If you were to arrange Apple's current crop of iPhones in terms of price, the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Air would sit squarely in the middle of the pack. They're more expensive than the iPhone 17 and iPhone 17e, but cheaper than the iPhone 18 Pro Max and iPhone Duo.

Generally speaking, these two devices are for people who want something special from their phones, but don’t quite want to spend top-end money — or simply don’t want the massive (or foldable) screens that Apple’s priciest handsets come with.

But the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Air are also quite different in a lot of ways. One delivers pro-level features and market-leading camera performance; the other offers a comfortable and stylish design. So which should you choose?

Below, we've detailed the key differences between the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Air to help you figure out which device is best for you.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: specs comparison

The table below gives you a brief overview of these two handsets; then, under that, we’ll look more closely at what makes them tick.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: price and availability

The iPhone 18 Pro launched in September 2026, and it’s available globally. It starts at $1,199 / £1,199 / AU$2,099, for which you’ll get a model with 256GB of storage. 512GB will set you back $1,399 / £1,399 / AU$2,499, 1TB costs $1,799 / £1,799 / AU$3,299, and a 2TB model is $2,399 / £2,399 / AU$4,499.

The iPhone Air launched back in September 2025, so it’s a year older but doesn’t yet have a successor. It too is widely available, and it costs $1,099 / £1,099 / AU$1,899 for 256GB of storage, $1,299 / £1,299 / AU$2,299 for 512GB, and $1,699 / £1,699 / AU$3,099 for 1TB — there's no 2TB variant of the iPhone Air.

So, the starting price of the iPhone 18 Pro is $100 / £100 / AU$200 higher than that of the Air, and that difference is consistent for each configuration. Importantly, though, the Air is often on sale, so you're unlikely to need to pay full price.

It's worth noting, too, that the iPhone Air was actually priced at $999 / £999 / AU$1,799 at launch, but Apple increased its price following the launch of the iPhone 18 Pro in September, just as it raised the price of iPads and MacBooks in June due to "significantly higher memory costs."

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: design

Notwithstanding their display size differences (more on that below), the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Air look similar from the front, offering flat screens, minimal bezels, and Dynamic Island cut-outs at the top of their respective displays.

The Dynamic Island on the iPhone 18 Pro is actually a touch smaller than the Air's, and it can display three Live Activities simultaneously instead of two, but this isn't a particularly consequential difference.

From the back, there are more visible differences between the two phones. The iPhone Air is made from a single slab of glass surrounded by a titanium frame, while the iPhone 18 Pro has a glass panel surrounded by an aluminum frame.

Their respective camera layouts are different too, with the iPhone 18 Pro having a much larger triple-lens block compared to the iPhone Air’s slimmer, single-lens camera island.

But the biggest design differences come in the two phones' dimensions and weights. The iPhone 18 Pro measures 150 x 71.9 x 8.8mm and weighs 211g, while the iPhone Air measures 156.2 x 74.7 x 5.6mm and weighs 165g.

Those are substantial differences — the iPhone Air is far slimmer and lighter than the iPhone 18 Pro, which is, of course, the whole point of the phone. It feels much more comfortable to hold in the hand and carry around in your pocket, despite being taller and wider.

Having a thin and lightweight phone might not matter all that much to you, in which case you probably won't care for the iPhone Air's design. But I'd urge you to at least hold Apple's super-slim iPhone in your hand before disregarding it — it genuinely is a lovely device to use day-to-day, and TechRadar's Phones Editor, Axel Metz, was surprised by how much he came to appreciate the Air's design in testing.

The iPhone 18 Pro is, of course, still an attractive and well-designed phone, but it's significantly bulkier and doesn't excite in the same way as the Air — at least on the design front.

For colors, the iPhone 18 Pro comes in Black, Silver, Glacier, and Burgundy, while the iPhone Air is sold in Space Black, Cloud White, Light Gold, and Sky Blue. So there are some differences there too.

Both phones, though, are similarly durable, offering Ceramic Shield 2 protection on the front and Ceramic Shield on the back, along with IP68 water and dust resistance.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: display

The iPhone 18 Pro has a 6.3-inch 1206 x 2622 Super Retina XDR OLED screen with around 460 pixels per inch, a 120Hz refresh rate, and a peak brightness of 3,000 nits.

On the iPhone Air, you’re getting a 6.5-inch 1260 x 2736 Super Retina XDR OLED display with roughly 460 pixels per inch, a 120Hz refresh rate, and a peak brightness of 3,000 nits.

So the specs here are almost identical, with the main difference just being that the iPhone Air has a slightly larger display — though as noted earlier, the iPhone 18 Pro does have a smaller Dynamic Island.

Our reviews described both screens as “punchy, sharp, and smooth,” so there’s really very little to choose here. Do you prefer a bigger display, or a more compact one?

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: cameras

There’s a clear winner when it comes to cameras and, unsurprisingly, it’s the iPhone 18 Pro: this device has three lenses on the back — a 48MP variable aperture main camera, a 48MP ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and a 48MP telephoto with 4x optical zoom and 8x ‘optical-quality’ zoom, achieved through a sensor crop.

The iPhone Air, meanwhile, just has a single 48MP wide camera with a static f/1.6 aperture. In other words, you have far less photographic versatility with this phone, which you'll notice when filming at concerts, sports games, or basically anywhere that might have you attempting to capture a subject from far away.

That's not to say the iPhone Air is a bad camera phone — its 48MP wide camera is the same as the 18 Pro's, minus the latter's variable aperture feature (which lets you tweak how much light gets into the lens). If you use your phone's main lens for 90% of shots, you may not notice the Air's lack of versatility.

But the iPhone 18 Pro is indisputably one of the best camera phones you can buy, while the iPhone Air falls into the 'good but not great' category.

Still, the Air does at least match the iPhone 18 Pro’s selfie camera, with both devices sporting an 18MP front-facing sensor. Both can also record 1080p video at up to 240fps, though the Pro can additionally record 4K footage at up to 120fps, while the iPhone Air tops out at 60fps.

In our iPhone 18 Pro review, we described its cameras as delivering “better detail, strong low-light performance, and excellent 4x and 8x zoom.” Of the iPhone Air, we said it “delivers sharp, natural photos and impressive portraits, but lacks the versatility found on other models.”

iPhone 18 Pro camera samples

iPhone Air camera samples

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: performance and software

As for power, you'll technically get better performance from the iPhone 18 Pro, with Apple's newer phone boasting — surprise! — a newer A20 Pro chipset than the iPhone Air's A19 Pro chipset.

Still, you're not likely to notice this power difference unless you plan on using your phone for heavy video editing or prolonged gaming. Both the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Air feature 12GB of RAM, so their multitasking capabilities are comparable, while scrolling, streaming, and browsing won't present a challenge to either device.

Our iPhone 18 Pro review called Apple's newer phone “fast, efficient, and ready for whatever comes next”, and we said the iPhone Air was “fast and smooth in daily use, though it can warm up under sustained heavy gaming.”

There’s even less difference between the two phones when it comes to software, as both run iOS 27. Their shared 12GB RAM capacity also means both phones get the full version of Siri AI, which includes expressive voices and advanced dictation.

However, since the iPhone Air shipped with iOS 26 at launch and is a slightly older phone, it’s possible that it won’t be updated for quite as long as the iPhone 18 Pro (read: you'll probably get six more years of updates, instead of seven).

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: battery

You probably wouldn’t expect a massive battery in a phone as slim as the iPhone Air, and you’d be right not to: the Air has a dinky 3,149mAh cell, which is dwarfed by the iPhone 18 Pro's 4,288mAh one (you'll get a slightly smaller 4,056mAh battery if your iPhone 18 Pro features a physical SIM tray).

In practice, Apple claims the iPhone 18 Pro can make it through 34 hours of video playback, while it lists just 27 hours for the iPhone Air. Those figures proved accurate in our testing, and the gap between the two phones is similar for real-world use — you'll get around a day-and-a-half of life from the 18 Pro, and no more than a day for the Air.

The iPhone 18 Pro also charges faster, with Apple claiming it can reach 50% in around 15 minutes, while the iPhone Air takes twice as long — though with wireless charging, both phones can supposedly charge to 50% in 30 minutes.

In our iPhone 18 Pro review, we praised its “outstanding endurance,” while in our iPhone Air review, we said it “should last a workday, but heavy users will need to recharge.” We've used both phones extensively, and haven't found the iPhone Air's one-day battery life to be a dealbreaker — but those who don't charge their phone every night may be caught short by its lack of endurance.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone Air: verdict

If you go simply by our review scores, the iPhone 18 Pro is the better phone, achieving five stars to the iPhone Air's four. And looking at the specs, it’s clear why — the iPhone 18 Pro has better battery life, more power, and more cameras, so it’s clearly the more capable device.

However, there’s little to choose between the two phones' screens, other than the size — with the iPhone Air’s being bigger. And they run the same software too, on top of which the iPhone Air is slightly cheaper (especially if you can pick it up at a discount).

But the real reason you might want the Air is its design — it's far slimmer and lighter than the iPhone 18 Pro, which makes a difference in your hand and pocket, and also makes it the more stylish device. Whether that makes up for its relative shortcomings elsewhere will be a personal choice.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 arrived earlier this year boasting a familiar trick: it folds into a pocket-friendly square and places a surprisingly useful screen on the outside.

With this new model, Samsung has kept the basic Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 formula intact, but shaved down the body, improved the hinge, added more processing power, and made the cover screen easier to live with.

The displays, camera hardware, battery, and charging have barely moved, though, leaving last year’s Galaxy Z Flip 7 looking far from obsolete — it's also now much cheaper than its newer sibling.

To help you make sense of what's changed and which model is best, we've weighed up the price, design, displays, cameras, performance, software, and battery life of these two foldable phones to see which deserves your money.

As a disclaimer, we've fully reviewed the Galaxy Z Flip 7, but not the Galaxy Z Flip 8. We have spent time with the former model, though, so we've based our judgements on both hands-on experience and on-paper specs.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: specs comparison

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

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: price and availability

Samsung announced the Galaxy Z Flip 8 in July 2026, and the phone went on sale on August 7. Prices start at $1,199.99 / £1,149 / AU$1,949 for the 256GB model, rising to $1,399.99 / £1,319 / AU$2,249 for 512GB.

The Galaxy Z Flip 7 arrived in 2025 at $1,099 / £1,049 / AU$1,799 for 256GB, while the 512GB version launched at $1,219 / £1,149 / AU$1,999.

Samsung is therefore asking an extra $100 for the entry-level Z Flip 8, despite retaining the same storage capacity. The gap grows further with the 512GB models, and the older Flip 7 is likely to become even more tempting as retailers clear stock and discounts begin to appear, especially around sales events like Black Friday.

Given the global memory shortage and rising inflation, Samsung's decision to raise the price of the Galaxy Z Flip 8 makes some sense, but it does mean the Z Flip 7 — which is still a great phone — represents even better value in 2026.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: design

Samsung has focused on making the Galaxy Z Flip 8 a little easier to carry and use, rather than giving it a big redesign. At 180g, it's 8g lighter than the Flip 7, while its 6.1mm unfolded body is 0.4mm thinner.

Fold the two phones shut, and the difference grows slightly, with the Flip 8 measuring 13.1mm compared with 13.7mm for its predecessor.

The revised Armor FlexHinge is the more useful change. Samsung has reduced friction inside the mechanism and widened the inner edges so that your fingers have more room to open the phone.

In our early hands-on testing of the Galaxy Z Flip 8, the phone felt noticeably easier to open and close than the previous model — a small refinement that should become more valuable when you repeat the motion dozens of times each day.

Otherwise, the family resemblance is strong. Both phones use the same flat-sided clamshell shape, with the large cover screen wrapping around the two rear cameras.

The Flip 7 already felt sturdy and polished, although its familiar Galaxy styling could look rather restrained beside some rival foldables.

Winner: Galaxy Z Flip 8

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: display

Samsung has carried both of the Flip 7’s displays straight over to the Galaxy Z Flip 8. Each phone opens to reveal a 6.9-inch, 1080 x 2520 AMOLED panel with a 1–120Hz adaptive refresh rate, while the outside is covered by a 4.1-inch, 948 x 1048 FlexWindow. Peak brightness remains 2,600 nits.

That leaves little room between them on paper, although this is hardly a weakness for the older phone. In our review of the device, we awarded the Flip 7 a perfect 5/5 for its displays, finding the inner screen bright and clear even outdoors.

The Flip 8 receives some cover-screen improvements, but the main changes concern how Samsung’s software uses the FlexWindow rather than the panel itself. We’ll cover those additions later.

Both phones offer two excellent screens, and there is no convincing hardware reason to choose one over the other.

Winner: Tie

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: cameras

Samsung has left the underlying camera hardware unchanged — you might be sensing a theme emerging here.

Both phones combine a 50MP main camera with a 12MP ultra-wide and a 10MP selfie camera, with no dedicated telephoto lens for longer-range shots.

In our testing, the Flip 7 produced strong results with more natural-looking colors than some older Samsung phones and an excellent Portrait mode.

Its folding design also lets you use the cover screen as a viewfinder for sharper selfies from the 50MP rear camera, although the lack of optical zoom limits its versatility.

The Galaxy Z Flip 8 directs its attention towards video.

Camcorder Grip places the recording and zoom controls within easy reach when the phone is held sideways, while Super Steady’s Horizontal Lock can keep footage level as the handset moves or rotates.

Our early hands-on found the latter feature particularly effective, although more aggressive stabilization can crop the frame and reduce image quality.

Winner: Galaxy Z Flip 8

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: performance and software

This is where the Galaxy Z Flip 8 begins to put some meaningful distance between itself and its predecessor.

US and Australian models of the Z Flip 8 use Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chipset, while the UK version of the phone receives Samsung’s Exynos 2600, replacing the Exynos 2500 inside the Flip 7. The latter chipset features in every version of the Flip 7, in every region.

The older phone still handles everyday apps, split-screen multitasking, and Samsung DeX without much trouble, but its performance was one of the weaker parts of our review. The Flip 8 has considerably more headroom for gaming, demanding apps, and Samsung’s growing collection of AI features — even if your version of the phone uses the Exynos 2600, and not the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5.

Its software is also better suited to the folding design. Android 17 and One UI 9 add a proper FlexWindow app tray and let you rearrange widgets directly from the cover screen.

Both phones receive seven generations of Android upgrades, but the Flip 8 naturally starts one version later and offers a smoother cover-screen experience from day one.

Winner: Galaxy Z Flip 8

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: battery

Samsung has kept the same 4,300mAh battery in both phones, alongside 25W wired and 15W wireless charging.

Neither model comes close to the fastest-charging foldables, and the Flip 8 gains no extra capacity to offset its more powerful hardware.

The Flip 7 generally made it through a full day in our review, although heavier photography or gaming could leave it needing an evening top-up.

The Flip 8’s newer chipset should use that capacity more efficiently, but the improvement is unlikely to transform the experience. These remain one-day phones with relatively slow charging, leaving little to separate them.

Winner: Tie

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 vs Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7: verdict

The most revealing thing about this comparison is how mature Samsung’s Flip formula has become.

The Galaxy Z Flip 8 improves the parts you touch every day — weight, thickness, hinge action, performance, and cover-screen software — while leaving the displays, camera hardware, battery, and charging largely untouched.

Given these upgrades, the Flip 8 is a better phone for someone buying their first Flip, especially if they plan to keep it for several years.

Existing Flip 7 owners have far less reason to move. Last year’s model still delivers most of the same foldable experience, and its lower price makes the Flip 8’s refinements look expensive rather than essential.

Overall winner: Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8

Usually, September brings a new standard iPhone, but this year was different — we didn’t get an iPhone 18, with that device reportedly set to land early next year instead.

As such, we’re in the odd situation of the iPhone 17 coexisting alongside the iPhone 18 Pro as a current-generation model in Apple's iPhone lineup.

It goes without saying that the iPhone 18 Pro is the better phone — it’s both newer and a Pro model, duh! — but just how much better is it really? And how much more does it cost? We’ve answered those questions in the comparison below.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: specs comparison

Before we examine every major detail of these phones, the chart below will give you a brief overview of their core specs and how they compare.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: price and availability

The iPhone 18 Pro was announced in September 2026, and it’s available now. This being an iPhone, you can buy it in most parts of the world too.

The cheapest version of the 18 Pro comes with 256GB of storage and costs $1,199 / £1,199 / AU$2,099, but you can also get a model with 512GB of storage for $1,399 / £1,399 / AU$2,499, one with 1TB of storage for $1,799 / £1,799 / AU$3,299, or a massive 2TB configuration for $2,399 / £2,399 / AU$4,499.

The iPhone 17 launched a year earlier, in September 2025, and is similarly widely available. This device starts at $899 / £899 / AU$1,549 for 256GB of storage, rising to $1,099 / £1,099 / AU$1,949 for 512GB of storage. But those are the only two configurations, so you can’t get the iPhone 17 with 1TB or 2TB.

That price, then, makes the iPhone 18 Pro $300 / £300 / AU$550 more expensive than the iPhone 17 in both their 256GB and 512GB configurations, with the iPhone 18 Pro getting more expensive still if you choose a 1TB or 2TB model.

Incidentally, the iPhone 17 was actually priced at $799 / £799 / AU$1,399 at launch, but Apple increased its price following the launch of the iPhone 18 Pro in September, just as it raised the price of iPads and MacBooks in June due to "significantly higher memory costs."

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: design

The iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 17 don’t have drastically different designs — both have flat screens protected with Ceramic Shield 2, and both feature a Dynamic Island cut-out near the top (though the iPhone 18 Pro’s cut-out is smaller and can display three Live Activities simultaneously, versus two on the iPhone 17).

Both also have aluminum frames, similarly curvy corners, and an IP68 rating for water and dust resistance. But they differ a bit more from the back, as while the iPhone 17’s rear panel is made of glass, the iPhone 18 Pro has a glass panel surrounded by aluminum.

The iPhone 18 Pro also has a large, horizontal camera block, while the iPhone 17 has a smaller vertical one.

They differ in weight and dimensions, too, with the iPhone 18 Pro being larger and heavier at 150 x 71.9 x 8.8mm and 211g, while the iPhone 17 measures 149.6 x 71.5 x 8mm and weighs 177g.

They're also available in different colors: the iPhone 18 Pro comes in Black, Silver, Glacier, and Burgundy, while the iPhone 17 comes in Black, White, Mist Blue, Sage, and Lavender.

Still, these are both stylish, premium phones, with our iPhone 18 Pro review praising its “fantastic” new colors, and our iPhone 17 review praising that phone's “durable build” — though in both reviews, we noted that they look similar to their predecessors, so there’s not much new here.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: display

The iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 17 both have a 6.3-inch Super Retina XDR OLED screen with a 1-120Hz refresh rate, a 1206 x 2622 resolution (coming in at roughly 460 pixels per inch), and brightness that peaks at 3,000 nits.

So, they’re basically identical here, with the only significant difference being that the iPhone 18 Pro has a smaller cut-out for its Dynamic Island — which, as mentioned, also allows it to display up to three Live Activities simultaneously, whereas the iPhone 17 is limited to two.

Still, this is a small difference, and both phones have great screens, with our iPhone 18 Pro review describing its display as “punchy, sharp, and smooth,” while our iPhone 17 review praised its “excellent visuals.”

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: cameras

With the iPhone 18 Pro, you get a 48MP wide camera with a variable aperture that can move between f/1.48 and f/4.0.

That variable aperture is arguably the main camera upgrade this year — it lets you control how much light gets into the main sensor, and therefore how much of a given background you want to keep in focus — but the phone also has a 48MP f/2.2 ultra-wide camera with a 120-degree field of view, and a 48MP f/2.8 telephoto camera with 4x optical zoom and 8x ‘optical-quality’ zoom.

The iPhone 17, on the other hand, has a 48MP wide camera with a static f/1.6 aperture and a 48MP f/2.2 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view.

So the two phones have similar ultra-wide snappers, but the iPhone 17 doesn’t have a variable aperture on its wide camera, nor a dedicated telephoto lens, making it a far less versatile shooter — especially as it also lacks the pro camera controls offered by the iPhone 18 Pro.

Both phones, however, do have an 18MP f/1.9 Center Stage selfie camera that uses subject tracking to automatically keep you in the frame, and also lets you switch between portrait and landscape modes. All current-generation iPhones except the iPhone 17e have this same selfie camera.

When it comes to video, both the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 17 can film 1080p video at up to 240fps — though the former can also shoot 4K video at up to 120fps, whereas the iPhone 17 tops out at 60fps there.

In our iPhone 18 Pro review, we said its cameras deliver “better detail, strong low-light performance, and excellent 4x and 8x zoom,” while in our iPhone 17 review, we praised its “two excellent cameras.” So both phones are good for photography, but the iPhone 18 Pro is clearly the better of the two.

iPhone 18 Pro camera samples

iPhone 17 camera samples

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: performance and software

The iPhone 18 Pro has an A20 Pro chipset paired with 12GB of RAM, while the iPhone 17 has an A19 chipset (not the ‘Pro’ version) paired with 8GB of RAM. So, for both chipset and RAM, the iPhone 18 Pro has a substantial edge.

Apple claims that the CPU and GPU in the A20 Pro are up to 20% and 60% faster, respectively, than the A19 Pro in the iPhone 17 Pro, so the gains are likely even larger versus the iPhone 17's A19 chipset. In other words, the 18 Pro is the more capable device for gaming, using AI, or whatever else you plan to do with your phone.

Still, the iPhone 17 is no slouch — our review said its A19 chip is “plenty fast for now and should last well into the future.” We said something similar about the iPhone 18 Pro, describing it as “fast, efficient, and ready for whatever comes next.” In truth, most people won't ever need as much power as the A20 Pro chipset offers, and the A19 remains a supremely capable chipset for everyday tasks and light mobile gaming.

For software, both phones currently run iOS 27, but the iPhone 17 originally shipped with iOS 26, so it might not be updated for as long (Apple pledges around seven years of updates to each new model).

The iPhone 17 also lacks a few software and AI features found on the iPhone 18 Pro, such as more expressive voices for Siri, which rely on the Pro’s better hardware. You can read more about those specific features in our Siri AI compatibility explainer.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: battery

The iPhone 18 Pro has a higher-capacity battery than the iPhone 17, with you getting either a 4,288mAh one (if you’re in the US or other regions that sell an eSIM-only model), or a 4,056mAh one elsewhere. The iPhone 17’s battery is a lower-capacity cell than either of those, at 3,692mAh in all regions.

So you won’t be surprised to learn that the iPhone 18 Pro also has better battery life than the iPhone 17. According to Apple, it can deliver up to 34 hours of video playback, while the iPhone 17 can manage 30.

In our reviews, we found that the iPhone 18 Pro exhibited “outstanding endurance,” while the iPhone 17 can “last all day.” So both are respectable here, but only the iPhone 18 Pro excels and will get you through a day-and-a-half of use.

And the Pro charges faster too — it can reach 50% charge in 15 minutes, according to Apple, with the iPhone 17 taking 20 minutes. Though if you use MagSafe, they both take 30 minutes.

iPhone 18 Pro vs iPhone 17: verdict

Ultimately, the iPhone 18 Pro is a better phone than the iPhone 17 in most ways — it’s significantly more powerful, has more and better cameras, a longer-lasting battery, faster charging, and some software features the iPhone 17 lacks.

There’s little to choose between their screens, and they both have premium builds, but those are about the only areas where they’re close to equal.

However, the iPhone 18 Pro is also quite a lot more expensive than the iPhone 17, and while it’s better in most ways, the iPhone 17 is still no slouch. So you should ask yourself whether you really need all the Pro’s bells and whistles, because for a lot of people. the iPhone 17 will do just fine (even despite its price increase, it's still the best-value iPhone Apple has ever released).

The Xteink S4 might be the tiny ereader you’ve been waiting for, as unlike other Xteink devices — and rival products like the Boox Picco — this runs Android.

That comes with various upsides, not least the ability to directly access the Kindle and Kobo apps, the absence of which is something I’ve been lamenting about my Xteink X4 Pro, but it also has some downsides.

So should you wait for this currently China-only ereader to get a global release? Or are you better off sticking with the Xteink X4 Classic, the X4 Pro or the even tinier X3? I’ve compared these devices below, to help answer that question.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: specs comparison

Below you’ll find a closer look at the key features of every available Xteink model, but first here’s how their core specs compare:

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: price and availability

The Xteink X4 Classic, X4 Pro, and X3 are all available directly from Xteink and from some third-party stores like Amazon. They ship to much of the world, and the cheapest is the Xteink X3, which costs $69 / £69 / AU$102.

Then there’s the Xteink X4 Classic for $79 / £79 / AU$116, while the Xteink X4 Pro will cost you $99 / £99 / AU$146.

The Xteink S4 is so far only available in China, but I’d expect it will cost at least as much as the X4 Pro, if not more.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: design

All of these devices look similar to each other, as they’re all small rectangles and look a bit like a tiny phone — albeit with larger bezels than most modern smartphones.

They all have buttons and charging ports on the sides, but the Xteink X3 and Xteink X4 Classic each also have two long, narrow buttons on the bezel below the display, while the Xteink X4 Pro and Xteink S4 instead have a single circular button, like a much smaller version of the home button on very old iPhones.

The Xteink X4 Classic and X3 are both available in a choice of Space Black or Mist Gray (the latter of which is sometimes referred to as ‘Frost White’ instead), while the X4 Pro is currently only sold in Space Black, but pictures of it exist in a gray shade too, so that will probably launch sooner or later. In China, the Xteink S4 is available in black and white shades, and it’s likely the color options will be the same when it goes global.

So there’s not much difference there either — the main design difference is in their weight and dimensions. The Xteink X3 is the smallest and lightest of the bunch at 97.6 x 63.7 x 5.1mm and 58g. Then there’s the Xteink X4 Classic at 114 x 69 x 4.9mm and 68g — making it slightly slimmer but otherwise larger.

The Xteink X4 Pro is 111 x 69 x 5.95mm and 72g, so it’s not quite as tall as the X4 Classic but is thicker and heavier than both that and the X3. And then there’s the Xteink S4, which we don’t have full dimensions for yet, but which we know is 6.98mm thick and 95g, making it the thickest and heaviest of them all.

All of these devices have built in magnets though, allowing you to attach them to the back of a phone — though they’re quite vulnerable like that, so you might prefer to put them in a case anyway.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: display

The Xteink S4, X4 Classic, and X4 Pro all have a 4.3-inch screen with 219 pixels per inch, while the Xteink X3 has a smaller 3.7-inch screen with 259 pixels per inch.

So you’re getting a slightly crisper display on the X3, which could make all the difference as personally my X4 Pro isn’t quite as sharp as I’d like — especially when you compare it side-by-side with other devices like the ViWoods AiPaper Reader with its 300ppi display.

On the other hand, you’re also getting a truly tiny screen if you choose the X3, which could be a good or bad thing depending on your preference — it makes this all the more compact, but also means you’ll constantly be turning the page.

Beyond those differences, the Xteink S4 and Xteink X4 Pro have touchscreens — though you can also turn pages with buttons if you prefer — whereas the X3 and X4 Classic are purely reliant on buttons for interactions.

The Xteink S4 and X4 Pro also both have a front light, which the other models lack, meaning these are the only two you can read on without external light sources.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: performance and software

The Xteink X4 Classic, X4 Pro, and X3 all run a proprietary Linux-based operating system. It’s an operating system that personally I didn’t think much of, and I’m not alone judging by forum comments. But Xteink’s devices can handily be bought with unlocked firmware, making it easy to flash alternative operating systems onto them.

I’m running an open source one called CrossInk, which I’m quite pleased with. But there’s a major limitation with any of the options in that they can’t run the Kindle or Kobo apps (or any other apps), making it harder to get books onto them than with most ereaders — you need to download DRM-free versions or remove the DRM, and then transfer them to the device.

That’s a real pain, and it’s a problem the Xteink S4 solves, as this runs Android 11. And while I can’t yet confirm exactly which apps work with it (since there are sometimes compatibility issues on ereaders), Xteink claims it supports “mainstream reader apps.”

Still, there are two potential problems with this approach as well — one is battery life, which I’ll get into in the next section, and the other is security and support. Android 11 is six years old now, and it could be increasingly vulnerable to bugs and malware, since Google is focused on patching newer releases. Besides which, Android ereaders tend not to receive Android updates anyway, so it may not receive security patches or new Android versions.

Eventually, apps will also stop supporting Android 11, so while Android is likely to give you a slicker experience, having such an old version comes with major drawbacks.

As for storage, the Xteink X4 Pro, X4 Classic, and X3 are all purely reliant on a microSD card — they each come with a 16GB one included, but it’s a low quality one, so you might want to replace it. There’s support for cards of up to 256GB.

The Xteink S4 takes a different approach, with 32GB of built in storage, but Android probably takes up a sizable chunk of that, and there’s seemingly no microSD card slot.

You’re also limited to very few book formats on the Xteink X3, X4 Classic, and X4 Pro, with just EPUB and TXT being supported, alongside JPG and BMP for images (or seemingly just BMP in the case of the Classic). We don’t have a full list of supported formats for the Xteink S4, but the company claims it supports “10+ native formats," so it should have the edge there.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: battery

The Xteink S4 has a 1,400mAh battery, and while we don’t know exactly how long it lasts, Xteink claims its “generous battery keeps sessions long.”

That’s higher capacity than the other models, with the Xteink 4 Pro having an 1,100mAh battery, the X4 Classic having a 920mAh one, and the X3 having just a 650mAh one.

Xteink only appears to have released battery stats for the X3, which it claims can last up to 10-14 days, based on 1-3 hours of reading per day. It’s likely then that even with their larger screens, the Xteink X4 Classic and X4 Pro will last even longer, given their far higher capacity batteries, and that certainly seems to be the case in my experience of the X4 Pro.

Granted, I’m not running stock firmware, which could affect things, but I seem to be getting months off a single charge, albeit with perhaps more like just 30 minutes of reading a day.

You might assume then that the Xteink S4 will last even longer — and perhaps it will — but I’d be surprised, as Android tends to be far more battery hungry than the lightweight operating systems used by the other models. I suspect, based on my experience with the Android-powered ViWoods AiPaper Reader, that the S4 might actually have the worst life of the bunch, but that remains to be seen.

So that’s the other downside of it running Android, but it does have one advantage on the battery front too, as it has a USB-C port, which makes charging convenient. The other models all use an annoying proprietary charger.

Xteink S4 vs X4 Pro vs X4 Classic vs X3: verdict

There’s no clear winner between these devices. If you simply want the smallest and lightest ereader possible, then you should go for the Xteink X3 — especially as that’s also the cheapest.

If you want something a bit bigger — or you think you’d benefit from a touchscreen or a front light — then consider the Xteink X4 Pro. For all of that plus Android, the only option is the as-yet-unreleased Xteink S4 — though that also comes with downsides when it comes to security and potentially battery life.

The only one that’s harder to make a case for is the Xteink X4 Classic. This slots between the X3 and the X4 Pro with a bigger screen than the X3 but no touchscreen or light. Those features I feel are important enough that if you want a bigger screen you should choose the Pro over the Classic unless money is really tight.

Personally, I’m happy with my Xteink X4 Pro, and wouldn’t choose any of the other models over it. Other than the S4 it’s the most full-featured, but the compromises that come with the Xteink S4’s Android version make it unappealing to me. What I really want is a model running Android 17, but even then, if that meant significantly worse battery life I might think twice.

The only things I’m certain I want that the X4 Pro lacks are a sharper screen and USB-C, so hopefully a device that ticks all those boxes is in the works.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max and Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra are the top non-foldable phones from Apple and Samsung, respectively. They both feature top-tier chipsets, big, beautiful screens, and several capable cameras — and they also cost a lot as a result.

But while, superficially, these two phones have a lot in common, they are, in many ways, quite different, so if you’re deciding between them in your search for the best phone of 2026, there are several factors to consider.

Below, then, we’ve detailed the specs and features of the iPhone 18 Pro Max and Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra to give you a clearer idea of how they compare.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: specs comparison

Before we look closely at the key features of these two phones, here's how they stack up in terms of specs:

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: price and availability

The iPhone 18 Pro Max was launched in September 2026 and is now available globally, while the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra landed in February 2026 and is also now widely available across the world.

For pricing, the iPhone 18 Pro Max starts at $1,299 / £1,299 / AU$2,299, for which you get 256GB of storage. There are other options too, though, including $1,499 / £1,499 / AU$2,699 for 512GB, $1,899 / £1,899 / AU$3,499 for 1TB, and $2,499 / £2,499 / AU$4,699 for 2TB.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra will set you back $1,299.99 / £1,279 / AU$2,199 for a 256GB model, $1,499.99 / £1,449 / AU$2,499 for 512GB, or $1,799.99 / £1,699 / AU$2,649 for 1TB.

So their starting prices are either similar or identical, depending on where you are, but as you move up the storage capacities, the gulf in price widens, with the iPhone 18 Pro Max being the more expensive model — and that’s before you even get to its 2TB configuration, which isn’t a capacity that's available for the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: design

The iPhone 18 Pro Max has a similar design to the iPhone 17 Pro Max, with a large camera island on the back (housing three lenses) and a Dynamic Island cut-out in the screen — though the latter has shrunk since the previous model.

The frame is made of aluminum, and the back has an aluminum section and a glass part. The phone is also water-resistant to depths of six meters for up to 30 minutes, and it measures 163.4 x 78 x 8.8mm and weighs 249g.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra has a slightly more angular design with less curvy corners, but it too has a large camera block on the back — though it’s arranged vertically, rather than horizontally as on the iPhone.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra also has a smaller punch-hole cut-out on its screen, and it uses aluminum for the frame and glass for the back. It has the same water resistance rating as the iPhone 18 Pro Max — namely IP68 — but it's only actually tested for depths of up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes.

The Ultra comes in at 163.6 x 78.1 x 7.9mm and weighs 214g, so it’s actually lighter and slimmer than the iPhone 18 Pro Max — despite finding room for a slot to house its included S Pen Stylus.

Finally, their colors also differ, with the iPhone 18 Pro Max being sold in Black, Silver, Glacier, and Burgundy shades, while the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is available in Cobalt Violet, Sky Blue, Black, White, Silver Shadow, and Pink Gold.

In our iPhone 18 Pro Max review, we described Burgundy and Glacier as being “two fantastic new colors”, but noted that little else had visually changed since the previous model, the iPhone 17 Pro.

In our Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra review, we similarly noted that it’s an “incremental update that slims the phone down, makes it lighter, and just a little bit softer around the edges.”

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: display

The iPhone 18 Pro Max has a 6.9-inch 1320 x 2868 OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate, a 3,000-nit peak brightness, and around 460 pixels per inch.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra has a 6.9-inch 1440 x 3120 AMOLED screen with a 120Hz refresh rate, a 2,600-nit peak brightness, and roughly 500 pixels per inch.

So, the two phones have the same size screens, the same refresh rates, and both use OLED displays, but Samsung’s phone has a marginally higher pixel density, while Apple’s has a slightly higher peak brightness.

In our reviews, we praised both displays highly, saying that the iPhone 18 Pro Max’s was “punchy, sharp, and smooth”, and the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra’s was “a fantastic 6.9-inch AMOLED that makes every image pop.”

In terms of their screen specs and quality, then, there’s little to choose between them, but the Galaxy S26 Ultra has a trick up its sleeve in the form of Privacy Display — a feature that blanks out some or all of the screen when not viewed front-on, so people can’t as easily snoop. This is a great feature that our reviewer called “a one-of-a-kind innovation that actually does what it promises.” The iPhone 18 Pro Max has no such feature.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: cameras

For a comprehensive breakdown of how the camera systems on these two phones compare, check out our detailed iPhone 18 Pro vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra comparison. In essence, though, both of these phones excel at photography.

Headlining the iPhone 18 Pro Max's camera array is a 48MP main sensor with a variable aperture that can move between f/1.48-4.0. That basically means you can control how much light gets into the sensor and therefore how much of your photo stays in focus — the more light you let in, the blurrier the background, and the less light you let in, the more of your scene stays in focus.

Variable apertures are a rarity on phones, and so the functionality of such a feature may take some getting used to if you've never played around with aperture before, but its existence on the iPhone 18 Pro Max gives you more creative control over your shots.

The iPhone also has a 48MP f/2.2 ultra-wide camera with a 120-degree field of view, a 48MP f/2.8 telephoto with 4x optical zoom — plus 8x "optical-quality" reach — and an 18MP f/1.9 front-facing camera.

The latter also offers automatic subject tracking and the option to switch between portrait and landscape modes in one click, which is definitely a nice-to-have feature.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, meanwhile, has a 200MP f/1.4 main camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, a 50MP f/2.9 telephoto offering 5x optical zoom, and a 10MP f/2.4 telephoto with 3x optical zoom, plus a 12MP f/2.2 camera on the front.

So you get an extra lens on the S26 Ultra, giving you more telephoto versatility, but there’s no variable aperture here.

iPhone

Samsung

In terms of photo quality, the iPhone 18 Pro tends to capture scenes as they are, using more neutral, realistic colors, while the Galaxy ups the saturation for slightly more stylized shots.

iPhone

Samsung

When it comes to zoom, the S26 Ultra is the more versatile shooter of the two, not only because you get two optical zoom distances instead of one, but also because it lets you zoom digitally up to 100x, while the iPhone stops at 40x.

To be honest, we'd never recommend zooming much beyond 30x anyway, but the Galaxy does at least give you the option to do so, and its 3 and 5x optical zoom ranges are slightly more usable than the iPhone’s 4x range.

iPhone

Samsung

Macro photography is pretty similar on both phones, though that aforementioned color difference does come back into play, and again, we'd choose the iPhone for selfies.

Remember: check out our detailed iPhone 18 Pro vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra comparison for more pictures and thoughts on how these two phones stack up in terms of photography.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: performance and software

Neither of these phones is lacking in power, with the iPhone 18 Pro Max having a top-end Apple A20 Pro chipset and 12GB of RAM, while the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra has a similarly capable Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset and either 12GB of RAM or — in the 1TB model — 16GB.

Our iPhone 18 Pro Max review described its chipset as “incredibly fast, efficient, and ready for whatever comes next,” while our Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra review described the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 as delivering “snappy performance in every task.”

Both phones also have a vapor chamber to help keep them cool under pressure, so there isn't much to choose between them in terms of gaming performance.

The same can't be said of their respective software.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max runs on iOS 27, while the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra runs on Android 17 (having originally shipped with Android 16).

The two OS packages are similarly accomplished — especially now that Apple has finally launched Siri AI — and both phones will likely receive many years of updates, with Samsung committing to seven major Android updates and Apple typically offering the same amount for its iPhones.

That said, iOS and Android are very different. The former offers a clean, uniform layout and focuses on privacy and security, while the latter is an open-source system offering deep customization options and more granular control. If you're reading this, you probably already know which software you prefer.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: battery

For most of the last decade, Samsung’s flagship phones have had higher-capacity batteries than Apple’s, but that’s recently changed.

Samsung has refused to move above 5,000mAh in its flagship Galaxy models, while iPhones have kept creeping upwards, with the iPhone 18 Pro Max having either a 5,567mAh battery (in eSIM-only models) or a 5,391mAh one in other variants.

Still, both phones excel when it comes to battery life, with the iPhone 18 Pro Max delivering “outstanding endurance” according to our review, and we similarly praised the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra for its “fantastic” battery life.

Both phones can last for around 30 hours if used casually, and if used continuously, you'll get around 17 hours from the iPhone 18 Pro Max and 16 hours from the Galaxy.

Both devices also charge fast — you'll get 60W wired speeds and 25W wireless speeds regardless of which you choose — but for sheer capacity, the iPhone 18 Pro Max has the edge. It benefits from MagSafe, too, which isn’t something you get with the Galaxy S26 Ultra.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: verdict

The iPhone 18 Pro Max and Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra are both exceptional phones, but they have some specific strengths and weaknesses too.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max has a variable aperture, a higher-capacity battery, MagSafe, and more storage at the top end, but it also costs a bit more in some configurations.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra isn’t just the marginally cheaper phone — at least in some varieties and regions — but it also has an extra camera, a clever Privacy Display, an S Pen stylus, and more or less matches the iPhone in most other ways.

So, you’ll have to consider which of these features matters most to you — but for what it’s worth, the iPhone 18 Pro Max received five stars in our review while the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra achieved 4.5 stars.

There's no shortage of options to consider as far as the best laptops are concerned, particularly when you're weighing up mid-range and premium models. For many years, Chromebooks have existed as an affordable entry point to portable computing that removes the high-cost barrier for productivity and play with their web-based operating system. However, everything's changing with the recent announcement of Googlebooks, AI-powered machines aimed at the likes of the MacBook and the best ultrabooks.

It's a bold, Gemini-backed swing from the Californian company. Gemini Intelligence is the central USP here, with an Android/Linux hybrid OS replacing the likes of traditional laptop operating systems, running on powerful hardware, such as Intel Core Ultra and Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite processors.

There's a ton of ground to cover with the design philosophies, price-to-performance, value for money, and general usability of an Android-based Googlebook when weighed up against a web-based Chromebook, let alone how the incoming Gemini-packed computers hold up against their competition.

As a result, I'm going through everything you need to know about Googlebooks vs Chromebooks, analyzing their use case, build quality, battery life, design, features, and other aspects to see if it's worth taking the plunge with Gemini Intelligence, or seeing if you're better suited to a more traditional laptop instead.

Googlebooks vs Chromebooks: Price comparison

The biggest defining characteristic of Googlebooks at this early stage of its rollout is their premium nature. Currently, there are only a handful of different models to choose from, and all carry high-end price tags. Early adopters can choose from the Acer Googlebook 14, the Asus Googlebook 14, the Dell XPS Googlebook, the HP Googlebook 14, and the Lenovo Googlebook 15. Starting configurations begin at $899 / £999 to $1,299 / £1,199, depending on the included amount of RAM, choice of processor, and onboard storage. All these models either use an Intel Core Ultra 5/7 or the Snapdragon X Elite.

In contrast, Chromebooks have (historically) always been a cost-effective way to be productive, get work done, and enjoy multimedia playback. Lightweight, fast, and affordable have always been the mantra of these devices. Popular choices in 2026 include the HP Chromebook 14 ($249 / £249), Samsung Galaxy Chromebook Plus ($699 / £649), Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14 ($599 / £599), and the Asus Chromebook Plus CX34 ($439 / £429). These web-based machines typically cater to light laptop users, and they don't require much processing power under the hood to perform their tasks, keeping the prices competitive.

While there have been relatively expensive Chromebooks in the past, they have been few and far between, and failed to properly muscle in on ultrabook territory because they rely on a web-based operating system. They can be surprisingly capable for enterprising users, and we saw this most prominently four years ago with the launch of the HP Elite Dragonfly Chromebook. It's gone down in history as the best high-end Chromebook ever designed; however, it didn't sell well and was quietly discontinued in mid 2024. No company has attempted to make such a high-end device again since, until the new Googlebooks.

The average price of a Chromebook is between $300 and $400 (£300 to £400) for a reliable machine from a trusted manufacturer. Conversely, if we look at the freshly revealed Googlebooks (which begin at $999 to $1,299), that's a markup of 233%. Before we get into the architectural and hardware differences, we need to ask the question: are Googlebooks really good enough to spend double (or triple) what you would on a Chromebook? For some, that's going to be a tough sell. If you're tight on cash and just want a basic machine for light use, then a Chromebook will be the better buy, and if you want more processing power, then things become more nuanced.

Googlebooks vs Chromebooks: OS and App support

The second big defining trait of Googlebooks is how they openly embrace today's best laptop processors rather than cheap out on something serviceable, yet unexciting. As touched upon above, the first-generation Googlebooks use either Intel Core Ultra 5/7 or Snapdragon X Elite chips.

This is done to aid hardware-accelerated AI workloads, as the dedicated NPUs (Neural Processing Units) onboard these processors feature 47-50 TOPs (Tera of Operations Per Second), meaning the number of calculations for local machine learning. It's needed to give Gemini Intelligence the required horsepower to function, as it's a hardware-integrated operating system layer.

Standard Google Gemini is more of a prompt-based AI chatbot that has several different levels to it. The standard search and response is now called Flash (3.6), whereas you also have the options for Flash-Lite (3.5) for the fastest answers, and 3.1 Pro for "advanced reasoning". There's also the Flash Extended mode for "complex problem solving". Gemini has been available since December 2023, and it's only becoming smarter, faster, and more useful as time goes on. Google just announced Gemini 4 Argon, which is said to be for real-world coding, defense, and enterprise work, so as a platform, it's in an incredibly healthy place, showing no signs of slowing down.

Googlebooks leverage the power of Gemini Intelligence for local AI workloads. All Googlebook early adopters will receive a year of Google AI Pro (which includes Gemini Pro, Nano Banana, and Gemini in Google Drive) as well as 5TB of cloud storage with their AI-powered laptops, too. In other words, if you're looking for machines primarily geared towards AI-accelerated workloads, then there's enough under the hood, with the software that's streamlined for this exact purpose.

It's tough to weigh up Googlebooks against ultrabooks directly because, though the hardware itself is comparable, the software is very different. Googlebooks run on Googlebook OS (which was codenamed Aluminium OS), which is essentially just a fancy wrapper for Android 17. It boils down to having a cell phone UI combined with the look and feel of a laptop.

By comparison, Chromebooks are an outlier to the norm. They run ChromeOS, which is a lightweight operating system for web browsing and everyday computing tasks that utilize Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) for the likes of Gmail, Drive, Meet, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Keep, Notebook, etc. It also means having to rely on the Chrome Web Store rather than getting to use the Google Play Store, or downloading anything external as an executable. Google recently announced that it would be ending support for ChromeOS in mid-2034, so there are still seven years of use from a Chromebook before the device becomes a paperweight. Google has confirmed that some Chromebook devices will get to upgrade to Googlebook OS; however, no further details have been shared.

Googlebooks vs Chromebooks: Design

The design ethos when comparing Googlebooks vs Chromebooks is where you can see the manufacturing differences that are possible when you put money behind a product. As expected, given the fact that you're going to pay anywhere from double (or triple) the starting cost for a Googlebook when compared to a Chromebook, the materials used by the former are significantly better. The five initial Googlebooks all feature 16GB RAM with 512GB of storage at a starting point, and are available in either 14-inch or 15-inch display configurations.

Granular details are where Googlebooks get more exciting, particularly with the Lenovo Googlebook 15 and the HP Googlebook 14. Both of these high-end devices weigh in at 1.2kg and feature OLED touchscreens. Lenovo's model uses an Intel Core Ultra 5 processor and supports up to 13 hours of battery life, whereas HP's effort utilizes the Snapdragon X Elite for up to 19 hours of battery life. The Asus Googlebook 14 is the lightest of the launch crop, weighing in at just 1kg with its 14-inch 3K OLED screen and up to 16 hours of battery playback. There's something of a rough price-to-performance range here, albeit with one strange deviation from the rule.

The Dell XPS Chromebook lacks an OLED display, but still ranks among the most expensive of the launch lineup, with a lower 2.5K resolution compared to the 2.8K or 3K screens of its competitors. Backed by the Snapdragon X Elite, it has a comparable 18-hour battery life akin to the HP Googlebook 14, coming in a touch lighter at 1.09kg, with otherwise the same configured specs.

There's far more variety in what to expect from a Chromebook's design. After all, Google's web-based laptops have been on the market for over 15 years, and as such, manufacturers have figured out every way to deliver different form factors at all price points. All-rounders include the likes of the HP Chromebook Plus 15, which you can get for around $549.99 / £449.99, running a fairly paltry Intel Core i3-N305 CPU with Intel integrated graphics, 8GB RAM, and a Full HD display.

Cheaper Chromebooks can cut this initial cost in half, such as the budget champion Asus Chromebook CX15, which starts at only $159.99 / £249.99 and features an Intel Celeron N4500 CPU, 4GB RAM, and a Full HD display. You'll find the weaker processors in almost all budget and mid-range Chromebooks, particularly the Intel Core i3, Intel Celeron, or the Intel N100. There's also been the adoption of low-powered MediaTek Kompanio processors, which are built on Arm instead; you may see these chips in the Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14, Lenovo Duet EDU G2, and the Acer Chromebook Plus Spin 514, among others.

Chromebooks have always been an example of getting what you pay for. It means weaker machines with dimmer screens and modest hardware specs for an affordable price tag. Because ChromeOS is all web-based, there's no need for much processing power; however, if a machine has just 4GB or 8GB of RAM, then the overall performance could still feel slow and sluggish, depending on how many Chrome tabs or apps you're running in the background. It's a game of give and take, of compromise, and that's the space that these laptops have confidently occupied since 2011. They'll never rival what the best gaming laptops can do, naturally, but then, they're not in that market at all.

Should you buy a Googlebook or a Chromebook?

It's time to deliver a verdict on whether you should consider a Googlebook or a Chromebook, and I'll keep things as straightforward as possible. If you're a casual computer user who doesn't want to spend too much and primarily works online and has everything conducted through streaming, then an average Chromebook will be more than enough.

However, if you're already thoroughly ingrained in the Gemini ecosystem, use an Android phone, and want a premium laptop with a long battery life, then a Googlebook will likely be a great choice.

As someone who owns a Google Pixel 10 Pro and has become familiar with Gemini Intelligence, I can say firsthand that the technology works well for certain applications. If you already own Google hardware, then a laptop running an Android wrapper won't make any sense (or will be purely redundant aside from the form factor), but if you're looking to be an early adopter, ready for Gemini 4, Gemini Intelligence, and to go all in on AI, then it could be worthwhile for you. It's too early to call whether the wider computing market or the industry will embrace them, but everything revealed this early on shows promise for the right type of user.

OM System has finally given Olympus PEN fans what they've been wanting for years: a PEN update. The series of rangefinder-style cameras with Micro Four Thirds mount has a cult following, and the latest model to join the ranks, simply named the OM System PEN, is surprisingly affordable.

At the time of writing, I'm still using and testing the new OM System PEN for my in-depth review — look out for my comprehensive verdict, coming soon. But throughout my time with the retro-cool camera I've been struck by just how similar it is in design and size to another hit camera from 2026: the Panasonic Lumix L10 premium compact.

I've already used the Lumix L10 alongside the viral Fujifilm X100VI to see which of those two premium compact cameras I preferred, and there's lots to like about the classy model, which marked the 25th anniversary of Lumix — but how does it fare against a mirrorless camera?

I took the Lumix L10 and the OM System PEN with me on a work trip to China, where I had plenty of opportunities to shoot cityscapes, street photography and more with both cameras, and get a real feel for them in the process. Let's dive in and see how they compare.

Lenses: the major difference

• OM System PEN: Micro Four Thirds lens mount, with hundreds of lenses to choose from
• Lumix L10: A built-in 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8 lens

The OM System PEN features a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lens mount, meaning it's directly compatible with hundreds of MFT lenses that between them cover just about any situation — macro, portraiture, wildlife, you name it. The camera can be purchased body-only, or with a new kit lens — the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 III (equivalent 28-84mm). Unlike previous versions, this third-generation lens is "splash proof", as is the OM PEN body.

The Lumix L10, meanwhile, has a built-in 10.9-34mm f/1.7-2.8 zoom lens (24-75mm equivalent), which is more compact than the OM PEN's new kit lens. It extends when you turn the camera on and when zooming, and is, theoretically, at risk of dust ingress over long-term use. Panasonic doesn't class the lens as dust- and moisture-proof, but does note that the design has been improved from previous LX100 cameras that the L10 is based on.

If I'm comparing the two cameras based on using the PEN with its kit lens, then I easily prefer the Lumix L10. The lenses have similar optical zoom ranges — 3x (OM PEN) to 3.1x (Lumix L10) — but the wider focal length of the L10 at the short end of the range makes it the more versatile of the two. The L10's lens is also physically smaller, and its brighter maximum aperture is way more versatile for portraiture and low-light photography.

All that being said, you can easily swap out the OM PEN's kit lens for another, and doing so makes many of the above comparisons moot. For example, I also used the tiny 45mm f/1.8 lens (90mm equivalent) with the OM PEN, and capturing shallow-depth-of-field portraits with this combo is a breeze.

Of course, more lenses means additional cost. If you're starting off with the OM PEN's kit lens, and unlikely to buy more glass, then the Lumix L10 wins here.

In the hand

It's remarkable just how similar the OM System PEN and Panasonic Lumix L10 look. Their bodies are nigh on identical in size, and strikingly similar in appearance and layout. If you want retro looks, both fit the bill.

Both feature a rangefinder-style 2.36m-dot EVF, and I couldn't spot any real differences between these displays. The same is true of the 3-inch articulating touchscreens, though the L10's has a higher-resolution display that looks slightly crisper to the eye. Both feature a hotshoe for accessories such as an external flash, and a largely similar control layout.

There are some minor differences; the OM PEN has an additional color mode dial on the front beside the lens, and it's screen sits nice and flush in the body when folded away. The fiddly on/off switch is poorly designed, though — good luck trying to simply turn it to photo mode without shooting past to the video modes.

The Lumix L10 has a slicker, classier feel to it, with a shutter button (complete with a thread for a cable release) set within the zoom rocker, and a button set within an exposure dial (both the button and the dial are customizable). I'm less convinced about the memory-card door placement being on the camera's underside as opposed to the side. Also, its retractable lens design results in a two-second wait before the camera is ready to shoot from powering up, which limits its street photography credentials.

Battery life is solid for both models too, at 420 shots (L10) to 410 shots (OM PEN) respectively. Overall, I enjoyed the feel of the Lumix L10 more.

Features to play with

Both cameras feature a Micro Four Thirds sensor — the OM PEN's is a 20.4MP, while the Lumix L10's is 26.5MP. You'd think that would be an image-quality win for the Lumix L10; however it's not that simple. Because of its built-in lens design, the L10 can't use the entire sensor area for photos, and with 20.4MP effective pixels, the playing field regarding resolution is leveled — image-quality potential (ignoring factors such as lens choice) is effectively the same.

One major difference is that the OM PEN's sensor features 5-axis image stabilization (IBIS), whereas the Lumix L10 has no such feature. OM System rates the effectiveness of the OM PEN's IBIS up to 5.5EV, which makes it the more versatile of the two for some handheld photography and video.

Pair that image stabilization with the PEN's computational photography modes, which includes Live ND for long-exposure effects (up to 4EV), High-Res shot (increasing the camera's resolution for detailed landscape shots, up to 50MP), focus stacking (ideal for macro photography), and HDR (extending dynamic range in a final single shot), and you have a powerful tool, no tripod needed.

The Lumix L10 has tricks of its own, mind you, including High-Res shot, while it's the more feature-packed of the two for video, with 5.6K recording, 5.2K open gate, and Panasonic's latest Real Time LUTs profiles and phase detection autofocus. For stills, autofocus performance is similar, but for video the L10 has the edge.

Lumix L10 sample gallery

OM System PEN sample gallery

Price and availability

• OM System PEN: $999.99 / £849 / AU$1,499 body-only, $1,099.99 / £949 / AU$1,799 with the 14-42mm kit lens
• Lumix L10: $1,499 / £1,299 / A$2,599

OM System has priced the new PEN very aggressively, which is refreshing in a time of component shortages and price hikes. I can't think of another camera with a built-in EVF and in-body image stabilization for a price this low — $999.99 / £849 / AU$1,499 body-only, or an additional $100 / £100 / AU$300 for the 14-42mm mark III lens kit.

The latter kit-lens price is the fairer comparison, since you're getting a built-in lens with the Lumix L10, and the PEN is still cheaper. If we're talking optical quality, however, then a pricier OM System lens, such as the 12-45mm f/4 Pro, is an even fairer comparison, at which point each camera feels like similar value for money. Yes, it's cheaper getting started with the OM PEN, but if you're going to build your lens collection then the Lumix L10's one-off price will likely end up being the lower long-term outlay of the two.

OM System PEN vs Lumix L10: early verdict

The OM PEN's rangefinder-style design is well suited to everyday photography, as is the Lumix L10. As such, users are typically going to pair the PEN with lenses that sit within the range that the Lumix L10's built-in 24-75mm f/1.8-2.8 lens already covers. To a degree, therefore, the PEN's lens-choice advantage becomes less important, which surprised me.

Overall, I preferred the feel of the Lumix L10 — it's the classier and slicker camera of the two, and better equipped for video. However, it's slow start-up time (because of the retracting lens design) is a drawback, while I appreciated the OM PEN's in-body image stabilization, and its arsenal of computational modes for creative shooting techniques.

As with so many camera comparison tests I undertake, each of these models has its own distinct advantages. I like the convenience of the OM PEN, but as a standalone package I prefer the Lumix L10.

The Sonos Ace Ultra just dropped, and they might just be my favorite headphones of 2026. They’re a considerable upgrade over the original Ace, boasting far better musicality, incredible movie audio, expanded Sonos ecosystem support, and seriously good ANC. It really feels like Sonos has made a statement with this release, and the multi-room specialist is finally ready to take on the titans of the headphone world.

But just how well do the Sonos Ace Ultra shape up against their class-leading rivals at this money? I wanted to find out for myself, so I tested them against one of their fiercest competitors: the Sony WH-1000XM6. Sony’s flagship headphones come in at the same price point as the Ace Ultra and they too supply stellar sound, noise-crushing ANC, and a swathe of fantastic features.

So, which headphones are better: the Sonos Ace Ultra or the Sony WH-1000XM6? I’ve compared them across four key areas: features, sound quality, design, and value, to help you decide which are the best headphones for you. The Sony WH-1000XM6 have been my go-to headphones for well over a year, but this contest was genuinely far closer than I’d expected. But anyway, let the battle commence — oh, and make sure to stick around 'til the end, for my verdict.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: price & availability

The Sonos Ace Ultra were released in September 2026, about two years after the original Sonos Ace headphones arrived on the scene. The Ace Ultra cost $449 / £399 / AU$699, which is cheaper than the standard model cost at launch in the UK, and the same price as the original Ace launched at in both the US and Australia.

Meanwhile, the Sony WH-1000XM6 are a little older, and hit the market back in May 2025. They cost the same as the Sonos Ace Ultra, carrying a price tag of $449 / £399 / AU$699. As they’ve been about for a little longer, it’s more likely that you’ll find these cans on sale, and we have seen them drop below $380 / £300 / AU$500 before. While neither of these models are cheap, they both offer incredible quality across the board, with excellent sound quality and features, which helps to justify the steep asking price.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: specs

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: features

Let me be clear from the offset: when it comes to features, these two pairs of wireless headphones are arguably the very best on the market. So, as you can imagine, it’s hard to pick a winner here.

The Sonos Ace Ultra and Sony WH-1000XM6 share a lot of the same positives: they each have extensive EQ options, with multi-band custom options, wired and Bluetooth connectivity, wear detection, and impressive ANC.

When it comes to noise-cancelling specifically, both are excellent performers, and easily dispose of external sounds like surrounding chatter and traffic noise. In my testing, I found the Sony WH-1000XM6 to have a very slight edge, though, perhaps lending to their larger microphone system (12 mics to the Ace Ultra’s 10) — they dulled deep sounds like engines rumbling to slightly greater effect.

Something that the Sonos Ace supply that Sony can’t compete with, is wider ecosystem support. TV Audio Linking enables you to transfer audio from a compatible Sonos soundbar and enjoy immersive sound privately, while Headphone Linking gives you the option to hand off audio to supported speakers, including the Sonos Play (or vice versa) for a seamless listening experience, no matter where you are.

Another thing that I love about the Ace Ultra is their native Dolby Atmos support. This means you can enjoy Dolby Atmos music and movies at their very best, and with the help of head-tracking, I’ve been able to enjoy deliciously expansive movie audio with impressive height effects and clear dialogue to boot. The Sony WH-1000XM6 aren’t as accomplished for movies, and while they feature a Cinema upmix mode, which transfers a stereo signal into a more expansive format, the actual quality of this is a little disappointing.

While we’re on the topic of sound-related features, it’s worth talking about codecs. Each of these headphones possesses something the other does not. And that’s because the Sonos Ace Ultra boast aptX codec support — something Sony skips on — while the XM6 feature LDAC, which their competitor leaves out. Both of these open up higher-res Bluetooth streaming, opening up a more detailed listen than you’d get with SBC or AAC, for instance.

The key differentiator here is compatibility. Apple fans, I’m sorry, but your phone supports neither of these. Android users, there’s a very high chance that your handset can make use of LDAC, which is actually a proprietary technology developed by Sony itself. However, it’s a different story with aptX. Fewer phones support this, and although I get to enjoy it on my Xiaomi 17, a lot of models leave it out. Both models support lossless wired listening, although only Sonos has USB-C audio passthrough, which is more convenient in my view — after all, so many of us carry around USB-C cables to charge our phones and other devices

In terms of battery life, these cans are close, but Sonos is the overall winner. The Ace Ultra provide 35 hours of playback with ANC switched on, whereas Sony give you 30 hours. That’s a pretty average amount of playtime to get from headphones in this price-class, but if you do run out of charge, you can use both pairs while they regain life via USB-C.

Finally, a word on controls. The Sonos Ace Ultra feature responsive, well-sized, and precise button controls. But they don’t have touch controls, something the WH-100XM6 pull off brilliantly. Sony’s cans have reactive and intuitive touch controls that I love. A single press won’t trigger anything so you can avoid accidental commands, but you can swipe on the right earcup to adjust playback and even cover it with your hand to enter into transparency mode. As much as I appreciate the reliability of Sonos’ buttons, I prefer Sony’s approach.

So, who’s the winner in the features category? It’s such a close one: I think Sony has a slight edge in ANC, I like the touch controls, and the broader compatibility of LDAC is a win. However, Sonos’ ecosystem interplay, native Atmos support, USB-C audio, and better battery life is pretty impressive too. Let’s call this category a tie.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: sound quality

While both of these headphones sound great, and there’s not a big different in quality, there’s only one winner for me.

The Sonos Ace Ultra made a big step up from the original Ace, especially when it comes to musicality. They provide well-balanced sound, with satisfyingly deep, regimented bass, clean mids, and expressive highs. But how do they compete against the Sony WH-1000XM6?

Well, allow me to reference my listening notes. In the funk tack, Joía rara by Brylho, both sets kept electric guitars well-separated from vocals and other instruments in the mid-range, almost making it sound as if they were playing in a unique pocket. Both also plated up well-weighted, clean bass, and finer details, like subtle percussive elements came through nicely. I did find, though, that the XM6 handled vocals with a bit more care — they sounded a bit more natural, and more effectively defined in the mix.

Moving onto a house track next, with Get it on by Jansons. This was a tight contest, the Ace Ultra’s deep bass came through with palpable impact, and higher-pitched drums sounded tastefully forward without getting shrill or tinny. It was the same on the XM6 — thumping yet agile bass alongside bright and precise treble, helping to capture the exciting, energetic vibe. I perhaps found that the XM6 offered slightly better dynamism, though — drops just had a bit more impact, which isn’t to say that the Ace fell flat, they were just marginally outclassed.

More generally, I found that the XM6 slightly edged out the Ace Ultra with more dynamic low-end output and better detailing, especially in the mid-range.

It’s worth noting that I do consider the Ace Ultra to be superior for movies. They have native Dolby Atmos support, and with built-in head-tracking, you can experience truly mesmerizing audio for all your movie-watching needs. When I connected the headphones up to the Sonos Beam Ultra via TV Audio Swap, I was blown away by the fidelity of height effects, the phenomenal width, and clear dialogue available. Sony’s headphones are good for movies, and they do feature some head-tracking technology (albeit more restrictive), but the Ace Ultra were clearly designed with movies in mind to a much greater extent.

Still, it’s important to have some perspective. The vast majority of people aren’t buying wireless headphones solely to watch movies. The most important thing is portable musical performance, and while the Sonos Ace Ultra get close to the Sony WH-1000XM6, they fall just short overall — and as a result, I’m handing Sony the W here.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: design

At a glance, these headphones might not look wildly different, especially as I tested two very similar colorways… but there are some notable deviations worth discussing.

In my view, the Sonos Ace Ultra are the better looking pair of headphones. They have a slimmer form factor with flatter ear cups, which look a bit more flattering than the XM6’s bulky ones. Their metallic details and curved look also gives them a premium yet understated aesthetic which I can’t get enough of.

The XM6 aren’t bad-looking at all, I just don’t think they quite match the luxurious vibe of the Ace Ultra. But what I do like about these is that they’re fully foldable. This means they’re amazing for travel — just fold’ em up, throw them in your bag, and you’re good to go. The ear cups can fold down on the Ace, enabling them to fit in their carry case, but they’re not quite as flexible as Sony’s flagship model.

On the topic of cases, Sony takes the win here. They have an enticing hard case which uses a magnet lock, meaning it’s so quick and easy to whip them out or stow them away. The Ace Ultra’s case doesn’t have the same premium feel, and it also has a pretty low-quality zip that jams a bit too regularly for my liking.

Neither of these models have an IP rating, which denotes dust and waterproofing capabilities — something that, in fairness, is rarely seen on over-ears (though some, like the Noble FoKus Artemis, do boast an IP rating).

But both models are very comfortable and don’t clamp too hard on my head, which makes it easy to listen to music for hours on end. This means they’re pretty close overall in the design section, but personally, I’d take the sleeker look and more luxurious design of the Ace Ultra over the XM6 — even if the latter are fully foldable and have a better carry case.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: value

So, it’s been a tight contest so far. And when you consider that both the Ace Ultra and XM6 have the same list price, deciding which offers better value for money is very tough indeed.

The truth is this: the better-value model is going to be very dependent on your needs and expectations. If you already own a Sonos system, and want interplay with your speakers and maybe even a soundbar, then the Ace Ultra are incredibly attractive. Their ANC and sound quality isn’t far off the XM6’s, they’re superior for movies, and I think they’re more stylish too.

But if you want the best all-round pair of headphones in this price bracket, I still don’t think you can beat the Sony WH-1000XM6 right now. They offer slightly more detailed, dynamic audio than the Ace Ultra, their ANC is class-leading, and they have no shortage of features, a fully foldable design, and their battery life is close to that of their Sonos rival.

In the context of this showdown, the XM6’s older age also works in their favor somewhat — we’ve seen them go on sale a few times here and there, so chances are, you’ll be able to swipe them up for less than the Ace Ultra in practice. I think you’ll be exceedingly happy with either of these models, but unless you want interplay with your Sonos system and top-tier Atmos for movies, then I think the Sony WH-1000XM6 give you ever-so-slightly more bang for your buck.

Sonos Ace Ultra vs Sony WH-1000XM6: verdict

So, there you have it. As I mentioned in the value section, it’s been a close affair, but I think the Sony WH-1000XM6 are the best headphones for most people at the time of writing. Ultimately, their marginal wins over Sonos in terms of ANC, musicality, and flexibility give them the edge.

If you have a Sonos system, though, I do think the Ace Ultra are worth picking for their seamless connectivity with your speakers and soundbar. And the Ace Ultra do offer a few improvements over Sony’s cans, like higher battery life, a more luxurious look, and better sound for movies.

Both are great options, however, so you can feel confident in your choice, whether you opt for Sonos or Sony. But what do you think? Would you choose the Sonos Ace Ultra or Sony WH-1000XM6? Let me know in the comments.

Nvidia made waves earlier this year when it announced the Nvidia RTX Spark, a new ARM-based SoC for small form factor PCs and laptops, and no one should be more concerned than Apple.

The Cupertino tech giant has enjoyed a very strong position when it comes to laptop sales for a while now thanks to its own ARM-based silicon, the Apple M-series.

With the refreshed Mac mini now on sale with the new Apple M6 chip, there’s going to be a lot of interest from creatives and developers around these two platforms, so I’m here to break down everything you need to know about the Nvidia RTX Spark vs Apple M6.

NVIDIA RTX SPARK VS APPLE M6: PRICE & AVAILABILITY

Neither SoC from either company is available on its own, so how much you pay will be entirely dependent on the PC or laptop it comes in, with things like memory and storage upgrades playing an outsized role in the final price.

The Apple M6 is only available in the new Mac mini (2026) for now, and it starts at $899/£899/AU$1,449 for the 16GB/256GB model. Adding more memory and storage will cost you extra, with the highest-spec M6 Mac mini featuring 24GB of unified memory for an extra $200/£200/AU$300, and an upgrade to 32GB for an extra $380/£400/AU$600.

Upgrading to 512GB SSD storage will add $200/£200/AU$300 to the price, while 1TB and 2TB will add $500/£500/AU$750 and $1,000/£1,000/AU$1,500 to the price, respectively.

Meanwhile, Nvidia is relying on its third-party partners to produce the PCs and laptops that will feature the Nvidia RTX Spark, so the prices will vary greatly among manufacturers, as well as which RTX Spark N1X core configuration is used (there will be an 18 CPU-core/5,120 CUDA-core entry configuration, and a more powerful 20 CPU-core/6,144 CUDA-core configuration).

While many units have been announced from Dell, Acer, and others, there's been no firm pricing yet, and much like the Mac mini, the amount of RAM the PC or laptop is configured with is going to have a major impact on its price. The first Nvidia RTX Spark devices are expected to go on sale in October, and some early indicators put the starting price of RTX Spark laptops and mini PCs at around $2,000/£2,000/AU$3,000.

• Advantage: Apple M6

NVIDIA RTX SPARK VS APPLE M6: SPECS

Fortunately, when it comes to specs, we know just about everything between these two SoCs, so we can do a proper side-by-side comparison of the Nvidia RTX Spark vs Apple M6.

As you can see above, Nvidia RTX Spark has a lot of hardware advantages versus the Apple M6. With nearly twice as many CPU cores on the premium configuration, almost four times the maximum memory headroom, and larger memory bandwidth, the Nvidia RTX Spark chips start out well ahead of the Apple M6 when it comes to specs—and that’s before we discuss the RTX Blackwell GPU.

Apple does have an advantage when it comes to maximum clock frequency, however, running nearly 800MHz faster than the best Nvidia chip. Will it be enough though? That remains to be seen.

• Advantage: Nvidia RTX Spark

NVIDIA RTX SPARK VS APPLE M6: PERFORMANCE

So far, I’ve only been able to benchmark the Apple M6 myself, as the new Mac mini went on sale on September 22, so there’s not a whole lot I can say definitively about the Nvidia RTX Spark vs Apple M6 when it comes to performance, but we’re not entirely in the dark here.

The RTX Spark N1X is essentially the Nvidia DGX Spark SoC, though it is running at a lower wattage for laptops (45W to 80W TDP, roughly, compared to the desktop DGX Spark’s 140W TDP). For RTX Spark desktops and mini PCs, I expect the TDP for the N1X to come close to or match the GDX’s 140W TDP.

Since we do know a lot about the performance of the GDX Spark across various workloads, we can expect the RTX Spark N1X to perform similarly, at least in small form factor PCs. What’s more, we also have some leaked benchmarks for the two RTX Spark N1X SKUs from Geekbench 7.

Note: RTX Spark N1X 3DMark scores estimated from RTX 5070 and RTX 5070 Ti laptop GPU benchmark results

As you can see, the Nvidia RTX Spark chips handle themselves very well against the Apple M6 in terms of GPU performance, though I need to caveat those results since they are approximations based on the listed core counts for the two SoCs’ GPUs. We don’t have benchmarks for these chips yet in 3DMark, but the GPU is built on the same architecture as Nvidia RTX 50 series laptop GPUs, and so we can ballpark where the N1X’s GPU is likely to end up given the number of CUDA cores they have available.

It’s also worth noting that the Nvidia RTX Spark’s multi-core performance definitely benefits from the increased core count over the Apple M6. However, the Apple M6 has a substantially better single-core performance, clocking in about 56% faster than the premium 20-core Nvidia chip.

This is going to translate to substantially better in-app performance for things like Adobe Photoshop and will help with agentic AI when an agent is processing a prompt or reasoning out a response, as these are inherently single-core dependent.

However, agentic AIs rarely work alone without some assistance from sub-agents, sandboxes, and other concurrently operating tools, which is where the multi-core performance of the Nvidia RTX Spark will definitely come in handy.

Of course, it also goes without saying that Nvidia’s distinct advantage over Apple when it comes to AI hardware thanks to native CUDA processing can’t be understated. Apple’s M6 might perform very well, but it will not be able to keep up with an Nvidia GPU that has up to 128GB of available memory.

And for gaming, well, Apple has really struggled to break Window’s stranglehold on PC gaming, and the Apple M6 doesn’t change that in the slightest, giving the Nvidia RTX Spark the edge there almost by default.

• Advantage: Nvidia RTX Spark

NVIDIA RTX SPARK VS APPLE M6: EARLY VERDICT

It remains to be seen how well the two Nvidia RTX Spark chips fare in real world testing, but early signs are very promising for Nvidia’s first SoC for the consumer market.

Apple isn’t out for the count just yet, either, and it will still hold the edge on price since the Nvidia RTX Spark is going to need a lot of very expensive RAM to process those 170B parameter models.

If you’re a more mainstream user who is just looking for a great PC for productivity, school work, and the like, the Apple M6 is the platform to go for.

Nvidia’s RTX Spark appears to be far more of a professional product with some gaming bolted onto the side, and it will surely have a price to match, so you only really need to consider the Nvidia RTX Spark if you can tell the difference between inference and model training. If you have to look those terms up, the RTX Spark isn’t really for you, but if those two are exactly what you plan on doing with your next device, you really can’t do any better than the Nvidia RTX Spark - as long as devices that include it are reasonably priced.

The Sonos Ace Ultra are here, and they’re beautiful. I’ve spent two weeks testing them, and to tell the truth, they really exceeded my expectations.

See, I liked the original Sonos Ace, but the Ultra bring so many meaningful upgrades to the fore, be that their expanded microphone system, fancy new drivers, or new smart features. And as you’ll see in my Sonos Ace Ultra review, I think these updates establish Sonos as a major player in the world of wireless headphones.

The standard Sonos Ace fell just short of greatness when they released due to their somewhat middling musicality, and with rivals like Sony and Bose releasing excellent iterations in the WH-1000X and QuietComfort Ultra series’ respectively, it felt like the multi-room giant couldn’t quite go toe-to-toe with the best of them.

But the Ultra have changed that, and I’m here to share my five favorite improvements that make Sonos’ new headphones an excellent option for anyone looking to buy a top-tier pair of wireless headphones — or make the step-up from the original Ace. And make sure to stick around for number five, which is the most game-changing upgrade of them all.

1. A more customizable listening experience

First of all, you have a lot more control over the listening experience with the Sonos Ace Ultra compared to what the original Ace allowed.

This is largely down to a far more fleshed-out equalizer, which lets users take a far more granular approach tuning-wise. That’s because the Sonos Ace Ultra feature an eight-band equalizer, letting you make adjustments to specific parts of the frequency range. Want to give those lower-mids a bit of a boost? Want to temper the upper-treble a bit? No problem — you can do that here.

Meanwhile, the Sonos Ace had very basic two-band EQ options that only let you increase the bass or treble. Sure, there’s the option to use a three-band equalizer on the Sonos Ace Ultra if you want a simpler way of making changes, but the more extensive controls on the audio specialist’s new headphones are welcome for someone like me, who wants to tailor sound to his specific tastes.

While we’re on this topic, it’s also worth flagging that the Sonos Ace Ultra have adaptive EQ. This automatically adjusts EQ to account for factors such as fit, glasses, hair, and other elements that could cause leakage. This works well and was something that the original Ace skipped.

2. Enhanced ANC

The Sonos Ace Ultra increase the number of microphones onboard to ten from the eight seen on the standard Sonos Ace. This results in a number of improvements, like enhanced calling, for instance. But the biggest difference is heard when it comes to active noise cancellation.

This expanded microphone system helps the Sonos Ace Ultra to deliver excellent ANC that competes with some of the best noise cancelling headphones on the market. When working in the office, sounds of typing were totally eliminated. When on walks, construction work and traffic passing by was subdued to incredible effect. And even when taking public transport, the rumble of engines and conversations surrounding me were silenced without hesitation.

It helps that the Ace Ultra also have a relatively secure (yet still comfortable) fit, providing a seal that keeps the world around you at bay. I’ve tried far more expensive cans that can’t hold a candle to the Sonos Ace Ultra in this regard, so if you want great ANC, look no further.

ANC is adjustable, so you can decide whether you want full-blast silencing or a light bit of blockage if you find that disorienting. Of course, you also get a transparency mode if you want to be more aware of your surroundings or to have a quick conversation.

3. More interplay with your Sonos system

The Sonos Ace Ultra offer even more interconnectivity with other Sonos products than the original headphones, in part thanks to the Ultra’s new Headphone Engine 2.

With the Ace Ultra, you unlock a new feature called Headphone Linking. This lets you seamlessly transfer audio from compatible speakers — like the Sonos Play — over Wi-Fi, directly to your headphones (or vice versa). Just a single press of a button, and you can easily transfer music or movie audio across; it's seamless and works like a dream.

Like the original Ace, you also get TV Audio Swap. This lets you connect the Ace Ultra to a compatible soundbar, like the Sonos Arc Ultra, and hear movie audio on your headphones instantly. Because the Ace Ultra support Dolby Atmos and head tracking, you get an incredibly immersive, rich listening experience here — and it's ideal if you want to enjoy private listening without disturbing anyone else in your household.

4. Better battery — and its fully replaceable

First of all, I should say that the battery life on the standard Sonos Ace is by no means bad. You get 30 hours of playback with ANC on, which is basically the standard for headphones in the premium price-bracket — in fact, some rivals like the AirPods Max 2 and the first-gen Bose QuietComfort Ultra fall short of this.

But the Sonos Ace Ultra provide a slight bump, with 35 hours of battery life with ANC switched on — still nothing game-changing, but certainly a welcome improvement. You also only need to charge them for three minutes to get three hours of playback, which makes them incredibly convenient when you’re on the go and need some additional battery life in a pinch.

Perhaps more interestingly, the Sonos Ace Ultra feature a user-replaceable battery. Yes, you’ll need to get some specialist kit for this, but it means that the Ultra can live on, even if the battery degrades after years of listening. That only makes your investment more worthwhile in the long run.

5. New drivers provide a huge performance upgrade

And now for the largest upgrade of them all: the one that truly puts the Sonos Ace Ultra head and shoulders above the first Sonos Ace. Of course, I’m talking about the significant sound quality step-up, which comes, in part, thanks to new 40mm custom drivers.

When it comes to music, the original Sonos Ace are OK. They provide relatively energetic audio, but they lack balance, often sound quite busy and disorganized, and lack the width and detail of some premium rivals. But the Sonos Ace Ultra take things up a notch. They deliver expansive, dynamic, and intricate audio, especially when using aptX codecs or wired listening.

The Sonos Ace Ultra also provide improved instrument separation, letting them handle more complex mixes with ease. Low-end sounds are more full-bodied and agile, never sounding lethargic or lacking rhythmically. Mids aren’t as overzealous as they were on the original Ace, taking a more natural, detail-oriented approach. And treble is expressive and articulate, giving higher-pitched percussion some seriously satisfying bite.

Like the standard Ace, the Ace Ultra sound impeccable for movies, delivering a three-dimensional listening experience with convincing height effects and engrossing expansiveness, and they’re probably the best wireless headphones you can buy for movies. But the Ultra’s improved musicality helps them attain greatness — even more impressive when you consider that they’ve launched at the same price as the original Ace did back in 2024.

Canon's EOS R8 Mark II is here, with a fresh new look that's inspired by the world's leading camera manufacturer's heritage, and finished off with a "modern twist". The resemblance to Canon's analog SLRs such as the T80 or AE-1 is faint, but in any case the new model is certainly a decent upgrade of the EOS R8, adding image stabilization, a multi-controller, and various performance and design improvements.

When I pored over the specs and pricing of the EOS R8 Mark II during my hands-on, however, a surprising reality came into sharp focus: Nikon's year-and-a-bit-old Z5 II remains highly competitive and it costs less than Canon's latest entry-level full-frame mirrorless model.

If you're considering your first full-frame camera and are not tied to Canon or another system, you should totally read on to find out more about the new EOS R8 Mark II, and how it fares against our Camera of the Year 2025 winner, the Nikon Z5 II.

1. Sensor

• Both feature a 24MP full-frame sensor
• Both sensors are equipped with image stabilization, rated up to 7.5EV

This section is going to be straightforward: both cameras have a full-frame 24MP sensor that's equipped with image stabilization (IBIS) rated up to 7.5EV.

Besides nuances in how each camera handles color and noise, and personal preferences, the image quality will be pretty similar. Having said that, I've historically found Canon's image stabilization to perform better than Nikon's.

• Sensor winner: Tie

2. Video

• Both shoot 4K video up to 60fps, but the Z5 II has a 1.5x crop
• Both shoot 4K 30fps with 10-bit color depth from the sensor's full width, the Z5 II shoots 12-bit RAW
• 1080p slow motion recording up to 180fps (EOS R8 Mark II) and 120fps (Nikon Z5 II)
• Color profiles for video; new 'filmtones' for EOS R8 II, well-regarded RED profiles for Z5 II

There's much more to unpack and compare regarding each camera's video features. Both can shoot 4K video at 30fps with 4:2:2 10-bit color depth from the full width of the sensor, and up to 60fps at this resolution, although at this frame rate there's a 1.5x crop in the Z5 II.

The Nikon camera, however, is the only one that can shoot 12-bit internal RAW video, which certainly gives it the quality edge for users who want greater tonal depth and editing latitude, and who don't mind the larger file sizes.

Slow motion recording is also possible in 1080p, but again the EOS R8 Mark II has the frame rates edge — it can shoot 6x slow motion (180fps) to the Z5 II's 4x slow motion (120fps).

There's no shortage of color profiles for each camera, either. There's each company's version of a gradable, flat Log profile (C Log and N-Log) and Rec 709, while Canon has introduced two new 'filmtones' looks and the Nikon Z5 II features a RED RAW profile. Each can link with a companion app to import custom profiles, too. Users with either camera should have no issues getting a style they like.

Both camera's video recording is supported by powerful autofocus and image stabilization, making smooth and sharp run-and-gun filming a distinct possibility. The EOS R8 Mark II features a tally lamp to indicate when recording is active, but the Z5 II offers dual SD card slots for overflow / backup storage, whereas the Canon camera just has the one slot.

There are distinct advantages for each camera — and more besides that I haven't got into here — and as such it's tricky to call an outright winner in this category.

• Video winner: Tie

3. Design

• Canon EOS R8 Mark II: 546g body (with battery and card), not weather resistant, single card slot
• Nikon Z5 II: 700g body (with battery and card), weather resistant mag alloy, dual card slot

The EOS R8 Mark II is the guinea pig for Canon's new design. It forgoes the sweeping curves we've come to associate with Canon camera, in favor of straight, angular lines and a pronounced viewfinder bump that are "inspired by Canon's heritage". In this sense, it actually has more in common with the Nikon camera than previous Canon models.

Beyond the looks, the cameras are roughly the same size, but the EOS R8 Mark II is notably lighter at 546g. The quality of its buttons, controls and body have a much more entry-level feel to them, whereas the Z5 II feels more like a level up. The Z5 II feels like the more robust of the two, plus it's officially noted as weather resistant whereas the EOS R8 Mark II is not. The gulf in quality is compounded by the displays...

• Design winner: Nikon Z5 II

4. Displays

• Canon EOS R8 Mark: 3.0-inch 1.62m-dot vari-angle LCD and 0.39-inch 2.36m-dot EVF
• Nikon Z5 II: 3.2-inch 2.1m-dot vari-angle LCD and 0.5-inch 3.69m-dot EVF

Put simply, the Nikon Z5 II's LCD screen and EVF displays are higher-specced than the EOS R8 Mark II's, despite the camera arriving almost 18 months earlier.

Both screens are vari-angle, so they can be pulled out to the side of the camera and tilted for low-level shooting / rotated for selfies. The Z5 II's display is slightly larger at 3.2-inches to the Canon's 3.0-inches, and it has a higher resolution, although the pixel density is roughly the same.

I've used both cameras separately, but can attest to the superior quality of the Z5 II's EVF – it's physically bigger, has more pixels, higher magnification, and is brighter — in short, a more immersive display. This category is an easy win for the Z5 II.

• Displays winner: Nikon Z5 II

5. Performance

• Canon EOS R8 Mark: 220-shot (VF) / 340-shot (LCD) battery life, Dual Pixel CMOS AF II, 40fps with pre-capture
• Nikon Z5 II: 340-shot (VF) / 350-shot (LCD) battery life, Hybrid phase detection AF, 30fps with pre-capture

If you prefer using a viewfinder, then the battery life of the Z5 II is much better than the EOS R8 Mark II, although the playing field is somewhat levelled when using the LCD. Neither camera has a particularly impressive battery life, but both can be recharged on the go, via USB-C.

Both also have excellent autofocus performance, with subject tracking and detection for humans, animals and vehicles. I haven't directly compared the performance of each camera, but they do inherit autofocus systems from pricier models that I have tested at length. Canon's 'Register People' mode is super handy for prioritizing specific people in crowded scenes — and you can store up to 10 faces at any one time.

Canon improved autofocus sensitivity in low light down to -7.5EV in its second-gen EOS R8, but the Nikon camera was already more sensitive, being rated to -10EV.

For outright burst shooting speeds, Canon has the edge — it's capable of up to 40fps, compared to 30fps for the Nikon. However, neither are true sports cameras in the sense that once the buffer is full, they will slow up quicker than high-end models. The Z5 II has both a mechanical and electronic shutter, while the Canon model only has the latter.

• Performance winner: Tie

6. Price and availability

• Canon EOS R8 Mark II announced on Sep 16, 2026, for $1,899 / £1,729 / AU$2,529
• Nikon Z5 II was released on April 3, 2025 for $1,699 / £1,599 / AU$2,699, but the price has since dropped

Canon's EOS R8 Mark II has only just been announced at the time of writing, and its sales start date is October 20. It will cost $1,899 / £1,729 / AU$2,529 body only, or £2,119.99 / AU$2,859 with the budget 24-105mm F4-7.1 kit lens / $2099 with the 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM lens in the US. Naturally, there are no price cuts yet.

Nikon's Z5 II, meanwhile, was released almost 18 months ago, and at list price was approximately 10% cheaper in the US and UK, but a little more in Australia — so no huge difference. However, it has since come down in price, and that margin has increased. Like the Canon model, it's available in a kit with a 24-105mm F4-7.1 lens, but there are other good-value kits on sale, including with the 24-200mm travel zoom.

• Price winner: Nikon Z5 II

Canon EOS R8 Mark II vs Nikon Z5 II: early verdict

As entry-level full-frame cameras, the Canon EOS R8 Mark II and Nikon Z5 II share many key features, including things like a 24MP full-frame sensor with image stabilization, 4K video recording and powerful autofocus.

There are specific features unique to each model that stand out, but not enough to swing the balance either way. However, where the gulf becomes clear is in each camera's overall handling and quality — the Nikon Z5 II's superior displays, control layout, body quality, extra card slot and better battery life deliver a better all-round shooting experience.

The Canon feels every much the entry-level camera with powerful features, whereas the Nikon camera redefines entry-level quality. And when you think that the Z5 II has pricier components but costs less, it feels like a solid win for the Canon rival.

It took years, but Apple finally gave the world its first foldable phone — the iPhone Duo — at its Surprise and Shine event earlier this week. The Duo steps into a busy foldables market, with one particular model primed to give it a run for its money: the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8.

The Z Fold 8 is the latest in a long line of Galaxy foldables, and Apple's first foldable bears a number of similarities to Samsung's passport-shaped device. But for anyone considering investing in either the Z Fold 8 or iPhone Duo, there are a number of key differences to be aware of.

There’s still a month to go until iPhone Duo preorders open, and even longer until the device begins shipping (October 23). But still, there’s no time like the present to check out seven major areas in which the iPhone Duo and the Galaxy Z Fold 8 differ.

A dollar disparity

The first notable difference between the iPhone Duo and Galaxy Z Fold 8 is how much they cost.

The iPhone Duo retails for $1,999 /£1,999 / AU$3,499, which is significantly more than the Galaxy Z Fold 8's $1,899 / £1,699 / AU$2,699 (at least in certain regions), with both phones starting with the same 256GB of storage. If you want the best deal on a wide foldable, Samsung has the clear advantage.

Diverging displays

Both Samsung and Apple have gone for roughly the same shapes for their respective foldable displays, but with a small size difference. The iPhone Duo uses a 7.6-inch main inner display and a 5.4-inch outer display. The Galaxy Z Fold 8’s inner display also measures 7.6 inches across, but its outer screen is marginally larger at 5.5 inches.

There’s also an interesting split in how Samsung and Apple have treated the material in their phones' screens. The iPhone Duo uses a matte-like nano-texture display instead of a glossier, anti-glare coating like the Galaxy Z Fold 8. Both materials serve the same purpose — to make the screen easier to read under bright light. But which one is better remains to be seen at this point.

Apple has also given the iPhone Duo stylus support on both displays, via the Apple Pencil USB-C. Samsung used to offer stylus support on its foldables, but unfortunately for wannabe doodlers, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 does not work with any of Samsung’s S Pens.

Different designs and mismatching materials

Despite their similar passport shapes, the iPhone Duo and Galaxy Z Fold 8 do differ quite significantly in terms of design.

The iPhone Duo, for instance, has four rounded corners when open, but when closed, it has two right-angled corners on the hinge side. Samsung, by contrast, has gone with pointed corners all around on the Galaxy Z Fold 8, which arguably gives it a more cohesive look.

For side rail materials, it’s a case of polished titanium on the iPhone Duo versus matte aluminum on the Galaxy Z Fold 8. Both look great on their respective phones, but which finish is better will be up to the viewer.

These two phones also use different display materials to shore up their durability. Apple has equipped the Duo with its own Ceramic Shield 2 toughened glass on the front, and the original Ceramic Shield on the back. Samsung instead uses Gorilla Glass Ceramic 3 and Gorilla Glass Victus 2 to protect the Galaxy Z Fold 8’s front and back, respectively.

Apple has also equipped the iPhone Duo with the same Camera Control key that you find on other iPhones, making the edges of the phone surprisingly busy. Samsung lacks equivalents for these buttons on the Galaxy Z Fold 8, which simply offers a power button and volume controls.

Interestingly, the iPhone Duo is some 53g heavier than the Z Fold 8 (254g vs 201g), but it does offer IP68 water and dust resistance, while the Z Fold 8 only offers IP48-level protection.

The last thing to mention is color options. The iPhone Duo comes in either Star White or Night Sky (deep blue), while the Galaxy Z Fold 8 has a wider selection of Lavender, Graphite, Cream, and Pistachio.

SIM support split

When it comes to actually adding your phone number to one of these phones, there’s an important difference to consider here too. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 offers a physical SIM slot as well as eSIM support for virtual numbers. However, the iPhone Duo is eSIM-only worldwide.

You can easily convert a regular SIM into an eSIM during phone set-up. But unless you re-request a SIM card from your carrier, you’ll be locked into the eSIM way of life from then on.

Branching battery tech

Since Apple doesn’t publish its battery sizes itself, we don’t know right now what the capacity of the iPhone Duo is. Instead, Apple says its internal testing reveals the iPhone Duo is capable of 31 hours of video playback when using the inner display, 44 hours when just using the outer display, or “all-day” battery life when it comes to general use.

Samsung’s testing promise for the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is 26 hours of video playback, which sounds like it’s inferior to Apple's on paper. However, without doing consistent battery testing on both phones, we don’t yet know for sure which phone will last longer in the real world.

For refuelling, Apple claims the iPhone Duo can charge up to 50% full in 20 mins with a compatible wired charger, or 30 minutes with a MagSafe or Qi2 wireless charger. Samsung’s claim is a 63% wired charge in 30 minutes, which doesn’t quite map onto Apple’s information either. This will also require some of our own testing to figure out which device charges faster.

Contrasting cameras

The iPhone Duo and Galaxy Z Fold 8 each have four cameras, serving the same purposes. But there are some technical differences to pay attention to.

On the back of the iPhone Duo, Apple has stuck with its typical 48MP main and 48MP ultra-wide combination. That puts the Duo at a small resolution disadvantage compared to the Galaxy Z Fold 8, which boasts two rear 50MP cameras.

However, things change for front-facing cameras. Samsung uses 10MP front cameras on the inside and outside of the Z Fold 8, but Apple uses one higher-res 12MP front camera on the outer display, and an under-display inner camera of currently unknown resolution.

Samsung used to use this kind of camera on its older Galaxy Z Folds, but the Galaxy Z Fold 8 has a more typical punch-hole cutout, removing a bit of the display but guaranteeing higher-quality shots. Maybe Apple has worked out how to take clear, attractive photos through display layers, but it’s not something we’ve seen any other company manage, even after the technology has existed for several years.

Potentially polarized performance

The silicon inside the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is a known quantity. The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy has appeared in other premium Samsung phones this year, including the Galaxy S26 Ultra, and it’s a monstrously powerful chipset.

The iPhone Duo contains Apple’s brand-new A20 Pro chip. Since it’s fresh out of the foundry, we will have to wait for test results to know if it’s more powerful, less powerful, or about the same as the Snapdragon silicon in the Z Fold 8.

We don’t know if there’s any RAM capacity difference, but for storage, you can get 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB versions of both the iPhone Duo and the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8. However, Apple also offers a 2TB edition of the iPhone Duo if you want even more space for your files.

Based on these differences, would you rather buy the iPhone Duo or Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8? Let us know in the comments below.

Apple's 'Surprise and Shine' event unveiled long-awaited devices including the iPhone 18 Pro and the long-anticipated iPhone Duo, but Apple Watches also had their time in the spotlight.

The Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 are the latest models to join Apple's family of wearables, and both pack quite a punch on the features- and health-tracking front, thanks to the combination of the new Health Sensing System and deeper Apple Intelligence integration.

Of course every new Apple Watch offers improvements over the previous generation — the question is always whether it offers enough to make it worth the upgrade. To help you decide, I've compared the new Apple Watch Series 12 against its predecessor, the Apple Watch Series 11, so you can see all the changes side-by-side.

Apple Watch Series 12 vs Apple Watch Series 11: Specifications

Design

We weren't expecting a visual overhaul with the Apple Watch Series 12, and nor did we get one.

The new model packs the same digital crown and side button that you'll find on most Apple Watch models, and size-wise the only difference is that the Series 12 is 1mm wider; if you can spot that in real life, you have sharper eyes than I do.

However, there are some design changes worth talking about. The key one is that as well as being available in Aluminium and Titanium, as the Watch 11 is, there's also now a Ceramic version — the first since the Series 5.

The Ceramic Watch 12 comes in two colors, Pearl White and Night Blue, while the Aluminum model is available in Space Gray, Black, Light Gold and the stunning new Dark Bronze shade, perfect for both casual and smart wear. The Titanium versions come in Radiant Gold and Natural.

Sticking with the Apple Watch 11? Then your choices are between Space Gray, Jet Black, Rose Gold, and Silver for Aluminum, and Slate, Gold, and Natural Polished in Titanium. And to reiterate, there is no Ceramic Watch 11 — so if you want that, you'll need the new model.

Features

Minor design changes aside, the key reasons to upgrade to the Apple Watch 12 relate to its health-tracking smarts.

Many of these stem from its new S11 chip. Apple — inevitably — describes this as its "most powerful wearable chip", and it powers the new Health Sensing System and Audio Intelligence features.

Let's start with the Health Sensing System, the redesign of the previous generation's LED heart rate sensor array. The Series 12's electrode surface area is now bigger, allowing for better skin contact for ECG tracking. It also packs new optical-sensing photo diodes to capture light more efficiently, while its brighter green LEDs support accurate HR in motion. In short, it's the most accurate Apple Watch ever, tied with its sibling the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

It records heart rate continuously, up to every five seconds, and heart rate variability (a key part of sleep tracking and recovery metrics) up to every five minutes. That's a massive 24x more frequently than it did before, ensuring peak accuracy (in theory).

However one of the new standout features is the new Readiness Score, which has finally arrived on Apple Watch. Every other health wearable seems to have one, and Apple's Readiness Score will combine your rings, vitals and other health metrics into a single actionable, frequently updated number.

There are also a significant redesign of the Health app which thrusts Apple Intelligence to the front of the experience. Now, Apple Watch lets you explore health profiles while offering personalized guidance thanks to Apple Intelligence. Once the Health app gets a sense of your health habits, it will tweak its recommendations so that they align with your health levels and data.

Health Age is another new feature that aligns your metrics and fitness level with your actual age, similar to features on Whoop and Garmin.

The Series 12 is packing tons of new fitness features, but Apple Intelligence — or at least, audio intelligence — is brand new and unrelated to health.

Audio Intelligence is comprised of four features. The Series 12 can listen out for sounds, be that a doorbell, traffic, or oncoming pedestrians, and will send alerts right to your watch face — which is ideal for users who are hard of hearing. You can also Shazam songs from your wrist.

Slightly more suspect are Live Rewind and Siri Recaps. Live Rewind allows you to go back 15 seconds to remember parts of a conversation. Didn't catch what the waiter said was new on the menu? Just double-press the digital crown and your watch will generate a transcript for you to read. Siri Recaps is a feature that, when active, listens constantly in the background, providing you with a summary of your day in the evening, including conversations.

We've covered these two features in more detail here, including Apple's privacy assurances and why the Cupertino giant might not be reading the room on this feature, as surveillance-capable wearables are receiving a lot of pushback at the moment.

You can pre-order the Apple Watch Series 12 now, which will be available starting September 18.

Apple's September 9 'Surprise and Shine' event has come and gone, and we've learned a lot about Apple's latest crop of devices. While we've got new AirPods and iPhones (including Apple's first foldable, the iPhone Duo), it's the Apple Watches that have caught my eye as TechRadar's resident fitness and wearables writer — specifically, the Apple Watch Ultra 4, the latest version of Apple's flagship watch series.

But how does it compare to the previous gen, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 — and is it worth upgrading? Read on for a full comparison of both watches, so you can make an informed decision.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Specifications

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Price and availability

• Price is unchanged from last year
• $799 / £749 / AU$1,399
• Available from September 18

Here's an easy one to start with: the Apple Watch Ultra 4's price is unchanged from last year, at $799 / £749 / AU$1,399. It's available from the September 18, so if you were considering getting an Apple Watch Ultra 3 but were holding out, there's no reason not to wait a few days for the latest model.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: design

Physically, little has changed in terms of looks, but there have been subtle tweaks. The titanium case is still there, slightly wider and slimmer than last year, and it lasts six hours longer than the Ultra 3 to make it to two days, or 18 hours with continuous GPS use.

The watch's heart rate accuracy is even better thanks to the new Health Sensing System. This redesign of Apple's LED optical heart rate sensor tech offers better skin contact thanks to an increased electrode surface area. Heart rate readings are now being taken up to every five seconds, with heart rate variability, an overnight measure of rest and recovery, being read up to every five minutes.

This makes Apple's heart rate sensor the most accurate of any wearable, according to Apple. It has apparently conducted tests against rivals using ECG chest straps, much like we do in our reviews.

I can attest that the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is as accurate a wearable as it gets, so I'll be intrigued to test the new Ultra 4 against my trusty Polar H10.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Features

• Finally, a Readiness Score
• New Audio Intelligence features
• Redesigned Health app

At last! Apple Watch gets a Readiness Score, a feature almost every other fitness wearable has had for years. Typically from Apple, it looks like the bee's knees, feeding into Vitals to generate a holistic overview of your night, and updating throughout the day, like Garmin's Body Battery function. A new Health Age feature also compares your current fitness level to those in your age group, much like Garmin's Fitness Age or Whoop's, er, Whoop Age.

It's unclear at the moment whether the Ultra 3 will get these features, or if it will be an Ultra 4 / Series 12 exclusive. But all the Apple Watch Ultra 3 features, including LTE and satellite connectivity, are available on the Ultra 4.

An incoming redesigned Health app on iPhone is Apple Intelligence-forward, offering personalized AI-powered insights, and what is clear is that this will also work with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and all Apple Intelligence-compatible iPhones. This Health App will show you Readiness, Longevity, and allow you to measure your VO2 Max using a coached guided workout on your iPhone's camera, then update it according to your activity levels and metrics.

Audio Intelligence features are exclusive to the Ultra 4 and Series 12, and include Shazam on your wrist, Sound Recognition (your watch will let you know the doorbell's rung or a siren's going off, for example), and two more features which are sure to prove controversial.

Live Rewind has your watch listen to and instantly recall a conversation up to 15 seconds previously, by double-tapping the crown of your Apple Watch. Siri Recap listens throughout the day and uses Siri AI to process live audio files, serving you a summary of the day in the evening. There are numerous controls and privacy safeguards in place here, but there's no doubt they'll come across as creepy to many. You can read all about Audio Intelligence on Apple Watch here.

DJI has upgraded its original 360 camera, the Osmo 360, in typically swift fashion with the second-gen Osmo 360 II, which arrives almost exactly one year later in September 2026.

The Osmo 360 was a majorly impressive product considering it was DJI's first stab at a new market otherwise dominated by Insta360, and it stood shoulder to shoulder in 2025 with the Insta360 X5 and GoPro Max 2.

There was one major drawback versus its rivals, however (of which the X5 has since been updated with the Insta360 X6); where Insta360 and GoPro's cameras featured replaceable lenses for a cost-effective fix in the event of damage, the Osmo 360's were fixed.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that DJI has remedied the situation by introducing a replaceable lens design in the Osmo 360 II. Predictably, there are other tasty upgrades worth knowing about, too, and I will cover them all in this article, which also gives a fuller picture of the best 360 cameras now available.

1. DJI Osmo 360 II vs DJI Osmo 360: design

• The Osmo 360 II's lenses can be replaced
• Both cameras waterproof up to 10m and weigh 6.5oz / 183g

If recording action sports in 360 degrees is your thing, then the Osmo 360 II is the better pick over the Osmo 360; its lenses can be removed, should they ever get damaged, and replaced with new ones. This is, of course, a much more cost-effective fix than buying an entirely new camera.

Not only can the lenses be replaced, but DJI says that the surface of the lenses has a tougher 'Ultra-Hard' optical coating that's more able to withstand scratches. Again, this is a practical-use case win — the lenses in 360 cameras are bulbous and at high risk of scratches and knocks.

Besides the replaceable lens design, the squat, 6.5oz/183g cameras, each with 10m waterproofing, otherwise look and feel largely the same.

• Design winner: DJI Osmo 360 II

2. DJI Osmo 360 II vs DJI Osmo 360: Performance

• The Osmo 360 II's battery has a 10% capacity increase
• Despite the same 10m waterproofing, the 360 II shoots better underwater footage

Both cameras are waterproof up to 10m, but DJI actively discouraged actually using the original model underwater to shoot video. It seemed that at the processor level, it wasn't able to produce decent-looking 360 footage.

That situation has changed with the Osmo 360 II, with DJI encouraging its use for water-based video. We don't know the specifics, but presumably DJI has fixed any software/metering/stitching issues with the original, and the Osmo 360 II can now be used for recording underwater, rather than simply being waterproof.

If you're ever likely to shoot underwater 360 footage, then there's only one winner here: the Osmo 360 II. Other performance improvements include a higher-capacity battery — a 2,150mAh unit compared to 1,950mAh — and those batteries are interchangeable between cameras.

• Performance winner: DJI Osmo 360 II

3. DJI Osmo 360 II vs DJI Osmo 360: Image quality

• Same 1/1.1-inch sensors and f/1.9 lens
• Osmo 360 II ups 8K frame rates to 60fps, improves slow motion recoring, and shoots HDR photos
• Dynamic range has been upped one stop to 14.5EV
• Timelapse mode upped from 8K to 16K

Besides the major improvement in the quality of underwater footage, the Osmo 360 II is a modest upgrade regarding image quality. The boost in dynamic range from 13.5EV to 14.5EV stands out, while 8K frame rates have been upped from 50fps to 60fps for smoother motion. The maximum resolution for the 360-degree timelapse mode has been doubled to 16K, too.

Photo resolution remains the same at up to 120MP, but the latest model adds HDR capture to the mix. Ultimately, despite DJI touting a 'major leap' in 360 image quality, for land-based recording, there's not much to choose between the two cameras.

• Image quality winner: DJI Osmo 360 II

4. DJI Osmo 360 II vs DJI Osmo 360: price and availability

• Osmo 360 II Standard Combo costs £509 / AU$921, while the Adventure Combo costs £639 / AU$1,096
• The original Osmo 360 was £409.99 / AU$759, but its price has come down further a year later
• No US availability for the Osmo 360 II, but the Osmo 360 can be had for $549.99

With those new features comes a price hike. DJI has upped the price of the Osmo 360 II significantly compared to the original — it'll cost around 25% more when it's launched on September 15. It's also not available in the US.

Meanwhile, the Osmo 360 has come down in price since its launch and in some regions can be had for almost half the price of its successor. It's also available in the US, albeit for a higher relative price compared to other regions.

GoPro's Max 2 can be found for less than either DJI model, while Insta360's X6 is the priciest pick of the lot, by some margin.

• Price winner: DJI Osmo 360

DJI Osmo 360 II vs DJI Osmo 360: Early verdict

The Osmo 360 II is a minor update that addresses two major weak points of the Osmo 360; it introduces a replaceable lens design and improves the quality of underwater footage. These improvements alone will be worth it for those shooting underwater and action sports, but they result in a significant markup in price, especially since the Osmo 360 has also come down in price.

The GoPro Max 2 also costs much less than the latest DJI model, but the Osmo 360 II remains much cheaper than the Insta360 X6 and is, arguably, the most compelling of all 360 camera options (unless you're in the US where it's not available).

Ultimately, DJI has swiftly added the polish and durability needed to its original 360 camera with the Osmo 360 II, and it's a top option in this market.

For further details about each model, to check out our in-depth reviews, linked in the introduction.

Following the launch of Dyson's first ever compact hair dryer, the Supersonic Travel, I spent four weeks putting it through its paces, including during a trip to San Francisco — you can read about this in depth in my Dyson Supersonic Travel review.

What I kept coming back to was how similar it seemed to Dyson's Supersonic Nural, despite there being a $150 / £150 / AU$300 gap between the two. Both use the same motor and the same intelligent heat control technology. Both use the same magnetic attachment system, meaning any nozzle or diffuser from either machine works on both. And both deliver the same smooth, frizz-free finish that Dyson has become known for.

I've tested many of the best hair dryers on the market, and Dyson consistently sits near the top. So if the technology is this similar, what exactly are you paying the extra cash for — and is the Nural worth it? I tested the two side by side. Here's what you need to know.

Dyson Supersonic Travel vs Supersonic Nural dryer: efficiency

On sheer drying power, the Nural wins. It's a full-size dryer with full airflow, and on my fine, mid-length hair it dried in around two and a half minutes on high heat. The Travel took around four minutes in the same conditions.

Four minutes is fast for a travel dryer — faster than every hotel dryer I've used and faster than some standard home dryers too. The finish was smooth and shiny every time, which is the more important result. But the gap is significant, and if you have thick or long hair that already takes 15 or 20 minutes at home, you'll feel it a lot more than I did.

Both have a 110,000 RPM motor, and both use a built-in thermistor sensor that continuously monitors air temperature to prevent heat damage and protect your hair's shine.

Interestingly, the cheaper Travel measures temperature more frequently than the pricier Nural — over 100 times per second versus 40. However, where the Travel uses it as a protective measure, the Nural uses it in more advanced ways for its Scalp Protect Mode. This mode uses a network of Nural sensors and an infrared beam to measure the distance between the dryer and your scalp in real time, automatically reducing heat and airflow as it gets closer to maintain a consistent 131 F / 55 C at the roots.

Winner: Dyson Supersonic Nural

Dyson Supersonic Travel vs Supersonic Nural dryer: design & comfort

Both the Nural and Travel look unmistakably like Dyson products. They have the same cylindrical head, narrow handle, and magnetic barrel as the entire Supersonic range. I tested the Travel in Ceramic Pink/Rose Gold and the Nural in Red Velvet/Gold, and both have a stylish soft matte finish.

The biggest and most obvious design difference is in size.

The Nural weighs 1.5lbs / 684g and measures 3.8 x 3 x 11.3 inches / 9.8 x 7.7 x 28 cm. The Travel is 32% smaller — at 2.7 x 2.8 x 8.7 inches / 6.8 x 7.1 x 22.2 cm — and almost half the weight. This makes it small and light enough to drop into a handbag without rearranging everything around it and I carried the Travel to San Francisco in a tote bag alongside my laptop and it barely registered.

Both put airflow and temperature buttons on the rear of the barrel, with LEDs above each button showing your current setting. On the Nural, these LEDs change color as you cycle through settings to make it easier to see, at a glance, what setting you're on. The Travel's stay white, making it harder.

Beyond this, the Nural offers four heat settings plus three airflow speeds. The Travel has three heat settings and two airflow speeds. On the Travel, its cool shot requires sliding the power button upward past its 'on' position. This will be familiar if you own a Dyson Airwrap i.d but if you don't, this feature won't feel obvious the first time you use the Travel.

The Nural gives you meaningfully more control over both heat and airflow, which matters if you have multiple hair types or needs in your household, or if you regularly switch between drying and styling with different attachments.

Cord length is 9.2ft / 2.8m on the Nural and 6.6ft / 2m on the Travel, and neither folds. The Travel's cord is longer than I'd like for a machine sold primarily on portability but this longer length does make it easier to use in a hotel room when the plug socket aren't always in the most useful places.

Winner: Draw – even though the Nural has some standout design benefits compared to the Travel, they fit different needs: the Nural is better designed for home, while the Travel is better for everywhere else.

Dyson Supersonic Travel vs Supersonic Nural dryer: special features

The Travel's standout feature is auto-voltage. It adapts automatically to any supply between 100V and 240V without the need for a converter or a switch. I used it in San Francisco with a standard plug adapter and there was no drop in power, change in noise or overheating.

The Nural counters with Scalp Protect Mode, which uses proprietary sensors to detect proximity to your scalp and automatically drops the air temperature. When you pull the dryer away, it returns to your selected setting. This setting works in the background, and over months of daily use I haven't once scorched my roots on a high heat setting. For anyone with a sensitive scalp, fine hair, or hair growth concerns, it's a functional benefit rather than a convenience feature.

The Nural also has Attachment Learning, which recognises which nozzle is fitted via RFID chips and remembers your preferred settings.

For example, if you swap to the diffuser, the Nural will automatically drop to your usual diffuser heat and speed. The Pause Detect feature then cuts the airflow when the dryer is put down and resumes when you pick it back up.

The Travel has neither of those features but it is compatible with the entire Supersonic and Supersonic Nural attachment range. If you already own the Nural, you can pack your existing nozzles and diffuser and use them on the Travel.

Winner: Dyson Nural – the Travel's auto-voltage is the most widely practical feature across the two dryers but the Nural is a much more advanced choice.

Dyson Supersonic Travel vs Supersonic Nural dryer: specs

Should I buy the Dyson Supersonic Travel or Supersonic Nural dryer?

Buy the Dyson Supersonic Travel if...

✅ You travel frequently and your hair matters to you: Hotel dryers are a lottery. The Travel gives you consistent Dyson-quality results wherever you are.

✅ You already own a Dyson Supersonic or Nural: The attachment compatibility means you're not buying a second set of nozzles – just a travel body for your existing routine.

✅ You have fine or mid-length hair: The reduced airflow won't be an issue for finer hair types. Four minutes is still fast, and the intelligent heat control means the finish is just as good as you'd get from a full-size dryer.

Buy the Dyson Supersonic Nural if...

✅ You want the best Dyson for home use: Full airflow, smarter controls, color-coded LEDs and five attachments make this the more complete package for everyday drying.

✅ You have a sensitive scalp or fine hair at the roots: Scalp Protect Mode works in the background and over months of daily use, the difference in root and hair health is noticeable.

✅ You dry your hair every day: The Nural's Attachment Learning and Pause Detect are small features that add up to an easier daily routine.

Samsung has unveiled three new foldable phones — the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, and the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8. And while the last of that trio falls into its own category, the former two phones have a lot in common.

Aside from having similar names, they’re both book-style foldables, and they also share plenty of specs. But between very different form factors and differences in their respective camera setups, there's lots to differentiate them, too.

So, below, we’ve compared the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, so you can easily understand how they stack up. We haven't reviewed either model just yet, but we have been hands-on with both, and so have been able to draw some early conclusions as to who they're best suited to.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: specs comparison

Before we look closer at the key features of these two phones, we've detailed their core specs below, so you can see their major similarities and differences at a glance.

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

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 were both announced on July 22, with pre-orders opening the same day.

General availability for both phones starts on August 7, though if you pre-order, you might get them earlier — at the time of writing, we’re seeing an August 3 delivery date in the UK, for example.

As for pricing, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 starts at $1,899.99 / £1,699 / AU$2,699. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is more expensive, with a starting price of $2,099.99 / £1,899 / AU$2,999. In both cases, that’s with 256GB of storage, though you can pick either model up in 512GB and 1TB configurations.

So, in other words, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra starts at $200 / £200 / AU$300 more than the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: design

In some ways, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 have similar designs — after all, they’re both foldable phones that fold and unfold horizontally like a book. However, their shapes and dimensions differ a lot.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra looks a lot like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, with a tall, narrow design, leading to dimensions of 158.4 x 143.2 x 4.1mm when unfolded, 158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm when folded, and a weight of 215g.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, is shorter and wider, looking more like a passport than a book, with dimensions of 161.4 x 123.9 x 4.5mm when unfolded, 81.9 x 123.9 x 9.7mm when folded, and a weight of 201g.

Both phones, though, have an IP48 rating, meaning they’re water-resistant to depths of 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes, and also resistant to dust and other objects greater than 1mm in size.

They also both have aluminum frames, and share Samsung's Flex Titanium technology, meaning their hinges are similarly invisible (you will notice their respective hinges at certain angles, but Samsung has come a long way in this department since the days of the original Galaxy Fold).

As for colors, while the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is sold in Graphite, Cream, Green Shadow, and Violet Shadow, the Z Fold 8 can be bought in Graphite, Cream, Lavender, and Pistachio shades.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: display

Now we get to the biggest difference between these two phones: their displays. Or rather, the shape and purpose of those displays.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has an 8.0-inch 2256 x 2504 foldable AMOLED screen and a 6.5-inch 1080 x 2520 AMOLED cover screen, both with a 120Hz refresh rate and around 422 pixels per inch.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has a 7.6-inch 1828 x 2448 foldable AMOLED screen with around 403 pixels per inch and a 5.5-inch 1248 x 1972 AMOLED cover screen with roughly 428 pixels per inch.

So, both screens on the standard Z Fold 8 are noticeably smaller, but the aspect ratios arguably make a bigger difference, with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra having an almost square 1.11:1 foldable screen and a narrow 21:9 cover screen.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, has a 4:3 foldable screen, which is ideal for widescreen content, and a 10:16 cover screen, which is a bit more square than a typical phone and can be easily covered with one hand from top to bottom.

The taller, narrower Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra does have size benefits of its own, mind. It's harder to stretch your thumb to the top of this phone's display, but it's more easily covered with one hand from left to right. And when open, the Ultra is better suited to productivity apps that display square-shaped content like spreadsheets.

For video streaming, you'll want to go for the Galaxy Z Fold 8, since most video content is displayed in 16:9 (you'll see smaller black bars on a 4:3 screen), and it's arguably the better-shaped phone for gaming, too.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: cameras

There are big differences between the cameras on these two phones, with the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra coming out on top. This device has a 200MP f/1.7 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and a 10MP f/2.4 telephoto with 3x optical zoom. It also has a 10MP selfie camera on each screen.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has one fewer camera and fewer megapixels in its wide one. Specifically, you’re getting a 50MP f/1.8 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and two 10MP selfie cameras. So, it lacks the telephoto snapper found on the Ultra.

Both phones, though, are capable of recording video in up to 8K quality at 30fps, or in 4K at up to 120fps.

We haven't had a chance to test both phones' cameras just yet, but we'll update this article with images when we have. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will, for obvious reasons, be the superior zoom shooter, but there isn't likely to be too much to choose between the phones' 200MP and 50MP wide cameras, since both will default to smaller photo sizes anyway, as is standard practice for modern smartphones.

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

There’s nothing to choose here, with both the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and the Z Fold 8 having a Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chipset and 12GB of RAM — unless you get a 1TB model, in which case you’ll get 16GB of RAM.

This combination of specs will ensure top-end performance regardless of what you're doing on your phone, and in our short time with both devices, they're equally capable gaming phones and productivity powerhouses (notwithstanding their respective display sizes, which makes each better suited to different tasks).

Both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Galaxy Z Fold 8 also run Android 17 overlaid with One UI 9, and come with the promise of seven major Android upgrades.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: battery

Samsung has finally started putting silicon-carbon batteries in its phones, allowing for higher-capacity batteries in the same footprint. As a result, it's managed to pack a 5,000mAh battery into the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra (up from 4,400mAh in the Z Fold 7).

Unsurprisingly, the smaller Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 features a lower-capacity battery (4,800mAh), which should allow the Ultra to last slightly longer — but not by much.

Samsung claims you'll get 27 hours of video playback from the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, while the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8 is rated for 26 hours. In our early anecdotal testing, we've managed to use both phones for multiple days without needing to charge them, so those playback estimates are likely accurate.

Both phones also support up to 45W wired charging and 20W wireless, so you won't be losing out on charging speed by picking one phone over the other.

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

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has bigger, more productivity-friendly screens than the Galaxy Z Fold 8, along with an extra camera, more megapixels in its wide camera, and a slightly higher-capacity battery. However, it also costs $200 / £200 / AU$300 more, and offers identical power.

Its larger screens also won’t be desirable for everyone — indeed, the Galaxy Z Fold 8's screens are much more video-friendly, and may soon become the norm for foldables — so the only indisputable advantages of the pricier model are its cameras and larger battery (though on the latter, we're talking fine margins).

Whether those extra features are significant enough to justify the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra's higher price will, of course, be subjective, but you might want to wait for our full reviews to see how these two phones compare in practice.

Panasonic made quite a splash when it announced the Lumix L10 at its Lumix 25th anniversary event in May this year. I called it 'Panasonic's prettiest Lumix in years', and many tech journalists, myself included, have compared it to the viral Fujifilm X100VI.

These are two premium compact cameras with retro design and high-end features, but both take a different swing at the format. For example, the Lumix L10 packs a 20MP Micro Four Thirds sensor and 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8 lens, while the X100VI shoots 40MP stills with an APS-C sensor and fixed 35mm f/2 lens.

I've already compared the two based on specs and my extensive experience with each camera separately in my Lumix L10 vs X100 VI article. But I was keen to see which one I personally prefer based on using the cameras side by side — it had been a while since I last used the X100 VI.

So, with my loan samples in hand, I headed out, taking the same photos with each camera in a variety of scenarios, including travelling, commuting and weekends exploring. Objectively, each camera has its practical advantages over the other, but there was one camera that truly gave me the feels...

The head

If I'm to make a list of pros and cons based on features and specifications, then each model has distinct advantages over the other.

In favor of the X100VI: its 35mm f/2 prime lens quality, 40MP resolution (which is twice that of the Lumix L10), in-body image stabilization, quicker start-up time, fancier viewfinder, and its next-level retro aesthetics.

There's plenty going for the Lumix L10, mind you: its versatile 3.1x optical zoom lens, superior battery life, Real Time LUTs profiles (which for me outdo Fujifilm's film simulations), superior burst shooting speeds, snappier autofocus, vari-angle screen, plus its video performance has the edge. Oh, and it costs less — depending on which region you live in, the price difference can be pretty sizable.

Speaking objectively, I believe I'd get more use from the Lumix L10, especially the telephoto end of its 24-75mm f1.7 to f/2.8 lens. It is overall a more versatile camera. However, objectivity goes out the window when considering creative tools such as cameras for personal use.

We can talk features all day, but you really need to get a feel for a camera, and the only way to do that is to get properly hands-on, which is exactly what I did with the L10 and X100VI side by side. And in doing this direct comparison, a favorite quickly emerged.

The heart

Rather than getting bogged down in features and specifications, I'm going to articulate what it felt like to use each camera, because honestly that's more important in the long run, especially for this kind of premium compact camera designed for personal, daily use. (My workhorse mirrorless camera is another matter — it's there to do a job efficiently and reliably.)

I'm going to come right out and say it — I enjoyed the X100 VI more. Aesthetically, it has the edge: both cameras are retro, but the X100 VI is next-level with its manual exposure dials and hybrid viewfinder. With the two slung over my shoulder, it was the X100VI that I wanted to reach for first.

When I did, the X100 VI required more effort to master; there's more involvement in operating the exposure controls and such, which I actually preferred as a serious photographer. I liked how much more premium it felt in the hand too: the weightiness, the dampened shutter button...the X100VI just felt... better.

I also appreciated its quicker start-up time, and liked how much more compact its prime lens is. The hybrid viewfinder was more enjoyable too, especially since I'm in the small camp of photographers who genuinely enjoy the optical viewfinder.

Sure, I'd rather that autofocus was as good as the Lumix L10's. And for a variety of scenarios, wished that I could zoom the lens. And it's not like I didn't get any feeling with the Lumix L10 — how its lens handles in particular is a delight. But for feeling alone, and that sense of pursuing a craft, the X100VI captured my heart all over again.

Lumix L10 vs Fujfilm X100VI: the images

A collection of Panasonic Lumix L10 pictures. I have matched the Fujifilm X100VI's 35mm focal length in most of these samples, but I have also included some at different focal lengths to show how versatile it can be.

And the comparisons with the Fujifilm X100VI. For both cameras, I set the color profile to the standard setting, but in reality I would be playing around with various looks and making selective exposure adjustments.