB of storage. In the same configurations, the iPhone 17e retails for $799 / £799 / AU$1,399 and $999 / £999 / AU$1,799, respectively.

In other words, the iPhone 17e is $200 / £200 / AU$400 cheaper than the iPhone 17, whichever way you slice it.

It’s also important to note that both the iPhone 16e and iPhone 16 shipped with 128GB of storage as standard, so both iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 offer more base storage than their respective predecessors for the same starting price.

Winner: iPhone 17e

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: design

The iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 are very similar-looking devices – they’re almost identical in size and weight, both have aluminum frames with Ceramic Shield 2 protection on their respective displays, and both are rated IP68 for water and dust resistance.

The iPhone 17e also gets the same customizable Action button as the iPhone 17, which was once an exclusive feature of Apple’s top-end iPhone 15 Pro.

The iPhone 17 has a larger 6.3-inch display than its cheaper sibling, but the two phones feel very similar in the hand, owing to the iPhone 17e’s chunkier display bezels.

The key design differences are functional. The iPhone 17 benefits from Camera Control and an extra lens on the back (more on this later), while the iPhone 17e has no such cut-out.

They’re also available in different colors; both come in black or white, but the iPhone 17e offers an additional pink shade, while the iPhone 17 also comes in blue, green, or lavender.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: display

As mentioned, the iPhone 17 gets a larger OLED display than the iPhone 17e – 6.3 inches vs 6.1 inches – but it’s fitted into largely the same frame. That means the iPhone 17’s bezels are wafer-thin, while the iPhone 17e has to make do with some thicker, less premium-looking black borders.

The iPhone 17 also gets Apple’s interactive Dynamic Island cut-out at the top of its display, where the iPhone 17e is stuck with a physical notch. If you haven’t used the Dynamic Island before, you won’t know what you’re missing, but it’s essentially a pill-shaped area that’s capable of displaying real-time alerts, notifications, and background activities.

As for display detail, both phones are just as sharp as one another (460-pixels-per-inch), but the iPhone 17 can get a lot brighter, boasting a peak brightness of 3,000 nits to the iPhone 17e’s 1,200 nits. Mind you, in most everyday scenarios, you can expect to get around 800 nits from the iPhone 17e and around 1,000 nits from the iPhone 17.

The biggest display difference comes in the refresh rate department. The iPhone 17e’s screen is locked to 60Hz, while the iPhone 17 gets an always-on, 120Hz display. That basically means the scrolling experience on the iPhone 17 is far smoother than that of the 17e, though again, if you’re used to the 60Hz refresh rate of Apple’s older iPhone models, you're not likely to be disappointed by how the 17e feels to navigate.

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: cameras

The biggest difference between the iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 can be spotted by someone who knows absolutely nothing about phones: Apple’s more expensive phone has a whole extra lens on the back. Specifically, it’s a 48MP ultra-wide lens, which lets you capture expansive subjects like landscapes and tall buildings with ease.

The iPhone 17e does at least get the same 48MP Fusion camera as the rest of the iPhone 17 line (including the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max). This lens lets you capture shots at either 1x or 2x, and uses some smart pixel-binning wizardry to maintain image quality at that larger distance (you’ll need to go Pro if you want to zoom further than 2x).

Notably, you also get the next-generation Portrait Mode – which automatically detects depth and lets you adjust the focus of an image post-capture – on both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 17, which is a nice win for Apple’s cheapest iPhone. Several other features, though – like spatial photo capture and Dolby Vision video capture – are exclusive to the iPhone 17.

In the selfie department, the iPhone 17 features an 18MP Center Stage camera that can switch orientation from vertical to horizontal to help you fit more people into the frame. The iPhone 17e, meanwhile, gets a run-of-the-mill 12MP front-facing lens.

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17e camera samples

iPhone 17 camera samples

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: performance and software

Both the iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 use an almost identical A19 chipset (the latter phone has an extra GPU core), making them just as powerful as one another.

Indeed, as we noted in our iPhone 17e review, “even with one fewer GPU core, everything flies on the iPhone 17e. If you’re coming from an older smartphone, you’re going to notice a significant improvement [...] In daily use, [we] found the 17e to be consistently responsive, and quick to deliver on whatever [we] asked it to do.”

The software experience is also the same across both phones. The iPhone 17e – like the rest of the iPhone 17 line – runs iOS 26 out of the box, is compatible with Apple Intelligence, and offers the customizable Action Button for handy software shortcuts.

As for software support, you’ll get between five and seven years of major iOS updates, regardless of which iPhone you choose.

Winner: Tie

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: battery

When it comes to battery life, the iPhone 17e and iPhone 17 offer similar endurance thanks to their shared A19 chipset and C1X modem. Apple rates the former for 26 hours of video playback and the latter for 30 hours, and that proved to be largely accurate in our testing – you’ll get at least a full day of juice from either model.

The gaps begin to appear in the charging department. While both devices benefit from MagSafe compatibility – which is a big win for the iPhone 17e, since the iPhone 16e offered no such compatibility – the iPhone 17 offers faster charging speeds across the board.

Specifically, the iPhone 17 offers 40W wired, 25W wireless, and 4.5W reverse wired charging, while the iPhone 17e offers 20W wired and 15W wireless speeds. Those aren’t deal-breaking disparities, but for reference, you can expect to reach 50% charge in around 30 minutes with the iPhone 17e, and the same figure in around 20 minutes with the iPhone 17 (if you’re using chargers that support their respective max wattages).

Winner: iPhone 17

iPhone 17e vs iPhone 17: verdict

On paper, the iPhone 17e doesn’t triumph over the iPhone 17 in any area except price, but if you’re looking for a no-frills iPhone that’ll remain powerful and supported for years to come, it’s still a great-value product.

Keen photographers, though, will be better served by one of Apple’s more expensive iPhones, and if you’re someone who values the display experience above all else, then the iPhone 17’s faster refresh rate and higher brightness do, in this writer’s opinion, justify the $200 / £200 / AU$400 premium over the iPhone 17e.

Apple has unveiled its most budget-friendly MacBook yet — say hello to the MacBook Neo.

Today (March 4) the tech giant announced its new range of laptops during its Apple Experience event, which also includes the new MacBook Pro M5 Pro and M5 Max, and MacBook Air M5, but it was the MacBook Neo that stole the show.

Pre-orders for the new models are now open with availability from March 11, but how does Apple's first budget-friendly laptop compare to its advanced siblings price-wise? Here are all the iterations of the new models and their prices side-by-side.

Price comparisons for the MacBook Neo, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air

The MacBook Neo has a lower starting price than any other Apple laptop at $599 / £599 / AU$899. That modest price tag doesn't mean compromising on handy features though, and you'll still have access to tools such as Apple Intelligence, the Multi-Touch Trackpad, and Magic Keyboard.

Although it doesn't pack the same storage as the new MacBook Pro lineup (the Neo is available in either 256GB or 512GB) and it runs on a different chip (Apple's A18), the MacBook Neo is a solid budget option on paper ideal for those who want an above surface-level laptop to get them by. This is where the main price differences between the Pro and Air come in.

The MacBook Pro M5 offers significantly more storage than the MacBook Neo, which is part of the reason for the price difference. The Pro and Air are powered by Apple's next-generation M5 chip, which also makes them more expensive than the MacBook Neo, and depending on which size and chip you opt for, you could pay up to $2200 more if you went whole hog with the 16-inch MacBook Pro M5 Max.

Look, I love a hulking boombox just as much as the next person, but sometimes I need a smaller Bluetooth speaker to enjoy my tunes. Yep, whether I’m on the go or taking a shower, I always appreciate having a pocket-sized audio companion at my disposal. So, today I want to compare two of the very best Bluetooth speakers in the flyweight class.

First up, we’ve got the JBL Clip 5. This carabiner style Bluetooth speaker is a real stand-out, combining a practical design with surprisingly strong sonic capabilities. It’s a couple of years old now, but it remains a real favorite of mine and other colleagues here at TechRadar, with some killer features and an ultra-rugged build.

But it’s got some serious competition. That’s right, I’m pitting the Clip 5 against the Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4, which is an astonishingly punchy Bluetooth speaker given its mini size. It’s pretty rugged as well, and I’m a huge fan of its eye-catching aesthetic. But is it actually better than the Clip 5? You can find out down below…

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: price and availability

The JBL Clip 5 hit the shelves in June 2024, and came with a list price of $79.95 / £59.99 / AU$89.95. Given that it launched a fair while back, you can often grab the Clip 5 on sale now – I’ve even seen it discounted to under $50 / £40 / AU$65 before.

It’s a very similar story for the UE Wonderboom 4. It was also released in June 2024, and is regularly on offer for a tasty low price. However, due to its higher power output, it will set you back a little more than the Clip 5. It has a list price of $99.99 / £89.99 / AU$149, although I’ve spotted it going for less than $60 / £60 / AU$90 now and then.

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: specs

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: features

The first category isn’t actually that close. You see, as much as I love the UE Wonderboom 4, I’d be lying if I called it a marvel in the features department.

Why? Well, above all, it leaves out companion app support – something that’s a bare minimum for speakers in this price range as far as I’m concerned. This means you can’t customize the speaker very much or remotely alter its EQ for instance. Yes, it does have a podcast mode and outdoor calibration, which can be activated with the UE’s onboard button controls, but that’s really it.

The Clip 5, however, has a nifty app that comes equipped with a custom equalizer as well as a few handy presets. This companion software also enables you to activate PlayTime Boost for some extra hours of listening, and has a display for the speakers remaining battery life.

Speaking of battery life, both models offer a pretty decent helping here. You get up to 12 hours with PlayTime Boost active on the Clip and 5 – 10 hours without. Meanwhile, the UE plates up 14 hours of playtime, which is very respectable indeed.

Even still, the JBL does surpass the UE Wonderboom 4 in basically every other area. For instance, both speakers support multi-speaker playback – including stereo pairing if you’ve got two of the same model. But the Clip 5 brings Auracast connectivity to the table, enabling it to seamlessly link up with a ton of other compatible JBL speakers, including the JBL Grip, JBL Flip 7, and even the rear speakers on the JBL Bar 1300MK2.

Ultimately, the Clip 5’s companion software support, better EQ controls, and Auracast connectivity make it the clear victor in the features department.

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: sound quality

OK, so the features head-to-head was a bit of a blow out. But things are going to be way tighter from here on in. Especially because both the JBL Clip 5 and UE Wonderboom 4 are amazing sounding speakers given their limited confines.

Let’s begin with the JBL Clip 5. It uses a single, full-range 45mm active driver, and has a maximum power output. As you can imagine, this means that it’s hardly the most booming speaker out there – though it does still pack a solid punch, all things considered.

I was struck by the Clip 5’s talents when playing Copricolori by Marco Castello. In this track, leading vocals were incredibly clean, never smothering keys in the mid-range. The track’s funky bass was well-balanced in the mix too, and didn’t sound sluggish or muddy at mid-volume. Sure, the Clip 5 can’t reach any lower than 95Hz, so don’t expect rippling sub-bass, but mid-bass sounded decently impactful when I sifted through various house tunes.

The UE Wonderboom 4 is a pretty different-sounding model, but it’s also very strong. As soon as I started playing tracks on this thing, I was struck by one thing above all: its seismic low-end output. There’s more of a thump here than the Clip 5 can muster – perhaps unsurprising given the Wonderboom 4’s dual driver configuration and mightier 10W maximum power output.

Although bass is undoubtedly the main event, that doesn’t come at the cost of enjoyable mid-range or treble performance, though. Don’t get me wrong – you’re not getting the intricate mids that a speaker like the Edifier ES20 can relay, but you’ll experience commendable clarity right across the frequency range.

So yes, both speakers are top performers in their weight class. But it’s worth noting that neither of these support higher-res Bluetooth codecs, and neither have a 3.5mm port or USB-C audio passthrough for wired listening. As a result, you’re not going to get the most detailed listen imaginable. You’ll also experience compression at top volumes with both the Clip 5 and Wonderboom 4 – that’s pretty common for speakers of this size, but it’s worth noting.

But which model sounds better? Well, I’d argue that the Clip 5 offers a little more balance overall, and its customizable EQ makes it easier to tailor to your preferences. But even with EQ tweaks, you won’t be able to match the pure bass weight of the Wonderboom 4. Its higher power is also a big plus, and its 360-degree wraparound design helps it to deliver a more engrossing soundstage than the Clip 5.

Even if bass is the focus on the Wonderboom 4, it still plates up sophisticated mids and highs, resulting in a fun, engaging sound. As a result, UE takes a slight edge for me here.

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: design

If there was ever going to be a close category, it was going to be this one.

I think it’s safe to say that there are a fair few similarities between the Clip 5 and the Wonderboom 4 – their numerous colorful variants, their rugged fabric build, and their high standard of build. In fact, both of these models also share an IP67 rating, meaning that they’re fully dustproof and can be submerged in a meter of water without accruing damage for as long as 30 minutes. Pretty cool, right?

But still, there are a few differences worth exploring, with the most striking being their different forms. The aptly named JBL Clip 5 has a carabiner design, meaning you can attach it to just about anything – a bag strap, a shower hose, a bicycle… you name it. It’s the main thing that sets the Clip 5 apart from other small-sized rivals, and I’m a big fan.

The UE Wonderboom 4 takes up a slightly more traditional build. It’s a palm-sized, stubby cylinder that’s simple yet sleek. It has a fabric loop, which you could put on a hook, for instance, but it’s not quite as versatile as the Clip 5. Still, I’d argue that it’s a little more attractive than JBL’s model, with the rounded look and eye-catching button controls making quite the impression.

With that said, I do still like the look of the Clip 5, and it’s available in a much wider range of colors than its UE rival. Still, both can be purchased in a range of vibrant colorways – or more understated ones if that’s your style.

For me, the UE Wonderboom 4 is a bit more stylish, but it’s hard to deny the practicality of the Clip 5. As a result, we’ll call this one a tie.

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: value

Right then, it seems we’re all tied up in the approach to our fourth and final category: value for money. But before we get into things, it’s worth flagging again that the UE Wonderboom 4 is more powerful, and a little larger too. This means that it’s reasonable to pay a little more for its services.

And indeed, you’ll almost certainly have to splash a bit more to get your hands on the Wonderboom 4, which typically comes in at around $99.99 / £89.99 / AU$149. Having said that, it is often on sale, and I’ve seen it drop below $60 / £60 / AU$90, which is an excellent price given the raw power of its bass output, its attractive design, and its strong battery life.

Meanwhile, the Clip 5 comes with a list price of $79.95 / £59.99 / AU$89.95, although it’s discounted almost every time I see it on Amazon, and has been available for less than $50 / £40 / AU$65 in the past. Again, that is a ridiculously good price for such a practical model with brilliant waterproofing, well-balanced sound, and a fleshed-out feature suite.

So, is it worth spending more on the UE Wonderboom 4? I’m actually quite conflicted. I think that the answer is yes for anyone seeking out more punchy low-end sound and attractive looks. But the lower price of the Clip 5 is incredibly tempting, especially given its inclusion of a companion app and a carabiner for easy fastening.

OK, the Clip 5 hasn’t got quite as much power, and that low-end kick is a little less prominent. But it still sounds great, and when I look at the speaker as a whole package, I think that lower price gives it the tiniest of advantages over UE.

JBL Clip 5 vs Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 4: verdict

It’s very tough to pick between these two, but as I suggested in the value section, I think the JBL Clip 5 just about stands as my overall winner. It just has a few too many one-ups on its UE rival, like a convenient companion app, a practical carabiner design, and Auracast connectivity. It’s also ultra-cheap, but still sounds great, which is no mean feat.

Having said that, I think the Wonderboom 4 sounds great too – I just wish it had a few more features. It’s an awesome mini model, and if you’re more of a bass-head, I’d perhaps pick this over the Clip 5. In truth, I expect you’ll love either of these speakers, no matter which one you opt for.

But what do you think? Did I make the right call? Do you want to share your experience with either of these models? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, so let me know down in the comments.

The best web host for a blog, portfolio, or basic online store is an affordable, low budget plan that you can grow into as your audience grows. Two hosts with a strong claim of being suitable for beginners are Spaceship and DreamHost.

Spaceship has been around since 2023, and is owned by the same people as the more established Namecheap. Interestingly, (although perhaps not surprisingly) Spaceship offers a largely identical collection of plans.

Meanwhile, DreamHost has been providing hosting services since 1997, with a collection of plans that have evolved to cover everything from basic websites to fully dedicated servers.

We’ve compared Spaceship’s Web Hosting Essential and DreamHost’s Launch plan, evaluating each host on pricing, features, customer service, and server performance.

Pricing

Choosing an entry level plan is a good way to keep costs down when launching a new online store or website. Both hosts offer competitively priced shared plans, but the trade-off is that you get the lowest spec hardware and limited features.

The Spaceship Web Hosting Essential plan is surprisingly affordable at just $3.88 a month. Other options are available, however: $1.66/mo if you pay for 12 months up-front, or $1.21/mo for 24 months. Note that these discounted options will revert to full-price after those periods end.

Spaceship also has a 30-day free trial, which we took advantage of. The features of the hosting are identical before and after the trial’s conclusion.

DreamHost, meanwhile, has a $2.89/mo option if you pay for 12 months up-front, which renews at the equivalent of $10.99 a month after the discount ends.

Infrastructure

Shared hosting means that the website you set up in the hosting is on a server with several other websites, owned by other customers. While these accounts and websites are secure from each other, all rely on the same server hardware. Consequently, the server’s resources – CPU, RAM, and bandwidth – are carefully balanced. When demand for one website increases, others slow… but if that site gets too many visits, it can be de-prioritized in favor of the other sites.

With the Spaceship Web Hosting Essential plan, you get 20GB of SSD cloud storage space and 1x CPU with 1GB of RAM, and unlimited websites (limited to 300,000 files – around three WordPress sites). Only 5x domains can be hosted with Spaceship’s Essential plan, however, but bandwidth is unmetered.

With DreamHost, no information about the CPU but the plan supports 40K monthly visits and provides 25 GB NVMe SSD storage.

Features

Spaceship

We looked at the Spaceship Essential plan, which while stripped back compared to more expensive options, offers 5x mailboxes, SSL, and a website builder tool. It also supports up to 50 SQL databases, and web development tools for PHP, Node.JS, Python, and Ruby, with support for 50 FTP accounts.

Built-in security is provided by Imunify360 (which handles DDoS, malware, and other threats), but additional features are bolt-ons, like WordPress AI tools and automatic backup.

Site migrations can be conducted at the point of purchase, or later, and there is support for cPanel migrations. Although tidy and minimalist, the admin interface is unlike any other host, employing design language that seems quite unfamiliar in this context.

DreamHost

With DreamHost's Launch plan, you get WordPress automatically installed and an optional migration tool, along with a free domain (.COM) and choice of global servers. Dreamhost’s AI Liftoff Website Builder is useful, and on par with similar tools from other hosts, but its Business Advisor tool (based on GPT-4o) is more interesting. It aims to offer solutions to on-site problems, and your project’s wider online presence.

You also get five subdomains, FTP, SFTP, and shell access for up to 6 users, and WP-CLI, which can all be administered using the custom control panel.

Support

With entry-level plans the WordPress installation is not managed, and neither is anything else you install. While support is available, you’re responsible for updating WordPress, managing backups, and ensuring the site runs efficiently.

With Spaceship, support is less of a focus than it is with other hosts. For example, there is no menu link to the knowledge base, which is sparse compared with DreamHost’s offering. While you can find the knowledge base in the footer, you might prefer the floating live chat box, with agents available 24/7.

DreamHost’s comprehensive knowledge base is the hub of the support experience, and good enough to use before contacting their support. A status page is also provided to help identify problems quickly, but there isn’t a 24/7 live chat. However, raising a question out of hours resulted in a quick email response.

Performance comparison

We installed WordPress on each host, and built a modest store using the WooCommerce plugin, before performing tests using Siege and WordPress Benchmark.

Siege

Siege is a command line utility with various testing tools; our focus is to learn how the servers handle concurrent website visits. We simulated this with Siege, for 9 simultaneous visits, then for 15.

Based on these tests, DreamHost appears to handle more requests over a shorter duration. To conclude, based on our tests, DreamHost is faster than Spaceship.

WordPress benchmarks

We assessed each host using the free WordPress Benchmark plugin to gather metrics on the server’s suitability for hosting WordPress.

While some elements of the infrastructure handle the requirements of modern hosting well (such as network speed), the fact is that these compare well against each other, but less so when viewed with more expensive plans.

Verdict

Spaceship makes a strong case for your custom. It is affordable and provides everything you need to get started quickly. Support is good, although the knowledge base could do with some work, and while the admin side of the hosting could be improved, it has most of what you need. Unfortunately, Spaceship hosting just doesn’t offer enough in terms of features or testing.

DreamHost has better support, a stronger knowledge base, and its features are more complete. The AI tools are useful, of course, and there is less requirement to add bolt-ons to get what are essentially basic features. While slightly more expensive than Spaceship, the added features account for the difference, as does the superior performance in testing.

SiteGround and Bluehost both have a strong reputation as two of the best web hosting providers, but most people use them for shared hosting. How do they compare if you need to upgrade your business website to VPS hosting? To find out, we judged them on hardware, price, features, ease of use, management options, and measured performance using benchmarking tools.

We found that Bluehost’s managed VPS offers a good progression from shared hosting. SiteGround's offerings are more powerful but do come with a steeper price tag.

Plans & pricing

Bluehost offers managed and unmanaged VPS plans while SiteGround offers 'managed cloud hosting' which is essentially VPS plans. For this comparison we've just looked at Bluehost's managed plans.

These plans – Standard NVMe 4, Enhanced NVMe 8, and Ultimate NVMe 16 – are available on a 36-month term, with 35-36% discounts depending on the plan. A standard monthly rolling plan (e.g., $59.99/mo for Standard NVMe 4, compared with $34.99/mo over 36 months) is also available, as are 12- and 24 month deals, each with discounts.

SiteGround has four similar plans – Jump Start, Business, Business Plus, and Super Power – are available. Jump Start is $100/mo, while Super Power is $400/mo. As with Bluehost, discounts are available with 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month plans, 5% on the 3 month plan and 10% on the longer options.

Both hosts offer a 30-day money back offer, should you decide to host your website elsewhere. Note that plans renew at the end of chosen terms without the discount applied.

Infrastructure

Bluehost’s VPS plan runs on hardware equipped with an AMD EPYC-Genoa CPUs. There are datacentres around the world

Meanwhile, SiteGround’s hosting is based on Google Cloud servers (we used an Australian data center), with our benchmarking unable to definitively confirm any further details about the CPU, RAM, or storage.

Features

SiteGround

With SiteGround’s cloud-based VPS hosting you get dedicated resources, a dedicated IP and daily backups, along with free SSL, email, and CDN, as well as automated scaling for traffic spikes. Unlimited websites are accommodated too. Support for developers and clients is provided with dedicated accounts, staging and Git support, WP-CLI and SSH.

In addition, a quick start for your online business can be achieved using the SiteGround Website Builder, which we found to be excellent.

Bluehost

Managed VPS plans from Bluehost come with a free SSL certificate, SSH and SFTP access, and support for unlimited applications. Optimized caching should ensure sites load efficiently, and backups and staging environments are also included. Along with 24/7 support (see below), 24/7 real-time monitoring and SiteLock security are included, to ensure your website is not hijacked, subverted, or otherwise hacked.

Bluehost also has website building options, but relies on Sitejet. This is not a bad choice, but it is inferior to SiteGround Website Builder. Both hosts offer AI-guided template selection and theming via WordPress.

Support

Both hosts offer 24/7 support, aiming to resolve technical issues. However, as these are managed VPS solutions, Bluehost and SiteGround offer different approaches.

Bluehost provides support via AI chat bot (“BLU”), live chat, and a telephone chat team. In our experience, the AI chat bot seemed to be trained on outdated material – for example, it was unable to assist with accurate steps for setting up a website. Further interactions with a human agent were hampered with cookie cutter responses that failed to resolve a specific database-related query. That aside, Bluehost has a searchable knowledgebase and operates a free WordPress course.

SiteGround operates credits-based support model. These need to be purchased in advance of requiring support, or can be retained on a subscription basis. This has a couple of shortcomings. First, it adds considerable cost to an already expensive plan (Bluehost plans include support). Second, (perhaps most crucially), you cannot initiate contact for a specific problem without paying first. If your budget stretches to a subscription for Expert Care credits, it is worth considering if you’re already edging towards SiteGround.

Performance comparison

To get an idea of how these hosts handle a typical WordPress-powered store, we set one up with WooCommerce. This was then tested with WordPress Benchmark, a plugin for the CMS that rates CPU and RAM, network speed, and object cache, before offering an overall score.

We also used the YABS benchmarking script to assess the the server infrastructure and environment, confirming it matches the advertised specification and offers adequate bandwidth.

Verdict

SiteGround and Bluehost managed VPS hosting plans are closely matched in terms of features, but there is a clear gap between them in terms of pricing and performance. Even when comparing both hosts over a 12 month plan with a discount, Bluehost is around 30% less than SiteGround, and that’s before considering the option of support credits. Everything is bundled with Bluehost’s managed VPS – the same is not true of SiteGround.

That said, the implementation of the SiteGround Website Builder is impressive, delivering a straightforward and effective solution to instant website building. This tool is on par with Wix, a website building and hosting tool that has become a popular alternative to WordPress. SiteGround Website Builder is superior to the WordPress-based builders; Bluehost only offers WordPress builders or the comparatively disappointing Sitejet.

In terms of plans, features, support, and performance, Bluehost edges it, making it a strong option for any web project that has outgrown shared hosting. SiteGround has a lot to offer in terms of ease of use and enjoying a quick launch, but its additional costs and the prospect of keeping support on what is effectively a retainer might not suit your small business budget.

GHD recently brought out a new hair dryer, which comes with some impressive specs, an intriguing special feature, and a lofty price tag – you can read about it in depth in my GHD Speed review. However, I was also interested to see how it compared to another premium pick: the Dyson Supersonic Nural.

The GHD Speed is the cheaper of the two, but at £299 it's still an investment. The Supersonic Nural will set you back £399.99. I've tested many of the best hair dryers on the market, and these two brands consistently impress.

So which dryer offers the best value for money? If you're thinking of splashing out on a fancy new hair gadget, are you better off with the Dyson Supersonic Nural, or should you take a chance on the new GHD Speed? I tested the two side by side, and here's what you need to know.

GHD Speed vs Dyson Supersonic Nural dryer: efficiency

The GHD Speed is an absolute powerhouse when it comes to windspeed. It boasts four speed options, and the maximum delivers a hurricane of power. The Supersonic Nural (with its three speed settings) still packs a punch, but in my side-by-side tests, it was clearly the less powerful of the two dryers. If you need to dry your hair in the fastest possible time, the GHD Speed is the tool you need.

It's a similar story for temperature. On their maximum temperature settings, the GHD Speed is clearly hotter than the Dyson Supersonic Nural. In fact, I tended to stick to one of the GHD's two medium settings for general use. There are four heat options, so you have plenty of precise control. In contrast, the Dyson Supersonic Nural has three temperature settings, plus an innovative "scalp protect" mode, which I'll get into in the Special Features section.

To boost the offering further, GHD Speed has a continuously cool setting option, alongside a pulse button. The Supersonic Nural just has the pulse.

Winner: GHD Speed – the GHD Speed is hotter and more powerful on its maximum settings, and offers more precise control with its modes, too.

GHD Speed vs Dyson Supersonic Nural dryer: design & comfort

In terms of settings, GHD wins out. Not only does it have more heat and speed options (four each, compared to Dyson's three), it also offers the option to select "cold" as a continuous setting, as well as a pulse option and a setting lock slider. That last one might not sound very flash but it's actually super helpful – I've experienced far too many annoying accidental setting changes in my hair dryer reviewing career.

The current settings are displayed clearly using illuminated lights around the barrel.

It isn't that Dyson's setup is poor – and there is an argument that its small, tucked-away switches look more hi-tech than GHD's more functional ones – but it's slightly less user-friendly.

In terms of the overall look, I prefer Dyson's colorful, blocky, straight-edged dryer to GHD's curvy, segmented one; but that's just personal preference. The GHD hair dryer is heavier than the Dyson (around 620g for just the dryer, compared to around 455g for the Nural) and the Dyson option is also significantly more compact, making it easier to wield and more packable for when you're on-the-go.

Note, too, that it's possible to hold the GHD dryer by its barrel for drying rather than its handle, since it remains cool to touch. While this doesn't feel particularly natural to start, it does enable you to direct airflow more precisely. There's no such option on the Nural (if it's precision styling you want, Dyson would probably point you towards its weird, pipe-shaped Supersonic r instead).

Winner: Draw – the GHD's controls are better designed, but the Dyson has the benefit of being smaller and lighter.

GHD Speed vs Dyson Supersonic Nural dryer: special features

Neither of the two models here are just your average hair dryer, but I think the Dyson offers a more compelling package of special features over the GHD.

Interestingly, the USP of both models is a feature designed to protect your scalp. On the GHD Speed it's the brand's "halo dual-airflow technology", which delivers a "halo" of always-cool air around the heated airflow. GHD states this will enable you to get closer to your scalp without burning it – but based on my tests that's just not really true. Holding the dryer close to my head was immediately uncomfortably hot, even if I angled it from the side.

Dyson's effort is more coherent. Activate its scalp protect mode and sensors in the barrel will adjust the temperature of the airflow depending on how close it is to your head, to maintain what feels like a consistent temperature on your scalp. This means it's possible to get right up close without burning your head.

The Dyson Supersonic Nural also offers attachment memory, which means it knows which of the many attachments is affixed, and will revert to your last-used settings with each one. Further to that, it knows when it has been put down, so it will drop to a low-airflow mode so you're not just blasting your dressing table with hot air.

Of course, such features aren't essentials, but they do remove some minor pain-points when styling. And it also feels like you're getting a really premium experience for your premium investment.

Winner: Dyson Supersonic Nural

GHD Speed vs Dyson Supersonic Nural dryer: specs

Should I buy the GHD Speed or the Dyson Supersonic Nural?

Buy the GHD Speed if...

✅ You want ultimate power: On its maximum settings the GHD Speed is more powerful, and hotter, than Dyson's dryer. It will get your hair dry in double-quick time.

✅ You're not doing lots of meticulous styling: There's only one attachment included here – a concentrator – plus the option of buying a diffuser.

✅ You dislike fiddly controls: The GHD's control setup is more straightforward, the buttons are less fiddly, and the mode lock means no more accidental presses.

Buy the Dyson Supersonic Nural if...

✅ You're doing lots of complex styling: The Supersonic Nural comes with a plethora of styling attachments, and it will remember your last-used settings with each one.

✅ You want something compact and lightweight: The Supersonic Nural is the smaller and lighter of the two dryers.

✅ You're worried about hair health: The auto-adjusting Scalp protect mode works well and allows you to get up close to your head without scorching it.

Liquid Web and ScalaHosting are two of the best web hosting providers but which one has the best VPS for your project? Let's dive in to the main differences between these two VPS providers and find out.

Infrastructure

Liquid Web has hosting locations in North America and Europe (including the UK), with a data center in Australia covering its Asia-Pacific market. Server hardware is based on Intel Xeon Gold 6426Y CPUs, however standard SSDs (rather than NVMe) are used on VPS plans. Data centers are equipped with 10GB networking.

(Liquid Web uses NVMe on dedicated hosting. Interestingly, Liquid Web also offers GPU hosting for dedicated servers intended for AI workloads.)

Meanwhile, ScalaHosting has data centers around the globe, with native hosting and AWS infrastructure in North America, native, AWS, and integrated cloud server farms in Europe, and cloud and AWS and cloud in Asia and Australia. VPS plans are hosted on servers running “Broadwell” Intel Core Processors, according to our testing, which again suggests a CPU in the Intel Xeon family. ScalaHosting VPS servers use NVMe SSD drives for storage.

Plans

Both hosting providers offer a range of plans, from basic WordPress-based shared hosting through cloud, VPS, and dedicated hosting.

ScalaHosting and Liquid Web each offer four standard VPS plans, along with custom options.

Liquid Web has as comprehensive server configuration tool, which doesn’t just give you various specs to work with, but also lets you choose self-managed, core managed ($21/mo), and fully managed ($39/mo) options.

ScalaHosting also has a custom Linux VPS option, starting at $24.95/mo (or $19.95 if paid annually) with your choice of virtual CPU cores, RAM, and SSD storage. Note that this can get expensive, however, and is more suited to very specific cases. ScalaHosting also has managed and unmanaged plans with the real value in managed.

Pricing

Liquid Web’s most affordable VPS is a basic part-managed plan at $5/mo, giving you a single vCPU, 1GB RAM, and 30GB SSD storage. At the other end of the scale is a $90/mo plan (discounted to $45/mo for two months) with 6 vCPU, 16GB RAM, and 440GB SSD.

ScalaHosting lists four “unmanaged” VPS plans which are similar enough to Liquid Web’s plans that they can both be considered part-managed.

Its most affordable plan, Build #1, is $19.95/mo (for 12 months, or $24.95/mo on a monthly rolling contract) with 2 vCPUs, 4GB RAM and 50GB NVMe storage. At the other end of the scale is a $122.95/mo (based on 12 months paid up-front, otherwise $183.95/mo) plan, with 16 vCPU cores, 32GB RAM, and 240GB NVMe storage. Note that the discounted plans renew at the standard monthly price.

There is clearly a difference in price between ScalaHosting and Liquid Web. While the $5/mo plan from Liquid Web is its most affordable, it is also lower spec than anything from ScalaHosting. The closest match is Liquid Web’s $8.50/month 4GB plan (with a 2-core vCPU and 80GB SSD), which is roughly equivalent to ScalaHosting’s Build #1, at $19.95/mo. However, this puts you in the position of essentially paying over $11 per month for 30GB less storage, albeit with a faster, more reliable NVMe drive.

Features

Liquid Web

Liquid Web offers a collection of configurations that are either included or bolted on. You can select data locations, choose between a Linux OS (AlmaLinux 9, Debian 13, Rocky Linux 9, and Ubuntu 24.04 LTS) or Windows Server 2025 Standard Edition, and add backups. These are free if stored in the Liquid Web cloud, or an addition $17/mo if you use Acronis. Advanced DDoS protection and ThreatDown paid add-ons are also available, along with cloud block storage for efficient hosting. If you need a control panel, Interworx (Liquid Web’s proprietary tool) is available at $11/mo, or you can pay more for Plesk ($26/mo) or cPanel ($31/mo). You can also pay for additional IP addresses at $6/mo per address.

If you’re planning to use WordPress, Liquid Web offers a swift setup, and has SiteJet AI Website Creator. However, in our testing, we found it doesn’t automatically add images, which doesn’t match our experience with other hosts.

ScalaHosting

With ScalaHosting, you get full root access, and a free SPanel interface, which is a great alternative to cPanel (however, cPanel licenses can be added). There is a choice between the default Rocky Linux 10 and Rocky Linux 9, Ubuntu 24.04, Debian 12, Debian 13, and Windows 2019 and Windows 2022 Standard for your server’s operating system.

(Note that by default, ScalaHosting will drop you into its first available data center. You need to edit the order to change this.)

ScalaHosting has an automated setup built into its WordPress installation, although this is not AI, instead relying on the Spectra Website Builder and Astra theme. Setup is very quick, however – it took around the same length of time to install as it did to input the site name and user credentials.

Performance comparison

WordPress benchmarks

We installed WordPress and a WooCommerce store on each host, and tested with the WordPress Benchmark plugin to assess performance.

The scores indicate that while ScalaHosting might have slightly faster server hardware, the overall configuration of both delivers similar results.

Support

Both hosts offer a self-managed experience, which means that the server environment (LAMP, XAMP, WAMP, etc.) is pre-installed and largely configured. You won’t need to worry about installing WordPress, for example, as this can be done following the creation of an account within the control panel admin environment.

If you run into any problems, you can refer to documentation or call upon support staff for assistance. But with self-managed VPS hosting, they cannot fix anything unless it is a pre-configuration issue. Everything else is on you to fix, and this includes maintenance (updates, backups, etc.). Instructions can be provided for solving issues, but unless you pay for server management, it’s all on you.

I found Liquid Web were quick to respond to a password reset issue with my hosting account (not the server), but interaction was otherwise minimal. It has a good selection of support resources, however, which is useful as it offers less support for self-managed VPS customers than ScalaHosting does.

ScalaHosting fixed two issues for me quickly. The first was choosing the wrong data center, which I had inadvertently left as the default option (EU-based) when I needed a US server. As I spotted this quickly, they were able to sort it out almost immediately. However, the second was a little more complex (concerning missing credentials and welcome email), but this was solved within 10 minutes. For unmanaged hosting, this is excellent.

Verdict

The VPS hosting on offer from Liquid Web and ScalaHosting is quite evenly matched.

Both offer a streamlined, modern user interface, with clear icons and menus that guide you through each task without appearing to do so. I was particularly impressed with both hosts’ speed, particularly concerning the automated setup of WordPress. Given that this is marketed as unmanaged VPS hosting, I had surprisingly little to do.

Pricing does differ on a like-for-like basis with these hosts, but the WordPress performance is similar enough to let you base your decision purely on price, support, and features.

ScalaHosting’s support makes it ideal for any growing website – perhaps with an e-commerce store – particularly if you don’t have your own IT team of in-house web admin to fix issues. Meanwhile, Liquid Web’s VPS plans seem more suited for enterprise or fast-growing SMEs.

If you’re looking for a Bluetooth speaker that provides regimented bass and impressive fidelity, while still remaining pleasingly portable, then a mid-sized model is probably the path you’ll want to take.

In my search for the best Bluetooth speakers, I’ve tested a number of excellent middleweight options, but there are two that really stick out to me. Those being the JBL Charge 6 and the Marshall Middleton II. Both of these are phenomenal sounding, brilliantly built, and feature filled, offering just about anything you could want for listening at home or on the go.

But which one of these models is better? Well, I’ve spent hours with each model, comparing them directly to find out which is the best value for money, and which I’d recommend to all of you out there. Interested to know which model will come out on top? Then make sure to scroll on down. Oh, and I’d be interested to know whether you agree with my conclusion or not, so let me know any thoughts in the comments.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: price and availability

The JBL Charge 6 released in April 2025, and comes with a list price of $199.95 / £169.99 / AU$229. However, I have seen it going for less on a few occasions – it dropped below $130 in December 2025, for instance, and is selling for £125 on Amazon UK even as I type this.

If you’re looking to buy the Marshall Middleton II instead, you can expect to spend a fair bit more. It typically sells for $329.99 / £259.99 / AU$499, and sales are few and far between – perhaps unsurprising given its more recent July 2025 launch. I’ll speak more about the reasons for that, and whether it’s worth the increased cost down in the Value section.

Both of these models are available in a collection of colorways. There’s a Black and Brass or Cream variant for the Middleton II, as well as Red, Purple, Camo, Blue – among other options – for the JBL Charge 6.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: specs

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: features

You get plenty of useful features on both the JBL Charge 6 and the Marshall Middleton II, although both offer a pretty distinct set of options.

For instance, the JBL Charge 6 supports USB-C audio passthrough, which opens up 24bit/96kHz audio quality – something that a lot of rivals don’t supply. You can get high-resolution playback from the Middleton II as well, but it employs a 3.5mm port instead of USB-C data transfer. This is a nice option, but USB-C is so much more ubiquitous now, and feels like the more practical route.

EQ options look a little different on these two as well. The Charge 6 has a seven-band custom equalizer, as well as various genre-related presets, making it an awesome pick for all listeners. The Middleton II only has a five-band equalizer, and its set of presets is smaller – it’s still absolutely fine, don’t get me wrong, but there’s more customizability with JBL.

It may seem like Marshall’s down a bit right now, but it does take the edge over JBL in a couple of areas.

First of all, it serves up superior battery life. You get 30 hours out of this thing, which is absolutely fantastic for a speaker with this much power and scale. Sure, you can get 28 hours from the Charge 6, but that’s only with PlayTime Boost on, which will reduce audio fidelity. Without this, you’re getting 24 hours – still very respectable, but inferior to the Middleton II all the same.

On top of that, the Middleton II has a built-in mic, handily enabling you to take hands-free calls. That’s something JBL decided to skip on the Charge 6, which may not suit the more avid chatters among you.

Having said that, the Middleton II does omit some of the features I love on other Marshall speakers, including placement compensation – a calibration option that optimizes the speakers’ sound for your listening environment. The Charge 6 doesn't have this either, although it does come with AI Sound Boost tech, which analyzes audio content in real time and optimizes output to reduce distortion – pretty cool.

Both models also support Auracast for multi-speaker connectivity, although you can pair two Charge 6 models the traditional way in order to access stereo sound instead. Unfortunately, the Middleton II doesn’t let you create a standard stereo pair, which is a shame, but not a total dealbreaker given it can output in stereo via a single unit.

This is a very close contest overall, and it’s really hard to separate the two. But as much as I love the Middleton II’s 30-hour battery life, I still think JBL offers a healthy dollop of playtime. And although the Marshall does have a built-in mic, JBL’s AI Sound Boost tech, better EQ options, and inclusion of USB-C audio passthrough just about give it the edge for me.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: sound quality

This is where things get interesting. See, the JBL Charge 6 and Middleton II sound pretty different, although both are very strong performers in their own right.

The Charge 6 is JBL all over. You get direct, powerful, yet beautiful audio in one rough ‘n’ ready package, with clean bass, rich mids, and expressive highs. Despite its 45W maximum power output, the Charge 6 punches well above its weight – especially in the low end. I was wowed by its regimented yet large low-frequency presence – it’s a considerable step up on the JBL Flip 7, which already plates up sumptuous bass.

With a USB-C connection, you can also experience surprisingly intricate detail levels on the Charge 6, with subtle percussion and vocal quirks easy to make out. Combine that with its effective handling of dynamics and genuinely impressive soundstage, and you’re onto a winner with JBL’s midweight audio companion.

But for me, the Marshall Middleton II takes things to new heights. In fairness to the Charge 6, Marshall’s rival is a lot more powerful, and packs in 80W of power across its two woofers and two tweeters. But the Middleton II really does make the best of what it’s working with, serving up a clear, intent-filled sound that’s instantly gripping.

When listening to deep house tracks, the Middleton II managed pumping, agile bass without a hitch. In smooth jazz songs, charismatic leading sax and subtle keys were ultra-clear in the mix. And even in energetic electronic tunes, high-pitched percussion never sounded harsh or uncontrolled – even at higher volumes.

What really sets this model apart from the Charge 6, though, is its impeccable stereo sound. For my review, I tuned in to Foxey Lady by Jimi Hendrix – an artist who loved to play around with the stereo field to create immersive listening experiences. And with the Middleton II, vocals on the left and percussion on the right were both expertly positioned, creating an engrossingly spatial impression.

The Charge 6 downmixes stereo content to mono, unless you have a second unit to pair it with, so if you’re after a more nuanced presentation, the Middleton II should be your go-to. It can also go louder, and some elements like instrument separation seem superior on Marshall’s model, so I’d give it the nod in the audio department.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: design

These two are worlds apart across multiple aspects of design – especially if we’re talking about looks.

Just like its sound, the JBL Charge 6’s appearance is incredibly on-brand. It’s a very rugged model, with a hardy fabric exterior, drop-proof build, and a trusty carry handle. Is it the most stylish speaker out there? No.

Despite coming in a range of enticing colorways, the aesthetic screams substance over style – it’s a reliable cylindrical audio companion, but not one that’s oozing with class and luxury.

It’s a different story for the Marshall Middleton II, though. This model is a feast for the eyes, featuring gorgeous golden details, a faux-leather exterior, and an attractive speaker grille. It’s got a real retro feel to it, and its amp-inspired aesthetic is timeless. If we were judging this on looks alone, the Middleton II would clear its JBL rival without question.

But there’s more to a speaker's design than looks alone. If we’re talking about more practical elements, the playing field begins to even out a bit. For instance, the JBL Charge 6 is IP68 rated, meaning that it’s fully dustproof, and capable of surviving a 30 minute dunking under a meter and a half of water. Pretty impressive, right?

Sure, the Middleton II has a similar IP67 rating – which means its waterproof, but can’t be submerged as deeply as the Charge 6 – but there are other ways in which JBL surpasses it. The most obvious for me is its portability. The Middleton II is seriously hefty for a speaker of its size, and doesn’t even come with a proper handle, unlike its larger cousin, the Marshall Kilburn III.

Meanwhile, the Charge 6 is considerably lighter, comes with a handle, and is generally much more portable. So, when it comes to design there’s really not a lot in it. The convenient nature of the Charge 6 is very appealing indeed, and it's built to a high standard. But for me, the premium look of the Middleton II makes Marshall’s speaker the top pick, even if it has slightly inferior waterproofing and a bit more bulk.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: value

This one’s been too close to call so far, but we’ve finally arrived at the most important category of all: value for money.

The Middleton II is, admittedly, a more premium model. It’s constructed from more fancy materials. It's got more drivers and power than its JBL rival. And yes, it’s got a higher price to match. Typically, this thing will set you back $329.99 / £259.99 / AU$499. That’s a lot of cash for a midweight model like the Middleton II, and as it’s still fairly new, there’s been little in the way of sales yet.

Does it earn that price-tag? I’m sort of on the fence. It’s an amazing-sounding speaker – better than the Charge 6 for me – and it’s dripping with style. But you’re still shelling out a lot of cash. A similar amount to what you’d need for the Charge 6’s larger cousin, the JBL Xtreme 4. Its slightly awkward size and considerable heft also prove to be a thorn in the Middleton II’s side – the speaker’s got a lot going for it, but it’s perhaps not the best value for money option on the market.

The same can’t be said for the JBL Charge 6. This Bluetooth speaker offers much of the good stuff we covered on the Middleton II – it sounds fantastic, it's well protected against the elements, and its build quality is commendable.

However, it’s way cheaper, typically coming in at $199.95 / £169.99 / AU$229 (but often on sale for less). Sure, it’s not as stylish, but it makes up for that with a superior feature-set, cementing it as the ultimate value pick in this clash.

JBL Charge 6 vs Marshall Middleton II: verdict

This is one close battle – perhaps even closer than I imagined in the first place. But as I mentioned in the Value section, the JBL Charge 6’s impeccable value for money just about gives it the edge for me. It supplies superb sound, an awesome IP68 dust and waterproof rating, and its portability is top-drawer.

There’s still a case for the Middleton II, though. If you need a mid-sized speaker that screams luxury and has some unbelievably good stereo sound, it’s a great pick.

For me, its slightly larger cousin, the Marshall Kilburn III, is a better value option. It’s priced surprisingly similarly to the Middleton II, but sounds better, looks classier, and has a handle for easy transportation. But that will cost far more than the JBL Charge 6, which comes out as the winner in its close-fought contest with the Middleton II.

Dyson is known for its vacuum cleaners, but recently it has been getting more into wet hard-floor cleaners. Its first attempt launched in August 2024, and you can read all about it in my Dyson WashG1 review. Now there's a new model on the block: the Dyson Clean+Wash Hygiene.

Unlike the best wet-and-dry vacuums on the market, neither use suction, but instead harness a combination of hydration, agitation and separation to clean your hard floors. To put it another way, they add water, dislodge dirt using cleverly designed rollers, and then separate solid and liquid waste for easy disposal.

Beyond that, though, there are a couple of key differences between the Dyson WashG1 and Clean+Wash Hygiene. The first is that the dock will dry the roller with hot air once it's finished its self-washing cycle. This is a solid improvement; no notes.

The second is that the Clean+Wash stores all the waste water in its floorhead, rather than on a tank mounted to the handle. The idea behind this is that because the liquid's not traveling anywhere, there are no tubes to get gunked up. This design shift makes sense in theory, but has several knock-on effects I'm not such a fan of. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that in making this one change, Dyson has sacrificed most of the WashG1's best features.

Here's why I actually prefer the older Dyson WashG1 over the new and shiny Clean+Wash Hygiene...

1. It's fiddly and messy to empty

The WashG1 has its dirty-water tank mounted to its handle, and this is easy to remove and empty. The solid waste tray slots into the floorhead, and is slightly more complex to fit, but still fairly straightforward.

In contrast, the Clean+Wash Hygiene has its dirty-water tank mounted into the top of the floorhead, with a two-part solid waste tray integrated in. Separating the three components is fiddly, and putting it back together again even more so – and I say this as someone who's pretty good at jigsaws.

The knock-on effect of having a more complicated floorhead, with lots of connecting components, is that it's a lot leakier than the nice, simple WashG1. Now, all the wet floor cleaners I've used are a little bit drippy – it feels like an unavoidable problem – but the Clean+Wash Hygiene seems especially bad. It felt like every time I went to empty the dirty-water tank something would dribble out onto me or the floor.

2. There's only one roller

The WashG1's floorhead has two large microfiber rollers and a bristled roller for solid messes, and delivers efficient cleaning. In contrast, the Clean+Wash Hygiene only has space for one roller on its more complicated floorhead.

I will say I do prefer the microfiber roller design on the Clean+Wash. The scrubbing action is slightly improved, thanks to the addition of wiry, longer fibers that extend a bit from the roller. My ideal scenario? The upgraded microfiber roller design, mounted in the old floorhead.

3. The water tanks are too small

The WashG1 has a 1L clean-water tank, and a 0.8L dirty tank, whereas the Clean+Wash Hygiene equivalents are 0.75L and 0.52L respectively, and the difference was noticeable on test; not so much during the actual mopping – Dyson has tweaked the water delivery so there's only a fine sheen of liquid applied to floors, eking out the clean water as much as possible – but during the self-clean cycle.

Each self-clean cycle uses more than half a tank of clean water, which means for the first few times I ran one of these I had to stop twice per cycle: once to refill the clean water tank and again to empty the dirty tank. Eventually I learned to do this before each self-clean cycle to avoid annoying interruptions.

The benefit of smaller tanks is a more streamlined and lighter machine, so I can see why Dyson was keen to keep things compact here – you'll need to decide your priorities when making your choice.

4. Cleaning the dirty-water tank is tricky

One of the things I liked about the design of the dirty-water tank on the WashG1 – and something Dyson highlighted as a big benefit when I was first shown that machine – was that the waste water tank was designed to be easy to clean.

It's wide enough that you can get your hand in and wipe everything out, and there are no awkward corners where grime can collect. I've tested a number of wet-dry vacuums now, and I've never seen anything like it – dirty water tanks are always too small to get your hand in, and always have sharp edges that get grubby almost instantly.

The setup on the Clean+Wash is especially bad, though. It opens with a screw cap, and there's no access to the inside at all. It's not the worst thing for a dirty water tank to be dirty, but this feels like an oversight in terms of long-term maintenance.

Dyson WashG1 vs Clean+Wash Hygiene: specs compared

Bose and JBL: two titans of the audio world, and two real household names. Between them, these companies have released some of the best Bluetooth speakers around for many a year, and they both consistently deliver models that pack in stellar sound quality, intelligent design, and plenty of smart features.

So, recently I pitted two of my favorite models from each brand against one another. In the red corner, we have the JBL Flip 7, an impeccable cylindrical audio companion, that produces sound so bold and so refined, that it almost defies belief. And in the blue corner, we’ve got the Bose SoundLink Flex Gen 2 – an effortlessly stylish and carefully crafted model that’s been a mainstay for me over the last year or so.

I’ve tested both speakers extensively, comparing each of them across areas like audio quality, looks, and value for money. And spoiler alert – both of these are strong performers that I’d happily recommend to anyone reading. However, only one can come out on top. Here’s the breakdown.

JBL Flip 7 vs Bose SoundLink Flex Gen 2: price and availability

These Bluetooth speakers are sitting in a similar ballpark price-wise. The JBL Flip 7 comes in at $149 / £129 / AU$179, although I did see it drop below $110 / £80 in the US and UK respectively over Black Friday. That’s pretty impressive too, given that the Flip 7 only hit shelves in April 2025.

Meanwhile, the Bose SoundLink Flex launched in September 2024 at $149 / £149.95 / AU$249.95. Like its rival from JBL, I’ve also seen this model going for significantly less during sales events – it’s occasionally available for less than $100 / £100, which is a great deal in my book. Both models are also available in a range of colors.

You’ll find the Flip 7 in red, purple, black, camo… you name it. The SoundLink Flex Gen 2 has a number of variants too, such as Alpine Sage (green); Sandstone (brown); and my personal favorite, Blue Dusk.

JBL Flip 7 vs Bose SoundLink Flex Gen 2: specs