Thankfully, Black Friday 2026 is just around the corner, and it's the perfect time to upgrade or save on a new cordless vacuum and auto-empty station. As a home appliance reviewer, it's my job to assess new products and make recommendations based on my findings — especially in the lead-up to a major deals fest like Cyber Weekend.

Over the past three months, I tested three premium cordless vacuum cleaners from major floorcare brands in Australia: Dyson, Shark and Tineco. Dyson and Shark don't need much of an introduction, as leaders (and competitors) in the space. Tineco, on the other hand, has long held its own in the wet-to-dry vacuum realm, and has recently expanded its cordless vacuum lineup.

I compared pricing, suction power, docking stations and battery life to inform my final recommendation for those looking for the perfect vacuum pairing this Black Friday. So let's cut to the chase — here's how the Dyson V10 Konical + Auto-Empty Dok, Shark PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty and Tineco Pure One Station A70S Pet compare.

Price and specifications

At full price, all three vacuums sit comfortably in the premium category. The most expensive is Tineco's Pure One A70S, priced at AU$1,299. Snug in the middle is Dyson's V10 Konical at AU$999, which leaves the most affordable title to Shark's PowerDetect Speed at AU$799.

All three vacuums come with replaceable battery packs and similar attachments — i.e. a crevice tool, a mini upholstery head and an anti-tangle main brush head with LED lights — but there are a few exceptions.

The Dyson V10 Konical comes with the brand's signature conical-shaped detangling cleaner head, which is fantastic for sucking up hair and fur more easily. Tineco's A70S has a ClogLess feature on the main cleaning head, which switches the suction port to a larger size based on the debris you're sucking up. Shark's device has reverse cleaning, so it will suck up dust no matter which direction you swipe, and it also comes with a fragrance puck to pop in the dock to keep odour away.

Suction Power

When it comes to measuring suction power, most vacuum brands consider either air watts (AW) or revolutions per minute (RPM). The key difference is that air watts measure how much real suction and cleaning power a vacuum cleaner produces, rather than how fast the motor rotates. According to their respective product manuals, each stick vac claims the following air watts measurement for suction power:

• Dyson: 150AW
• Tineco: 200AW
• Shark: 350AW

Dyson (150AW) and Tineco (200AW) fall into the standard range for everyday cleaning on hard floors and low-pile rugs. Shark's 350AW rating approaches the territory of heavy-duty deep cleaners, making it exceptionally powerful for thick carpets and stubborn pet hair.

On paper, Shark takes the lead — and my real-world testing backed that up. The PowerDetect excelled at lifting fine dust, heavy debris, and embedded dog hair effortlessly.

On the other hand, Dyson performed equally well, and when paired with the conical head, the vacuum did a superb job of picking up strands of hair without leaving any tangles in the brush. After reading the specs, I was somewhat surprised that Dyson had claimed less suction power, as there wasn't much of a hugely noticeable difference between it and Shark's performance.

Tineco fell short in this comparison. Despite a 200AW specification, it frequently required boost mode to pick up larger debris, underperforming relative to its rivals during routine cleans.

I've used my Tineco Artist S9 wet-dry vacuum for almost a year now, and in my review, I was pleasantly surprised by its great suction power. The S9 could easily suck up any puddle in its path, so I had half-expected that Tineco's vacuum-only entry would receive similar treatment. But I was unfortunately mistaken.

In this category, you can't go wrong with either Shark or Dyson's entry, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty details, I'd choose Shark. Combined with its reverse cleaning functionality and heavy-duty grade suction power, Shark's PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty will get the job done.

Winner: Shark PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty

Auto-Empty Dock

When purchasing a cordless vacuum, a self-cleaning dock isn't essential, but it can also serve as a storage holder and take the hassle out of cleaning the onboard bin after every use. And spoiler alert: I found two of these docks to be quite worthwhile.

The only caveat was that the third station — a.k.a. Dyson's Auto-Empty Dok — had a mechanical fault during my test period, and it was largely out of action. Dyson's pillar dock was rather tall, contained storage compartments for the bin and the extra attachments, and unlike the other two stations, it held a very simple dustbag, rather than a solid bin container. If I'm being frank, Dyson's dock was a bit of an eyesore.

Sure, my opinion on the black monolith dock might have changed if it actually worked well to suck up and empty debris, but unfortunately I had to cut it out of the running early in this face-off. My colleagues at TechRadar found that it struggled with compact hair pileups and had similar suction issues when trying to empty the handheld bin… so it's unclear whether this is a widespread problem.

As for our other contenders, Tineco's dock was pretty self-explanatory. The dock sat on the spectrum between Dyson's huge pillar and Shark's minimal base, taking up the same floor space as a typical robot vacuum-sized station. It could store the extra attachments on the base, you could clearly see when the bin was full or nearing capacity, and the bright blue/gold colourway was a nice pop of colour in my otherwise dreary entryway.

The biggest gripe with Tineco's dock was the rather loud suction noise the dock made when emptying the cordless vacuum. As someone rather sensitive to loud noises, it wasn't necessarily pleasant; however, the dock was super effective in sucking out dust, hair and other debris from the bin. And the dock bin was just as easy to clean out by holding down the lid release and emptying the contents. I did appreciate the larger bin capacity, at 2.5L, and living in a pet hair-covered house, Tineco's station bin could easily go at least a month or so without needing to be emptied.

Shark's dock was just as impressive, if not more so than Tineco, but only by a fraction of a margin. It's minimal, containing only the essential base and bin, compact and taking up the least amount of space, so if you have a smaller home or apartment, the dock won't get in the way. So much so, I moved the dock from our entryway into our small laundry cupboard, and there was still plenty of room to use the appliances or the sink.

Comparatively, Shark's dock is not very noisy when suctioning up debris, and I didn't have any issues with sucking up hair or compact debris from the vacuum's onboard bin. Shark's dock also has a quiet switch, which, when pressed, will not empty the contents when the vacuum is on the base.

The only niggle I've had so far with Shark's base is that it is not as easy to visually check if the bin is nearing capacity. There is a small indicator on the base; however, it can be easily missed. Aside from that, the bin is 0.5 L smaller than Tineco's and Dyson's, which makes sense due to its size, but it should still hold over a month or so's worth of debris before it needs emptying.

Overall, Shark wins again in this category because of its compact size, but largely because its impressive suction power still comes out on top.

Winner: Shark PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty

Battery life

When it comes to battery life, there are a few disclaimers worth noting from the jump. Battery life or maximum run time claims are often made when using the lowest suction setting on any given cordless vacuum, as using a low setting consistently results in a higher runtime. That said, it's not realistic to expect someone to use the lowest setting when vacuuming high-pile carpets or collecting fine crumbs or even just during a regular, everyday clean of your hard floors.

On average, most cordless vacuum runtimes fall between 35 and 50 minutes on a medium setting, and even then, most homes (unless you live in an all-carpet mansion) can easily be vacuumed in that amount of time. Better still, if you own a cordless vacuum with a docking station, the base typically acts as a charger, so you won't necessarily need to worry about charging your vacuum before cleaning.

So with all of this in mind, when it comes to the three vacuums in question, there's no clear "winner" for battery life. Dyson and Shark claim up to 60 minutes of runtime on a single charge, whereas Tineco claims up to 80 minutes.

Regardless, IMO, the true metric to consider is charge time in this instance. Dyson claims 4 hours of charging time, whereas Shark and Tineco suggest 3 hours. While you're not likely to notice between charges thanks to the docking station, it's worth mentioning in the off chance that the battery dies mid-clean. In that rare case, it could be worth considering purchasing another battery pack, which all three brands offer, but after my tests, all three vacuums tie equally when it comes to battery life and charging time.

Verdict

When it comes down to the final vacuum in the villa, my top recommendation shouldn't be that surprising. Shark's PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty won out in several of my tests, but when you factor in pricing, suction power and the docking station, the sheer value of Shark's machine pays off in strides.

Having said that, Dyson's entry shouldn't be totally dismissed. The Auto-Empty Dok didn't quite impress me; however, that's not to say it's a present issue for every user, and it could work perfectly fine in most homes. Plus, considering Dyson's premium pricing across most of its lineup, finding a cordless vacuum and station combo for AU$999 is hard to beat.

And finally, Tineco. I wish the brand could have lived up to the expectations I had, but unfortunately, it did not. With slow suction power and a mid-sized base, I wanted more out of its expensive AU$1,299 price tag, but it unfortunately fell short.

So, if you're considering a cordless vacuum and auto-emptying dock this Black Friday, take it from me — Shark's PowerDetect Speed Clean & Empty is seriously worth a look.

I'm a personal trainer who walks and runs for different reasons: I walk to ease stress, exercise (myself and my dog) and contribute toward my overall activity levels (known as NEAT), while I run to strengthen my heart and lungs and feel good.

But with the rise in rucking popularity, which involves walking with a weighted vest, I wanted to speak with those in the know to see if it could replace running for cardio. Below, a strength coach and running expert weigh in.

So, which is the cardio-building prize? Here's your final answer.

Benefits of rucking

"Rucking offers several benefits, including improved cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance, and increased functional capacity," says Rebecca Kennedy, a strength coach and Peloton instructor. "It supports postural strength and endurance and provides a low-impact form of conditioning with adjustable intensity. Finally, it’s accessible and enjoyable."

"Rucking is certainly lower impact, with less ground-reaction forces, although foot injuries have been reported anecdotally," says running expert and coach ArjThiruchelvam. "There are certainly benefits to strength and posture and, in a calorie-controlled diet, this would help support fat loss.

"Running naturally poses a high injury rate amongst beginners and those with very high volumes or who are deconditioned," he adds.

Benefits of running

"Running has been shown in a meta-analysis (Pedisic et al., 2020) to lead to substantial health and longevity benefits in addition to lower risk of all-cause mortality, starting with just one dose per week. It’s incredibly efficient at improving VO2 Max and also supporting bone health," Thiruchelvam tells us.

"Running is beneficial for your mental and metabolic health, muscular endurance, cardiovascular fitness, bone health, as well as joint and connective tissue capacity," adds Kennedy. "It’s also time-efficient and supports running-specific performance."

Can rucking replace running for cardio?

"It can, but it depends on your goal and what you're trying to achieve," explains Kennedy. "First, I think it’s important to recognize that running is not a requirement for good cardiovascular health or overall fitness. Rather than asking a binary question (whether rucking can replace running), I'd encourage people to ask what they're hoping to accomplish through exercise.

"Both running and rucking can improve cardiovascular health, aerobic endurance, metabolic health and muscular conditioning, but they challenge the body differently. Running generally allows you to reach higher cardiovascular intensities and provides repetitive high impact, which can be super helpful in developing bone strength, joint and tendon capacity, and the ability to absorb and produce force.

"Rucking increases physical demands of walking by adding an external resistance. Rucking challenges our cardiovascular system, muscular endurance and postural muscles and ability to carry load without the repetitive high impact that running does."

On that note, Kennedy explains you don't get identical adaptations, and "one is not inherently better than the other." If you don't enjoy running, you can still do plyometrics, HIIT, jumping rope, or other sports like boxing or dancing to achieve the same types of fitness without running.

"We simply want to train our bodies to be capable, adaptable and resilient across a variety of physical demands. That being said, I think it's important to acknowledge both preferences, enjoyability, barrier to entry and current fitness level as guides," she adds.

"Rucking can help people develop or maintain an aerobic base; that’s the lower-intensity, zone 1- zone 2 exercise," adds Thiruchelvam. "However, it certainly doesn’t help develop the higher intensity zones and associated muscular benefits that exist as a result of that faster-paced effort.

"The speed at which you perform the activity has a greater impact on physiological changes, and therefore, although rucking can elevate your heart rate, it cannot replicate the effect of running. In particular, heart rate can continue rising while oxygen levels off."

Contraindications

Thiruchelvam tells us that "running naturally poses a high injury rate amongst beginners and those with very high volumes or who are deconditioned... It’s also plausible to consider that the weight of the backpack may alter walking gait and mechanics."

He adds, "The contraindications to rucking revolve around current health and injuries of the spine, lower limbs, heart health and blood pressure, as usual. In addition to that, osteoporosis, surgeries, hernias and impaired balance are all serious considerations that need advice from a doctor."

"Rucking places additional load on your spine and can cause postural fatigue if the load is carried too long or is too heavy too soon," adds Kennedy. "It also may not be suitable for those seeking higher-impact or higher-intensity workouts. Finally, it’s not a replacement for strength training.

"My preference is to use a weighted vest over a backpack because the weight is distributed more evenly and it sits closer to your body, reducing any potential neck strain. If you don't have a vest and want to start, a backpack can work. Just make sure it’s snug, and the straps are pulled down so it isn't sagging in the back and the weight is distributed more evenly."

Kennedy adds, "While running has many benefits, it’s not the best for those who don’t enjoy it. Other things to consider are the repetitive impact and overuse; the higher recovery demands and barrier to entry; adaptation to running can take time; and finally individual limitations...if you have injuries, osteopenia, osteoporosis, or sarcopenia."

How to choose between them

"You may wish to incorporate rucking into your routine on easy days for more aerobic development or if you’re overweight or deconditioned and find running not yet realistic," recommends Thiruchelvam. "Running should be the priority if you want to run fast, for VO2 Max improvement, or if you have an upcoming race."

Kennedy suggests considering rucking if you don't enjoy running, want to reduce impact, and want to build postural strength and muscular endurance. You might also include rucking if you want to improve cardiovascular health and increase your load-carrying capabilities. Plus, it's an accessible way to increase the demands of your regular walks.

"Ultimately, both are valuable tools," she explains. "Personally, I enjoy the way I feel before, during and after a weighted vest walk. I love walking and think the weighted vest is a wonderful addition to my walks.

"You can be exceptionally fit without running. But being fit in one capacity doesn't automatically mean you're prepared for every physical demand. The goal should be to have a routine that trains you to be strong, capable, adaptable and resilient. Rucking and/or running should not be the only type of workout we do."

Verdict

So, there you have it. You could replace your runs with rucks, and there are plenty of benefits, plus some drawbacks, for both. However, the demands aren't the same, and the outcomes aren't identical, which means you might need to add more variety into your routine to achieve various fitness goals.

Just remember that your body and any health conditions or injuries matter, so consider the benefits and downsides of both before deciding which benefit you most.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• High reps vs heavy weights
• Forget running or 'Jeffing' — neuroscientist says this is the secret to longevity and hitting 150 minutes of cardio per week
• Forget running and swimming — study finds this sport adds 10 years to your life

Because if you’re looking at the press photos, you’ll be hard-pressed to spot the difference. Don’t strain your eyes. On the outside, these two machines are identical twins. But it’s what’s inside that counts.

Apple’s done some serious surgery under the hood — significantly beefing up the internals to handle the massive local compute requirements of Siri AI, as well as the increasing workflow demands.

So if you are sitting on an M4 iMac, or still clinging to an older model, here is the brutal face-off to help you decide if the M6 is actually worth your money.

• Pre-order iMac M6: Starting at $1,499 (pre-orders open Wednesday, October 28 at 1:10pm ET)

M6 iMac vs M4 iMac: Specs

Design and display: Copy and paste

If you were hoping for a larger display or the introduction of an OLED screen to match the iPad mini 8 and incoming touchscreen MacBook Pro, you are going to be disappointed.

The M6 iMac retains the exact same 24-inch 4.5k Retina display. You get the same 500 nits of brightness, the same True Tone technology, and the same option to upgrade to Nano-texture glass. It’s a fine display, don’t get me wrong, but I was hoping for something — would 120Hz really be so difficult to add?

As for the design, Apple didn’t update the paint bucket. M6 iMac comes in the same seven colors as M4: blue, green, pink, yellow, purple, orange and silver. The 12MP Center Stage camera remains unchanged, same with the up-to-four Thunderbolt 4 ports.

It’s the same hardware wrapped around a much faster engine, so let’s talk about the real difference here.

The power jump: Escaping RAMageddon with raw compute

Here’s where the new iMac actually flexes its muscles. The tech industry is currently in the middle of an AI arms race, and local processing requires serious hardware to prevent your machine from choking.

The M6 chip jumps up from the M4’s 10-core CPU and GPU configuration up to a 12-core mix. But the most vital upgrade isn’t the core count; it’s the data pipeline that increases memory bandwidth from the M4’s 120 GB/s to 170 GB/s.

And when combined with the new dual 16-core Neural Engine, Apple claims the M6 delivers up to 5x faster on-device AI performance than the M4. If you’re relying heavily on Siri AI or running local LLMs (Large Language Models), the bottleneck has been truly smashed.

We’ve already tested the M6 in the Mac mini, so here’s how it fares against the M4 iMac.

Plus, shoutout to the wireless upgrades too — bumping up to a much faster and stable Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 6 (up from the M4’s Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3).

Verdict: Should you upgrade?

I’m torn on this, so let me break it down for you. There are several answers!

If you own an M4 iMac and you’re just doing day-to-day work: Absolutely not. Save your money. The M4 remains a capable machine — provided your daily workflow doesn’t involve intensely heavy local AI processing or rendering massive 3D scenes in Blender. At which point, if you’re doing all that, you’ll be looking at Pro or Max chips anyway!

If you own an M4 iMac and want to dabble with local AI: The improvements to that Neural Engine and GPU make AI performance uplifts worthwhile here to upgrade.

If you own an M1 or Intel iMac: Hit that buy button right now. M6 is up to 18x faster than the most popular Intel-based iMac. The leap in performance, transition to Thunderbolt 4, Wi-Fi 7 and sheer AI processing power of M6 makes this the perfect time to ditch your aging desktop.

More from Tom's Guide

• Cancel your iPhone Duo pre-order: Here's why I think the iPad mini 8 and iPhone 18 Pro combo is cheaper and better
• I strapped a touchscreen to my MacBook Pro to see if macOS is ready for next week — 3 things that need fixing quickly
• Apple MacBook Pro M6 just unveiled with 30% faster graphics, 25% faster AI and up to 24 hours of battery life

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is Apple’s newest rugged sports watch, with a new heart rate monitor and a readiness score, helping you work out when to push yourself and when to recover. The Fenix 9 Pro, on the other hand, is Garmin’s most advanced sports watch yet. Both came out this year, and both offer all the sports modes and stats you need to track workouts, plus comprehensive daily activity and sleep tracking.

We’ve put all the features head-to-head in our Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro face-off here, but read on to see which came out on top on race day.

I wore the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro for a marathon: Here’s what happened

Like most European marathons, the Frankfurt Marathon had a marker every kilometer, so for this test, I switched both watches from miles to kilometers. I manually lapped each watch every 5km, so I could be sure I was on pace, and when I finished running, I downloaded the data to see which watch was more accurate.

The GPS is notoriously unreliable in Frankfurt itself, especially around the business district, as, like most built-up cities, you’ve got buildings and skyscrapers to navigate. Chuck in crowds of people and 18,000 other runners, and things are never going to be 100% accurate, but I found immediately that the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro was far better at not letting these GPS dead zones give me inaccurate pace data.

You’ll never run 26.2 miles, or 42.19 kilometers on race day unless you’re perfectly sticking to the blue line, which it’s near impossible to do as you weave around other runners. My Garmin Fenix 9 Pro recorded the run as 42.76km, or 26.5 miles. The Apple Watch Ultra 4, on the other hand, recorded the run as 43.33km, or 26.9 miles. I found the Apple Watch Ultra 4 was about half a kilometer ahead of my Garmin throughout the race.

When it comes to my pacing, my bib, which recorded my pace at every kilometer marker, recorded my average pace as 4:52 min/km. The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro recorded an average pace of 4:48 km, and the Apple Watch Ultra 4 recorded 4:44 km. Of course, this accounts for the fact that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 recorded the longest run.

The main difference between the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 is that the newer watch has Apple’s latest continuous heart rate monitor, which Apple says is the most accurate of any wearable device. During the run, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 recorded my average heart rate as 172 beats per minute, which is exactly the same as the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro. While I didn’t wear a chest strap, as there’s only so much tech a girl can wear on race day, I did have my Oura Ring 5 on my finger, which recorded my average heart rate as 179 beats per minute.

While both watches are more than capable of recording all of your training runs, as well as your recovery, on race day itself, the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro came out on top in terms of GPS accuracy. I also found it easier to use in the pouring rain, thanks to the extra buttons. Of course, this isn’t to say that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is inaccurate, but on this particular wet Sunday morning, Garmin was the winner.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: price, specs and features compared
• Here’s my favorite watchOS 27 upgrade — and it’s one nobody is really talking about

The iPad mini 8 marks the biggest redesign in years, although some key specs stay the same. One thing has changed: The price, and not for the better.

What's new compared to the iPad mini 7, and is now the right time to upgrade? We'll dig into the specs and compare the iPad mini 8 to our own review of the previous generation.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Specs

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Price and availability

Apple's iPad mini 8 was announced on October 26, 2026, with pre-orders opening on October 28 at 10:10 a.m. PT. The tablet ships starting on Friday, November 6.

Pricing for the iPad mini 8 starts at $699 for the 128GB Wi-Fi model, or $849 for the Wi-Fi + cellular model. Students and educators can score a discount, bringing the price down to $649 and up.

Swapping to nano-texture glass adds an extra $100, but the option is only available on the 256GB and 512GB models. Those higher-capacity iPads start at $799 and $999, respectively, and that's without the nano-texture glass.

This is a big price hike compared with the iPad mini 7's launch price: $499. Apple recently raised the price to $599 in June, along with the rest of its lineup. This new model adds another $100 on top in its cheapest configuration.

With this gen-to-gen price increase, the mini is just $50 below the 11-inch iPad Air.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Design

The new iPad mini looks familiar at a glance, but it should be noticeably slimmer. It measures 5.4mm thick compared to the iPad mini 7's 6.3mm. The Wi-Fi model weighs 0.56 pounds (255g) vs. 0.65 pounds (293g) on the iPad mini 7. In Apple's own words, it's the lightest iPad ever made.

The footprint barely changes, with the two iPads nearly identical in dimensions (7.69 x 5.22 x 0.21 inches vs. 7.69 x 5.3 x 0.25 inches for the iPad mini 8 and 7, respectively). That doesn't mean there are no hardware changes within, though. Apple still managed to fit a larger 8.5-inch screen by cutting the bezels by 24%, so you get more display in a tablet that's essentially the same size.

The bigger change is durability. Apple added IP67 water resistance, with the company claiming the tablet survived lab testing at a maximum depth of 1 meter for up to 30 minutes. It's the first water-resistant iPad, which is handy for travel and for use in the kitchen, for instance.

Color-wise, we're seeing a downgrade. The iPad mini 8 comes in midnight and starlight, while the iPad mini 7 offered four colors. There's still no Face ID.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Display

The display is the headline upgrade for the iPad mini 8, because Apple is finally bringing OLED to this line of iPads. It swaps the old 8.3-inch LCD for an 8.5-inch Super Retina XDR panel, increasing the resolution from 2266 x 1488 to 2316 x 1512, so pixel density stays at 326 ppi on the bigger screen.

Apple rates the contrast at 2,000,000:1, so expect bright, vivid colors and deep blacks. The iPad mini 8 could make a huge difference when you're watching movies or playing games.

The display is also significantly brighter. Apple rates the new mini at 600 nits for regular content, up from 500 nits on the mini 7 (we measured 493 nits in our review). HDR content peaks at double that, hitting 1,200 nits, and the screen can dim down to 1 nit, which makes reading in bed a lot less hard on your eyes.

There's also the new nano-texture option to cut glare, but as mentioned before, it'll cost extra across every model (except the 128GB, which doesn't have it). It's the same matte glass Apple offers on the iPad Pro.

One upgrade that's still missing from the mini is ProMotion. Apple hasn't listed it on the spec sheet, so we presume the iPad mini 8 will stay locked at 60Hz.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Performance

The iPad mini 8 runs on Apple's A20 Pro chip, the same 2nm chip as the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max. The iPad mini 7 uses the A17 Pro, built on a 3nm process and first found in the iPhone 15 Pro. That's a big generational jump between the two chips.

We won't know the actual performance figures until the new mini lands in our reviewers' hands, but we know Apple's claims for now, and they're big.

Apple promises up to 60% faster CPU performance and up to 2.7x faster graphics. AI performance gets a huge boost of up to 4.5x. Apple also says that memory bandwidth will more than double.

Not every iPad mini gets the same chip, though. The 128GB and 256GB models have a five-core CPU and a single 16-core Neural Engine. The priciest 512GB model gets the full power of the A20 Pro chip, with a six-core CPU and Apple's dual 16-core Neural Engine.

The fine print says Apple's 60% CPU figure comes from testing the six-core version. We can't imagine this will make or break the performance of the cheaper model, though.

Every iPad mini 8 gets the same seven-core GPU, up from five cores on the mini 7, with Neural Accelerators built into each core.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Battery life

There are no shake-ups in battery life between the iPad mini 8 and the mini 7. Apple rates both at up to 10 hours.

It appears that Apple chose to spend the 2nm efficiency gains on the brighter OLED panel. While battery life seems to have stayed the same, it's good news that it hasn't dropped with the other upgrades and the thinner chassis.

Apple says the mini 8 can reach 50% in about 30 minutes, but only with a 35W or higher charger, which is sold separately. Of course, our lab tests will reveal how long the new iPad mini can endure.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Audio and cameras

The iPad mini 8 uses what Apple calls an Acoustic Display: woofers that play through the screen for punchier bass and more volume, plus tweeters tucked between the glass and the aluminum frame. Apple got rid of speaker holes, and that must've played a part in the IP67 rating, since we're looking at a more sealed design.

The camera upgrades seem subtle at a glance, but they're not insignificant. The front camera has finally moved to the landscape edge, which fixes our biggest complaint from our iPad mini 7 review. With that said, it's still a 12MP Center Stage camera, but with a wider f/2.0 aperture (up from f/2.4). That could help in dim rooms.

The 12MP rear camera shoots 4K video at 60 fps as before. It also adds an Adaptive True Tone flash, which Apple says should improve document scanning.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Connectivity

The iPad mini 8 uses Apple's own N1 wireless chip. That brings you Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread support. That's an upgrade over the mini 7, which offered Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3.

Apple says N1 boosts performance on 5GHz networks and makes AirDrop and AirPlay more reliable. To make the most of Wi-Fi 7, you'll need a Wi-Fi 7 router, but it still offers solid future-proofing.

Cellular models switch to Apple's C2 modem, which Apple says delivers up to 50% faster data speeds than the mini 7 while using less battery life. Both iPad minis are eSIM-only.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Software and Siri AI

Both the iPad mini 8 and mini 7 run iPadOS 27 with Apple Intelligence and Siri AI. Siri AI is Apple's rebuilt assistant, which leans heavily on your personal context and understands what's on screen.

The difference is that only the newest iPad mini supports Apple's most advanced on-device model, which brings more expressive Siri voices and more accurate dictation. Siri AI recently got a sizeable upgrade that makes it more useful than ever, so this is good news for the new iPad.

iPad mini 8 vs. iPad mini 7: Is it time to upgrade?

Apple's iPad mini 8 brings a host of interesting upgrades, such as an OLED display, promised performance upgrades, and even water resistance. There's a lot to get excited about.

However, the iPad mini 7 is no slouch. When it first launched, we dubbed it the best iPad mini ever. If you're still using the iPad mini 7 and you're happy with its performance, you may not need to rush to upgrade unless the new OLED display really speaks to you. The steeper asking price could also be discouraging, unless you're using a much older iPad mini model.

With the iPad mini 8 launching on November 6, it won't be long until we can truly pit it against its predecessor to see if the upgrades make a significant difference. Expect a review from us soon, so stay tuned!

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple iPhone Duo 2 with Face ID is reportedly being tested even before the first foldable hits shelves
• I put the iPhone Duo vs. Galaxy Fold 8 through a 10-round photo face-off — and there's a clear winner
• 'Polished but rough': The common flaws in the iPhone Duo found by nine different reviewers

My 55-minute walk also included just under 500 feet of elevation gain with roughly three miles of ground covered. As a control, I separately logged my walk using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus.

Find the results of my Fitbit Edge versus Apple Watch Series 12 head-to-head fitness tracking performance test below, along with the five biggest takeaways from the data.

Fitbit Edge vs. Apple Watch 12

But first, it's worth calling out key differences in terms of cost, features, and intended user between these two modern devices. For instance, when it comes to full-featured wearables, the Apple Watch 12 is one of the best smartwatches you can buy.

The Fitbit Edge, meanwhile, has essentially zero smart features, but is still among the best fitness trackers on the market because it offers reliable, distraction-free holistic insights. Cost-wise, the Fitbit Edge starts at $179, and the Apple Watch 12 starts at $399.

While the Apple Watch 12 is for iOS users only, the Fitbit Edge brings Google's best health and fitness features to both Android and iOS devices.

Ultimately, when it comes to onboard holistic and tracking tech, the two are fairly evenly matched: Both models have GPS, barometric altimeters, and continuous heart rate monitors.

With that out of the way, on to the test results!

I walked 6,000 steps with the Fitbit Edge vs Apple Watch 12

1. Fitbit's step count is closer to the control

I walked precisely 6,094 steps during my 55-minute outing, according to the control data logged by Strava, a tally that the Fitbit Edge came ridiculously close to matching.

In terms of accuracy in these comparisons, my rule of thumb is that any step count within 100 steps of the control is excellent and well within a reasonable margin of error. With that in mind, Apple and Fitbit each performed seriously well. But while Apple undercounted by only 41 steps, the Fitbit Edge came within 15 steps of my actual total.

2. But Apple's total distance is more accurate

On the flip side, when it came to correctly logging my total distance, the Apple Watch Series 12 proved more accurate than the Fitbit Edge, with a tally that's just 0.06 miles off from Strava's measure.

The Fitbit Edge didn't do too badly, though, coming within 0.13 miles of the control data, a result I still deem more than acceptable.

3. Fitbit's climb data is spot-on

I just published my Fitbit Edge review, and one of the upgrades I'm most excited for is the onboard barometric altimeter for precise elevation tracking. The Edge's predecessor, 2023's Fitbit Charge 6, lacked this important piece of tech. While some wearables try to roughly calculate climb using GPS data, the Charge 6 never did.

The upgrade definitely paid off, because the Fitbit Edge logs uphill efforts with impressive reliability. For this test, the Edge's climb data is within four feet of the control. The Apple Watch 12, meanwhile, proved a little more generous with its climb data, a trend I've noted several times before in similar head-to-heads.

4. Apple's average heart rate is slightly higher than expected

I'm not sure if the Apple Watch 12 wasn't worn tightly enough (or maybe too tightly), but the logged average heart rate of 133 bpm for this brisk yet not overly demanding walk is slightly higher than I expected, especially when compared to heart rate data from walks of similar effort (~120 bpm tends to be my average).

That said, the Fitbit Edge's average heart rate is slightly lower than anticipated, though the max pace is much more aligned with what I've come to expect from such a workout.

5. Apple's pace is closer to the control, but Fitbit wins overall

Finally, Apple's average pace data is much more closely aligned with Strava's. Fitbit's tally, meanwhile, I'd label as "slower than expected," especially given the fact that I was moving briskly and barely paused at any point during the walk.

That said, the Edge logged several additional minutes of workout time compared to Strava and Apple (it was the last device I ended my workout on), which might be the reason for the sluggishness.

Ultimately, pace aside, I'm calling the Fitbit Edge the winner for this head-to-head fitness tracking showdown versus the Apple Watch Series 12. Not only did the Edge log a more accurate step count, but it also beat Apple at logging my climb and heart rate (even if the Apple Watch was closer in terms of distance and pace).

Of course, I'd happily trust either device as my daily fitness tracker. Which begs the question: Which of these two 2026 wearables would you rather own? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Venu 4 — here's the winner
• Apple Watch Series 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Which new Apple Watch should you buy?
• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

Both of them are “smart” feeders, in that you can control them with an app, and they both have cameras, so you can watch your kitties as they eat. Even better: Both have battery backups, so you don’t have to worry about them going hungry if the power goes out.

A feeder with a view

The first feeder I tried is the Molly&Cody Smart Feeder 6L Camera. This $99 feeder’s standout feature is that it has a small camera right above the bowl, so you can get a live view of your furballs eating.

While the feeder’s camera (720p, 120º field of view) isn’t going to rival the best home security cameras, it was more than clear enough for me to see my little furballs as they chowed down on their food.

Of course, when they’re eating, you pretty much see just the tops of their heads and ears. From the live feed, you can also press a microphone button to talk to your pets, though it mostly confused my cats.

In addition to the live feed, you can also record photos and videos of them eating, though you have to manually perform this action — you can’t have it automatically take a picture every time they come to get a bite.

The other feature I really liked was that it has a battery backup. While you need to supply the three D-cell batteries yourself, it ensures that your pets will continue to be fed even if the power goes out.

I also liked the simplicity of the feeder mechanism. The food sits in a hopper on the top, and is fed into the bowl via a small wheel with spokes that turns, not unlike a gumball machine. PetSafe’s mechanism is essentially a large conveyor belt that looks like an escalator; it’s more complex, and while it worked well for several years, it’s been jamming more frequently, which means our kitties haven’t been getting their food.

The biggest pet peeve I have with the Molly&Cody Smart Feeder is that its bowl is pretty small, and is more suited to a single pet. As a result, my two cats constantly pushed each other to the side to eat. Generally, this meant that the younger cat chowed down while my older cat waited his turn.

Dual-bowl delight

Feeling bad for my older cat, I then called in the OneIsAll dual-bowl feeder. This looks a lot like the Molly&Cody model, but it has two bowls on either side of the base.

I liked this one even better. For starters, the app will give you notifications when your cats are actually eating, rather than just when it dispenses food, and it also has a sensor that lets you know if the hopper is running low.

The OneIsAll app is a bit more polished, too — it’s a more intuitive design, showing when your pets ate, and you can also create profiles for your pets. There’s even a microSD card slot, so you can have it automatically record and save videos. You can also save videos to the cloud, but that requires a subscription; I’m not sure it’s quite worth that investment.

OneIsAll says that the cameras on the feeder deliver 1080p night vision; It’s plenty fine, but as with the Molly&Cody, once your cats start eating, all you get is a super-closeup view of their head. If they’re eating from the side, you can look straight into their ear canal.

I also found it was easier to clean the hopper of the OneIsAll model; it has two simple push-button latches to separate it from the rest of the machine. Like the Molly&Cody, it also uses the pinball machine-like method to dispense food.

The feeder we're using

Ultimately, my cats were pretty indifferent as to which one they liked better, so long as they were getting fed. From my perspective, both feeders worked well. One fun feature with each is that they have a built-in speaker, so you can talk to your pets from your phone. When I tried it, it mostly confused and startled my cats.

I’d have to give the nod to the OneIsAll model for its little extras, like the nicer app, the low food notification, and the fact that it’s easier to save videos. The company also sells a single-bowl model that’s only $50. It lacks a camera, but does have a battery backup, which in the end, might be the most important feature of all.

More from The Gadget Dad

• I tested the Pinwheel, Ring Ring, Tin Can and Waffle phones for kids; here’s which came out on top
• Home Depot 12-foot Skelly vs. Lowe’s 15-Foot Watcher: I put Halloween's biggest decorations to the test in my yard
• I’ve been using the BirdBuddy Home for nearly a year — 3 things I love about this smart bird feeder, and 2 I don’t

​Next up, though, it faces another formidable challenger: the Nissan Pathfinder — a well-known model that's been hauling families across American roads for decades. This is an intriguing matchup, especially since the Pathfinder’s $57,275 as-tested price undercuts the Telluride’s $59,580 sticker.

​After living with both for a week to evaluate their driving dynamics, real-world fuel economy, and seating, I’ll break down which mid-size SUV offers the best balance of versatility, rugged styling, and everyday value to claim the class benchmark.

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Specifications

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Design

​When it comes to curb appeal, it largely comes down to personal preference, as both of these family haulers take distinctive approaches to exterior styling.

The Nissan Pathfinder sticks to a cleaner, more traditional three-row profile, anchored by its upright V-Motion grille. With this Platinum trim, I really love how the two-tone paint job makes the red body pop when the sun hits it just right, while the contrasting black roof and dark wheel accents strike the perfect visual balance. Compared to Kia’s approach, Nissan’s styling doesn’t feel forced or overdone. It’s an honest SUV that looks right at home in any driveway.

By contrast, the Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro leans into a modern, urban aesthetic. While some drivers might be intimidated by its blocky, tank-like demeanor, its chiseled geometry and sharper body lines command immediate attention. With a matte finish, vertical LED lighting signatures, flush door handles, and lifted 20-inch wheels, it delivers an imposing road presence that sets it apart from almost every other three-row crossover I've tested this year, except the BMW XM Label.

​I genuinely appreciate both design philosophies because the Pathfinder nails that no-nonsense utility, while the Telluride beams with this high-end, contemporary swagger.

Winner: tie

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Fuel economy

​Since three-row SUVs are built for road trips, school drop-offs, and weekend getaways that prioritize passenger space, it's no surprise they typically have a big appetite for gasoline. After spending a week behind the wheel of each SUV across a mix of highway stretches and local suburban drives, the Nissan Pathfinder took a decisive victory at the pump.

​I logged 151.7 miles in the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum 4WD, achieving an impressive overall average of 23.9 mpg — easily surpassing its EPA combined rating of 22 mpg. By comparison, the heavier 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD averaged a respectable 22.6 mpg over 352.5 miles.

​While the Telluride also beat its EPA estimate, the Pathfinder was the more efficient hauler across the board. The biggest gap emerged on short-distance drives, where I recorded an outstanding 25.6 mpg average on the Pathfinder's best run — a substantial advantage over the Telluride’s 14.1 mpg mark. On the open highway, the gap narrowed, with the Pathfinder hitting a peak long-distance 26.8 mpg and holding a modest edge over the Telluride’s 26 mpg average.

​Even though both crossovers stretch their legs efficiently on the highway, the Pathfinder’s consistent economy gives it the overall edge, saving drivers noticeable cash between fill-ups.

​Winner: Nissan Pathfinder

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Driving performance

Despite their burly looks, these mid-size three-row SUVs are surprisingly easy to drive—far more manageable than full-size haulers I’ve tested, like the GMC Yukon Denali and Infiniti QX80. That means I can easily maneuver them through tight parking spaces and crowded city streets without breaking a sweat.

Under the hood of the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum 4WD sits a naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V6 engine pumping out 284 horsepower and 259 lb-ft of torque. Meanwhile, the 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD makes do with a 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine that puts down 274 horsepower and a stout 311 lb-ft of torque.

While the Telluride delivers ample punch thanks to that extra low-end turbo shove, I still preferred being behind the wheel of the Pathfinder. That comes down to how its V6 delivers buttery-smooth, progressive throttle response the instant I need it. The Telluride handles busy highway merges and two-lane passes with ease, but the Pathfinder simply executes them more naturally—and with less hesitation.

Factor in the Pathfinder’s tighter body control around corners and more communicative steering, and Nissan’s family SUV feels distinctly more agile and confidence-inspiring during daily commutes.

Winner: Nissan Pathfinder

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Comfort

I don’t have a strong preference for their front seats, as both the driver and passenger perches are exceptionally comfortable on long highway stretches. Instead, the deciding factor in this category boils down to passenger space and overall cargo capacity.

The Nissan Pathfinder Platinum delivers a first-class cabin experience in the second row, courtesy of semi-aniline quilted leather-appointed seating, heated and ventilated front seats, and second-row manual sunshades. I’m especially pleased to see second-row captain’s chairs included on this trim, complete with a removable center console between them that makes walking back to the third-row bench effortless. In terms of usable space, the Pathfinder provides 35.5 inches of second-row legroom and 28 inches in the third row. Behind that third row, you get 16.6 cubic feet of trunk space.

The Kia Telluride SX-Prestige, however, offers a level of cabin refinement and stretch-out room that makes it my clear favorite. In addition to heated and ventilated front power seats, its Ergo Motion driver's seat helps combat fatigue on road trips with subtle massaging adjustments.

The Telluride goes a step further with heated and ventilated second-row captain’s chairs, plus a much more expansive 42.4 inches of second-row legroom and 31.4 inches in the third row. That extra third-row legroom matters because it lets me seat adults back there without hesitation, rather than keeping it strictly to small children. That spatial advantage carries right over to the trunk, where the Telluride commands 21 cubic feet of room behind the third row.

While the Pathfinder’s executive-like appointments give it a truly luxurious vibe, the Telluride simply provides more room to breathe across all three rows and holds significantly more gear when traveling with a full crew.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Value

For what they cost, both SUVs deliver features well beyond their entry-level trims—elevating them nearly to the same level of refinement as traditional luxury vehicles.

On the tech front, the 2026 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum comes fully equipped with a head-up display, magnetic wireless charging pad, panoramic moonroof, and a 360-degree camera system. Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist suite manages safety and driver assistance, performing smoothly on open highways by keeping the vehicle centered in its lane while maintaining a safe gap from traffic ahead.

However, the 2027 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Pro AWD makes an overwhelmingly strong case for its $59,580 as-tested price. For the roughly $2,300 premium over the Pathfinder, Kia loads this flagship trim with amenities that often command thousands more in dedicated luxury-brand crossovers.

Up front, you’re greeted by a sweeping dual 12.3-inch Panoramic Display, paired with a head-up display, digital rearview mirror, 115V inverter outlet, panoramic sunroof, blind-spot camera monitors, and a dual wireless phone charger. What sets it apart is the ability to engage lane-centering assist with a single press of a dedicated steering wheel button, which functions on both highways and local roads. Beyond its smooth adaptive cruise control, I really appreciate how the instrument cluster automatically feeds live blind-spot camera angles the second I signal a lane change.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Verdict

This Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride matchup turned out to be a much closer race than I initially expected. In fact, I thought it would be a runaway victory for the Telluride — but after driving the Pathfinder for a week, I was proven wrong.

Ultimately, this head-to-head matchup ends in a dead heat, with each vehicle playing to its own unique strengths. I recommend the Nissan Pathfinder if you prefer a traditional look, better real-world fuel economy, and a naturally aspirated V6 that delivers a genuinely more engaging drive. At $57,275 as-tested, it undercuts the competition while still packing a luxurious interior, generous second-row amenities, and proven family utility.

On the flip side, go with the Kia Telluride if you want maximum passenger utility, modern urban styling, and a cabin overflowing with convenience tech. With its adult-friendly third row, larger cargo hold, dual 12.3-inch panoramic display, second-row ventilated seats, and an unbeatable 10-year warranty, the Telluride effortlessly justifies its $59,580 sticker price.

Nissan Pathfinder vs. Kia Telluride: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

Samsung has almost a decade of experience making foldables, and the fresh new look of the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 shows that it's not given up trying new things just yet. Even if it emphasizes the compact (and arguably more comfortable) design, rather than the flashy features you'll find on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra.

The thing we want to know is which of these two passport-shaped foldables is actually the better choice for you. Now that we've had chance to test the iPhone Duo in all its glory, here's our full comparison of the iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 to help you decide.

iPhone Duo vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Specifications

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Price & availability

Both the iPhone Duo and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 are officially on sale right now. But if you want to get technical about it, demand for the Duo has been so extreme that every single carrier and retailer is sold out — and will be for the foreseeable future.

Current iPhone Duo wait times mean the absolute earliest time you'll get an iPhone Duo is the end of November, though most retailers and carriers have delivery estimates in late December and January. The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 is readily available, and is actually on sale at retailers like Amazon.

The cost of an iPhone Duo starts at $1,999 / £1,999 / AU$3,499 for a model with 256GB of storage. Higher storage options are available including 512GB ($2,199 / £2,199 / AU$3,899), 1TB ($2,599 / £2,599 / AU$4,699) and 2TB ($3,199 / £3,199 / AU$5,899).

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 prices start at $1,899/£1,699/AU$2,699 for 256GB of storage and 12GB RAM. The 512GB model is $2,099 / £1,869 / AU$2,999, and a 1TB model with 16GB of RAM costs $2,499 / £2,209 / AU$3,599. Samsung does not offer a 2TB storage option.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Design & Display

The iPhone Duo and Z Fold 8 both have the passport-shaped design that is starting to take the foldable phone market by storm. Both phones include a large 7.6-inch foldable display with an aspect ratio close to 4:3, which is the same kind of display you'll find on the best tablets.

The Z fold 8 has a slightly larger outer display, though, with a 5.5-inch screen to Apple's 5.4-inches. The sharp corners also mean there's a little more real estate for the apps to work with compared to Apple's asymmetrical rounded design.

The Z Fold 8 features an anti-glare coating which is designed to improve visibility in low-light conditions. The iPhone Duo features a nano-texture display, which offers a matte feel to the screen. This is also designed to minimize glare, while also reducing the visibility of the crease. While the phone does accomplish both those things, the nano-texture display doesn't have nearly as good color saturation and contrast as Samsung's main display.

Both phones have similar brightness levels on the screen, though we found that the Z Fold 8 is a little bit brighter. In our testing Samsung's foldable had a peak brightness of 2,649 nits, while the iPhone maxed out at 2,558. It's less than 90 nits difference, which isn't going to be noticeable to many, but the numbers don't lie.

In terms of design, the iPhone Duo is noticeably thicker and heavier than the Galaxy Z Fold 8. Samsung's foldable is 4.5mm thick with a weight of 7.09 ounces. Meanwhile, the iPhone Duo is 5.2mm thick and weights 8.96 ounces. Not only is that almost two ounces more than the Z Fold 8, it also means this is the heaviest iPhone Apple has ever made.

Both phones feature power-button fingerprint scanners, and a pair of main cameras on the back of the phone. However while they also utilize the hole-punch camera design on the cover display, only the Galaxy uses the same one for the inner selfie camera. Apple instead opted for an under-display camera that's specifically meant for FaceTime and video calling — not selfies.

iPhone Duo has a key advantage where durability is concerned, thanks to the IP68 rating. This means that the phone is fully sealed against dust ingress, something that the IP48-rated Z Fold 8 offers no protection against. However both offer protection against being submerged in water for a short period of time.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Cameras

From a hardware standpoint, both the Z Fold 8 and iPhone Duo should be fairly evenly matched in the camera department. Apple has equipped its foldable with a pair of 48MP cameras (main and ultrawide) while Samsung has a pair of 50MP lenses.

Neither phone has a telephoto lens, which means your zoomed in shots will not be that impressive.

Of course, modern phone cameras heavily rely on computational photography software, and that can easily make the most difference in photo comparisons. So let's take a look at photos from both phones.

Both phones have capable main cameras, capturing bright colors with a lot of detail. It's worth noting that while the Z Fold 8 is able to capture brighter images, the photos end up a little more washed out in the process.

It's a similar situation with the ultrawide camera too. The iPhone Duo struggled with the darker spots within view, but the brightness on the Z Fold 8 is ramped up by so much that it completely washed out the background details and makes the details much harder to discern.

In terms of Zoom, the Duo and Z Fold 8 are fairly evenly matched, but as the magnification increases, the worse the quality on the Duo actually gets. At 10x magnification, you can see that the Duo is noticeably blurry and more pixelated than the Z Fold 8 — even though its own zoomed shots are nowhere near as good as they could have been with a dedicated telephoto lens.

Photos from the outer selfie camera are a little more clear cut, with the iPhone Duo producing a sharper and less blurry image, without the same washed out effect that seems to be plaguing the Z Fold 8's camera

The iPhone Duo offers noticeably better performance in low light, too. Both cameras managed to brighten up the image, but the Duo managed to produce a noticeably sharper photo than the Samsung.

Overall it seems as though the iPhone Duo has the edge in the camera department. While the Z Fold 8 doesn't take bad photos, and the iPhone Duo has its flaws, the fact is that Apple's foldable seems to do a much better job of capturing its surroundings in a more lifelike way — and without producing a washed out images that loses its spark. If you're looking for a deeper dive, our iPhone Duo vs. Galaxy Z Fold 8 camera face-off has more samples to check out.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Performance

Apple has already proven that the A20 Pro chipset is an absolute powerhouse of graphics and computing power on the iPhone 18 Pro. To the point where it trumps the Z Fold 8's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 Chipset for Galaxy in almost every category. But does that still hold true for the iPhone Duo?

Yes, as it turns out, and you can see the figures below.

It turns out that, per the benchmarking tests, there isn't a whole lot of difference in performance on the iPhone Duo compared to the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max. The figures aren't identical, but they do outpace the Z Fold 8 in everything except AI performance.

Geekbench 7 benchmarks produced scores of 4,007 for a single-core benchmark and 11,363 for multi-core testing — far in excess of the Z Fold 8's 2,978 and 9,811. Similarly 3DMark's Solar Bay Unlimited graphics test came out with a score of 16,496 and an average frame-rate of 62.3 fps. Sadly the Z Fold 8 only managed to produce 12,454 and 47.35 fps.

AI is a different story, though. The Z Fold 8 scored 72,242 in the Geekbench AI 1.7 test, compared to the Duo's 69,438. This means that on-device AI processing should be slightly better on Samsung's foldable.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Software & AI

Apple's made a bunch of major advances in AI this year, thanks to the launch of iOS 27 and Siri AI. This upgraded assistant is capable of performing various different and more complicated tasks, as well as understanding personal context that helps it understand your commands much more easily.

On top of that, iOS 27 features expressive voices for Siri, more advanced dictation, and AI-powered editing features such as Clean Up, Extend and the unique "Reframe" that lets you adjust the angle of your photos. Outside of features available on other iPhones, the Duo comes with a Smart tracking camera feature, which operates in a similar manner to MyFanCam on the Z Fold 8.

The Z Fold 8 comes with all the best Galaxy AI features you'll find on every flagship Galaxy phone, plus all the best parts of Google Gemini. This includes Now Nudge, a context-based tool to resurface relevant information when you need it, Now Brief's regular preparatory reports and the advanced version of Circle to Search that's capable of identifying multiple items at once.

However, the Duo has some drawbacks to its overall UI. The main one is that the taskbar has been pinned to the right side of the screen, with no option to change it — compared to Samsung's traditional bar along the bottom of the phone.

The Duo's multitasking is also limited to running two apps side by side, and doesn't work as consistently when the phone is in portrait mode. The Z Fold 8 supports up to three split-screen apps and as many as five floating app windows — giving it the edge for productive multitasking. The Z Fold 8 also supports the DeX desktop mode, and so far there's no equivalent feature on iPhones.

Right now it feels like Samsung may have an edge with app optimization too. Apple has done a lot to ensure major apps take advantage of the iPhone Duo's larger screen, but Samsung has a head start of several years — and the fact Android itself runs on a huge number of devices of differing sizes.

Only the iPhone Duo offers stylus support, thanks to the Apple Pencil USB-C. Likewise, the Z Fold 8 doesn't fracture Samsung's Flex Mode, which adjusts the UI depending on the angle of the hinge. The Duo does do this, and has multiple different fold states to take advantage of.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Battery

When it comes to total battery capacity, the iPhone Duo and Galaxy Z Fold 8 are pretty evenly matched. The Duo offers 4,883 mAh of power reserves, while the Z Fold 8 is slightly lower at 4,800 mAh. However the slight difference in capacity has led to very different results in our battery life testing.

The iPhone Duo lasted 13 hours and 20 minutes in a new version of our battery test, which was optimized for the iPhone Duo. In that same test, which ran simultaneously, the Z Fold 8 only lasted 10 hours and six minutes — which is not particularly great in the grand scheme of things.

Previously the Z Fold 8 has lasted 12hours and 19 minutes in testing, but that's no longer the case — and the current battery life is much lower. However, whichever way you look at it, the iPhone Duo has the clear advantage.

However, the Z Fold 8 has a slight edge when it comes to charging speed, despite the fact its 45W wired charging is noticeably lower than the iPhone Duo's 60W. The Duo reclaimed 42% battery in 15 minutes, compared to the Z Fold 8's 43%, with both numbers rising to a respective 66% and 70%.

It's not a huge amount of difference, but if you want to recoup as much power as you can as quickly as possible, the Z Fold 8 actually has Apple beat. Though its wireless charging speed is limited to 20W, compared to the Duo's 25W, and it lacks the internal magnets that facilitate Qi2 or MagSafe chargers and accessories.

iPhone Duo vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: Bottom line

Apple has done great things with the iPhone Duo, and it manages to edge out competition from the Galaxy Z Fold 8 in a number of key areas. The main ones, of course, being battery life, performance, overall camera performance and the fact it has stylus support.

That said, the Z Fold 8 offers a lot and it feels like it has Apple beat when it comes to AI and software capabilities. Not to mention the fact it's cheaper, thinner and lighter than Apple's foldable, and the anti-glare coating means the colors from the screen really pop compared to the iPhone.

When deciding between the two, it's going to come down to what you actually want out of a foldable. If you value the software experience above all else, then the Z Fold 8 is going to be the right option for you. But if you like Apple products, and prefer a phone that is physically more capable, then the Duo might be the better option.

Then again, considering the iPhone Duo is sold out everywhere, and you're going to have to wait at least several weeks before you can actually get your hands on one.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple iPhone Duo 2 with Face ID is reportedly being tested even before the first foldable hits shelves
• I put the iPhone Duo vs. Galaxy Fold 8 through a 10-round photo face-off — and there's a clear winner
• 'Polished but rough': The common flaws in the iPhone Duo found by nine different reviewers

We found that the loss of the telephoto lens was detrimental to the quality of zoomed in shots on the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 compared to the Z Fold 8 Ultra. That doesn't bode well for the Duo, even if Apple's cameras operate very differently than Samsung's — especially on the software side of things.

So we decided to do some testing to find out exactly what the deal was, comparing the Duo to both the iPhone 18 Pro Max and the telephoto-less Galaxy Z Fold 8. Here's what we found.

2x magnification

Like the iPhone 18 Pro Max, the iPhone Duo has something Apple calls "optical quality 2x telephoto" capabilities. This is essentially a form of digital zoom, which takes a photo with the 48MP main camera and crops it down to 12MP — imitating magnification in the process. The main cameras aren't identical, but they are pretty close from a hardware perspective.

It's no surprise that the photo quality isn't that different at 2x magnification. There is some difference in sharpness and overall quality in the iPhone Duo's favor, as well as some over-exposure on the iPhone 18 Pro Max. But, overall, the two photos are close enough that the majority of people won't see the difference.

As for Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold 8, we can see a little more sharpness and color saturation at 2x magnification, but overall the amount of differences between the two phones are pretty meager.

4x magnification

The iPhone 18 Pro Max's tetraprism telephoto lens tops out at 4x optical zoom, so it's no surprise that it can take much higher-quality photos at this magnification than the iPhone Duo. That's fairly noticeable at the offset, especially if you look at the wooden pillar in the foreground, but the more you zoom in the more the quality and sharpness degrades on the Duo's photo.

The Z Fold 8 also has the slight edge when it comes to those same factors. While the iPhone 18 Pro Max still trumps Samsung's telephoto-less foldable, the level of detail captured by the Z Fold 8 at 4x zoom is noticeably better than that of the iPhone Duo.

8x magnification

If you up the zoom to 8x magnification, you can see that the quality difference is even more pronounced between the two iPhones. No doubt thanks to the 8x "optical quality" camera, the iPhone 18 Pro Max still offers a sharp image that captures a fairly high-quality photo.

Meanwhile, the iPhone Duo is noticeably degraded, and that's most obvious on the letters, which are starting to turn blurry and pixelated, and even starting to merge together in the case of some of the smallest lettering.

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 looks a little better than the Duo, though it is noticeably worse quality than the iPhone 18 Pro Max. The lettering and details are getting pixelated, but the details are still sharper than those captured by Apple's foldable. That's especially noticeable on the logo at the rear of the boat, which is sharper and has better-defined shapes than the fuzzier image on the iPhone Duo.

10x magnification

It's a very similar story at 10x magnification, and it shows just how well the iPhone 18 Pro Max's "optical quality" zoom is able to perform. The flagship's pseudo-zoom stretches to 16x magnification, and you can't really see any loss of quality at this particular level. Meanwhile, the iPhone Duo looks slightly worse than it did at 8x magnification, with slightly more visible blurring to the finer details on display.

You can see the quality start to drop on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 as well. Letters are getting fuzzy, details on the logo are even more blurred, and the grain on the wooden post in the foreground is starting to merge together. It still has a slight edge over the iPhone Duo, but it's catching up to Apple's foldable fast — which isn't a good thing.

Beyond 10x

The iPhone Duo's magnification maxes out at 10x, so we can't actually compare its capabilities further. Which is a shame, considering the iPhone 18 Pro Max extends all the way up to 40x zoom — a point in which AI plays a much bigger role in the quality of the photo in question.

The quality still holds up at 20x zoom, which is pretty incredible considering how much degradation there was on both the iPhone Duo and Galaxy Z Fold 8. Things start to get worse for wear at 40x, even with help from AI, but the damage is mostly relegated to minor blurring and pixelation on the different parts of the image.

It's not the greatest picture in the world, but it's much clearer and pleasant to look at compared to the 10x shots on the iPhone Duo and Z Fold 8.

Bottom line

The iPhone Duo's zoomed-in shots started off pretty strong, thanks to the 2x optical quality camera mode, but things started going downhill pretty fast. It even starts falling behind the Galaxy Z Fold 8, and while the difference isn't as large as it is with the iPhone 18 Pro Max, it does paint the iPhone Duo's zooming capabilities in a particularly bad light.

Still, it's obvious to everyone that the iPhone 18 Pro Max's zooming camera outclasses the iPhone Duo in every way. The tetraprism lens, in conjunction with up to 16x optical quality zoom, managed to maintain a high quality picture for a surprisingly long time. Which just goes to show that the telephoto lens isn't quite as frivolous as it seems — and here's hoping that the inevitable iPhone Duo 2 adds that all important third camera lens.

More from Tom's Guide

• I put the iPhone Duo vs. Galaxy Fold 8 through a 10-round photo face-off — here’s the winner
• iPhone Duo full benchmarks — the world's fastest foldable, but how does it stack up to iPhone 18 Pro?
• iPhone Duo wait times — latest updates and how to beat Apple's January delay

From spotting a suspicious USPS text to understanding Medicare, planning affordable dinners, and choosing a new smartphone, I gave both chatbots five identical prompts based on real-life situations. I wanted to know which chatbot could give clear, accurate and genuinely useful advice without making things more complicated than necessary.

The results surprised me. One chatbot handled practical details better, while the other seemed to understand when less information was actually more helpful. Here's how they compared.

1. The suspicious text test

Prompt: I just got this text message: 'USPS: Your package could not be delivered due to an incomplete address. Update your information within 24 hours at usps-redelivery-help.com, or your package will be returned.' I'm expecting a package this week. Is this legitimate? Explain how you can tell, what I should do next and what could happen if I click the link. Please don't use technical jargon.

Grok answered correctly, correctly identified the fake domain, and clearly explained how real USPS tracking works. It mentioned that you could report the text to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service or FTC, but unlike ChatGPT, it gave no specific instructions, phone numbers, or email addresses for how to actually do so.

ChatGPT immediately stated that the text is almost certainly a scam and advised not to click the link. It used a clear, scannable table breaking down scenarios step-by-step (e.g., clicking without entering details vs. entering payment info vs. downloading malware). It also highlighted the key trick scammers use: asking for a small "redelivery fee" to steal credit card data (which USPS does not charge). It also provided reporting channels, including forwarding the message to 7726 (SPAM) and emailing spam@uspis.gov.

Winner: ChatGPT wins for delivering a more comprehensive, actionable answer that addressed every part of your prompt while keeping the tone clear and accessible.

2. The Medicare confusion test

Prompt: I'm turning 65 next year, and I don't understand Medicare. Explain the difference between Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D like you're talking to a friend over coffee. What's the difference between Original Medicare and Medicare Advantage? What are three expensive mistakes I should avoid? Keep it under 400 words and tell me what information I should verify before enrolling.

Grok kept its response under 400 words, nailed the conversational tone, and included accurate financial figures, noting the Part B premium for 2026 as around $203/month

ChatGPT provided a good response but exceeded the word count, used a standard informational guide structure with a table, and included extraneous metadata at the bottom that didn’t feel helpful or necessary for the average person.

Winner: Grok wins for better executing the specific parameters requested by the prompt.

3. The grocery budget challenge

Prompt: I'm cooking dinner for two adults for five nights this week, and I only have $65 to spend on groceries. We don't eat seafood, and I don't want anything that takes more than 30 minutes to prepare. Create five different dinners, one combined shopping list with estimated U.S. supermarket prices, and show me the total. Reuse ingredients to save money, and don't assume I already have anything except salt, pepper and cooking oil.

Grok delivered a solid list of meals and kept the price low, but it failed on several key details requested by the prompt, including assuming missing ingredients, unrealistic grocery quantities (1.5 lbs of chicken is barely enough meat to split across 3 separate meat-heavy dinners), and vague cooking guidance.

ChatGPT strictly adhered to the “no pantry” constraint, included necessary flavorings and mapped out meal prep details specifically using the items. It also provided an incredibly comprehensive shopping list with pricing.

Winner: ChatGPT wins for providing a significantly more practical, thorough and well-executed response.

4. The family text dilemma

Prompt: My adult daughter keeps asking me to babysit my grandchildren at the last minute. I love spending time with them, but I'm retired and have my own plans. I want to set boundaries without hurting her feelings or making her think I don't want to help. Write a text message I can send that's loving, warm and firm. It should sound like a real parent, not a therapist or a corporate email. Keep it under 100 words.

Grok struck the perfect balance between warmth and firm boundary-setting ("they’re the absolute best part of my week... just need a little heads-up so I can make it work"). It felt completely natural and authentic for a parent to send via text. It also offered an actionable solution with clear, manageable expectations without sounding demanding.

ChatGPT drafted a warm, loving text, but it exceeded the word count and tone constraints. The “Just because I’m retried doesn’t mean I’m free!” was a bit preachy and the “I need you to understand…” could come across as slightly sharp or defensive.

Winner: Grok wins for nailing both the word restraint and the requested tone.

5. The new phone decision

Prompt: I'm 68 and need a new smartphone. My current phone is slow, and I don't want to spend more than $500. I mostly use it for taking pictures of my grandchildren, texting, Facebook, video calls and looking things up. I want a good battery, a screen that's easy to read and a phone that will last at least four years. Compare three phones I can buy in the U.S. right now, explain the pros and cons without technical jargon, and recommend just one. Include current prices and links to verify them.

Grok understood the primary goal and correctly recognized that the Google Pixel line excels at taking sharp, motion-blur-free photos of moving kids and recommended the Google Pixel 9a. It kept technical jargon to a minimum and explained features in plain language.

ChatGPT included some good overall advice (like asking the store to increase text size), but it stumbled on key parts of its recommendation and source selection, including contradictory recommendations and questionable third-party retailer links.

Winner: Grok wins for a much better recommendation and experience by accurately prioritizing the user's primary requirement while keeping formatting clean and straightforward.

Overall winner: Grok

Going into these tests, I expected ChatGPT to have the edge, especially when it came to explaining complicated topics and helping with everyday decisions. And in some cases, it absolutely did. Its advice on spotting a USPS scam was more thorough and actionable, and its grocery plan was much more realistic for someone working with a strict budget.

But Grok surprised me by doing something equally important: knowing when to keep things simple. It delivered a clearer Medicare explanation, wrote a more natural family text and made a stronger smartphone recommendation without overwhelming the reader with unnecessary details.

For anyone who wants detailed, step-by-step guidance, ChatGPT remains an excellent choice. But for people who just want a straightforward answer they can understand and use immediately, Grok proved surprisingly capable.

More from Tom's Guide

• Your Mac has a free AI chatbot hiding in plain sight — here's how
• “A cyber compromise could potentially translate into unsafe physical behavior”: how AI worms could threaten cars and drones
• Google just cut down 250,000 trees for AI data centers — and now it's facing a major backlash

The Coros Pace 4 Pro is one of the best sports watches to come out this year, and I’ve kept it on since testing it for my review to use as my main running watch during marathon training.

It’s a key competitor to Garmin’s Forerunner line-up, and the Garmin Forerunner 570 in particular, which lacks a key feature the Pace 4 Pro has in the shape of offline maps.

However, the Forerunner 570 does outshine the cheaper Coros in some areas, most notably smart features and training analysis, and it comes in two sizes.

I’ve run hundreds of miles with both watches individually in testing, and also wore them both for a run to test them head-to-head.

I’ve outlined the key differences to consider below, and for more details on either, check our Coros Pace 4 Pro review and Garmin Forerunner 570 review.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: price

The Coros Pace 4 Pro is the cheaper watch, costing $449/£389 compared to $549.99/£459.99 for the Forerunner 570. That’s at full price, but it’s worth noting the Forerunner 570 is reduced quite regularly to $449, the same price as the Coros.

Right now, the Pace 4 Pro only comes in one size with two colors: black and white. The Forerunner 570 comes in two sizes — 42mm and 47mm — with three colors available in each size.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: design and display

The Forerunner 570 has some design advantages purely in terms of the choice on offer — there are brighter colors available and having the smaller size option is great for those with smaller wrists.

I also slightly prefer the five-button design on the Garmin to the three buttons on the Coros, one of which is a digital dial, just because I sometimes set off the dial accidentally and find it less precise than buttons.

Both are attractive watches with bright AMOLED displays, but the Coros has a larger screen at 1.47 in to 1.4 in on the 47mm Forerunner 570 I tested (1.2 in on the 42mm watch), and it also uses more durable materials.

The Pace 4 Pro has a titanium bezel and sapphire crystal screen, whereas the Forerunner 570 has a Gorilla Glass screen and aluminum bezel. The sapphire crystal display in particular is a bonus for me as someone who has scratched glass screens in the past on runs.

Both 47mm watches feel light on the wrist, with the Coros being a little thinner, but the Garmin a little lighter. I found both comfortable to wear 24/7.

You get more storage on the Pace 4 Pro, which has 32GB of space compared with 8GB on the Garmin, which makes room for the maps you can download to the Coros.

Neither watch has a built-in flashlight, which is surprising for the Forerunner 570 since it’s a feature that is found on many Garmins, including the Venu 4 at the same price.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: sports tracking and training analysis

Both watches offer a wide array of sports modes, including track run, triathlon and open water swimming, with lots of stats available for the main sports of running, cycling and swimming in particular.

Though it doesn’t have all the training analysis features found on pricier Garmins, the Forerunner 570 does offer more features in this area than the Coros Pace 4 Pro.

One notable extra is Garmin’s Training Readiness rating, which condenses a lot of the data it tracks into one score you can use to guide your approach to training on any given day.

I also think Garmin does a better job of showing its training analysis in an engaging and easy-to-understand way.

The Coros does offer a good level of insight into your training, though, including info on your overall training load, VO2 max estimates, race predictions, and a recovery advisor. I don’t think the Pace 4 Pro is lacking in this area, but the Garmin does offer more.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: GPS and heart rate accuracy

Throughout testing, I kept constant tabs on the GPS accuracy of the watches by checking their tracks and looking at the pacing and distance stats in comparison to other top watches.

I also raced with both to see if they lined up with the official race distances, and both have been excellent for me with regard to GPS accuracy. I used the most accurate multi-band mode in both watches and haven’t experienced any noticeable errors with either.

To check their heart rate accuracy, I compared them with the readings from a chest strap sensor for a variety of workouts.

Both impressed again, but the odd error did creep in, I’d say more noticeably with the Coros Pace 4 Pro, which would show the occasional incorrect spike in heart rate and lag behind the chest strap more noticeably during interval sessions.

I’d call it a draw on GPS accuracy and give the Garmin an edge on heart rate accuracy, but both are very strong in both areas based on my testing.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: smart features

One area where the Forerunner 570 easily beats the Coros Pace 4 Pro is smart features.

The best Garmin watches in general are way ahead of their sporty rivals on this front, offering NFC payments, music storage including being able to link with streaming services like Spotify, and the Connect IQ app store, which does contain useful extras for the watch.

You also get more smart widgets on the Forerunner 570, like a calendar app and sports scores, and you can customize the watch face a lot more than on the Coros.

While the Pace 4 Pro does offer music storage, it can’t link with streaming apps, so you have to drag and drop MP3 files onto the watch, and it doesn’t offer NFC payments or an app store, beyond being able to send new watch faces from the app.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: maps and navigation

Garmin has the best maps and navigation tools available for sports watches, but only on its top-end devices, and the Forerunner 570 only offers breadcrumb navigation.

The Coros Pace 4 Pro has full offline maps, making navigation easier, especially when following routes on the watch, and it also delivers alerts when notable climbs and descents are coming up on your route.

Breadcrumb navigation is fine most of the time, but the maps on the Pace 4 Pro are a clear advantage over the Forerunner 570.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: battery life

Battery life is an area where Coros always shines, and the Pace 4 Pro easily outlasts the Forerunner 570 in both watch and GPS modes.

The 47mm Forerunner 570 lasts up to 11 days in watch mode and offers 14 hours of multi-band GPS tracking, whereas the Pace 4 Pro can last up to 21 days in watch mode and has 30 hours of multi-band GPS.

In my testing, I had the screen always on with both watches, which reduces battery life, and ran every day using the GPS, and the Forerunner 570 needed charging every three to four days, whereas the Coros lasted me seven days on a charge.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: specs compared

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: verdict

The Garmin Forerunner 570 is a great sports watch, but given its high price, it’s definitely a shame Garmin left out some key features, including maps and a flashlight.

Unless you really need the smart features on the watch, or love its design and smaller size option, the Coros Pace 4 Pro is the better buy in my opinion.

It’s cheaper, lasts longer on a charge, has maps and a bigger display, and has proved to be reliably accurate and enjoyable to wear 24/7 in my experience.

More from Tom's Guide

• If you enjoy lifting weights — these are the only 3 gym shoes I'd wear, and they're up to 30% off in Prime Day sales
• I’ve tested the Hoka Clifton 11 vs Hoka Bondi 9 and this is the one I’d buy
• My favorite trail-running shoe is 34% off for Prime Day, and it’s great for hiking too

I’ve previously put their larger siblings, the Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisade, to the test. While both are fantastic, some families might shy away due to their higher price tags. That’s where their mid-size counterparts step into the spotlight, offering the same family utility at a much more accessible price point.

For this head-to-head test, I drove the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige 2.5T AWD and 2026 Hyundai Santa Fe XRT 2.5T AWD for a week each — with both coming in at under $50,000. After putting each through grocery runs, highway commutes, tight parking spaces, and everyday driving, only one mid-size three-row SUV earns my recommendation.

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Specifications

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Design

I’ll be the first to say that the Santa Fe commands attention on the road, blending a boxy silhouette with a retro-futuristic vibe that instantly evokes memories of the classic Scion xB.

Up front, the bold "H" signature LED daytime running lights give it an unmistakable face, while the optional Ecotronic Gray Matte paint job adds an urban edge that’s tough to overlook. But despite those highlights, the design falls flat at the rear. The slab-sided tailgate looks awkward in person, and the low-mounted taillights sit so close to the rear bumper that they create an oddly disproportionate look.

In contrast, the Kia Sorento delivers a much more cohesive shape that’s simply easier on the eyes. Sure, it leans more conventional than the polarizing Santa Fe, but it borrows style cures from the Telluride and EV9 that make it stylish in its own right.

The Sorento features a broad, upright grille flanked by vertical LED headlights, paired with sculpted body lines on its side that flow more naturally. Around back, high-mounted taillights pushed to the outer edges accentuate its planted stance. Throw in the rugged blacked-out exterior accents and 20-inch gloss-black wheels of the X-Line package, and the Sorento looks purposeful and premium from every angle.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Fuel economy

Three-row haulers naturally demand more power and consume more fuel, but both of these mid-size options prove you can shave down your gas bill compared to full-size options. Better yet, both vehicles largely lived up to their EPA ratings during testing.

Behind the wheel, I logged 113 miles of mixed driving in the 2026 Santa Fe XRT, recording a 23.1 mpg average. Meanwhile, the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line averaged 22.9 mpg across 181.1 miles of mixed driving. That 0.2-mpg difference is negligible and effectively amounts to a dead heat — one that could easily tip either way depending on how heavy your right foot is.

Where the separation occurs is across specific driving cycles. The Santa Fe XRT proved more efficient on short, local errand runs, recording a best short-distance run of 27.3 mpg versus the Sorento's 24.5 mpg. However, the Sorento clawed back an advantage on open highway stretches, posting a best long-distance score of 28.6 mpg compared to the Santa Fe XRT’s 27.7 mpg.

Winner: Hyundai Santa Fe

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Driving performance

One of the most compelling reasons to choose either SUV is everyday drivability. Neither vehicle feels top-heavy or cumbersome when squeezing into tight parking garages or navigating crowded streets, making the Sorento and Santa Fe noticeably more agile than their larger siblings.

Under the hood, both gas contenders pack punchy 2.5-liter turbocharged inline-four engines. The Kia Sorento X-Line holds a slight on-paper edge with 281 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque, compared to the Hyundai Santa Fe XRT’s nearly identical 277 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque.

What surprised me most was how energetic both felt off the line, even in their respective Eco modes. While Eco settings typically feel sluggish, both delivered zippy acceleration that made highway merging and overtaking maneuvers effortless. Whenever I wanted sharper dynamics, toggling into Sport mode delivered immediate throttle response.

Overall, both gas SUVs are composed, responsive, and exceptionally easy to drive, with neither holding a definitive dynamic edge over the other.

Winner: tie

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Comfort

Without question, the Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige takes this category because it comes equipped with heated, reclining second-row captain's chairs that easily offer the best seats in the house for road trips. It also helps that the Sorento offers a more upscale vibe inside, thanks to its genuine leather upholstery and suede headliner.

Matching its exterior styling, the Santa Fe XRT adopts a more utilitarian approach with a standard second-row bench wrapped in synthetic H-Tex upholstery. While that allows the Santa Fe XRT to technically seat seven passengers instead of six, accessing the third row is far more inconvenient because it requires sliding the heavier bench sections forward.

When it comes to stretch-out space, you get a smidge more room across the board in the Santa Fe XRT, but the margins are slim enough that it's difficult to notice in person. Second-row passengers get 42.3 inches of legroom in the Hyundai compared to 41.7 inches in the Kia, while the third row affords 30 inches versus the Sorento’s 29.6 inches. As you can see in my photos above, my knees were brushing the seatbacks in both when seated in the third row.

Due to its upright, boxy frame, Hyundai does maximize rear utility, providing 14.6 cubic feet of cargo room behind the upright third row versus the Sorento’s 12.6 cubic feet. While the Santa Fe wins on pure cargo packaging, the Sorento’s superior cabin refinement and second-row captain’s chairs make it the more comfortable vehicle to live with day-to-day.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Value

When it comes to value, both mid-size SUVs offer premium tech well below the $50,000 mark. What I appreciate most is that both models come equipped with Highway Driving Assist and adaptive cruise control paired with lane centering — complete with dedicated steering wheel buttons so you can toggle lane centering at any time without diving into screen menus.

However, the Sorento holds an advantage with blind-spot view camera monitors that project live video feeds directly into the driver’s instrument cluster, making highway lane changes significantly safer and more intuitive. Screen real estate is a strong suit across the board. Both vehicles feature generous 12.3-inch touchscreens with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.

The divergence ultimately comes down to the extra goodies included with the Kia. At $44,525 as tested, the Santa Fe XRT undercuts the Sorento by nearly $4,800. But the $49,310 Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige justifies its higher sticker by packing high-end extras like a digital rearview mirror, 12-speaker Bose premium audio, a panoramic sunroof, blind-spot view cameras, and a 360-degree Surround View Monitor.

For buyers who want genuine near-luxury convenience without crossing $50K, those additions deliver unbeatable value.

Winner: Kia Sorento

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Verdict

While the Hyundai Santa Fe XRT puts up a strong fight with its aggressive sub-$45,000 price point, expansive rear cargo space, and slightly superior around-town fuel economy, the 2026 Kia Sorento X-Line SX-Prestige emerges as the more complete, well-rounded three-row SUV in this comparison. I still can’t get past the Santa Fe’s polarizing exterior styling and utilitarian interior, whereas the Sorento strikes an effortless balance between athletic proportions and genuine near-luxury refinement.

That elevated experience is cemented by the Sorento’s unbeatable feature packaging. Even though it commands a nearly $4,800 premium over the XRT, every dollar is accounted for with high-end equipment that makes driving both safer and significantly more comfortable — all while keeping the final price under $50,000. If you want maximum cargo volume on a strict budget, the Santa Fe XRT delivers. But if you want the best all-around family cruiser that nails design, everyday maneuverability, and cabin comfort, the Kia Sorento takes the crown.

Kia Sorento vs. Hyundai Santa Fe: Pros and cons

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm not anxious that it's getting darker earlier with this thermal camera for my car — here's why
• I just test drove the new Nissan Leaf — and it's irresistible at under $30,000
• CrabWalking with the GMC Sierra EV is the weirdest thing I’ve ever done with a car — and it’s actually pretty useful

Howdy, I'm Dan, and I lead our wearable tech coverage at Tom's Guide. Not only am I in the process of reviewing the new Fitbit Edge — which seems potentially destined for our best fitness tracker list — but I'm also a long-time owner of the Fitbit Inspire 3. This is to say, I know both wearables reasonably well.

So how do they stack up? Here's a breakdown of the Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3 across six categories, including price, design, display, health and fitness, smart features, and battery life.

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Cost

Even at full price, the Fitbit Inspire 3 is a bargain compared to the Fitbit Edge. Of course, since it's also four years old, you're unlikely to pay anywhere near the $99 launch price. For instance, the Fitbit Inspire 3 is just $88 on Amazon right now.

The Fitbit Edge, meanwhile, is a brand new fitness tracker for 2026 and still in the preorder phase of its launch. With units expected to ship at the end of October, the Fitbit will run you $179 at Amazon and at other major retailers.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Design

The Fitbit Edge and Fitbit Inspire 3 look surprisingly similar; the cases are almost identical in height and thickness, though the Edge is taller. The newer model is also nearly double the weight of the Inspire 3. However, it by no means feels bulky or uncomfortable on the wrist (I've been wearing one for nearly a week).

In addition to touch displays — more on that below — each tracker has a single button on the side of the case for navigation. Similar to 2023's Fitbit Charge 6, the Fitbit Inspire 3 sports a haptic button that vibrates slightly (sometimes) when you press it. I'm not a huge fan of this type of control, and much prefer the Fitbit Edge's physical button with actual tactile feedback.

Material-wise, the Fitbit Inspire 3 case is primarily plastic, while the Edge case is recycled aluminum and plastic. Both have 50 meters of water resistance, enough protection for showers and surface-level swims.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Display

The Fitbit Inspire 3 has a modest 0.76-inch AMOLED screen that's decently bright and well-saturated, though the touch functionality can occasionally feel clunky/unresponsive. By comparison, the Fitbit Edge offers far more screen real estate, despite a somewhat similarly-sized case.

The Edge's 1.34-inch display is crisp, easy-to-read, and responsive. With greater maximum output than its predecessor, the Edge's screen is bright enough to view in direct sunlight without straining your eyes.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Specs compared

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Health and fitness

The Fitbit Inspire 3 is a four-year-old entry-level fitness tracker, and even though it covers the basics well, like logging common workouts, daily movement, sleep quality, and overall health, it lacks many of Google's latest and greatest holistic tools.

These include the new insulin resistance and blood pressure trend reports, breathing emergency alerts, and loss of pulse detection. The Inspire 3 additionally lacks the hardware to perform ECG readings. On the flip side, the Edge supports all of these features, and more.

The Inspire 3 also lacks onboard GPS and an altimeter, so users have to carry a paired smartphone for accurate location- and elevation-based metrics when logging an outdoor workout like a run, hike, or bike ride. The Fitbit Edge, meanwhile, has both.

Finally, the Edge supports a ton of additional AI-powered health features courtesy of the Google Health Premium (formerly Fitbit Premium) subscription, which is $9.99 a month or $99 a year. These include personalized training plans, nutrition insights, and even deeper dives into sleep and workout recovery.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Smart features

Both the Fitbit Edge and four-year-old Fitbit Inspire 3 work with Android and iOS, with the ability to mirror notifications and control media playback. But that pretty much rounds out the list of smart features on either.

Sadly, unlike the Edge's predecessor, the Fitbit Charge 6, the newer model lacks NFC for contactless payments. That said, it does play nicely with some other Google apps. For example, the Edge will display Google Maps turn-by-turn directions when using the app on your paired smartphone.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Battery life

Google says that the Fitbit Inspire 3 should last up to ten days per charge, and the Fitbit Edge should cruise for up to seven days. In reality, the Fitbit Inspire 3 averages closer to seven or eight days per charge, assuming you're recording one ~45-minute workout a day.

I'm still testing the Fitbit Edge, but if battery performance is anything like the Fitbit Charge 6 — which is also rated at seven days per charge — I expect the Edge to last a little closer to five or six days.

That said, one clear advantage the newer model has is a faster recharge time: 90 minutes for the Fitbit Edge compared to two hours for the Fitbit Inspire 3 (and Fitbit Charge 6).

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Outlook

Ultimately, while the Fitbit Inspire 3 remains a fairly competent budget fitness tracker in 2026 for keeping tabs on basic workouts, well-being, and sleep quality, the Fitbit Edge is in numerous ways a more capable device in a similar-sized package with a bigger screen and better overall usability.

But if you're still not sold on the Fitbit Edge over the Fitbit Inspire 3, I reccomend taking a look at my Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 comparison. Not only does the Fitbit Air support a lot of the same groundbreaking Google health features as the Edge, but it's also just $99 and even smaller/lighter than the Inspire 3 (though it lacks a screen)

Overall winner: Fitbit Edge

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?
• Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which Google fitness tracker wins?
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which top-performing Fitness tracker wins?

This week, Xreal released an updated version of its flagship glasses dubbed the Xreal One Pro Plus, with an upgraded display and a more comfortable nose pad. We've already put the One Pro Plus to the test.

In the original battle, Viture's premium glasses just edged out the One Pro thanks to a lower price, slightly better specs, and a bit more versatility.

Does a refreshed Xreal take down Viture? It's a lot closer than you think.

Xreal One Pro Plus vs Viture Beast: Specifications

Buy the Xreal One Pro if…

• You actually work with the glasses
• You prefer not everything on-device
• Smooth 3D is a requirement

Out of the box, the Plus glasses are basically the same as the original One Pro specs — which means all the advantages we highlighted before are still here.

Xreal upped the brightness from 700 nits to 1,200 (still 50 nits less than the Beast, but much closer), so the display is much better. They already featured flatter color science, making for more accurate video and photo editing. Plus, Xreal added three new modes: Reading, Standard, and Movie, which adjust the display depending on what kind of content you're viewing.

The new modes add more versatility and make reading websites or even an eBook a much better experience compared to the original glasses.

The built-in X1 chip gives you a lot of on-device ways to tweak the display. No, there isn't the ultra-wide display and screen-by-screen 3D like the Beast, but Viture's glasses do require the Spacewalker app for more versatility.

Xreal's glasses have real-time 2D-to-3D content transformation, which got a boost from 30FPS to 60FPS in the Plus version. It's a smoother upgrade.

Xreal gave the One Pros a permanent price cut to $599 earlier this year, and the new Plus version retains that price. However, to get the most out of the glasses you still need the $99 optional Eye Camera, which enables 6DoF anchoring compared to the native 3DoF.

As a reminder, here's the difference:

• 6 Degrees of Freedom (6DoF) is the spatial experience — locking a screen to a physical coordinate in your room based on what the Eye camera can see.
• 3 Degrees of Freedom (3DoF) is the swivel chair experience — pinning a screen to a specific direction and tracking head rotation only.

Unfortunately, if you're traveling and lack the Eye camera, the Plus still gets, as Jason said, "bamboozled" when on a moving vehicle.

Buy the Viture Beast if…

• You want top-tier gaming and streaming picture quality
• Solid anchoring is important to you
• More versatility

When the Viture Beast launched in January of this year, we didn't have much good to say. However, the company quickly added tweaks that make the glasses an actual animal.

Despite Xreal's updates, the Beast is still slightly better spec-wise. They feature a slightly wider 58-degree field of view, 50 nits higher brightness, better sharpness and color reproduction when it comes to gaming and streaming.

Display glasses are often marketed as an extension of your entertainment and the Viture Beast is a perfect example of that goal.

Compared to the Xreal glasses, productivity uses take a backseat. You can customize the color in the on-device menu, but the One Pro Plus, especially in reading mode, is better for work.

I don't notice the chromatic aberration as much on the edges. This is one of those cases where display preference is up to the individual.

The new modes do a lot to help Xreal catch up, but the Beast does feature an ultrawide monitor mode built into the glasses themselves, plus impressive 3Dof tracking. However, you do need the Spacewalker app for multi-screen support, 6DoF tracking and Immersive 3D for AI 3D content conversion.

In practice, that means that some phones might have compatibility issues. And some features are locked into the app's UI rather than featuring across different apps. For example, if you want to watch 3D movies on Netflix, you have to use the Viture browser rather than your Netflix app.

Still, in combination, the app and glasses do give you plenty of versatility in how you use the Beast for both work and play.

For the rest of you

Before, we gave the edge to the Viture Beast thanks to the $50 savings, slightly wider FOV, and more versatility in tuning the glasses. All of those things remain true.

However, Xreal's refresh is much closer thanks to the updated display and new modes. At this point, I'd say that the Beast and One Pro Plus are on equal footing, and it all comes down to preference.

These are the cream of the crop when it comes to display glasses. Both have excellent electrochromic dimming on the lenses, pretty good audio, and are comfortable for long sessions; the Xreal even more so, thanks to the redesigned nosepad.

Here's the rub, though: when it comes to display glasses, most people don't need this much capability or to spend this much money.

You can get pretty good bang for your buck if you explore any of the budget-friendly models. Fortunately, both Xreal and Viture have excellent options in the $299 range that released this year.

The Xreal a01+ brings some flair to a pretty staid category of tech with glasses that actually look like sunglasses you'd wear out of the house. Viture dropped the updated Pro 2 AR glasses in August, prioritizing comfort and versatility over display upgrades, and it totally paid off.

If you'd like to know how they compare, I put the Viture Pro 2 and Xreal a01+ in their own head-to-head contest.

Otherwise, RayNeo is the king of budget display glasses, offering a lot in the $299 Air 4 Pro; you could also try out the new RayNeo GT.

Here's the one drawback to all of those budget options compared to the Beast and One Pro Plus: the FOV is much smaller. I won't get VR headset truther on you, but I promise a 57 or 58-degree field of view feels better and different than 50 or 46, like in the budget options.

My dream would be for Xreal and Viture to keep making excellent displays and bringing them down to the budget tier for the rest of us. Meanwhile, these are both excellent display glasses.

More from Tom's Guide

• Tom's Guide to smart glasses: 13 terms you need to know
• I've been testing Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses for 72 hours — and ditching the camera was the absolute right call
• I tested the RayNeo GT as a replacement to every screen I own — it's a mixed bag

Thanks to RAMageddon, the Windows gaming handheld market has officially entered its ultra-premium era. If you’re looking to upgrade from your Steam Deck to something with real horsepower, the newly launched Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 ($1,299) and the MSI Claw 8 EX AI+ ($1,799) are likely at the top of your list.

Both devices cost more than some actual gaming laptops, but they target two very different types of gamers. Asus is banking on that stunning 1080p OLED display and refined ergonomics, while MSI is flexing the raw power and extreme battery efficiency of its Intel Arc G3 Extreme architecture and 32GB of RAM.

But with a massive $500 price gap between them, which one actually deserves your money? I’ve stress tested both handhelds while traveling across the globe to find out.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs MSI Claw 8 EX AI+: Specs

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs MSI Claw 8 EX AI+: Price and value

Let’s address the elephant in the room: neither of these are cheap.

The ROG Xbox Ally X20 has received a $300 markup from the previous Ally X, which Asus attempts to justify with its translucent design, OLED screen, rubberized grips and re-engineered buttons. The internals remain the same.

MSI’s Claw 8 EX AI+ pushes the boundary of portable pricing even further — launching at $1,799. For that extra $500, you are getting a bigger 1920x1200-pixel display (only IPS though), that Intel Arc G3 Extreme chip and 32GB of RAM (over 24GB in the X20).

Winner: Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20. While $1,299 is steep, it’s less than $1,799.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs MSI Claw 8 EX AI+: Design and display

Asus has taken a massive leap ahead in the visual department. The ROG Xbox Ally X20 is armed with a beautiful 1080p OLED display that’s bright and vivid, and makes games explode off the screen in a flash flood of color.

And this is the most comfortable handheld you can use with its smaller size making it easier to reach buttons, rubberized grips reducing hand fatigue, tactile improvements to the buttons and bumpers, and that rotatable D-Pad for either 4-way control for platformers or 8-way for fighting games. Asus has really thought of everything here.

That’s not to say MSI hasn’t with the Claw 8 EX AI+ — the company was pretty clear in telling me its form factor is inspired by the Xbox controller too. It feels nice in the hand, and that 8-inch 1200p display is bigger. But it’s IPS, lacks HDR, and the bigger size may not be for everyone.

Winner: Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20. The OLED screen and superior physical ergonomics give it the win here.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs MSI Claw 8 EX AI+: Gaming performance

This is where the tables flip and MSI really starts to show its teeth. Quite frankly, the Claw 8 EX AI+ absolutely bullies the Ally X20 in demanding titles, both at the full wattage and when dialed back to half the power too.

Take Red Dead Redemption 2 on Medium settings at 1080p. The X20 manages 22.8 FPS at 35W. The Claw at the same power hits 63.8 FPS. Even when you restrict it to just 17W, it still pumps out 48.8 FPS — more than double the performance at a fraction of the power.

The real differentiator is the raw grunt of that Intel Arc G3 Extreme chip surpassing the AMD Ryzen Z2 AI Extreme, the raised roof of RAM to 32GB (probably causing that jump in price), and the XeSS upscaling capabilities embarrassing AMD’s current version of FSR on handhelds.

For example, Cyberpunk 2077 can run at a respectable 30-40 FPS if you tweak the settings on the Ally X20 and use FSR, but in our lab benchmarking, it chugs at an unplayable 11.8 FPS natively. The Claw, meanwhile, hit 36.2 FPS at 35W, but with XeSS upscaling and multi-frame generation set to 4X, that goes to a staggering 171.5 FPS.

Winner: MSI Claw 8 EX AI+. There’s no better way to say this — MSI just dominates here.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs MSI Claw 8 EX AI+: Battery life

Raw power usually drains a battery fast, but Intel clearly didn’t get that memo. MSI has seemingly worked magic with this chip in the Claw 8 EX AI+

In our gaming battery rundown test, the ROG Xbox Ally X20 came just shy of three hours, which is fine — one of the stronger numbers when you look at past machines. But the MSI Claw 8 EX AI+ blew past it at over four hours.

That’s a difference between your device dying mid-flight and actually finishing your gaming session. And considering the MSI can throttle down to 17W and still out-perform the Asus in many titles, its endurance is unmatched.

Winner: MSI Claw 8 EX AI+. An extra hour and 20 minutes is huge.

Verdict: Which should you buy?

So awkwardly, this is a tie. But that also highlights two very distinct audiences here in deciding who wins.

If you're an immersion junkie: Looking for the best screen and ergonomics, and you mostly play less pressuring AAA titles and indies? The ROG Ally X20 is the better buy. You save $500, get one of the best OLED screens ever put on a handheld, and holding it feels superb.

If you’re a performance purist: Want to play AAA titles smoothly wherever you are? The MSI Claw 8 EX AI+ earns its exorbitant price tag. Intel’s Arc G3 Extreme delivers performance that Asus simply cannot touch. Add in a massive 4+ hour gaming battery life, and the MSI Claw proves that sometimes, paying a premium actually buys you a true generational leap in handheld gaming.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 (2026) like I was a student — its gaming, creator and AI performance is huge, but it comes at a cost
• I gave the Steam Machine 3 stars at launch — but a game-changing update and this 1TB storage hack has me thinking differently
• I tested DLSS 5 in NBA 2K27 on a mid-range gaming laptop — it's the future of photorealistic graphics, but there's a catch

When deciding between the two, note that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 requires an iPhone, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 works only with Android or Galaxy.

Both have a large case — 49mm for the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and 47mm for the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Both have built-in GPS and track your sleep, stress, workouts, recovery, and more. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 costs $799, whereas the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is $699. But which is most accurate? Let’s find out.

I ran a half marathon with the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Here’s which came out on top

GPS

Let’s start with the basics — if you’re wearing a watch to track a race, you want it to track your GPS pretty perfectly. When putting both devices side by side, the GPS is pretty much spot on for both, and this shows when comparing the recordings to the actual map of the course.

With both watches, I had auto-lap set up, and both were pretty much hitting the distance markers at the right point. Of course, both watches recorded a slightly longer distance than the actual race itself, but this accounts for weaving runners and not ever really being able to stick to the race line. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 recorded the run as 13.23 miles; the Samsung Galaxy Watch 2 recorded it as 13.21 miles.

Heart rate

I didn’t wear a chest strap with the two watches, so I’ll use my Oura Ring 5 as my baseline. According to my Oura Ring 5, my average heart rate was 163 beats per minute, with most of my time spent in zones 4 and 5, showing I was pushing myself throughout the run.

The heart rate graphs on the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 also look pretty similar, with my average heart rate on my Apple Watch recorded as 159 beats per minute and my Galaxy Watch recorded as 160 beats per minute.

Again, this one is pretty much too close to call.

Elevation

One thing that my colleague, Dan Bracaglia, found when testing the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 was that the elevation gain seemed inaccurate during his runs and rides. I didn’t find the same — the official course route has a total elevation gain of 311 feet, and my watch recorded the run as 342 feet. Similar to GPS, a small difference is often down to altimeter sensitivity, GPS drift, or weaving through runners on the course.

Comfort and usability

I’m a pretty petite runner, and both watches felt pretty chunky on the wrist. Design-wise, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 felt a little wider, but it doesn’t have much in it.

Both have those all-important physical buttons that make using the watch with sweaty fingers a little bit easier, and both have bright, beautiful screens that were easy to see, even in direct sunlight. You do see slightly more on the screen of the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which is bigger, but again, there’s not a lot in it.

Which should you buy?

The answer really depends on whether you’re team iOS or Android. If you have an iPhone, don’t buy the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, as it won’t work with your phone. Both are like having an extension of your phone on your wrist, with tonnes of apps at your fingertips.

Both did a stellar job of recording my half marathon, and both are probably the top contenders if you want a smartwatch with the capabilities (but sadly not the battery life) of a sports watch.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin

​Subcompact SUVs remain some of the most affordable options on the market, combining the efficiency of smaller sedans with the utility that makes crossovers so appealing. I spent a week with both the 2026 Chevrolet Trax 1LT and the 2026 Hyundai Venue SEL, which carry as-tested prices of $27,975 and $24,440, respectively.

While I’ve already pitted the Hyundai Venue against the Subaru Crosstrek, it faces an even tougher challenger in the sportier Chevrolet Trax. After putting them both to the test, here’s the subcompact SUV I recommend if you want to spend as little as possible on your next vehicle purchase.

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Specifications

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Design

Thankfully neither of these vehicles look boring, which is a welcome relief because when you get to prices this low, automakers aren’t inclined to focus on them as much. While they’re similar in price, they take drastically different approaches with their aesthetics.

For starters, I really love how the Hyundai Venue takes a page out of Mini Cooper’s playbook by designing the Venue with a bit of flair that makes it look better in my opinion over its sibling in the Hyundai Kona. Even though it has a boxier, more upright proportion, small details like its contrast two-tone roof give it a stylish look that I don’t expect to find in this bracket.

Meanwhile, the Chevrolet Trax goes in the opposite direction with its sleeker roofline and athletic styling that catches my attention. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the larger Chevrolet Blazer with its lower stance and wider body – giving it an almost rugged, outdoor-ready stance. Throw in the sculpted body lines, slim LED daytime running lights, and subtle rear spoiler, the Trax certainly has the more commanding presence on the road.

Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Fuel economy

​As much as I prefer hybrids for their superior gas savings over conventional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles, the Trax and Venue promise sedan-like fuel economy. On paper, it looks like an even matchup, with the Venue rated at 31 mpg combined and the Trax right behind it at 30 mpg.

​However, I’m happy to report that both exceeded those expectations in my real-world driving tests. Over 133.1 miles of mixed driving, the Venue averaged an astonishing 37.8 mpg — nearly 7 mpg above its EPA combined rating. Just as convincing was the Trax’s impressive 34.8 mpg over 161 miles, which is outstanding for a non-hybrid, but still a smidge short of the Venue’s superior efficiency.

​Things get even more interesting when looking at their performance across highway stretches and local trips. Thanks to its lightweight footprint and 1.6-liter inline-four engine, the Venue clocked a staggering short-distance peak of 49.6 mpg, leaving the Trax’s 28.3 mpg in the dust. On longer highway drives, both crossovers excelled, but the Venue still took the crown with a best long-distance run of 40.6 mpg versus 38.4 mpg for the Trax.

​Neither is classified as a hybrid, but the Venue absolutely makes a case for itself with its stellar efficiency.

Winner: Hyundai Venue

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Driving performance

​Although both subcompact SUVs are easy to drive due to their small footprints and tight turning radii, there’s one that delivers a noticeably more engaging experience behind the wheel: the Chevy Trax.

​That’s because the Trax is powered by an Ecotec 1.2-liter turbocharged three-cylinder engine delivering 137 horsepower and a much meatier 162 lb-ft of torque. That turbo makes all the difference, which translates to a zippier drive on the road that gets it moving in a quick manner. Paired with its wider stance and longer wheelbase, the Trax feels far more composed when carving through turns and cruising at highway speeds.

​In contrast, the 2026 Hyundai Venue SEL achieves its superior fuel economy with a smaller-output 1.6-liter inline-four engine producing 121 horsepower and 113 lb-ft of torque. It still drives with confidence during routine neighborhood errands, but it feels lethargic when merging onto fast-moving freeways.

​Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Comfort

​The biggest compromise I tend to see among budget-conscious vehicles is how they shortchange the comforts and features, often omitting anything beyond the absolute basics.

​That compromise is immediately evident in the Venue. Sitting inside feels like a throwback due to the heavy use of hard plastic across the dashboard and a tiny main display that easily washes out in direct sunlight. Unfortunately, its slick exterior styling simply doesn't carry over into the cabin.

​While the denim cloth and leatherette seats in the Venue offer decent support for extended drives, I can’t say the same for anyone riding in the back. With just 34.3 inches of rear legroom, taller adults will struggle to sit comfortably without their knees pressing into the front seats. Cargo capacity is similarly pinched at 18.7 cubic feet of trunk space, requiring careful planning to fit larger packages or bulky luggage.

​The 2026 Chevrolet Trax 1LT, on the other hand, delivers a sportier aesthetic that appeals to me far more, complete with jet engine-inspired air vents and vibrant yellow contrast stitching across the cabin. More importantly, practical passenger comfort is vastly superior thanks to its expansive 38.7 inches of rear legroom and generous 25.6 cubic feet of cargo volume behind the seats. All told, the Trax takes a decisive win by pairing genuine passenger comfort with unmatched day-to-day utility.

​Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Value

​Separated by a little over $3,500, the $24,440 as-tested Venue certainly grabs attention with its lower out-of-pocket cost — but I can’t stress enough just how many essential extras come loaded on the Trax.

​There’s not a whole lot that accompanies the Venue, which is about as basic as they come. You still get standard equipment like a wireless phone charger, heated front seats, blind-spot collision warning, and rear cross-traffic alert. Bolstering all of that is Hyundai's generous 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty, offering long-term coverage that Chevy simply can’t match.

However, Chevrolet packs in more than enough extra equipment to justify its slightly higher price tag. This $27,975 priced Trax 1LT I tested came with options like a power sunroof, heated steering wheel, heated front seats, and, most importantly, adaptive cruise control.

That means the Trax can actively maintain its following distance and manage acceleration and braking in traffic, rather than relying on standard cruise control like the Venue. That driver-assist feature alone adds tremendous everyday value, especially if you face long highway stretches during your daily commute.

Winner: Chevrolet Trax

Chevrolet Trax vs. Hyundai Venue: Verdict