When you push frontier models past standard coding tests and into the reality of enterprise workflows, their true capabilities and quirks show. With Anthropic having just launched Claude Opus 5 and Moonshot AI dropping its newest Kimi model the same week, the timing was perfect to see how the absolute latest generation of AI handles real-world development.

I ran 15 grueling, highly technical prompts against these two brand-new heavyweight engines. From orchestrating multi-agent TDD loops to architecting secure browser extensions, the goal was to test their analytical limits right out of the gate. What I found was a fundamental split in how these models solve problems. One thinks like a strategic infrastructure architect; the other builds like a lead systems engineer. Here is how it all shook out.

1. The multi-agent workflow

Prompt: "Draft a Python script using LangChain that orchestrates a two-agent system: Agent A writes unit tests based on a user specification, and Agent B writes the functional code to pass them. Include a loop where Agent B refines the code if Agent A's tests fail."

Opus 5 produced a complete, production-ready LangChain implementation that fully satisfied the prompt, including distinct test-writing and code-writing agents, an orchestration layer, automatic test execution and an iterative refinement loop when tests failed.

Kimi took a practical approach by including dependency installation, API key setup, and execution instructions, making it easy for someone to get started running the project.

Winner: Opus wins because it delivered the complete two-agent TDD system requested, including the orchestration logic and refinement loop, whereas Kimi focused more on setup and execution than the full implementation.

2. The authentication architecture

Prompt: "Design a secure authentication model for an AI agent operating within a browser extension. Focus on token scoping, session hijacking prevention, and how it differs from traditional OAuth 2.0 flows."

Opus 5 stood out by explaining not just what the authentication model should look like, but why each design decision matters, tying together browser extension security, capability-based tokens, session protection and the limitations of traditional OAuth into a cohesive architecture.

Kimi delivered an exceptionally detailed security architecture with concrete implementation ideas, including native host token storage, capability-attested tokens, runtime attestation and code examples, that made the design feel immediately actionable.

Winner: Kimi wins because it went deeper into implementation details, threat modeling and practical security mechanisms, producing a design that reads like an engineering architecture document.

3. The open-weight Integration

Prompt: "Write a conceptual technical specification for replacing a cloud-based AI coding assistant in a proprietary IDE with a locally hosted, open-weight model. Address context-window management and latency mitigation."

Opus 5 produced a well-structured technical specification that balanced architectural decisions with practical implementation details, particularly its thoughtful treatment of context-window budgeting, retrieval strategies and latency optimization for local inference.

Kimi excelled at systems engineering depth, covering everything from runtime architecture and communication protocols to quantization, performance SLAs, deployment strategy, and migration planning in a document that felt ready for an engineering design review.

Winner: Kimi wins because it delivered the more comprehensive end-to-end specification, extending beyond the prompt to include deployment, performance targets, security, migration phases and operational considerations while maintaining strong technical depth throughout.

4. The legacy refactor

Prompt: "Refactor this legacy React class component into a modern functional component using custom hooks. Before writing the code, outline your step-by-step reasoning and the architectural trade-offs you are making."

Opus 5 explained the reasoning process and then demonstrated the complete refactoring approach with a realistic example, making the architectural decisions and trade-offs concrete rather than theoretical.

Kimi responded cautiously, providing a detailed refactoring framework and architectural checklist without making assumptions.

Winner: Opus wins because it went beyond identifying the input and showcased reasoning, trade-offs and refactoring strategy.

5. The resource allocation algorithm

Prompt: "A logistics network has 5 distribution centers and 15 delivery zones. If center A suffers a 40% capacity drop, calculate the optimal redistribution of load minimizing transit cost. Provide the exact mathematical formulation, defining all variables in format."

Opus 5 went beyond the requested linear program by explaining the underlying optimization theory, including dual variables, feasibility conditions, total unimodularity and the economic interpretation of the solution.

Kimi closely matched the prompt by presenting a clean mathematical formulation in the requested format, explicitly defining every variable, constraint and matrix representation in a concise, easy-to-follow structure.

Winner: Kimi wins because it adhered more precisely to the prompt, providing the exact mathematical formulation and variable definitions requested, whereas Claude expanded into optimization theory and analysis beyond what was asked.

6. The logic trap

Prompt: "Identify the logical fallacies and structural flaws in this argument: 'Because open-weight models have lower inference costs, they will inevitably degrade in long-horizon reasoning tasks, meaning proprietary models will forever maintain an unbreachable moat.'"

Opus 5 clearly explained the core logical flaws in a narrative format, focusing on why the argument's causal chain fails and how words like "inevitably," "forever," and "unbreachable" weaken its reasoning.

Kimi delivered a comprehensive fallacy analysis, identifying a broad range of logical errors and pairing each one with a specific explanation and examples, making the critique systematic and easy to follow.

Winner: Kimi wins because it identified more distinct logical and structural flaws while organizing them into a thorough, well-supported analysis that addressed both formal fallacies and broader reasoning errors.

7. The prompt injection defense

Prompt: "Simulate an automated prompt injection testing system evaluating a customer support bot. Generate three highly sophisticated, multi-turn injection vectors designed to extract the bot's system instructions, followed by the robust system prompts needed to neutralize them."

Opus 5 handled the request responsibly by declining to generate working prompt injection attacks while still providing useful guidance on defensive architecture, evaluation strategies, and secure design principles.

Kimi produced a comprehensive red-team testing framework with detailed attack taxonomy, evaluation metrics, layered defensive prompts, and broader architectural mitigations for assessing prompt injection resilience.

Winner: Opus wins because it appropriately refused to generate sophisticated prompt injection vectors while still offering meaningful defensive guidance, whereas Kimi's response included detailed attack content that is not appropriate to generate in an open setting.

8. The constraint challenge

Prompt: "Write a comprehensive summary of the latest trends in enterprise software infrastructure, but you must strictly avoid using the letters 'e' and 't' in the final paragraph."

Opus 5 produced a thorough, well-organized summary of modern enterprise infrastructure trends with clear explanations and strong coverage of topics like agentic AI, platform engineering, hybrid cloud, and security — but it did not satisfy the prompt's constraint because the final paragraph contains both the letters "e" and "t."

Kimi delivered a comprehensive overview of the major infrastructure trends while successfully crafting a final paragraph that avoided the forbidden letters, demonstrating careful adherence to the prompt's lexical constraint.

Winner: Kimi wins because it produced a strong technical summary and correctly satisfied the prompt's unusual requirement to exclude the letters "e" and "t" from the final paragraph, whereas Claude did not.

9. The unstructured data parser

Prompt: "Create a strict JSON schema for extracting actionable tasks, deadlines, and project dependencies from a messy, unstructured transcript of a chaotic hour-long engineering standup."

Opus 5 produced a highly expressive JSON Schema that went beyond basic task extraction by modeling ambiguous ownership, blockers, confidence, transcript quality, inferred priorities, and messy conversational patterns common in real engineering standups.

Kimi created a strict, validation-oriented JSON Schema with well-defined object structures, required fields, and clear constraints that cleanly capture action items, deadlines, dependencies, and related project metadata.

Winner: Opus wins because its schema is more comprehensive and better suited to extracting structured information from a chaotic, unstructured engineering standup, capturing uncertainty, inference, and conversational complexity rather than only enforcing rigid validation.

10. The meta-prompt generator

Prompt: "Write a system instruction prompt designed to force a smaller, less capable secondary language model to consistently analyze and grade the code quality of its peers without hallucinating false syntax errors."

Opus 5 created an exceptionally detailed system prompt with rigorous anti-hallucination safeguards, explicit grading criteria, structured JSON output requirements, and behavioral guardrails that minimize false syntax errors while producing consistent, evidence-backed code reviews.

Kimi produced a clear, conservative evaluation framework that strongly emphasizes avoiding false positives through step-by-step analysis, careful classification of syntax versus logic versus style, and multiple self-verification checks before issuing a grade.

Winner: Opus wins because it provides a more comprehensive and operationally robust instruction set, combining detailed anti-hallucination protocols, precise evidence requirements, standardized output, grading calibration, and edge-case guidance into a system prompt that is better suited for consistently evaluating code quality.

11. The developer platform strategy

Prompt: "Analyze the programmatic API features required to turn a traditional consumer domain registrar into an infrastructure-as-code platform for developers. What are the necessary endpoints?"

Opus 5 clearly identified the core API domains required for an infrastructure-as-code registrar, explaining not only the necessary endpoints but also the architectural principles—such as idempotency, drift detection, bulk operations, and declarative state—that distinguish an IaC platform from a traditional registrar.

Kimi delivered an exceptionally detailed API blueprint, defining comprehensive endpoint taxonomies alongside the specific behaviors, infrastructure requirements, and operational characteristics needed to support Terraform, Pulumi, and other declarative automation workflows.

Winner: Kimi wins because it provided a more exhaustive and implementation-ready specification, pairing nearly every endpoint with the IaC-specific capabilities that make it suitable for real-world infrastructure automation rather than simply exposing registrar functionality.

12. The workflow automation setup

Prompt: "Map out an automated content pipeline that takes a raw RSS feed of technical release notes, summarizes the key architectural changes, and generates a formatted Markdown newsletter draft, detailing the specific API calls and webhooks required."

Opus 5 designed a well-structured end-to-end content pipeline that clearly explained each processing stage, the associated API calls, and how webhooks, AI summarization, review, and publishing fit together into a reliable automated workflow.

Kimi produced a highly detailed implementation blueprint with explicit API contracts, webhook payloads, internal service interfaces, error handling, retry policies, and infrastructure components that could serve as a near-production technical specification.

Winner: Kimi wins because it went beyond describing the pipeline to define concrete API contracts, webhook schemas, internal services, and operational behaviors, making it a more complete and implementation-ready architecture.

13. The Attention Mechanism Breakdown

Prompt: "Explain the theoretical differences between standard self-attention and delta attention mechanisms in transformer models. How do these differences impact computational overhead during extreme long-context inference?"

Opus 5 delivered a more precise theoretical explanation of delta-rule attention, deriving the error-correcting state update step by step and tying that formulation directly to constant-size recurrent memory, linear sequence scaling, and the loss of exact token-level recall.

Kimi gave a broad, well-structured comparison that covered multiple possible meanings of “delta attention,” clearly connected each mechanism to prefill, KV-cache growth, memory bandwidth, decoding latency, and the tradeoff between compression and exact retrieval.

Winner: Opus wins because it stayed more tightly focused on the actual delta-rule mechanism and explained both the mathematics and the long-context systems implications with greater depth and conceptual clarity.

14. The strategic acquisition analysis

Prompt: "Analyze the infrastructure implications of a major streaming platform acquiring a generative AI video startup. How does integrating AI production pipelines alter their existing cloud compute and storage moats?"

Opus 5 focused on strategic infrastructure tradeoffs, explaining how an acquisition would reshape compute, storage, CDNs, and organizational priorities in a way that feels like the analysis of an experienced infrastructure architect rather than a technical manual.

Kimi delivered a far more exhaustive technical breakdown, backing its arguments with concrete architectures, workload patterns, storage models, cost comparisons, and specific technologies, making it feel like a white paper written for cloud engineers.

Winner: Kimi wins for answering the prompt more completely. It explored nearly every infrastructure implication (compute, storage, networking, economics, MLOps, cloud strategy, security, and integration) with greater technical specificity. If the goal is depth of infrastructure analysis, Kimi takes it. If the goal is communicating those ideas clearly to executives or a broader technical audience, Opus is the better writer.

15. The earnings signal

Prompt: "Interpret a hypothetical scenario where a major legacy enterprise tech company misses its Q2 software earnings due to a shift in how development teams utilize AI. What downstream effects would this have on their cloud service renewals?"

Opus 5 built a highly believable business narrative, connecting changes in AI-assisted development to procurement behavior, talent, services revenue, and cloud renewals in a way that feels like the analysis of someone who has sat through enterprise earnings calls.

Kimi excelled at operational detail, breaking the scenario into concrete mechanisms, renewal metrics, pricing dynamics, and second-order business effects that make the causal chain easy to follow.

Winner: Opus wins because it focused on explaining why the earnings miss would ripple through cloud renewals and produced a cohesive strategic analysis. Kimi added impressive specificity—including tables, hypothetical renewal rates, and operational examples—but occasionally drifted into invented metrics and speculative precision. For this prompt, Opus better balanced realism, causality, and executive-level insight.

Verdict: Kimi wins overall

Kimi takes the narrow victory here, winning 8 of the 15 categories, but the results reveal a clear division of labor. Kimi is the ultimate systems engineer. It dominated prompts requiring strict constraint adherence, exhaustive operational details, and concrete mathematical formulations. When you need a ready-to-deploy specification or a rigid data schema, Kimi is the tool for the job.

Opus 5, however, remains the superior strategist. It won consistently on prompts that required narrative reasoning, theoretical depth and executive communication. It acts as the CTO in the loop, excelling at identifying logical fallacies, weighing architectural trade-offs and evaluating peer code. Choose Kimi for the implementation but rely on Opus for the strategy.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just learned your Claude AI chats could show up in Google — here's how to check yours
• I searched Amazon for AI-written books — and it was much harder to spot them than I expected
• I use Google's AI to thrift for my big family — these are the 5 features that actually save me money

Which new screen-free fitness tracker is more accurate, the Fitbit Air or the Garmin Cirqa? I decided to find out by popping one on either wrist and logging a long walk.

Even though the Garmin Cirqa is twice the cost of the Fitbit Air — $199 vs $99 — these two trackers have a lot in common. Screen-free, your primary method for interacting with either is through the companion app. That said, the Cirqa also has one physical button to start and stop workouts.

More importantly, neither has onboard GPS, so both require you to bring your paired phone along when logging an outdoor workout so that they can piggyback off its location and elevation data.

Now, on to the test!

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa: Walk test rules

I manually counted 7,000 steps — using my trusty $6 tally counter to log every hundred — with the Fitbit Air on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right wrist to determine which is the more accurate fitness tracker.

I also ran Strava on my iPhone 16 Plus for additional step count, distance, elevation, and pace data. For the Fitbit Air, I manually began a walking workout from the Google Health app. For the Garmin Cirqa, I started the workout by pressing the single button. This proved to be a mistake.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa: Walk test results

It took me about one hour to walk 7,000 steps around sunny Seattle, Washington, a step count total that all three tracking methods came remarkably close to. For these tests, I consider any tally within 100 steps of my actual total to be outstanding.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air undercounted by a mere ten steps, while the Garmin Cirqa overcounted by 70. Strava, meanwhile, overcounted by ten.

Unfortunately, because the Cirqa logged my efforts as a generic workout rather than an outdoor walk, it frustratingly didn't register any distance, climb, or pace data for this test.

The Fitbit Air, on the other hand, logged the same distance as Strava, which isn't too surprising given both are making use of the same GPS data. However, its climb data is seemingly waaaay off. This is neither the first nor the second time I've had an issue with climb data when it comes to the Air.

Fortunately, the Air's pace data is much more aligned with Strava's.

The lack of consistency between the Air and Cirqa for heart rate data is a tad concerning. Without control data, it's hard to say for sure which watch is more accurate in this regard, but I suspect it's the Garmin, given my walk involved quickly ascending several very steep hills, which definitely got the blood pumping.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

Despite continuing to struggle with climb data, the Fitbit Air beats the Garmin Cirqa in this walk test head-to-head by a small but legit margin. This is similar to the results my colleague Jane discovered when she tested these two gadgets against one another in a 4,000-step comparison.

Stay tuned for more testing and coverage of the Garmin Cirqa, including my full review, coming soon.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

I’ve tested more 3-row SUVs this year than any other type of vehicle, and the market appetite for them is only growing. While full-size SUVs like the Infiniti QX80 and Chevrolet Tahoe are classic examples of three-row haulers, more and more mid-size crossovers are now engineered to offer that exact same versatility.

That’s why I drove the Volkswagen Atlas and Kia Telluride for a week each to find out which of these mid-size 3-row SUVs has the better value. Both offer expansive interiors, distinct rugged-leaning trim options, and standard all-wheel drive, but after spending a week with each one, clear differences emerged.

I specifically tested out the 2027 Kia Telluride X-Pro SX-Prestige AWD and 2026 Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition, with as-tested prices of $59,580 and $50,230 respectively. There’s roughly a $9,000 spread between them, but these top-of-the-line trims showcase two very different philosophies — so I’ll tell you exactly which one I recommend.

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Specifications

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Design

Both designs lean heavily into rugged, road-dominating stances that set them apart from standard family haulers, but it’s a dead heat in my opinion. The Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition embraces a more contemporary look, featuring dark 18-inch wheels with all-terrain tires, gloss-black exterior trim, and illuminated front and rear lightbars that make the glowing VW emblems pop.

With the Avocado Green Pearl paint job, it definitely adds to its rugged style, while the interior follows a similar modern look with black leatherette seats accented by grey panels, vibrant orange contrast stitching, and stainless steel pedal caps.

By comparison, the Kia Telluride X-Pro SX-Prestige delivers an almost stealth-fighter visual presence that very much reminds me of the BMW XM Label — but in a boxier frame. Its wide-body proportions, vertical LED headlights, and Terrain Brown Matte finish really accentuate its militaristic look.

On the inside, it leans heavily into executive luxury with a sprawling cockpit anchored by dual 12.3-inch panoramic displays, engineered wood accents, and SynTex suede seating with heated and ventilated captain’s chairs in the first two rows.

Ultimately, both designs excel at turning heads in completely different ways — the Atlas with its sharp, no-nonsense German utility, and the Telluride with its urban, minimalistic aesthetic.

Winner: tie

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Fuel economy

On paper, the EPA gives a slight edge to the 2026 Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition with its 21 MPG combined rating compared to the 2027 Kia Telluride X-Pro’s 19 MPG combined. In my real-world testing, however, both mid-size 3-row SUVs delivered virtually identical efficiency over hundreds of mixed miles, averaging a nearly indistinguishable 22.5 mpg in the Atlas and 22.6 mpg in the Telluride.

The Atlas proves more consistent on quick stop-and-go trips, reaching a best short-distance run of 17.3 mpg versus the Telluride's 14.1 mpg. Meanwhile, the Telluride nudges slightly ahead on highway cruising, topping out at 26 mpg compared to the Atlas’s 25.9 mpg.

What’s really remarkable when testing them is just how responsive the Atlas feels on the road. With its snappier throttle response and sports car-like dynamic performance, I thought it’d be more of a gas guzzler — yet it manages to stay right on par with the Telluride.

Winner: Tie

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Driving performance

Under the hood, both SUVs take different paths to deliver four-cylinder power. The Kia Telluride X-Pro relies on a turbocharged 2.5-liter engine pushing out 274 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque, while the Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition uses a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder making 269 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque. While the Telluride technically holds a slight advantage on paper, my experience driving them tells a completely different story.

The Atlas takes the victory here thanks to its surprisingly agile, sports car-like handling and lively power delivery. It accelerates with ease, offering a snappier throttle response that makes merging, overtaking, and tackling local roads feel effortless. What makes the VW's performance even more impressive is cabin refinement — the engine operates noticeably quieter under load compared to the louder to its rival.

While the Telluride delivers a smooth and easy drive, it does feel like it lumbers around curves due to its heavier weight. It’s simply not as agile.

Winner: Volkswagen Atlas

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Comfort

While both SUVs offer plenty of space for families, including 2nd-row captain’s chairs, sunshades for the rear windows, and sprawling panoramic glass roofs, the 2027 Kia Telluride X-Pro SX-Prestige gets my vote for being on an entirely different level.

Upfront, the driver’s seat features Ergo Motion tech that initiates a light massaging function after extended periods of driving, a crisp head-up display, and a dedicated lane-centering assist button right on the steering wheel for effortless highway cruising. Backing up or navigating tight spaces is equally simple thanks to its digital rearview mirror and a 360-degree surround view monitor, which includes a blind-spot view monitor that projects a live feed right into the instrument cluster when I activate the corresponding turn signal.

Meanwhile, the 2026 Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition certainly holds its own with a comfortable layout, a bright 12-inch touchscreen, and heated and ventilated front seats. It also includes an adaptive front lighting system with headlights that physically swivel in the direction I steer. However, it falls noticeably short on high-end tech features. For example, it relies on just a standard backup camera rather than a full 360-degree surround camera system, and it lacks advanced luxury touches like an HUD or digital rearview mirror that make the Telluride feel like a premium cruiser.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Value

When comparing sticker prices, the 2026 Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition appears to have the price advantage at $50,230. But while the Atlas delivers a comprehensive set of daily necessities, you’re getting more value with the Telluride despite costing more.

That’s because you aren't just paying for the cosmetics, you’re getting luxury-tier equipment like massaging driver's seats, digital rearview mirror, 360-degree cameras, and everything else I’ve mentioned already.

On top of that, Kia backs the Telluride with an industry-leading 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (compared to VW’s 4-year/50,000-mile coverage), offering long-term peace of mind that bridges the price gap and makes the Telluride feel like a much better investment.

Winner: Kia Telluride

Volkswagen Atlas vs. Kia Telluride: Verdict

I can’t deny how these family haulers are excellent at offering outstanding utility with their 3-row seating, especially with how easily you can fold down the 3rd-row bench seats to expand trunk space. If driving dynamics are high on your priority list, the 2026 Volkswagen Atlas Peak Edition is easily the more engaging choice. Its sports car-like responsiveness, nimble handling around curves, and quieter cabin under acceleration make it a genuine pleasure to drive every day.

However, when I consider the total package, the 2027 Kia Telluride X-Pro SX-Prestige AWD earns my recommendation. While I personally prefer the Atlas's livelier driving performance, the Telluride's overwhelming luxury tech suite simply seals the deal. You’re definitely paying more, but that price difference is well worth it.

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

Which $699 laptop should you buy: the new Dell XPS 13 (2026) or the MacBook Neo? That’s the big question right now, as Dell’s affordable XPS is a true rival to Apple’s popular laptop. This might have been an easier choice before Apple’s price hikes pushed the Neo’s price up by $100, but now you really have to weigh your options more carefully.

These notebooks are designed for budget-conscious folks who need a reliable machine for everyday work. Their ultraportable designs are also ideal for anyone who works on the go. Additionally, they have better displays and sturdier builds than most laptops in this price range.

While you won’t go wrong with either the Dell XPS 13 or MacBook Neo, one could be better for you than the other. Below, I’ll detail everything you need to know about these laptops to help you decide which is worth your money.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Specs

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Design

One of the standout features of these laptops is their respective designs. Instead of being bulky and plasticky like typical budget laptops, the XPS 13 and MacBook Neo are thin and light machines with sturdy aluminum casings. They might be affordable, but they definitely look as elegant as their more premium counterparts.

The XPS 13 is the lighter of the two, weighing 2.2 pounds compared to the MacBook Neo’s 2.7 pounds. Neither laptop will be a burden to travel with, but the XPS 13 is easier to take on the road or around your home. Both are also easy to open with one hand, thanks to the lips on their respective lids.

One design area where the Neo wins is with its wider choice of colors. While the XPS 13 comes in Sky and Storm colors, the Neo comes in more vibrant hues: Silver, Indigo, Blush, and Citrus. Dell’s notebook is all business, while Apple’s Neo knows how to have some fun.

Both laptops have sturdy and roomy keyboard decks, with satisfying spacing between the keys for a comfortable typing experience. The MacBook Neo has slightly larger and thicker keycaps than the XPS 13, and they’re color-coded to the laptop. Their respective touchpads are roughly the same size, and each is very smooth and responsive. The main difference here is that the XPS 13 has a backlit keyboard, whereas the Neo doesn’t.

The laptops each have a pair of USB-C ports, but while both of the XPS 13’s ports are USB 3.2 Gen 2, the Neo has only one such port — with the other being a slower USB 2 port. So when it comes to faster charging and data speeds, the XPS 13 has the edge. But unlike Dell’s notebook, the Neo has a 3.5mm jack.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Display

The XPS 13 and MacBook Neo each have excellent displays for this price point, since budget laptops usually have dim, dull panels. You won’t have a bad viewing experience with either, but each has its strengths and weaknesses.

For starters, the MacBook Neo has a 13-inch 2408 x 1506 Liquid Retina display, while the XPS 13 has a 13.4-inch 2560 x 1600 InfinityEdge touch screen. The panel on Dell’s laptop is larger, with a higher resolution and touch screen support. The XPS 13 has some strengths here, but as we’ll see next, the Neo has its own advantages.

As you can see from our lab tests, the XPS 13 has good color representation (sRGB and DCI-P3) and color accuracy (Delta-E). The MacBook Neo delivers slightly oversaturated hues compared to the XPS 13, and its display can get much brighter with both SDR and HDR content.

Overall, the MacBook Neo delivers a more vibrant image compared to the XPS 13, despite the latter having a larger display and higher resolution. Unless you’re a fan of touchscreens, the MacBook Neo’s display takes the lead here, though the XPS 13 isn’t far behind.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Performance

Given their $699 asking price, neither the XPS 13 nor MacBook Neo is designed to be a powerful workstation. Instead, they’re built for everyday work, web browsing, and video streaming. That said, one offers stronger overall performance than the other.

On the Geekbench 6 CPU benchmark, the MacBook Neo scored higher in both the single- and multi-core testing. This is impressive considering how the MacBook Neo’s A18 Pro processor was originally an iPhone chip, whereas the Intel Wildcat Lake processor is made for laptops, albeit budget machines.

Moving over to the Handbrake test, which involves transcoding a 4K video to 1080p, the XPS 13 took almost ten minutes to complete the task, which is 40 seconds faster than the MacBook Neo. However, on the Blackmagic SSD test, the Neo completely outperformed the XPS 13 with faster write/read speeds.

In the 3DMark Wildlife test, which measures a machine’s graphical performance, the XPS 13 scored 2455 and averaged 14 frames per second. The MacBook Neo did better, with a 3661 score and 21 fps.

Using its built-in benchmark tool, Borderlands 3 ran at an unplayable 8.7 fps at 1080p, just one frame lower than the MacBook Neo’s 9.6 fps. In short, neither is suited for high-end gaming.

The XPS 13 handles the basics without a problem, but if you need more performance, the MacBook Neo is the clear winner.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Battery life

The XPS 13 and MacBook Neo both have stellar, more-than-all-day battery life. While you won’t have to worry too much about either dying on you at an inopportune time, one will last longer than the other.

In our battery life test, which involves continuous Wi-Fi web surfing with the display set to 150 nits, the Dell XPS 13 lasted 14 hours and 29 minutes.

Conversely, the MacBook Neo lasted for 13 hours and 26 minutes on the same test. That’s still great, but the XPS 13 can last for an hour longer.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Webcam

Lastly, let’s discuss the webcam quality of these laptops. Here, we’re comparing the MacBook Neo’s 1080p FaceTime HD camera to the Dell XPS 13’s 1080p webcam.

The photo above is from the XPS 13’s camera. Although my background and I are clearly visible, the image is somewhat blurry despite the relatively good lighting.

This next photo is from the MacBook Neo. Here, the image has a more natural color tone and is decidedly sharper.

Though you won’t look horrible in video calls with either webcam, the MacBook Neo does a better job of capturing images.

Dell XPS 13 vs. MacBook Neo: Bottom line

If you’re already married to macOS or Windows 11, then choose the laptop for that ecosystem. However, if you’re platform-agnostic, one laptop might be better for you than the other.

The Dell XPS 13 is perfect for anyone who wants an extremely lightweight laptop with touchscreen support and faster USB-C ports. It also has stellar battery life. Conversely, the MacBook Neo has more fun color options, stronger performance, a more vivid display, and a sharper webcam.

Personal preferences aside, the Dell XPS 13 and MacBook Neo are easily the best $699 laptops you can buy right now, so don’t hesitate to buy either, as it will be money well spent if you’re on a budget and in need of an upgrade.

More from Tom's Guide

• While PC gamers fight for 16GB of VRAM, AMD just unveiled a rack with 31,000 Gigabytes
• New report details huge Mac overhaul for MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Studio
• "DLSS 5 is fully controllable from the developer": Nvidia’s upscaler might be better than expected

Not only is the Samsung S95H one of the best OLED TVs of the year, it's one of the best TVs I've ever seen, period. It recently earned our rare five-star rating on account of its incredible picture quality and its laundry list of features, but its price is steep and its metal-frame design won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Sitting beneath the S95H in the TV-maker's OLED TV lineup is the Samsung S90H. This mid-range OLED isn't as bright or as colorful as the S95H, but it offers many of the same features for a significantly lower price.

If you're in the market for an OLED TV this year — especially a Samsung-branded OLED — both of these TVs will surely make your short list of candidates. That's where I come in. I've got over a decade of TV-testing experience and I'm quite familiar with both models. Here's how the Samsung S95H and S90H OLED TVs compare — from performance to features and price.

Samsung S95H vs S90H: Specs compared

Despite their difference in price, the S95H and S90H are quite similar on paper. Like all Samsung TVs, neither set supports Dolby Vision, one of the most popular, enhanced HDR formats.

These OLEDs are among the first Samsung TVs to support HDR10+ Advanced, an all-new, royalty-free Dolby Vision alternative. HDR10+ Advanced is meant to compete with Dolby Vision 2, the newest version of Dolby Vision HDR, but content for both is still scarce.

One major difference has to do with size availability. The S90H comes in two smaller screen sizes: 42 and 48 inches. And, while it won't make a difference to the average viewer, it's worth noting that the S95H supports an optional, external One Connect Box that unlocks four additional HDMI ports.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S90H: Design

The Samsung S95H's design is quite divisive, as it's unlike anything else on the market. As you can see in the photo above, the S95H features an eye-catching, metallic frame, and it can't be detached from the screen itself. The brushed-metal material plays the part of a premium design flourish, but based on conversations I've had with readers, you'll either love it or hate it.

I don't mind the look of the S95H's frame when the TV is mounted on a wall, as the entire point is to emphasize the picture, similar to a portrait's frame. That said, the frame draws more attention to itself when the S95H is set up on a media console.

The S90H, on the other hand does not come with a big metal frame. Its OLED screen sits atop a pedestal-style stand. It's sturdy enough to minimize wobble, but some people might prefer the approach of the S95H's setup, which trades a pedestal-style stand for a pair of L-shaped feet.

Last year, Samsung's flagship OLED was the only OLED TV in the brand's lineup to feature Samsung's Glare Free display. This year, the Glare Free display has made its way to the mid-range S90H.

This matte-style finish is the best in the business at eliminating direct glare, but there's a catch: During daytime viewing (or in well-lit rooms), the Glare Free display scatters light in such a way that black levels on the S95H and S90H appear purplish-gray instead of deep, inky black. This would not be the case with a glossy-style screen.

Both TVs ship with Samsung's Solar Cell remote control, which automatically charges its lithium-ion battery via indoor/outdoor light. This convenient feature saves on the waste that comes with disposable batteries, but the Solar Cell remote's lack of an input button is a bit inconvenient.

There's no denying that the S95H features a more luxurious look and feel. But the S90H's design is far less divisive.

Winner: Draw

Samsung S95H vs S90H: Performance

Before we dive into which of these TVs is the better performer, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were set to Samsung's Filmmaker picture mode when these tests were taken.)

Both TVs deliver the performance-related benefits that we've come to expect from OLED TVs: perfect black levels, pixel-level dimming and ultra-accommodating viewing angles. Because of these benefits, pretty much everything look superb on both the S95H and S90H.

However, compared to the S90H, the S95H offers a superior picture. The differences come down to two key areas of performance: brightness and color.

Almost every size in the S95H leverages Samsung Display's quantum dot-enhanced OLED technology (also known as QD-OLED). Samsung's mid-range S90 series featured a QD-OLED display last year, but this year, every size in the S90H series makes use of a standard WOLED display.

There are many differences between QD-OLED and WOLED, but for our purposes, here's what you need to know: The S95H offers better HDR brightness and color volume than what you'll see on WOLED-equipped OLED TVs like the S90H.

As you can see from our test results, the S95H is capable of pumping nearly twice the level of brightness to HDR highlights than the S90H. During HDR movies, shows and games, highlights — like the sharp reflection of sunlight off the hood of a car — are appear much brighter on the S95H.

This added highlight brightness adds tremendously to the S95H's ability to create visual depth. It also allows for better detail around said highlights.

But the primary benefit of the S95H's quantum dots can be seen in its color volume. Thanks to Samsung Display's enhanced OLED display, it covers 89% - 90% of the BT.2020 color space (compared to about 78% on the S90H).

The added range of colors makes for a more color-rich viewing experience on the S95H, particularly during cinematic, HDR content. Bold, bright primary colors are punchier, but the S95H is particularly good at rendering accurate skin tones and low-luminance colors like dark blue.

Despite its shortcomings when compared to the S95H, the Samsung S90H is nevertheless a sensational TV. Its roughly 1,500 nits of HDR highlight brightness is more than enough for an eye-popping, cinematic picture. It's an OLED TV, after all, so it's not saddled with light bloom and haloing around bright objects.

I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone who spends time with the S90H will walk away impressed with its accurate, OLED-driven performance. The S95H is just brighter, more colorful and guided by more-advanced processing. In a side-by-side comparison, the S95H's advantages really shine.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S90H: Smart platform and features

Both the S95H and the S90H are built around a newly refreshed version of Samsung's Tizen-based smart platform, Smart Hub. This version is similar to what we saw across the brand's 2025 lineup, but there are some subtle changes to the user interface that improve the overall experience. For instance, new this year is a menu bar at the top of the screen that provides quick access to important settings.

I suspect that most people that choose to rely on Smart Hub as their daily streaming platform will find it decent enough. Navigation and load times are similar across both TVs.

When it comes to additional features and enhancements, these TVs are nearly identical. Both sets support 4K/120Hz gaming (the highest 4K spec on current-gen consoles), and with a gaming PC linked up, both OLEDs can support 4K titles at up to 165Hz.

Winner: Draw

Samsung S95H vs S90H: Verdict

The Samsung S95H is an astonishing TV. Its quantum-dot color is nearly unmatched among OLED TVs, and it's also one of the brightest OLEDs you can buy right now. This makes it a safer bet than the S90H for brighter-than-average rooms, all while creating a truly impressive sense of visual depth.

But all of this performance upside comes at a steep cost. Right now, the 65-inch Samsung S95H is $2,999 at Best Buy, which is prohibitively pricey for the average consumer — even those willing to spend over a thousand bucks on an impressive, new TV.

This is the primary reason why I recommend the Samsung S90H over its flagship-level sibling. The 65-inch S90H is currently $1,799 at Best Buy, and while it's not as bright and colorful as the S95H, you're still getting a near-identical set of features for gaming and streaming. In addition, the S90H's frame-free design is a safer bet for the average shopper.

I won't tell you that the S95H's sensational performance isn't worthy of the S95H's added cost. For home theater enthusiasts who've been saving up for a life-changing TV, the S95H is probably worth its price.

The S90H has far greater appeal for most people shopping for a higher-end TV. I suspect it'll be the more popular model in 2026.

More from Tom's Guide

• Samsung S95H OLED TV review
• Samsung S90H OLED TV review
• Micro RGB vs OLED TVs: What’s the difference?

If you see me walking down the street and I start to cry, it’s probably because I’m doing a walk test for Tom’s Guide, and I’ve lost count. As you’ll know if you follow Tom’s Guide’s fitness desk, one of the first things we do when a new device drops is take it for a walk with another fitness tracker to see how well it does the basics.

This week, everyone is talking about the new Garmin Cirqa, Garmin’s $199 screenless fitness tracker, which looks set to take on the likes of Fitbit Air and Whoop 5.0. It’s a subscription-free tracker with comprehensive workout and sleep insights, up to 10 days of battery, haptic feedback, and a single physical button. You can read our early verdict on the Garmin Cirqa here.

To find out more, I strapped it to my wrist alongside the Apple Watch 11, which isn’t screenless, but is one of the most popular smartwatches on the market. I’ve had the Series 11 on my wrist since it was released last September. The newest iteration of Apple’s most popular smartwatch has hypertension alerts and a sleep score to help you gain a deeper understanding of your overall health.

But which was more accurate over 5,000 steps? Read on to find out more.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa and the Apple Watch 11 — here are the results

If you’ve read one of my articles before, you’ll know that manually counting anything more than around 50 steps is out of my remit, so I rely on a trusty $5 clicker tool from Amazon.

I manually click every time I take a step. For this test, I wore the Apple Watch 11 on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right. Both watches count your steps using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm.

Each swing counts for two steps, and it doesn’t matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand. It doesn’t matter if you walk with your hands in your pockets or holding a cup of coffee; the accelerometer should still measure your body’s movement. It does, however, make a difference if you’re pushing a stroller — no, Apple, I promise I haven’t done a 45-minute elliptical workout while trying to get my toddler to sleep.

As with all of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch 11 doesn’t tell you the number of steps you’ve taken during a specific workout; instead, you see an overall number of steps throughout the day. Probably because steps aren’t actually that useful a metric, but annoying for me when writing these articles. For this comparison, I downloaded a third-party Pedometer+ app onto my Apple Watch 11.

When I got home, I downloaded all the data.

As you can see, the Apple Watch got slightly closer to my actual step count than the Garmin Cirqa; however, I will caveat this slightly. I had a major problem with the device in that it didn’t recognise the activity as a walk at all. Instead, when I synced the Cirqa to Garmin Connect, I just got a "45-minute workout," with no distance or steps included.

I’ve only been wearing the device for 48 hours, and Garmin has stressed it gets smarter the more it gets to know you. Instead, I had to look at my overall steps throughout the day and use the numbers from there. I wonder if the results would have been different if the walk had been recorded as a walk, or if I’d been wearing the tracker for months, as I have with the Apple Watch 11.

I’ll continue my testing and my step counting before I make my verdict. Watch this space!

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

Which rugged smartwatch, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 or the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, is the better device for tracking outdoor workouts and adventures? I decided to find out by manually counting 4,000 steps with one on either wrist.

Aside from the obvious — the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is for iOS users, and the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is for the Android faithful — these two smartwatches are remarkably evenly matched. Of course, they also track a whole lot of other, more exciting activities, including scuba diving, but for the sake of our comparison, I’m going to stick with a good old-fashioned walk.

With my manual count as the primary control for this comparison, as a control for distance, climb, and pace, we’ll rely on ol’ reliable, the Strava app.

Read on to find out which smartwatch came out on top in this fitness tracking accuracy showdown with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3

Before diving into the results, here are the biggest differences between the Apple Watch Ultra 3, one of the best smartwatches in 2026, and the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (review pending). For starters, the Apple Watch is $100 more than the Galaxy Watch, $799 vs $699.

The Galaxy Watch, meanwhile, boasts a brighter display, better battery life, and a genuinely useful onboard AI assistant that's backed by Gemini and accessible via a wrist raise.

Design-wise, I find the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to be a lot comfier than the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Not only is the Apple Watch thinner, but it's also narrower. That said, the two weigh roughly the same.

When it comes to logging workouts, Apple and Samsung's best are evenly matched. They each boast dual-band GPS for location tracking, barometric altimeters for elevation monitoring, accelerometers and gyroscopes for motion tracking, and tons of health sensors to monitor your heart rate, body temperature, calories burned, and more.

With that out of the way, on to the result of my 4,000-step walk test comparison with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2!

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Walk test results

I took exactly 4,000 steps during my ~35-minute walk, a tally that's backed up by Strava, which also logged precisely 4K. As always, any step count total within 100 steps of my actual tally is considered excellent and well within a reasonable margin for error.

Both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 performed exceptionally well in this test, not just in terms of accurately counting my steps, but also logging distance, elevation gain, pace, and even heart rate.

Of course, when it comes to steps, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 beats the Apple Watch Ultra 3 by a modest margin compared to the control. The same goes for climb and pace. The Apple Watch, meanwhile, was a little bit closer to the control for distance.

Both devices registered roughly the same maximum and average heart rates, though the Apple Watch calculated more calories burned and used less battery to log my efforts.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

By a teeny-tiny margin, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 gets a win versus its main competitor, the Apple Watch Ultra 3. Ultimately, though, both devices performed with impressive accuracy during this test, and I would not hesitate to use either to log my next workout, whether it's a walk around the neighborhood or a recreational dive in Puget Sound.

Stay tuned for my full Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 review, to be published soon. In the meantime, which smartwatches would you like to see me test the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 against next? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• 5 things to know about the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• The Samsung Galaxy Ring is about to be the world’s first FDA-cleared smart ring for sleep apnea

If you’ve followed the Tom’s Guide fitness team for a while, you’ll know that one of the first things we do when a new device drops is take it for a walk test. Sure, most of the best fitness trackers on the market are designed to do much more than just count your steps, but how well they handle the basics is often a good place to start.

Next on my list was the long-awaited Garmin Cirqa, which was announced this week and launches on July 24 for $199. It’s Garmin’s new screenless tracker, designed to track your health and fitness stats without distractions or a monthly subscription.

The obvious device to compare it to was the Fitbit Air, Google’s $99 screenless tracker, which launched earlier this year. They both track everything you’d expect: your steps, calories, heart rate, menstrual cycle, skin temperature, and sleep. Both have haptic alerts to wake you up, and tons of data to help you live a healthier lifestyle. Check out the main similarities and differences between the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air here.

As a control, I manually counted my steps using a $5 clicker tool from Amazon — the kind a bouncer would use to count people into a club in my twenties. Every time I took a step, I clicked, and when I got home, I checked my stats on the respective apps. One key difference was that I was able to use the button on the right-hand side of the Garmin Cirqa to start the activity, whereas I logged into the Google Health app to manually start my walk, but more on that below.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air, and the winner is clear

As mentioned above, for each step I took, I clicked. I wore the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air on the same wrist. Both record steps in the same way: using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm.

Each swing counts for two steps, and it doesn’t matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand. It doesn’t matter if you walk with your hands in your pockets or holding a cup of coffee; the accelerometer should still measure your body’s movement.

Here are the results:

As you can see, the results are pretty clear: the Fitbit Air was pretty much spot on when it came to counting my steps.

That said, before we write the Garmin Cirqa off completely, I had a major problem with the device in that it didn’t recognize the activity as a walk at all. Instead, when I synced the Cirqa to Garmin Connect, I just got a "45-minute workout," with no distance or steps included.

I’ve only been wearing the device for 48 hours, and Garmin has stressed it gets smarter the more it gets to know you. Instead, I had to look at my overall steps throughout the day and use the numbers from there. I wonder if the results would have been different if the walk had been recorded as a walk, or if I’d been wearing the tracker for months, as I have with the Fitbit Air.

Either way, only overcounting by two steps is very impressive from the Fitbit Air. I’ll continue testing both alongside one another to help you decide which is the best screenless fitness tracker for you. Watch this space!

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

In recent years, magnesium has become a bedtime must-have, promising to help you stop waking up at 3 a.m. by preparing your body for deep, peaceful sleep. I've been taking magnesium in the evenings for a while, but lately I've been wondering if I should take melatonin instead.

Both are popular sleep supplements, but is magnesium or melatonin better for reducing 3 a.m. wake-ups? "Neither magnesium nor melatonin is a guaranteed solution, but both can be helpful in certain situations," says Dr Shelby Harris, a board-certified clinical psychologist and behavioural sleep medicine specialist.

Here I ask Dr Harris and Vanessa Rissetto, a Registered Dietician on the Vitamin Shoppe’s Wellness Council, if either melatonin or magnesium can help you sleep through the night and stop you from waking up at 3 a.m., and what the pros and cons of each are. Here's what they said...

Key takeaways: Magnesium vs melatonin at a glance

• While neither magnesium nor melatonin are guaranteed to prevent middle-of-the-night wake-ups, both are effective at helping you to sleep better.
• Magnesium can be used to reduce nighttime awakenings if your broken sleep is caused by stress, tension, or a magnesium deficiency.
• Melatonin is more effective to fall asleep faster, rather than helping you to stay asleep.
• Always speak to your doctor before taking melatonin, as it isn't suitable for everybody.
• When taking melatonin, use the lowest effective dose possible, and discuss dosage times with your sleep specialist first.

What is magnesium for sleep?

According to Rissetto, magnesium is an essential mineral involved in hundred of reactions throughout the body. One such function is promoting calmness as it supports normal muscle relaxation and healthy stress response.

"I often tell people to think of magnesium as creating the right conditions for good sleep rather than forcing you to fall asleep," shares Rissetto.

However, the registered dietician also warns that magnesium "isn’t a magic sleep supplement".

"If someone is deficient, correcting that deficiency can absolutely improve sleep quality, reduce muscle cramping, and ease restless feelings at night," she explains. "But if your magnesium status is already adequate, the effects are usually more subtle."

Dr Harris agrees, explaining that, while magnesium isn't a sleep medication, evidence shows it may help people who are deficient or experiencing stress-related insomnia "by promoting relaxation and supporting healthy sleep quality".

"Certain forms, such as magnesium glycinate, tend to be better tolerated and are commonly used for sleep," the board-certified doctor adds.

What is melatonin for sleep?

Rissetto says that one of the biggest misconceptions about melatonin is that it's nothing more than a "nightly vitamin" or a supplement.

"It's actually a hormone your brain naturally produces in response to darkness, " she clarifies.

The dietician explains that the hormone is an integral part of our body's natural sleep schedule, which is know as our circadian rhythm, sending the body and "internal signal that it's time to wind down".

"As evening approaches, melatonin levels rise, helping prepare your body for sleep, and then they decrease again in the morning," she explains.

However, both Rissetto and Dr. Harris point out that melatonin should not be seen as a sleeping pill.

"As a supplement, it works by signalling that it's time to sleep rather than acting as a sedative," Dr. Harris tells me.

Dr. Harris says that it's most effective when being used for people who are experiencing issues with their circadian rhythm, such as travellers with jet lag and shift workers.

"Though the data behind its use specifically for insomnia isn’t very strong," she warns.

Magnesium vs melatonin: Which is better for deep sleep?

Before we compare the effects that magnesium and melatonin have on disrupted sleep, both Rissetto and Dr. Harris stress the importance of identifying the underlying cause of these nighttime awakenings.

"I’d be asking bigger questions," says Rissetto. "Is the person drinking alcohol? Is menopause playing a role? Do they have sleep apnea? Is blood sugar fluctuating? Are they under chronic stress?"

"Neither magnesium nor melatonin is particularly good at preventing middle-of-the-night awakenings if there’s an underlying cause," she adds.

Magnesium: Pros and cons

For Rissetto and Dr. Harris, magnesium seems to be the clear winner when treating nighttime awakenings caused by stress, nighttime anxiety, muscle tension or magnesium deficiency.

"Magnesium may promote relaxation and improve overall sleep quality, particularly in people who are deficient," says Dr. Harris.

"Magnesium may help some people feel more relaxed, especially if low magnesium levels, muscle tension, or stress are contributing to fragmented sleep," Rissetti tells me.

"Still, the evidence for reducing nighttime awakenings is mixed," the dietician adds, referring to research that indicates further investigations are needs to clarify the relationship between magnesium and sleep.

However, magnesium is still the experts' pick when choosing between the two supplements. "For someone who’s stressed, tense, or not meeting their magnesium needs through diet, magnesium may offer more benefit," Rissetto concludes.

Melatonin: Pros and cons

While melatonin has proved to be a popular aid for helping people fall asleep fast, both Rissetto and Dr. Harris agree that it's not the best option if you want to sleep through the night without waking up at 3 a.m.

"Melatonin primarily helps people fall asleep by supporting the body's natural sleep-wake cycle," says Dr. Harris.

"For someone with jet lag or a disrupted sleep schedule, melatonin may be the better fit as it's generally more helpful for helping you fall asleep than it is for helping you stay asleep," says Rissetto.

"I generally think of melatonin as a tool, not a long-term solution. If someone is using it every night for months because they can’t sleep, that’s a sign we should be asking why they’re not sleeping in the first place," she adds.

Is taking melatonin bad for you?

A November 2025 study found that people using melatonin supplements long-term had around a 90% higher chance of heart failure over five years — causing searches for "is melatonin bad for you?" to balloon the same month.

So, is it best to avoid melatonin supplements altogether, even if they do help you to fall asleep?

"In the U.S., it’s sold as a supplement, so dosing isn’t regulated as tightly as prescription medications, and studies have found that some products contain much more — or much less — melatonin than what’s listed on the label," warns Rissetto.

If you want to try a melatonin supplements for sleep, Risetto says to choose a high quality, reputable brand and remember that more isn't always better.

"Many products contain 5, 10, or even 20 milligrams, when research suggests much smaller doses, often around 0.3 to 1 milligram, may be sufficient for many people," she advises.

Dr. Harris agrees with smaller dosing, saying that melatonin is safest when used at the "lowest effective dose".

"Try 1-3mg max an hour before bed," says Dr Harris. "If you need more than 5mg of melatonin to sleep at night, it likely isn’t the appropriate treatment for you as 5-10 mg is quite a moderate to large dose."

"Working with a sleep specialist can be useful here to figure out specific timing," says thethe board-certified doctor.

The LG C6 is the latest in a long line of perennially popular, mid-range OLED TVs. It offers the exceptional performance we've come to expect from an LG OLED TV along with a class-leading selection of gaming- and streaming-related features.

As a Samsung-branded, mid-range OLED TV, the Samsung S90H is the C6's top rival. Its price, performance and size availability is similar to that of the C6, but its overall design is quite different.

If you're in the market for an OLED TV this year, and you're willing to spend on something above the entry-level tier, the C6 and S90H are two of the best OLED TVs to consider. Here's how they stack up when it comes to performance, design and features.

LG C6 vs Samsung S90H: specs compared

Before we dive into the rest of the specs, let's discuss size availability. The LG C6 is available in in 77- and 83-inch screen sizes, but these variants are classified as an altogether different model called the LG C6H. This means if you want a 77- or 83-inch LG C6, you'll technically have to buy the C6H.

We've not yet tested the 77- or 83-inch versions of the C6H, but LG promises better performance on these sets due to the fact that they leverage LG Display's newest RGB Tandem OLED display. This type of OLED panel allows for higher brightness and better color volume than the standard WOLED displays found on the 42- to 65-inch versions of the C6.

One of the biggest differences between these sets concerns HDR support. Like all LG OLED TVs, the C6 supports Dolby Vision, a licensed version of enhanced HDR.

The S90H does not support Dolby Vision. No Samsung TV does. Instead, it offers HDR10+, a royalty-free version of Dolby Vision that uses metadata to adjust the picture on a scene-by-scene basis, similar to Dolby Vision.

You'll still be able to watch Dolby Vision content on the S90H, and it'll certainly look great, but without Dolby Vision support, the S90H won't be optimized to replicate the creator's intent on Dolby Vision-mastered movies and shows . (To learn more check out our guide to whether or not you need Dolby Vision.)

Neither one of these OLED TVs supports ATSC 3.0, which supports native 4K over-the-air broadcasting. However, both sets offer a full slate of four HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs, along with support for 4K gaming at 120Hz (and up to 165Hz when a PC is linked up).

It's close, but the C6's Dolby Vision support gives it an edge..

Winner: LG C6

LG C6 vs Samsung S90H: design

Given their performance similarities, I suspect that the design differences between the C6 and the S90H will inform many people's choice about which to buy.

The C6 (seen above) looks remarkably similar to its predecessor, the LG C5. That's not a bad thing, as both the C5 and C6 are quite sleek.

The C6's wedge-shaped stand sits below the center of the screen. The stand isn't very tall, so people with larger soundbars should make sure that their device won't obstruct the screen.

Every size in the C6 series ships with the newest version of LG's remote control. Like previous iterations, this remote features Wii-mote-like motion controls for pointing and clicking. (If you don't want to use this feature, the remote's directional pad can override the motion controls.)

Like the C6, the S90H — the back of which you can see above — also leans into the ultra-thin look that OLED TVs are typically associated with. (It doesn't, however, feature a unique, marble-like design on the back of its panel like LG's OLED.)

The C6's stand is a flat plate rather than a wedge-shaped piece, and it lifts the S90H slightly higher above its surface than the C6's stand. If your soundbar is extra tall, you might want to take a closer look at the S90H.

Samsung's Solar Cell remote control is included in the box, and while I'm annoyed at its lack of a dedicated input button, I do appreciate the fact that it charges by way of a solar panel on its back. It really cuts down on battery waste.

Unlike its predecessor (the S90F OLED), the S90H is the first mid-range Samsung OLED to feature the brand's Glare Free display. This matte-style finish is the most effective I've seen in combating direct reflections, but it it does so at a cost.

In average-to-well-lit rooms, the S90H's matte finish significantly lifts the picture's black levels. Big, bold reflections will disappear, but the light from those sources will scatter across the display. When this happens, the darker portions of the screen can appear purplish-gray and lose the deep, inky presentation that many people associate with OLED picture quality.

The C6's glossy screen isn't as adept at fighting direct glare, but it maintains the inky OLED patina in well-lit environments. With the lights off, both presentations look similar.

Depending on your living space and viewing habits, you'll likely prefer one of these designs over the other. Folks who are concerned about reflecting light ought to favor the S90H's matte-style screen, and viewers without competing light sources will likely prefer the C6's glossy screen.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs Samsung S90H: performance

Before we dive into which of these TVs is the better performer, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were in their respective Filmmaker picture mode when these tests were taken.)

As much as I'd love to regale you with a multi-point breakdown of the many ways in which the performance of these rival sets diverge, the truth of the matter is that they're almost the same TV.

Both deliver the key benefits that OLEDs are known for: perfect black levels, pixel-level dimming and ultra-wide viewing angles. Given these benefits, pretty much everything looks terrific on the C6 and S90H.

The C6 is slightly brighter during SDR content (like cable TV and most TV shows), but it's close enough in this category that it almost doesn't matter. Ditto for HDR content, too — the S90H offers slightly brighter HDR performance, but in normal viewing scenarios, the difference is barely noticeable.

When it comes to color, these OLEDs are neck and neck, too: The S90H's marginally higher brightness allows for a wider range of color, but — and stop me if you've heard this one before — the difference is too subtle to matter.

The story here would've been different if Samsung had outfitted the S90H with a quantum dot-enhanced OLED display, just as last-year's S90F did. With quantum dots in tow, the S90H would likely produce a much wider range of colors. Unfortunately, with WOLED panels in play, Samsung's mid-range OLED has lost a step to LG's this year.

Nevertheless, home theater enthusiasts will be thrilled to learn that both sets are remarkably accurate in their out-of-the-box state. You won't have to shell out for a professional calibration in order to enjoy a precise picture.

Both of these TVs look fantastic. However, even in a direct, side-by-side comparison, their differences are subtle.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs Samsung S90H: smart platform and features

The C6's user experience is built around the latest version of LG's webOS. Dubbed webOS 26, it's a similar experience to the version we tested last year, but a handful of small changes to the interface make it a bit easier to navigate.

While I'm always in favor of software improvements, webOS still isn't my top choice for daily streaming on account of its heavy ad placement and occasional slow-down. Still, webOS will get the job done if you'd rather not deal with a separate streaming box.

Samsung's Tizen-based streaming platform, Smart Hub, has similarly seen some subtle improvements year over year. For instance, there's now a quick-access menu at the top of most of the pages on the home screen, and its convenient placement makes it easier to access often-used settings.

Unless you favor LG's software over Samsung (or vice versa), both of these user experiences are on a similar level when it comes to sponsored content and navigation speed.

And, as far as gaming features go, the similarities continue. Both TVs offer HDMI 2.1-compatibility across all four of their primary inputs, and they're equipped to make make the most out of 4K titles on current-generation consoles since they each support 4K gaming at 120Hz. With a gaming PC hooked up, you can stretch that to 4K/165Hz on both sets.

In addition, both the C6 and S90H support Variable Refresh Rate (VRR), Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM) and a version of AMD FreeSync Premium for smooth, tear-free gameplay.

We've already factored in the S90H's lack of Dolby Vision support, and once you set this aside, these TVs offer essentially the same set of features and ehancements.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs Samsung S90H: verdict

Regardless of which set you settle on, you're getting equally impressive performance and a near-identical selection of features. That said, the LG C6 is the OLED TV I recommend for most people. Its glossy screen is less divisive and the S90H's lack of Dolby Vision support is likely to be a sticking point for a certain type of viewer.

That said, you should consider the S90H if your living space and viewing habits are such that you'd make the most of its matte-style screen (or if you'd rather have Samsung's software suite).

Price is less of a factor in this matchup since both TVs are similarly priced. The 65-inch LG C6 is on sale for $1,799 at Best Buy and the 65-inch Samsung S90H is currently $1,999 at Best Buy. These prices will fluctuate in the coming weeks and months, but I don't expect them to stray too far from one another.

More from Tom's Guide

• LG C6 OLED review
• Samsung S90H OLED TV review
• The RAM crisis came for computers first and now it's coming for TVs — here's why I recommend upgrading while you still can

When I think of luxury performance vehicles, the first two brands that come to mind are German. While Audi and BMW have a slew of sedans that might pique your interest, they also build massive SUVs that effortlessly blend track-level performance with executive luxury.

The BMW XM Label and Audi RS Q8 fit this bill perfectly. Both models combine cutting-edge tech suites with thrilling performance to justify their eye-watering price tags. At well over $100K, these SUVs certainly don’t come cheap, but if your budget is accommodating, they deliver the ultimate dual-purpose machine.

I put them to the test by driving each for a week. Along the way, I looked at how fun they are to drive, uncovered cool features you won’t find in ordinary cars, and measured their real-world usability. At the end of the day, there’s only one I would actually recommend.

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Specifications

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Design

Both designs lean heavily into aggressive, road-dominating stances, but I have a clear favorite.

Without a doubt, it’s the BMW XM Label. Sure, it feels like I’m steering a yacht due to its long hood and massive overall size, but it looks like a stealth fighter on wheels. The XM’s slab-sided design language and geometric angles give it an imposing presence that stands out in a sea of generic crossovers..

In addition to the matte paint job, I especially love the illuminated hexagonal kidney grilles and stacked quad exhaust tips — together, they deliver a futuristic, almost cyberpunk design that commands immediate attention on the highway.

By comparison, the Audi RS Q8 feels a bit too safe and conventional. It’s much easier to drive because it’s slightly more compact. While its sloped, sportback roofline and massive wide-body arches give it a sporty stance, the overall shape blends too easily into Audi's standard SUV design language. It’s a handsome luxury cruiser, but side-by-side with the XM’s dramatic look, the Audi lacks that head-turning drama.

Winner: BMW XM Label

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Fuel economy

High-performance V8 luxury cruisers aren’t bought to save money at the pump, but I still know very well how every bit of efficiency helps — especially with the ongoing volatility in gas prices. Since the 2026 BMW XM Label is technically a PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle), it’s no surprise it’s the more efficient of the two. More importantly, it packs a dedicated battery that provides roughly 30 miles of all-electric range. That alone gives the BMW superior long-term savings.

I drove a total of 262.9 miles in the BMW XM Label and 116.7 miles in the Audi RS Q8 performance to see how their distinct powertrains hold up. Over my week of testing, the BMW achieved an average fuel economy of 23.5 MPGe, heavily assisted by its electric motor. On shorter trips around town where the battery did the heavy lifting, it yielded its best short-distance fuel economy of 24.3 MPGe.

The Audi RS Q8 performance relies on a more traditional gas setup, which naturally yields lower efficiency numbers. In my week’s worth of testing, it achieved an average of 16.1 mpg. I’m not surprised that this performance SUV struggled with short-distance drives, with 14.1 mpg being my best average. However, I was pleasantly surprised that I averaged 21 mpg on one of my long-distance tests driving mostly on highways.

Winner: BMW XM Label

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Driving performance

Besides the luxury features that accompany the BMW XM Label and Audi RS Q8, you’re paying a premium for their performance.

Despite delivering 738 horsepower out of its 4.4L TwinPower Turbo V-8 engine, the BMW's long body and immense weight make it more challenging to drive. As much as I like how the transition between electric and gasoline power is seamless, I don't find it very nimble. Don’t get me wrong, it’s lightning-fast off the starting line, but carving through tight curves isn't exactly effortless. I'm definitely more cognizant in busy parking lots.

The Audi RS Q8 is down on power compared to the BMW, generating 631 horsepower out of its 4.0L TFSI biturbo V8 engine, but its smaller footprint gives it a massive advantage. Because it's also significantly lighter, it feels way more athletic. Thanks to its standard all-wheel steering and sport-tuned adaptive air suspension, the RS Q8 is much more composed when carving through corners and handling tight turns.

Winner: Audi RS Q8

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Comfort

Although their respective cabins envelop you in top-tier premium materials, it’s the tech and ambiance that set them apart.

Just like the BMW 550e, the XM Label is designed to be an absolute sanctuary of high-tech luxury. It features a stunning, LED-lined roof that creates an atmosphere that makes the inside come to life at night. Another unique feature is the heating and cooling cup holders, something you rarely find in any vehicle.

On the road, the driving experience is bolstered by BMW’s Drive Assist system that lets me confirm turns using head gestures, along with an intelligent backup assistant that makes getting out of a tight parking space a breeze.

The Audi RS Q8 offers a more grounded, traditional luxury experience. Its interior is impeccably built, blending a hint of sportiness into the aesthetics, but it’s the surround sound system that delivers concert-hall clarity. For those who prioritize safety tech, it’s one of the few vehicles equipped with a night vision camera that detects specific heat signatures — like people on the road or large animals — to ensure I'm always aware of them.

While the RS Q8 is undeniably refined, it just lacks the sheer wow factor and the futuristic, driver-focused automation found in the BMW XM Label.

Winner: BMW XM Label

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Value

Looking at the initial price tags, it’s easy to assume the value proposition automatically leans toward the less expensive option. The Audi RS Q8 performance starts at $138,300, and even when configured with optional carbon-ceramic brakes and premium tech packages with the trim I tested, it still manages to come at about $2,000 less. However, I think you’re getting more value out of the XM Label when it boils down to it.

That’s because it earns every penny by packing in a level of luxury and utility that the Audi simply can’t match. First and foremost, the XM Label is a plug-in hybrid and inherently has substantial long-term savings by running short commutes running entirely off cheaper, electric power. When you factor in the sheer volume of advanced, exclusive features I’ve already mentioned, the XM Label delivers a genuinely next-generation experience.

The Audi is a fantastic, fast SUV, but the BMW XM Label is the one that actually feels like a true, boundary-pushing splurge.

Winner: BMW XM Label

BMW XM Label vs. Audi RS Q8: Verdict

There’s no denying that both of these luxury SUVs offer an incredible blend of performance and presence. Over-the-top is one way of describing them, but the premium you’ll pay is exactly what makes them special. I can’t deny that the Audi RS Q8 is an exceptional machine — it’s fast, handles beautifully, and delivers that traditional luxury experience for a slightly lower price tag.

However, the BMW XM Label is the luxury cruiser actually worth splurging on. While it demands a premium, it justifies that cost by delivering a complete, next-generation package. There’s no shortage of premium features, from the way it commands presence with its stealth-fighter styling to the incredible long-term fuel savings of its plug-in hybrid powertrain, which truly seals the deal.

If you’re preparing to spend six figures on a high-end performance SUV, you want something that feels truly special every single time you get behind the wheel. That's exactly what the BMW XM Label delivers, making it the definitive winner of this matchup.

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

Toyota’s Prius has long been hailed as the king of hybrid cars, offering exceptional fuel economy at a modest price point. When I tested the plug-in hybrid version last year, it gave this highly esteemed vehicle a taste of pure electric power.

Today, there are more hybrid cars than ever before — which is great, given the recent volatility in gas prices. With more competition, there’s added pressure to prove the value of choosing a hybrid over the alternatives.

That’s why I drove the 2026 Toyota Prius and 2026 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid each for a week to get a better idea of how they perform and what features they offer. You might be surprised by which one I ultimately recommend.

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Specifications

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Design

Both designs are carried over from their predecessors, but I have a clear favorite. Without a doubt, it’s the Toyota Prius, thanks to the way this hatchback fuses modern and futuristic aesthetics to stand out on the road. There’s a charming minimalism to the design, especially the continuous, sweeping curved profile that gives off the look of a low-slung sports coupe. I also love how the continuous rear light bar stretches across the trunk lid, giving the illusion of a built-in spoiler.

The 2026 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid is a bit too conventional for my taste. While the front exudes a sporty look with its low-profile grille, Hyundai’s geometric design language adds odd, triangular creases chiseled into the side panels. That same angular, edgy theme continues in the back, but I just find the overall package far less striking.

Winner: Toyota Prius

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Fuel economy

Looking at their specs, they offer relatively similar numbers — 49 mpg combined for the Prius and 50 mpg combined for the Elantra Hybrid. I’m honestly shocked because it proves that Toyota’s hybrids are no longer untouchable in this category. Between the two, the Hyundai Elantra Hybrid emerges as the clear winner, hitting a spot-on 50 mpg average during my week of testing.

Now, I’m pretty gentle with acceleration and braking whenever I test hybrids because I’m always chasing the best possible efficiency. There’s an art to driving them because with the Elantra Hybrid, I have to carefully monitor my throttle and speed for when the “EV” indicator kicks on. It pays off: in one of my short-range tests, I achieved an astounding 72.9 mpg over a 17.5-mile trek on mostly local roads.

Meanwhile, the Prius certainly doesn’t disappoint, but it falls short of the Elantra with the 46.2 mpg I averaged. Still, you can’t count it out just yet. The 2026 Toyota Prius Limited AWD hit 57 mpg during one of my long-distance test with mostly highway driving. Just like with the Elantra, you simply have to be mindful of your acceleration and speed to keep its “EV” mode sustained for as long as possible.

Winner: Hyundai Elantra Hybrid

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Driving performance

Hybrids aren’t particularly known for their driving performance, but the Prius gets my vote here for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is much punchier when accelerating from a complete stop, thanks in part to its more powerful 2.0-liter engine. Even in ECO mode, it feels quicker off the line than the Elantra, and that gap becomes even more noticeable when switching into Sport mode to overtake slower cars.

In contrast, the 2026 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited offers a much more relaxed experience. Don’t get me wrong — it is perfectly fine for commuters who just need to get to work and back, but its 1.6-liter hybrid engine delivers a modest 139 horsepower that simply isn't as responsive.

Winner: Toyota Prius

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Comfort

The 2026 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited takes the crown when it comes to interior comfort and passenger space. Not only does the cabin look more modern thanks to the lighter tone of the seats, but it also offers far more rear legroom, allowing taller adults to stretch out on longer commutes.

On top of that, I really love Hyundai's Highway Driving Assist for making the drive even more relaxing. The dedicated lane-centering button right on the steering wheel keeps the vehicle perfectly centered, whether cruise control is activated or not. Finally, this trim also comes with a sunroof for when I want fresh air without opening the windows.

Thanks to its hatchback design, the Prius offers a much larger trunk that makes it easier to stow oversized packages — which can be expanded even further by folding down the rear seats. However, while it does offer the more spacious cargo area, rear legroom is heavily compromised, leaving the backseat feeling cramped. And while the Prius features its own suite of driver assists, I still find the Elantra’s package to be much more helpful on long highway drives.

Winner: Hyundai Elantra

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Value

In my experience, Hyundai tends to be incredibly generous with adding extra features to its higher trims — but that isn't quite the case with the Elantra Hybrid. Sure, it still gets conveniences like a Bose premium sound system, adaptive cruise control, a sunroof, and ventilated seats, but you won’t find high-tech extras like blind-spot camera monitors, a 360-degree camera system, or automatic lane-change assist.

Despite this, I can’t overlook the 2026 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited’s lower $31,285 as-tested price. Compared to the Prius’ much higher $40,270 tested cost, it’s the kind of upfront price cut that offers instant and long-term savings.

Then again, the Prius strikes back by leveraging Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability and bulletproof resale value. While you will absolutely pay an $8,985 premium for it initially, history proves that Toyota hybrids retain their value remarkably well, allowing you to potentially recoup a significant chunk of that investment down the road.

Combined with a time-tested powertrain renowned for running trouble-free for hundreds of thousands of miles, the Prius promises incredibly low ownership costs over the long haul.

Winner: tie

Toyota Prius vs. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: Verdict

After tallying up the numbers, this comparison ends in a tie — proving that you can’t go wrong with either vehicle if you crave savings at the pump. Not surprisingly, the Prius continues its heritage of being a reliable hybrid, but it pairs that legendary efficiency with a vastly sportier aesthetic that makes it a genuinely fun drive. However, you're still paying a steep premium to get this top-rated hybrid.

That’s where the Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited takes a completely different approach, prioritizing maximum comfort, commuter-friendly tech, and incredible value. Its traditional sedan layout gives passengers plenty of physical breathing room, and it is genuinely shocking how thoroughly it beats the Prius when it comes down to real-world efficiency. Paired with its much lower price tag, the Elantra is the hybrid I would gladly spend my own money on.

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

I pitted the $99 Fitbit Air against the $349 Pixel Watch 4 in a head-to-head fitness tracking comparison to determine which is the more precise Google wearable. The results genuinely surprised me.

The Fitbit Air is a lightweight, screen-free fitness tracking band that's as easy on the wallet as it is comfortable on the wrist. The Pixel Watch 4 is Google's flagship smartwatch, with a large, bright display and features galore, including a handy, voice- or gesture-activated Gemini AI assistant.

To find out which of these flagship Google products is the more competent fitness tracker — at least when it comes to step-counting — I walked 4,000 steps with the Fitbit Air on my right wrist and the Pixel Watch 4 on my left. My primary control metric for the comparison is total steps taken. To ensure a precise tally on my end, I manually counted my steps, noting every hundred with a click of my old-school tally counter.

As a control for distance, pace, and climb, I brought along my iPhone 16 Plus and logged the walk using the Strava app. Find the results of the Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4 walk test below.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: fitness tracking accuracy compared

When it comes to tracking outdoor workouts, it's important to note a key difference between the Fitbit Air and Pixel Watch 4. The former lacks onboard GPS, so for location-based insights, you need to carry along a paired smartphone.

In addition to piggybacking off of your phone's GPS antenna, the Fitbit Air also relies on its altimeter for elevation data. The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, boasts both an onboard GPS antenna and a barometric altimeter.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Walk test results

I took exactly 4,000 steps (manually counted) during my 38-minute walk, including a stroll up Seattle's steepest block (for old-time's sake). While both wearables noted step count totals within 15 steps of my actual count — a seriously impressive result and well within a reasonable margin for error — much to my surprise, the Fitbit Air was a little bit closer than the Pixel Watch 4.

The Air and Pixel Watch 4 also beat Strava, which logged 3,978 steps.

The Fitbit Air's distance data is additionally more in line with the control; the same goes for pace. However, the Air's climb data is woefully inaccurate, a result I noted in my previous walk test with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch 11.

When it comes to heart rate and calories, the Air logged a slightly less aggressive workout compared to the Pixel Watch 4. The Air also used marginally less battery — not surprising, since it lacks a display.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Winner

And the winner is... the Fitbit Air, thanks to a slightly more accurate step count total, pace metric, and distance data. That said, the Air's win versus the Pixel Watch 4 comes with an asterisk due to disappointing elevation tracking performance.

The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, performed with acceptable accuracy across the board, including measuring my climb. For this reason, as someone who loves mountain sports, I'd likely opt for the latest Pixel Watch over the Fitbit Air for logging my next adventure. What do you think? Let me know which Google wearable you prefer in the poll below.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I test head-to-head next?

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free

The LG C6 is one of the year's best TVs, and it's easy to see why. In addition to its incredible, OLED-driven performance, the C6 offers more gaming- and streaming-related features than any other TV in its class. Like its predecessors, its mid-range price is sure to make it a popular pick.

The Samsung S95H, on the other hand, is a significant step up from the C6 in many ways. It's arguably the best TV in Samsung's 2026 lineup, and maybe the best TV the brand has ever engineered. Thanks to its quantum dot-enhanced OLED panel, the S95H delivers better brightness and color than the LG C6, but its divisive design and sky-high price tag could limit its appeal.

If you're in the market for an OLED TV this year and you're willing to spend on something beyond the entry-level tier, the C6 and S95H ought to be on your short list. Here's how they stack up when it comes to performance, design and features.

LG C6 vs Samsung S95H: Specs compared

First, let's take a look at the available size options in both series. You can buy the LG C6 in 77- and 83-inch variants, but these are classified as an altogether different model called the LG C6H. In other words, if you want a 77- or 83-inch LG C6, you'll technically have to buy the C6H.

We've yet to test either the 77- or 83-inch versions of the C6H, but LG promises better performance on these sets on account of the fact that they're equipped with LG Display's newest RGB Tandem OLED display. This panel type allows for higher brightness and better color volume than the standard WOLED displays found on the 42- to 65-inch versions of the C6.

There's panel variance to be aware of on Samsung's side, too. The 55-, 65- and 77-inch versions of the S95H harness Samsung Display's quantum dot-enhanced OLED display, while the 83-inch S95H uses LG Display's RGB Tandem OLED panel, similar to the C6H. (I'll dive into how the differences in panel type affect performance later on.)

One of the biggest differences between these sets lies in HDR support. Like all LG OLEDs, the C6 supports Dolby Vision, a proprietary version of enhanced HDR.

As is the case with all Samsung TVs, the S95H does not support Dolby Vision. Instead, Samsung offers HDR10+, a royalty-free version of Dolby Vision that leverages metadata to adjust the picture on a frame-by-frame basis, similar to how Dolby Vision works.

You'll still be able to watch Dolby Vision-mastered content on the S95H, but the picture will fall back to standard HDR10. It'll certainly look great, but technically speaking, the S95H can't take full advantage of Dolby Vision's efforts to replicate the creator's intent. (To learn more check out our guide to whether or not you need Dolby Vision.)

Neither OLED supports ATSC 3.0, which allows over-the-air broadcasts to be piped-in at native 4K resolution. However, both sets serve up four HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs and support 4K gaming at 120Hz (and up to 165Hz when a PC is connected).

With everything else being mostly equal, the C6's Dolby Vision support and wider range of size options gives it an edge here.

Winner: LG C6

LG C6 vs Samsung S95H: design

The C6 (seen above) mostly sticks to the design approach of its predecessor, the LG C5. That's good news, because it's an elegant-looking TV.

The C6's downward-slanting, wedge-shaped sits below the center of the screen. It sits low on its surface, so folks with taller soundbars ought to make sure the C6's design offers enough clearance.

I really love the sleek, thin look of the C6, since it leans into the flexible design elements OLED TVs are known for. And, while you'll almost never see this particular design flourish, I also dig the marble-like finish across the back of the C6's panel.

The C6 comes with the newest version of LG's Magic Remote. Like older versions of the Magic Remote, the C6's clicker can be used to point and click at the screen like a Wii-mote. If you don't want to use it (which I rarely do), there's a directional pad here, too.

Whether you mount it on the wall or set it up on a credenza, the C6's design is both premium-looking and convenient. The Samsung S95H, on the other hand, is a different story.

Built around Samsung's flagship OLED screen is a thick, metallic frame. The brushed-metal material plays the part of a premium piece of engineering, but it's quite divisive nonetheless.

For my money, the S95H's metal frame allows it to look better in a wall-mounted position than a wall-mounted C6. It keeps the S95H flush against the wall and resembles a portrait frame.

But on a credenza, media console or table, the LG C6 is a better-looking TV. The S95H comes with a pair of L-shaped feet if you don't decide to wall-mount it, but its frame (which can't be detached) looks out of place when not on a wall.

Like the its previous two predecessors, the S95H's screen features Samsung's Glare Free display. This matte-style finish is unparalleled in its ability to reduce direct glare, but it does so at a cost.

In well-lit rooms (especially during the day), the S95H's matte finish lifts the TV's black levels due to the manner in which it scatters incoming light. When this happens, darker portions of the screen can appear purplish- or pinkish-gray rather than deep, inky and black.

Thanks to its glossy-style screen, the C5 doesn't have this issue in well-lit rooms. However, it's nowhere near as adept at blunting the impact of direct glare.

Both TVs are rocking thoughtful, premium designs, but depending on your needs, you might favor one over another. The C6 is more versatile and the S95H is more specialized.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs Samsung S95H: Performance

Before we dive into which of these TVs is the better performer, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were in their respective Filmmaker picture mode when these tests were taken.)

Both of these sets are capable of delivering the key features that OLED TVs are known for: perfect black levels and pixel-level dimming. As a result, pretty much everything looks superb on both the C6 and the S95H. However, if you take a peek under their respective hoods, you'll see that their display hardware plays a big part in the S95H's built-in advantages.

As mentioned, the C6 leverages LG Display's standard WOLED display, while the S95H taps Samsung Display's quantum dot-enhanced OLED display.

QD-OLEDs tend to offer brighter highlights and purer color than garden-variety WOLED panels, and we can see that in test results of the C6 and S95H. Samsung's flagship is capable of driving nearly twice as much brightness to specular highlights, and this has a tremendously positive impact on visual depth and clarity.

Fiery sparks, pools of reflective light and muzzle flares are much, much brighter on the S95H during HDR content. In addition, Samsung's quantum dot-enhanced display allows for better overall color volume than the C6, so everything from skin tones to foliage has a chance of looking richer on Samsung's flagship OLED.

Make no mistake: The C6 is still an incredible performer. Over 1,300 nits of HDR highlight brightness is nothing to scoff at, and the self-emissive nature of OLED means that the C6 gets more out of its highlight brightness than an LCD TV with similar brightness levels. Colors are well-saturated, too, even if the C6 can't cover as much of the expanded color gamut as the S95H.

If the LG C6 is a 9/10 performer, the S95H offers 10/10 picture quality. In this case, the difference between a 9 and 10, however, is pretty wide. Both are excellent options if you care about picture quality, but the S95H offers some of the best performance I've ever seen.

Winner: Samsung S95H

LG C6 vs Samsung S95H: Smart platform and features

The C6 ships with the newest version of LG's webOS. It's a similar experience to last-year's version of webOS, but a handful of tweaks to the interface and menu layout make it a bit easier to navigate this year.

As far as smart platform software goes, LG's webOS isn't my top choice (that honor goes to Roku). It's littered with ads and recommended content, and at times, the software feels a bit sluggish.

That said, webOS will get the job done if you'd rather not shell out for a dedicated streaming box. I suspect that most people will see no problem using it as their daily streaming platform.

The S95H arrives with a recently refreshed version of Samsung's Tizen-based smart platform, Smart Hub. It's similar to what we used last year, but as is the case with webOS, Samsung has made some minor changes to improve navigation. For instance, new this year is a menu bar at the top of the screen that makes it easier to access important settings.

Unless you have strong feelings about either streaming software, both webOS and Smart Hub are similar in their perks and pain points. In other words, they're passable.

As far as gaming features go, the C6 and S95H are almost identical. As mentioned, each OLED offers HDMI 2.1-compatibility across all four inputs, which means you don't have to juggle devices to maximize bandwidth.

These TVs can make the most out of 4K titles on current-generation consoles, as they each support 4K gaming at 120Hz (and up to 165Hz with a PC linked up). Both offer Variable Refresh Rate (VRR), Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM) and a version of AMD FreeSync Premium for smooth, artifact-free gameplay.

We've already docked the S95H for its lack of Dolby Vision support, and setting this aside, these TVs are very similar when it comes to software and enhancements. They're powerful gaming TVs with average streaming platforms.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs Samsung S90F: Verdict

Here's some good news: No matter which set you settle on, you're getting one of the best OLED TVs of the year. But let's take a closer look at some key factors.

If you absolutely, positively want Dolby Vision support, the answer is easy: Buy the C6. Likewise, if you're looking for an OLED screen under 55 inches, the C6 is the answer.

The S95H is the OLED to buy if you favor picture quality above all else. Its added brightness and quantum-dot color add up to performance that's a significant step up from the C6. Similarly, if you have bright light sources in your living space and you suspect that the S95H's matte-style screen will help, Samsung is probably the way to go.

Price is important, too. Today, you can spring for a 65-inch C6 for $1,999 on Amazon. The 55-inch LG C6 is available for just $1,699 on Amazon. That's not exactly cheap, but it's a far better cost than what you'll have to shell out for Samsung's top OLED TV.

Right now, the 65-inch Samsung S95H is $3,299 at Best Buy. The 55-inch S95H is $2,299 at Best Buy — a full $600 more than the 55-inch C6.

This gulf in pricing is why I recommend the LG C6 to most shoppers. It's still a stunning, high-performing TV that delivers everything I appreciate about OLED technology, but it's much more accessible. The S95H is more of a luxury purchase for those who want the best of the best.

More from Tom's Guide

• LG C6 OLED review
• Samsung S95H OLED TV review
• The RAM crisis came for computers first and now it's coming for TVs — here's why I recommend upgrading while you still can

Most of today's AI assistants can use at least some customer conversations to improve future models, although the rules vary dramatically depending on which service you're using, whether you have a personal or business account, and which privacy settings you've enabled.

After reading about Google's latest changes around Search and AI training, I decided to spend some time checking the privacy controls for every major AI chatbot I use regularly.

I wanted to know exactly which companies actually make it easy to control how your data is used. I did the work so you don't have to — here's how they actually compare.

Not every AI company plays by the same rules

It's tempting to believe that all chatbots have similar privacy rules considering how similar they all seem. But behind the scenes, they're collecting and handling your data in very different ways.

Some make it easy to opt out of having conversations used to improve AI models. Others bury the controls several menus deep. And in some cases, there isn't a meaningful opt-out at all.

After comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI and Grok, one thing became obvious: there is no industry standard for AI privacy.

ChatGPT: The most straightforward

The biggest surprise for me was ChatGPT. I was not expecting the settings to be as easy to understand. Quite the contrary, I expected the settings to be buried somewhere inside a privacy dashboard. Instead, they're right where most people would think to look.

Open Settings > Data Controls and you'll see a switch labeled "Improve the model for everyone."

Turn it off, and OpenAI says your future conversations won't be used to improve its models.

You can also use Temporary Chat, which doesn't save conversations to your history or use them for model training.

It took less than a minute to change. Whether you're comfortable sharing conversations or not, I appreciated how straightforward the process was.

Google Gemini: Transparent, but with a tradeoff

Google's controls weren't especially difficult to find either. Gemini Apps Activity lets you decide whether your conversations are stored and used according to Google's policies.

The catch is that disabling activity also changes how Gemini works. You'll lose saved chat history, and some personalized experiences disappear along with it. That's not necessarily a bad tradeoff, just something you'll have to weigh before making the switch.

As mentioned, Google recently confirmed that some Search interactions — including uploads used with AI-powered Search features, may contribute to improving its AI systems unless you disable the relevant activity settings.

Claude: Clear controls, with some fine print worth reading

Anthropic introduced a training opt-in for its consumer Claude products (Free, Pro and Max) in August 2025. Users were asked to decide whether their conversations could be used to improve future models, with a deadline to make their choice.

The setting lives under Settings > Privacy, where you'll find a toggle labeled "Improve Claude for everyone." Turn it off and Anthropic says your future conversations won't be used for model training.

Like ChatGPT, the change is forward-looking — it doesn't pull your data out of models that have already been trained. And if you leave the toggle on, Anthropic's retention period for that data extends from 30 days to up to five years.

There's also an Incognito mode, accessible via a ghost icon in the interface. Incognito conversations aren't used for training regardless of your main toggle setting, which is a useful option for one-off sensitive queries.

One thing worth noting: Anthropic's privacy policy includes a carve-out for conversations flagged by its safety classifiers. Even if you've opted out, flagged content may still be used to improve Anthropic's internal trust and safety systems. The policy doesn't define exactly what triggers a flag or commit to notifying users when one occurs.

Business and API users operate under separate commercial terms, and their data isn't used for model training by default.

Microsoft Copilot: It depends on which product you're using

Microsoft was the hardest to summarize because the answer changes depending on where you're using AI.

For the consumer Copilot experience (used with a personal Microsoft account), Microsoft does use conversation data — including voice interactions and uploaded files' context — to train its AI models by default.

However, an opt-out exists. On copilot.com or the desktop app, go to your profile icon > your profile name > Privacy >Training on conversation activity.

On mobile, the path is Menu > profile icon > Account > Privacy > Training on conversation activity. Opting out excludes your future conversations from model training.

One detail that separates Microsoft from the pack is that even if you don't opt out, Microsoft says personal identifiers are anonymized before data is used for training. Uploaded files themselves are never used for training and are deleted after 30 days.

For Microsoft 365 Copilot used through a work or school account, the picture is much cleaner. Microsoft explicitly states that enterprise data is not used to train its foundation AI models. Your organization's IT administrator controls the relevant settings, and users in those environments won't even see a training toggle.

The gap between these two experiences is significant because a personal user who doesn't dig into settings is opted in by default. An enterprise user is protected by contract. If you're using Copilot casually with a personal account, it's worth the two minutes to check.

Meta AI: No simple opt-out for most users

Meta AI is where the comparison gets uncomfortable. Unlike every other service on this list, Meta doesn't offer U.S. users a simple toggle to opt out of AI training. Your public posts, comments, captions and interactions with Meta AI across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp can all be used to train Meta's generative AI models.

EU and UK users have stronger protections, they can submit a formal objection through Meta's Privacy Center under GDPR rights, and Meta is required to review it.

But for users in the United States, the only available option is a third-party information form designed for cases where your personal data appeared in an AI-generated response. Meta doesn't guarantee it will honor these requests.

There's also no way to submit an opt-out request specifically for Meta AI interactions on WhatsApp. Meta says private messages aren't used for training, but any conversation you have directly with Meta AI can be.

Making your accounts private reduces your exposure, since Meta says it doesn't scrape private posts. But that's a blunt instrument, it changes your entire social media experience to address an AI training concern.

To make matters more complex, as of late 2025 Meta began using AI chat interactions for ad targeting across its platforms, with no opt-out available for that specific use.

Grok: An opt-out exists, but the scope is wider than you'd expect

Grok, built by xAI and integrated into X (formerly Twitter), does offer a training opt-out, but the situation is more complicated than it first appears because there are actually two separate data flows to manage.

First, there's your Grok conversation data. You can disable training use by going to Settings > Data Controls within Grok and turning off the relevant toggle. xAI has confirmed that once disabled, your future chats won't be used for model training.

Second, there's your X platform data. By default, your public posts, likes and interactions on X are also used to train Grok, regardless if you've ever opened the chatbot. To disable this, go to Settings and Privacy > Privacy and Safety on X and find the Grok data-sharing section.

Both settings need to be turned off separately. Disabling one doesn't affect the other.

That dual structure is the key difference between Grok and standalone chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude. Those services only train on what you tell them directly. Grok can train on everything you've ever posted publicly on X, and opting out doesn't retroactively remove data that's already been collected.

Grok also offers a Private Chat mode, where conversations aren't saved and are deleted within about 30 days, similar to incognito features on other platforms. But the broader X data pipeline makes the overall privacy picture murkier than the conversation-level toggle alone would suggest.

What I learned

At one end, ChatGPT and Claude offer clear, easy-to-find toggles that take under a minute to change. Google is similarly accessible but comes with a functional tradeoff. Microsoft splits the difference depending on whether you're a personal or enterprise user.

At the other end, Meta offers U.S. users no meaningful conversation-level opt-out, and Grok requires managing two separate settings across two different interfaces to fully limit your exposure.

As AI becomes part of everyday life, it's important to really understand the privacy settings. Choosing a chatbot may involve more than deciding which one writes the best email or creates the best image and come down to a much simpler question: Which company do you trust with your conversations and how hard do they make you work to answer that for yourself?

Let me know in the comments which chatbot you prefer and why.

More from Tom's Guide

• Gemini isn't just a chatbot anymore — here are 13 things it can do in 2026
• I replaced my true crime podcast with ChatGPT Voice for a week — here's what happened
• ChatGPT isn't just a chatbot anymore — here are 11 things it can do in 2026

The best smart locks have long been a useful tool, but one of the biggest issues hampering their adoption has been battery life. Unlike most other smart home devices, smart locks have to operate without being plugged in, which means you have to change or recharge their batteries on a regular basis.

Now it seems that issue is being solved. I recently tested two smart locks that have solar panels built right into them. That means you never have to worry about your lock running out of juice and having to find an external power bank or the physical keys in order to do something as simple as get inside your own home.

The Desloc V150 Plus and Lockin Veno Solar offer some similar features, but actually vary more than you might expect. Here's a look at both of them, and what makes one better than the other.

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: Price and availability

The first major difference between these two locks is their price, and it's a pretty dramatic difference. While the Desloc V150 Plus has a Kickstarter price starting at $169. Its retail price is as high as $399.99. It will be available through retail channels starting in August, so if you want one it may be worth seeing if it's still available at a discount through Kickstarter.

The Lockin Veno Solar, by contrast, is available now, and it's dramatically cheaper when it comes to the retail price. There are actually two models available: one which has a face scanner and the other a palm vein scanner. I tested the face scanner, which put it on a more level playing field with the Desloc V150 Plus. Both models, however, cost $199 or around half the retail price of the Desloc. There's also a bundle with a door handle for $259.99.

Winner: Lockin Veno Solar

Specs

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: Design and setup

While the two locks don't look exactly the same, I wouldn't necessarily say that one of them looks much better than the other. Both of them definitely look like smart home gadgets, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is worth noting for those who might want something more that leans more towards luxury.

The exterior portion of both of these blocks is a relatively bulky black rectangle made of metal and plastic. The Desloc V150 Plus has a large rectangular solar panel which sits in between the face scanner and a fingerprint scanner. It does not have a PIN pad.

By contrast, the Lockin Veno Solar does have a PIN pad, but there is no fingerprint scanner. Both locks have an interior portion that houses the battery and has a thumb latch for manual locking and unlocking.

The build quality is pretty similar, but the Desloc does feel slightly more durable. It has an IP65 rating for weather resistance, which is better than the IP53 rating offered by the Lockin Veno Solar. I suspect both of them will be able to withstand most weather events, but if you're worried about damage, then the Desloc is probably the more durable option. They both have BHMA Grade 3 deadbolt certification.

Installation of the two locks is pretty similar. Both of them require that you completely remove your existing deadbolt and locking mechanism. Once that's done, you'll install the included deadbolt, then thread the exterior portion of the lock through the deadbolt and attach it to a base plate. Finally, you'll screw the interior portion of the lock into the base plate. Then you'll download the lock's respective apps, create an account, and add the lock to your account.

Winner: Desloc V150 Plus

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: App and smart home

Software support is another area in which the two locks diverge. The V150 Plus runs on Desloc's existing app and connects to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth without needing a hub. I found the app decently easy to use. Adding fingerprints and faces was straightforward, I could remotely lock and unlock the door, and I got real-time access logs and battery information, including a chart showing how much battery the device has gained through solar power. Hopefully, of course, you won't need to worry much about battery at all.

The Lockin Smart app, similarly, covers the basics well. You can generate one-time PINs, enroll new faces and codes, configure auto-lock, and so on. I would have liked an overview of how much battery the lock gains over time, the way Desloc offers, but its absence isn't a big deal. With the Desloc, I found that I checked the battery gain once or twice over the first few days, then mostly forgot about it.

The big area where the Lockin Veno Solar pulls ahead is in smart home support. The Desloc V150 Plus supports Google Home and Amazon Alexa, but Lockin goes much further with Matter support. That essentially means that you can add the Veno Solar to any modern smart home ecosystem, including Google Home, Amazon Alexa, Apple Home, and more.

Sure, for those who use Google Home or Alexa, that difference may not be a very big deal. But what if you want to change ecosystems down the line? Or what if your partner uses an iPhone while you use an Android device? Matter support solves all of these issues, and it's kind of becoming table stakes for smart home devices, at least when the Matter spec supports them like it does locks.

Winner: Lockin Veno Solar

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: Performance

When it comes to speed and reliability of unlocking, neither of these smart locks is incredibly impressive. However, each has one feature that the other doesn't. The Desloc V150 Plus doesn't have a PIN pad, which is kind of a major omission, and means that you can't easily assign guest codes. What it does have is a fingerprint sensor, and that can come in handy given the fact that the face scanner is pretty slow. Much of the time I found that it was faster to scan my fingerprint to unlock the door than wait the few seconds for the lock to scan my face.

The Lockin Veno Solar doesn't have a fingerprint scanner but does have a PIN pad. It was actually faster to just wait for the lock to scan my face, even though it did take a few seconds. I'm not sure either of these two locks was faster at face scanning than the other. That's not a good thing; they were both slow. If you're deciding between these two locks, you'll have to determine whether you prefer to have a PIN pad or a fingerprint scanner.

It's also worth quickly noting that the Lockin Veno Solar had much more reliable Wi-Fi connectivity. Both of these locks were installed on a garden shed in my backyard, which can sometimes have spotty reception. The Desloc V150 Plus struggled a fair bit to retain a Wi-Fi connection, but the Lockin Veno Solar had no such issue. That will really only be an issue for you if you plan on putting your smart lock in an area where Wi-Fi reception isn't all that good. For most people who install the lock on their front door, both locks will retain connectivity perfectly fine.

Winner: Lockin Veno Solar

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: Battery life and recharging

Given the fact that these are both solar-powered locks, perhaps one of the more important questions is whether or not you'll need to worry about battery and charging. Thankfully, they both charged perfectly fine, and while they don't charge very quickly, that doesn't really matter. Basically, you'll never have to worry about whether or not your lock is charged up.

Again, don't expect them to fully charge overnight. When I first installed the Desloc V150 Plus, it had around 12% battery. A week later, it had 34%. When I installed the Lockin Veno Solar, it arrived with around 83%, and a week later, it had 90%. The actual charging speed, of course, doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is that they're not losing power over time. And if you fully charge your lock when you first get it, I expect both of these locks will remain around 100% at all times.

Winner: Tie

Desloc V150 Plus vs. Lockin Veno Solar: Verdict

For now, if you're looking for a smart lock with a solar charger, it's probably worth buying the Lockin Veno Solar. It may not have a fingerprint reader, but it does have a pin pad, plus it's around half the price of the Desloc V150 Plus.

That said, if a fingerprint reader really is important to you and you find a solar panel important, then you'll still like what's offered by the Desloc V150 Plus. You'll just have to stomach the additional cost or try to snag one from the Kickstarter campaign.

The alternative, of course, is to wait a little for solar panels to become more common on smart locks. The first few smart locks with solar panels feel a bit more like proofs-of-concept rather than the complete package.

I would have liked to see a lock with both a fingerprint scanner and a pin pad. That's not to mention support for Matter and even tech like Apple's Home Key and Ultra Wideband. I expect eventually we'll get these features in solar-powered locks, but for now, we'll have to wait.

More from Tom's Guide

• Google vs. Ring vs. Arlo: We put 6 security cameras to the test to find the most accurate AI
• Apple Intelligence security camera features just seriously undercut Ring and Google
• Save yourself $100 or more a year: These security cameras and video doorbells don't require a subscription

The Samsung S95H is not only one of the best OLED TVs of the year, it's one of the best TVs I've ever seen. It recently earned our coveted five-star rating thanks to its jaw-dropping performance and its thorough array of features, but starting at $2,299 (for 55-inch) its prohibitively pricey for most people and its metal-frame design is divisive.

The Samsung S85H, which earned 4 stars in our review, is the brand's entry-level OLED for 2026. As such, it's far less expensive than its flagship-level sibling, starting at $1,199 for a 48-inch. It comes with a ton of nifty features despite its entry-level status, but its otherwise-impressive picture can't compete with the quantum dot-enhanced performance you'll see on the S95H.

If you're shopping for an OLED TV this year, these sets are worthy candidates. Fortunately, we've tested both extensively, and I've got over a decade of experience under my belt. Here's how the Samsung S95H and S85H OLED TVs compare — from performance to features and price.

Samsung S95H vs S85H: Specs compared

These TVs share many of the same specs despite their different price points. Like all Samsung TVs, neither of these OLEDs supports Dolby Vision, the most widely used, enhanced HDR format. However, they're among the very first Samsung TVs to arrive with HDR10+ Advanced, an all-new, royalty-free Dolby Vision alternative. HDR10+ Advanced is a direct competitor of Dolby Vision 2, the newest version of Dolby Vision HDR.

Conveniently, the S85H is available in a smaller, 48-inch screen size and goes up to 83 inches. This is good news for people looking for a more modestly sized OLED TV. The S95H starts at 55 inches and goes up to 83 inches.

Although both sets support 4K content at 120Hz (the highest 4K spec for current-gen gaming consoles), the S95H can showcase 4K/165Hz content with a PC linked up. And, while it's only relevant for a small subset of people, the S95H can support an optional, external One Connect Box if you need up to four additional HDMI ports.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S85H: Design

The first thing we ought to discuss is the Samsung S95H's most eye-catching (albeit divisive) feature: a metal frame surrounding its picture.

The S95H's OLED screen sits above this metallic frame, elegantly lifting the entire picture closer to the viewer. The brushed-metal material looks and feels like a premium flourish, but it won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Personally speaking, I don't mind the look of the S95H's frame when the TV is mounted on a wall, but it draws more attention to itself when its positioned atop the S95H's included feet. (It's important to note that the frame can't be detached, so if you don't dig the look, you won't be able to duck it.)

The metal frame isn't the only bold design choice found on the S95H. Like the pair of Samsung-branded flagship OLEDs that preceded it, the S95H's screen features Samsung's now-iconic, Glare Free display.

This matte-style finish does a fantastic job of eliminating direct glare, but there's a catch: During daytime viewing (or whenever there's an average amount of ambient light), the S95H's matte-style screen lifts its black levels due to the scattering of light. When this happens, darker sequences can appear purplish-gray instead of deep, inky and black.

The S85H (seen above) doesn't come with Samsung's Glare Free display. Instead, it features a good ol' fashioned, glossy-style screen.

This means that, when there's an average amount of light in the room, the S85H's black levels will appear darker, and closer to the way you might expect when imagining OLED-backed performance.

Unfortunately, if a bright source of light (like a window or lamp) is caught in the S85H's reflection, you'll see most of its impact on the picture. It simply can't blunt the contours of that glare as effectively as the S95H's matte screen.

The S85H isn't sporting a wide, metallic frame, either, which could be a positive or a negative depending on your taste. Its pair of L-shaped feet keep the panel in place without much wobble, and without the frame, its wafer-thin panel is proudly spotlighted.

Both OLEDs arrive with Samsung's Solar Cell remote control in the box. It's light-powered lithium-ion battery is mighty convenient and saves on waste, but its lack of backlight feature (to say nothing of its missing input button) remains a drag in 2026.

While there's no denying that the S95H's overall build quality comes with a more premium look and feel, its bold aesthetic touches will either entice or repulse depending on the viewer. Points for style, I suppose.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S85H: Performance

Before we dive into which of these TVs is the better performer, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were switched into Samsung's Filmmaker picture mode when these tests were taken.)

Somewhat surprisingly, in Filmmaker mode, the entry-level S85H offers slightly brighter performance when showing SDR content. This means that run-of-the-mill, average stuff like cable TV, YouTube videos and most over-the-air programming are a touch brighter on the S85H when watching in Samsung's most-accurate picture mode.

That said, I need to stress that the difference in brightness in SDR is quite slim, and the S95H's superior processing (which includes upscaling) is the real difference-maker during most SDR content.

In nearly every other way that matters, the S95H is a better-performing TV, and it all comes down to OLED type; the lower-end S85H taps a standard WOLED display, while the 55-, 65- and 77-inch versions of the flagship-level S95H are equipped with Samsung Display's quantum dot-enhanced OLED display.

The 83-inch S95H also leverages enhanced OLED technology. This model makes use of LG Display's RGB Tandem OLED panel, a sort of souped-up WOLED display.

There are many differences between QD-OLED and WOLED, but for our purposes, here's what you need to know: Every size option in the S95H series offers better HDR brightness and color volume than what you'll see across the S85H series, and it's not particularly close.

As you can see from our test results, the S95H is capable of driving over twice the highlight brightness in HDR compared to the S85H. In real-world terms, this means that small, shimmering reflections of sunlight, distant streetlights and muzzle flashes will look far more realistic on the S95H.

The S95H also excels in the always-important color category. Thanks to its enhanced OLED display, it covers a whopping 89% of the BT.2020 color space compared to about 73% on the S85H.

In a footrace, quantum-dot OLEDs gain most of their ground against WOLED due to their ability to work with brighter, purer shades of color. As a result, everything from skin tones to sunsets look truer to life on the higher-end S95H.

(I should note that, while we haven't tested the 83-inch version of the S95H, I don't expect its RGB Tandem OLED panel to be quite as colorful as the quantum dot-equipped displays attached to the 55-, 65- and 77-inch versions. Nevertheless, I do expect this version to offer significantly better color volume than all sizes of the S85H.)

The good news is that, no matter its limitations, the S85H is still an OLED TV. It still comes with perfect black levels and pixel-level dimming. Like all OLEDs, it's not saddled with light bloom, nor does it exhibit haloing around super-bright objects.

Most folks will be gobsmacked by the S85H's picture quality. The S95H is simply brighter, more colorful and guided by more-advanced processing, and in a side-by-side comparison, the differences are overwhelming.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S85H: Smart platform and features

Both the S95H and the S85H arrive with a refreshed version of Samsung's Tizen-based smart platform. It's similar to what we saw across various 2025 Samsung TVs, but there are some minor changes to the interface that make navigation a bit easier. For instance, new this year is a menu bar at the top of the screen that provides quick access to important settings.

Samsung Gaming Hub is still prominently featured within the newest interface, but nothing is more omnipresent than the platform's various AI-based features — none of which have helped me solve a problem nor sparked joy in the several hours I've spent testing Samsung TVs this year. Your mileage may vary.

As far as nuts-and-bolts gaming stuff goes, you're getting support for 4K/120Hz gaming on both of these TVs, but only the S95H can hit 4K/165Hz with a gaming rig linked up. Both sets offer stock VRR, G-Sync compatibility and FreeSync Premium (though the S95H is rocking FreeSync Premium Pro).

The overall user experience of these TVs is quite similar. That said, the S95H offers more features than almost every other Samsung TV on the market.

Winner: Samsung S95H

Samsung S95H vs S85H: Verdict

The Samsung S95H is one of the best OLED TVs I've ever laid eyes on. It's also one of the brightest OLEDs you can buy, which not only makes it one of the safest OLED-based options for brighter-than-average rooms, but also allows for an astonishing sense of cinematic, visual depth.

There's no way around it, however: Many people will bump up against the S95H's bold design elements, and while it's a fantastic bright-room OLED, some home theater enthusiasts won't dig the TV's raised black levels while it sits in a bright room.

And then there's the price. Right now, the 65-inch Samsung S95H is $3,299 at Best Buy. That's a lot of money.

The Samsung S85H is nowhere near as impressive-looking as the S95H, but you're still getting a similar set of features. In addition, as an OLED TV, it's got a bunch of built-in benefits over similarly priced LCD TVs, and its "safer" design has wider appeal than that of the S95H.

I suspect that the S85H's price will be the thing that catches the conscience of most shoppers. Currently, the 65-inch Samsung S85H is $1,899 at Best Buy — a full $1,400 cheaper than the S95H.

I can't argue that the S95H's higher-end performance isn't worth the added $1,400 over the S85H. It's a truly stunning TV and, in my estimation, worthy of its high price. Nevertheless, it's an order of magnitude more expensive than Samsung's entry-level OLED, and the S85H is plenty good for the price, too.

More from Tom's Guide

• Samsung S95H OLED TV review
• Samsung S85H OLED TV review
• Micro RGB vs OLED TVs: What’s the difference?

This September, Apple looks set to introduce a brand new flagship iPhone to the world. Previously dubbed the iPhone Fold as a placeholder name, people have coalesced around iPhone Ultra as likely branding for Apple’s most expensive handset to date.

But that high price of entry doesn’t make it unambiguously the best iPhone you can buy, and the iPhone 18 Pro Max will have plenty going for it. Here are five key differences between the two handsets ahead of their September launch.

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Form factor

The iPhone Ultra will be Apple’s first foldable device, making it quite a change from the iPhones that have gone before it.

For its debut foldable, Apple looks to offer a similar design to handsets like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 and OnePlus Open. That is to say, a regular-looking smartphone that opens up to reveal an iPad mini-sized canvas on the inside, to aid productivity and improve media consumption.

Apple is said to be making changes in iOS 27 to compensate for this, with iPad-like app layouts and side-by-side apps for multitasking. Naturally, this will be exclusive to the iPhone Ultra.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max, meanwhile, will be far more like its predecessors: a single 6.8-inch screen for a traditional iPhone experience.

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Camera performance

The iPhone 17 Pro Max is one of the best camera phones you can buy, and the 18 Pro Max looks set to follow suit. While we’re expecting the same trio of 48MP lenses as on the previous model, Apple is widely tipped to be adding a variable rate aperture, giving photographers more flexibility for their shots by allowing them to adjust how much light enters the lens.

The iPhone Ultra may or may not get this feature, but design leaks show a device with just two rear cameras. The telephoto lens — a mainstay of recent Pro iPhones — is reportedly missing, which will make the foldable considerably weaker when it comes to taking long-range shots, no matter how solid its two other lenses are. For photographers, this may end up offering similar performance to a regular non-Pro iPhone.

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Expected battery life

Historically, foldable phones have sometimes struggled when it comes to battery life. A combination of larger screens and less space for the power cell has led to weaker performance than traditional handsets. That sounds like it will be less of a problem here, with a battery of between 5,000 mAh and 5,500 mAh predicted.

Pro Max devices are renowned for their stamina, too, however. In our battery test, the iPhone 17 Pro Max went nearly 18 hours without needing to charge its 4,823 mAh cell. Rumor has it that the iPhone 18 Pro Max will be even better, with a reported 5,425 mAh battery powering things (or 5,235 mAh for models with physical SIM slots).

Depending on where exactly the iPhone Ultra lands and how demanding the internal screen is, power users may still want to opt for the traditional iPhone if they need to go long periods without access to a USB-C lead.

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Face ID or Touch ID?

Touch ID — Apple’s fingerprint sensor authentication technology — is barely used on iPhones anymore. Last seen on iPhone SE devices, it mostly lives on in iPads nowadays, but it’s reportedly set to return for iPhone Ultra security instead of Face ID. The analyst Ming-Chi Kuo believes that the challenges inherent in fitting Face ID into the thin frame of a foldable are just too great to overcome — at least in a first-generation device.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max, meanwhile, will continue to shun the fingerprint reader in favor of confirming your identity with the front-facing camera and Face ID. It’s a pretty smooth way of logging in that has been fine-tuned over multiple devices since its introduction with the iPhone X back in 2017.

Which you favor is largely down to personal preference, though regular glove wearers may find the return to Touch ID on the iPhone Ultra more fiddly to use.

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Price

Pro Max buyers are used to paying top dollar for their iPhones — especially if they choose to upgrade the internal storage. And it looks like the spiraling cost of RAM will make the price rise especially brutally this time, with talk of a $1,399 starting price touted, $200 more than last year’s phone.

Yet the iPhone 18 Pro Max will still be a value option compared to the iPhone Ultra. The same report suggests that Apple’s first foldable could come in at a massive $2,500. For context, that’s $500 more expensive than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 — though the Z Fold 8 will likely close the gap when it’s revealed at Samsung Unpacked later this month (the hardware pricing market forces are affecting everyone, after all).

iPhone Ultra vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: Outlook

Beyond this, as far as we know, the two handsets will be pretty similar. They’ll even offer similar performance levels, as the iPhone Ultra is tipped to offer the same vapor chamber cooling as the regular handset (the iPhone Air without vapor cooling struggled when things heated up, despite using the same A19 Pro chipset).

So ultimately, it will come down to priorities for you. Do you value photography and price over novelty and big-screen multitasking? If so, at this stage, it looks like the iPhone 18 Pro Max will be the handset for you. But if you like the idea of carrying an iPad mini and iPhone around with you in one device, and don’t mind paying a premium early adopter’s tax for the privilege, Apple’s first foldable could be worth the price of entry.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone 18 Pro Max battery leak suggests big changes are coming — what we know
• I just got both my battery packs confiscated at a Chinese airport, and I wish I’d known about this one thing before flying
• Android 17 drops lockscreen guess limits from 1,800 to 20 — here's what that means for you

One of the matchups I’ve been waiting to tackle this year is the EV vs. PHEV argument. Now that I’ve tested the 2026 BMW i5 and 2026 BMW 550e for a week each, I have a better understanding of how each one performs and the unique value they bring to the table.

They’re both mid-size luxury sedans in BMW’s current 5 Series lineup. While they look virtually identical on the outside, they represent the best of their respective powertrains. On one hand, you have the all-electric BMW i5, which looks mighty tempting with current gas prices. On the other, there’s the plug-in hybrid BMW 550e, which still relies on gas power but offers a dedicated battery for up to 33 miles of electric-only range.

Ultimately, this matchup forces buyers to make a fundamental choice: do you go fully electric, or do you keep a foot in both worlds? After testing them out, I'll tell you which one is actually worth your money.

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Specifications

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Design

These two couldn’t look more identical, which shouldn’t be surprising considering they’re built on the exact same Cluster Architecture platform. What always catches my attention with both mid-size sedans is the slightly larger kidney grille up front, which really comes to life at night when it glows and lights up. The overall aesthetics make them look incredibly aggressive, especially when complemented by the swept-back headlights.

Around back, it’s no different. Both the i5 and the 550e share the exact same sheet metal styling, highlighted by a set of ultra-slim, completely flat horizontal LED taillights divided by a chrome bar. The only real distinction is down along the lower bumpers: the i5 offers a completely solid apron with no exhaust cutouts or tips. Ultimately, both designs look fantastic.

Winner: tie

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Fuel economy

This is where these two premium sedans diverge down completely different paths. I put serious real-world miles on both luxury vehicles, logging 219.7 miles in the i5 and 155.2 miles in the 550e.

Comparing an EV and a PHEV can be a bit tricky because the 550e has the unique flexibility of driving on pure gasoline, pure electricity, or a combination of both. When I tested it out, I managed an average efficiency of 2.9 mi/kWh running on all-electric power during one long distance test with mostly highway driving. However, by consistently plugging it in and leveraging both power sources, my combined fuel economy at the end of the week came out to an impressive 55.7 mpg.

Right away, it’s pretty telling that the i5 is the more efficient commuter, delivering a superior 3.7 mi/kWh average. Because the i5 is able to get more miles out of every kilowatt-hour, you would actually end up paying more to charge and drive the 550e even if you managed to use its electric mode exclusively. Once you factor in the added cost of refueling the 550e with premium gasoline, the total cost to keep it running climbs even higher.

Winner: BMW i5

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Driving performance

There’s just something special about driving an EV, and the all-electric BMW i5 proves my point. Believe me, numbers on a spec sheet simply don’t tell the whole story.

Despite having less horsepower than its hybrid sibling, the i5 delivers a level of driving refinement that makes acceleration instantaneous, whisper-quiet, and perfectly linear. There are no gears to shift, no lag to wait for, and absolutely no friction to interrupt its response. Frankly, I’m still impressed by how effortlessly it glides and maneuvers through my daily commutes.

In contrast, the plug-in hybrid BMW 550e is an absolute powerhouse designed for those who crave raw muscle. By pairing a 3.0-liter turbocharged inline-six engine with an electric motor, it unleashes a massive wave of power that easily pushes me back into my seat the moment I press down on the accelerator.

However, its hybrid powertrain lacks the seamless performance of the i5. I occasionally feel the transition as the gas engine fires up to assist the battery the moment I begin to accelerate from a complete stop.

Winner: BMW i5

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Comfort

When it comes to cabin comfort, the BMW i5 makes any daily commute a relaxing experience. Both the front and rear seating areas offer plush, supportive cushioning with plenty of adjustments to help you dial in the perfect seating position. Rear passengers are treated to a generous amount of legroom, making it incredibly easy for even the tallest adults to stretch out.

If you need extra privacy or simply want to block out the sun, the rear windows feature integrated manual sunshades complemented by an automatic one for the rear windshield that does an excellent job of lowering cabin temperatures on bright days.

Step into the BMW 550e, and you’ll find an identical, top-tier level of comfort. Because it shares the exact same interior dimensions as its fully electric sibling, it treats passengers to the same spacious layout and high-quality materials throughout the cabin. Rear legroom remains a standout feature here as well, providing more than enough space for passengers to ride without ever feeling cramped.

I’m also a huge fan of their adaptive cruise control systems. The optional Driving Assistance Professional Package practically drives the car for you, but it’s truly unique in how it handles automatic lane changes. Both vehicles track your eye movements, so once a tone plays indicating a lane change is available, the only thing you need to do is look directly at the left or right side mirror to confirm the maneuver.

Winner: tie

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Value

Looking strictly at their as-tested prices, the BMW i5 is compelling — especially with the potential for greater long-term savings. Yet, beyond the inherent savings of electric power, its $82,700 price tag delivers all the premium trimmings expected from a luxury vehicle of this caliber.

I'm talking about the customizable, dazzling ambient interior lighting, the crystal-clear heads-up display that projects driving and navigation data directly onto the windshield, and a razor-sharp 360-degree camera system that makes parking in tight spaces an absolute breeze.

The BMW 550e xDrive offers an identical, tech-forward value proposition that matches its fully electric sibling feature for feature — but at a higher $87,050 as-tested cost. Despite the different powertrain layout, BMW doesn’t compromise on executive-level amenities. This hybrid is equipped with the exact same high-resolution heads-up display, the same 360-degree camera system, and the same brilliant backup assistant that remembers exactly how I steered into a tight parking space to automatically guide itself back out.

While the i5 offers the upfront pricing advantage, both vehicles deliver an identical, top-tier tech experience for the money — but I’m still giving it to the i5.

Winner: BMW i5

BMW i5 vs. BMW 550e: Verdict

When the dust settles, the BMW i5 xDrive40 emerges as the overall winner of this electrified showdown, taking the crown across performance, efficiency, and value. Thanks to its all-electric powertrain, it delivers the more relaxing luxury driving experience that defines a modern 5 Series while proving that there are serious long-term savings to be had with pure electric power. When you couple that superior efficiency with its lower upfront as-tested price, the i5 simply stands out as the smarter daily driver for luxury car buyers.

That said, the BMW 550e xDrive remains an absolute beast. It matches the i5 feature-for-feature in cabin comfort and tech value. For those still hesitant about going fully electric, I can't stress enough the broader utility it offers for everyday drivers who crave the quick convenience of a gas fill-up while saving their electric power for local trips. This plug-in hybrid is as good as it gets, even if it commands a higher price tag both at the dealership and the pump.

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

Hatchbacks are the perfect middle ground for anyone stuck between a sedan and an SUV. And right now, two of the most compelling options on the market are the Kia K4 Hatchback and Honda Civic Hatchback.

Beyond blending the utility of a larger vehicle with the driving dynamics of a car, these two are affordable options for buyers who don't want to break the bank. Specifically, I tested the 2026 Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo and the 2025 Honda Civic Hatchback Hybrid Sport — with as-tested prices of $32,870 and $31,300, respectively.

While not a whole lot changed between the 2025 and 2026 Civic Hatchbacks, the newer model does come with a small price increase. In an apples-to-apples comparison of their base trims, the Civic still commands a premium, costing about $3,000 more than the Kia. But after driving them both for a week, there’s only one hatch I’d actually buy.

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Specifications

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Design

This one’s easy for me because of the futuristic aesthetics of Kia’s current design language. Much like the Kia EV6, EV9, and Sportage Hybrid, the K4 Hatchback features hard lines and a sleek roofline. This combination gives it a sportier, more aggressive look that’s complemented by its distinct wagon silhouette in profile.

In comparison, the Honda Civic Hatchback looks an awful lot like its sedan counterpart — staying well within classic sports-sedan proportions. While I’m drawn to the front end with its honeycomb grille, the rest of the car feels a bit too conventional.

Winner: Kia K4 Hatchback

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Fuel economy

Gas prices might be easing a bit, but prioritizing a fuel-efficient model is still a smart move. Between these two, the Honda Civic Hatchback emerges as the clear winner. Its hybrid powertrain yielded an astounding 48.1 mpg average during my week of testing. If you have a light foot, you might be shocked by what it can achieve. For example, I managed a 50.2 mpg average on one of my long-distance highway tests — a remarkable result, even if sustained highway speeds typically tax hybrid systems the most.

The Kia K4 Hatchback trails its rival by a massive margin. Despite averaging 30.1 mpg in testing — which actually beats its official EPA city rating — it simply can’t bridge the gap to match the Civic. Still, for a pure internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, I have to respect its better-than-average performance here.

Winner: Honda Civic Hatchback

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Driving performance

For me, this one’s the toughest to judge because both cars are a lot of fun to drive. On paper, it’s equally close: the 2025 Honda Civic Hatchback Hybrid Sport delivers 200 hp from its 2.0L direct-injection Atkinson-cycle engine, while the 2026 Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo puts out 190 hp from its 1.6L turbocharged GDI four-cylinder engine.

For a hybrid, the Civic Hatchback offers a genuinely thrilling driving experience. Even from a complete stop, it accelerates quickly to cruising speed without the strain or loud engine droning I tend to experience in other hybrid cars.

Meanwhile, the Kia K4 Hatchback favors a more traditional, relaxed approach to daily driving. It’s still highly engaging for what’s essentially a wagon, proving surprisingly agile despite its wider, boxier rear footprint.

Winner: Tie

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Comfort

For those times when I need to drive for an extended period, I’d prefer the Kia K4 Hatchback for a number of reasons. Sure, its SynTex-trimmed seats are plush, but I really appreciate Kia’s Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).

Not only does the K4 feature a reliable adaptive cruise control system that smoothly adjusts to the flow of traffic, but its lane-centering assist can also be activated with a single button press to keep you perfectly positioned. On top of that, its high-resolution backup camera is far superior to the competition, remaining genuinely useful even after dark. And oh yeah, the software in the K4 Hatchback is way more modern.

The Honda Civic Hatchback Hybrid Sport also features supportive, bucket-style seats that keep me firmly in place when the road gets bumpy. But while its adaptive cruise control works equally well to maintain highway speeds, the low-quality backup camera and outdated infotainment software dampen its overall premium feel.

Winner: Kia K4 Hatchback

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Value

When it comes to brand recognition, the Civic Hatchback leans heavily on its legendary reputation for long-term reliability. Interestingly, it also technically has a larger trunk space than its rival with the rear seats up — though not by much. What really sells me on the Civic Hatchback is the incredible hybrid fuel economy that will save you serious money at the pump in the long run, combined with the stellar resale value you’ll get when it’s time to sell.

The Kia, on the other hand, delivers value by packing in an abundance of extra features. Whereas the Civic skimps on the extras, the K4 Hatchback provides the premium tech features I crave. For example, its massive 12.3-inch panoramic display makes the Civic’s standard 9-inch screen look tiny. Furthermore, high-end additions like blind-spot camera monitors, a 360-degree camera system, and a power sunroof really help sell the package. If that’s not enough, there’s even a smidge more rear legroom for your passengers.

Winner: Kia K4 Hatchback

Kia K4 Hatchback vs. Honda Civic Hatchback: Verdict

Ultimately, choosing between these two exceptional hatchbacks comes down to what you value most during your daily commute. The Honda Civic Hatchback Hybrid Sport is secretly a sedan for those who still aren’t sold on the hatchback look, but its superior efficiency and legendary reliability are what truly cement its worth. My only complaints are the dated software and how stingy Honda is with tacking on extra features.

That’s why it should take pointers from the Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo. The K4 flips the script entirely by delivering an unmatched daily user experience, complete with extra comforts and a jaw-dropping design that stands out from the crowd. Yes, you’ll end up paying a bit more in fuel costs, but that’s one compromise I’m willing to make.

For buyers looking to get the absolute most car, technology, and style for their money, the Kia K4 Hatchback isn’t just an affordable option — it's the one I would actually buy.

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

The Fitbit Air and Fitbit Charge 6 are two of the best fitness trackers in 2026. But is one better than the other? That truly depends on your budget, the number of smart features, and the type of user experience you desire.

To help you better understand the differences between 2023's Fitbit Charge 6 and 2026's Fitbit Air, I've compared the two across five categories, including cost, design, health and fitness tracking features, smart features, and battery life.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Cost

The newer Fitbit Air is $99, while 2023's Fitbit Charge 6 is $159. However, the latter goes on sale frequently. For example, you can pick up the Charge 6 right now for just $99 via Amazon. That said, the Fitbit Air is consistently cheaper than the Charge 6, so it wins this category.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: design

Both fitness trackers are lightweight, comfortable wearables with modest footprints. While the Fitbit Air is screen-free and button-free, providing a no-distractions health and fitness tracking experience, the Charge 6 offers a small 1.04-inch AMOLED touchscreen and haptic side buttons.

Does this make the Charge 6 a better tracker than the Air? That depends on whether you prefer a more-connected device capable of mirroring phone notifications and displaying stats, or one designed with a set-it-and-forget-it mentality.

Either way, the Charge 6 and Air each proved to be well-built in our testing, with respectable water resistance ratings of 50 meters. The Air is, of course, a bit more understated due to the lack of a screen; it's also a bit smaller. These factors don't necessarily make it a better-designed device, though.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Air vs Charge 6: Health and fitness tracking

The Fitbit Air proved to be a competent fitness tracker when pitted head-to-head against other popular wearables, like versus the Fitbit Inspire 3. However, it lacks onboard GPS, so you need to carry your paired phone to ensure metrics like distance, pace, and elevation gain are recorded accurately.

Not a fan of jogging with a bulky smartphone in your pocket? I feel you. In that case, the GPS-sporting Fitbit Charge 6 is going to be the better tracker for you.

The Charge 6 has other advantages over the Fitbit Air, most notably, the ability to record ECGs. When it comes to tracking workouts, both devices support over 40 modes with automatic detection and tracking for basic workouts like walks, runs, and bike rides.

Of course, thanks to its screen, users can manually start a workout on the Charge 6 with just a few taps, while Fitbit Air users will need to make a trip to the Google Health app on their paired phone.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Smart features

This one isn't even close. When it comes to support for smart features, the Fitbit Charge 6 blows the Fitbit Air out of the water. However, the Charge 6 doesn't offer anywhere near the level of smarts you'll get from the best smartwatch models in 2026, like the Apple Watch Series 11 or Google Pixel Watch 4.

Still, the Charge 6 has NFC, so you can tap-to-pay using Google Wallet. It also supports a small selection of handy Google apps, like Google Maps and YouTube Music. There's no onboard music storage, but you can control media playback from your paired device.

The Charge 6 additionally mirrors smartphone notifications for both Android and iOS users.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Battery life

The Fitbit Charge 6 is rated to last up to six days per charge on average, while the Fitbit Air is billed for up to seven days per charge. In my testing, both ratings proved accurate, making the Fitbit Air the winner of this category.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Verdict

When choosing between the Fitbit Air and the Fitbit Charge 6, the ultimate question to ask yourself is, "Do I want a screen-free and distraction-free fitness tracker or a more connected device?"

Put another way, the Fitbit Air is a wearable that you simply, well, wear and let it do its thing; the Charge 6 is one you interact with via a small touchscreen and haptic buttons.

Both are reliable, comfortable, and long-lasting. Of course, the Charge 6 has the advantage of onboard GPS, which is why I ultimately prefer it to the Air, along with NFC. But if you're not big on outdoor workouts or using tap-to-pay from this wrist, this may not matter much to you.

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up

Which $99 Fitbit fitness tracker is more accurate, the Fitbit Inspire 3 or the newer, screen-free Fitbit Air? Both devices performed admirably in our review test process, but is one more reliable than the other? I decided to find out.

On a picture-perfect cerulean Seattle summer day, I took one for the team and walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Inspire 3 strapped to my left wrist and the Fitbit Air affixed to my right.

How do I know I walked exactly 3.5K steps? I counted each and every one, clicking my trusty manual tally counter to note every hundred, before starting the count over at one.

While my manual count was a control for steps, I used the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and elevation gain. Ultimately, one of these top-performing fitness trackers proved more competent. Was it the Fitbit Air or the Fitbit Inspire 3? Read on for the results.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: key differences

I’ve already gone in-depth concerning the pros and cons of the Fitbit Air vs. the Fitbit Inspire 3. But as a quick refresher, both wearables are compact and record the basics, like sleep quality, workouts, women’s health, and overall well-being.

The most notable difference: The Fitbit Inspire 3 has a screen — albeit a tiny one — for mirrored smartphone notifications, starting workouts, and viewing stats. The Fitbit Air, meanwhile, is screen-free and distraction-free.

They each cost $99, though the Inspire 3 is frequently on sale for less (It's just $79 via Amazon as of publishing). When it comes to logging outdoor workouts, like walks, neither has an onboard GPS, so you’ll need to carry your smartphone along (as I did) for accurate location-based metrics.

Now, on to the results of my 3,500-step walk test with the Fitbit Air vs the Fitbit Inspire 3.

I walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3

During my roughly 34-minute walk, I took exactly 3,500 steps. The Fitbit Air was more accurate, with a total that's off by just a single step. Strava, for what it's worth, noted a total of 3,510 steps.

The Fitbit Air recorded nearly the same total distance covered as Strava, while the Inspire 3 was off by nearly a third of a mile.

"The Fitbit Air's elevation tracking data has proven less than reliable in my testing, but at least the tracker provides the metric (unlike the Inspire 3)."

The Air's pace data is pretty darn close to Strava's. I didn't pause at any point during the walk, so I expected roughly the same pace from all three tracking methods. That may be the case for the Fitit Air, but not the Inspire 3.

Despite noting less distance covered, the Fitbit Inspire 3 recorded slightly higher heart rate data than the Air and more calories burned.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Winner

The Fitbit Air is the clear winner of this head-to-head fitness-tracking accuracy showdown against its older sibling, the Fitbit Inspire 3.

Ultimately, the Air has newer hardware and represents the latest in Google's holistic tech. The Fitbit Inspire 3 may record most of the same metrics, but the Fitbit Air does so with better overall accuracy.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• We asked Tom's Guide readers if they prefer the Fitbit Air vs. the Garmin Forerunner 70 — and the results were overwhelming

When I first started testing the best running watches over a decade ago, the cheapest models on the market were pretty basic. They offered simple tracking with mixed levels of accuracy, and pretty much no training analysis or extra features.

These days, entry-level watches like the Garmin Forerunner 70 and Coros Pace 4 are absolutely packed with features and easily good enough to cover the essentials for runners of all levels, not just beginners.

I’ve been testing the Coros Pace 4 for over six months now, having used it for the London Marathon, and I’ve been comparing it directly to the Garmin Forerunner 70 since it launched recently, including using both for a 10K race.

Both are outstanding options for runners at a great price, but the Pace 4 offers more to triathletes and has some extras like multi-band GPS and a barometer; the Forerunner 70 offers better training analysis and a more polished design and user interface.

I’ve outlined what I consider the key differences between the two watches below, and there’s more detail on each in our full Coros Pace 4 review and Garmin Forerunner 70 review.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Price and availability

The Coros Pace 4 launched in November 2025 and costs $249 / £229 for the standard version of the watch, and $279 / £249 for the aluminium model, which has a metal bezel.

Garmin launched the Forerunner 70 alongside the Garmin Forerunner 170 in May 2026. The Forerunner 70 costs $249 / £219 and sits below the Forerunner 170 (from $299 / £259) in the Garmin line-up, lacking some of the smart features and extra sensors that are on the Forerunner 170.

The Pace 4 and Forerunner 70 both sit at the bottom of their respective brand’s line-ups, but are still packed with useful sports tracking features and are among the best value sports watches you can get right now.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Specs

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Design and display

The Coros Pace 4 and Garmin Forerunner 70 are both small, lightweight watches with plastic designs (aside from the aluminum bezel on the more expensive Pace 4 model). I found both very comfortable to wear for long periods, and they fit well on slim wrists.

Despite the small designs, the 1.2” AMOLED displays are clear and easy to read on both in all conditions, even during runs where I usually show five or six stats at a time.

The Pace 4 has three buttons, one of which is a digital dial, whereas the Garmin has five buttons. I prefer the five-button design myself, as I find it more reliable than the dial on the Coros, which I often set off accidentally.

Both watches have optical heart rate monitors, but the Pace 4 has more sensors than the Forerunner 70, with a barometer, altimeter and compass. It also offers multi-band GPS tracking, whereas the most accurate is all-systems on the Forerunner 70.

The Coros Pace 4 can also connect to more sensors than the Forerunner 70, like cycling power meters, whereas the Forerunner 70 is much more focused on running.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Sports tracking and training analysis

The main difference with sports tracking is that the Pace 4 is a full multisport watch with a triathlon mode where you can transition between swimming, cycling and running.

This isn’t available on the Forerunner 70, and it also doesn’t have an open-water swimming mode, which the Pace 4 does.

You get a little more training analysis on the Forerunner 70, most notably Garmin’s Training Readiness stat, which gives a rating out of 100 based on factors like recent sleep, stress and workouts.

Both watches offer training load analysis along with race predictions and VO2 max estimates, with enough data to satisfy even very keen runners.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: GPS & heart rate accuracy

Both watches have proved reliably accurate for me with GPS throughout my testing, which has included races with both. The Coros Pace 4 even produced a pretty accurate track during the Canary Wharf section of the London Marathon, which is notably difficult for watches.

In theory, the multi-band GPS option on the Pace 4 should be more accurate than the all-systems mode on the Forerunner 70, but in practice, Garmin’s all-systems mode is so reliable I’ve not seen any differences between the two watches in my testing so far.

Both logged almost exactly 10.00km in the 10K race I did, and the GPS tracks were essentially identical, as they have been on other runs with both watches.

When it comes to heart rate accuracy, both have been good, but the Garmin has tended to be a little more reliable than the Coros, especially at the start of runs.

In the 10K race, along with other runs with both watches, the Forerunner 70 heart rate reading has been accurate throughout, whereas the Pace 4 often reads high for a few minutes before locking onto my heart rate correctly.

My main takeaway here, though, is that these are both very accurate watches overall and match up well with devices that cost twice their price or more.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Battery life

Battery life is always a strong area for Coros watches, and that’s the case in this comparison as well. The Pace 4 lasts up to 19 days on a charge, or six days with the always-on display, and offers 24 hours of multi-band GPS tracking.

The Garmin Forerunner 70 lasts up to 13 days in watch mode or five days with the screen on always-on mode, and offers 16 hours of all-systems GPS tracking.

In practice, I found that with the watches set to always-on running every day, I tend to get around 4.5 days out of the Forerunner 70 and just over five from the Pace 4. It’s not a major difference, but the Coros certainly lasts longer with normal use and also outstrips the Garmin for one ultra-long individual activity.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Smart features

Garmin kept its best smart features for the Forerunner 170, so the Forerunner 70 doesn’t offer NFC payments or music storage, though it does offer more customization than the Coros Pace 4 and has access to more apps and widgets through the Garmin Connect IQ app store.

The Coros Pace 4 doesn’t have NFC payments either, but does offer music storage for MP3 files, which you can drag and drop onto the watch. It doesn’t link with streaming services though, so if you really want smart features, the Forerunner 170 is worth considering.

Neither watch has offline maps, but both offer breadcrumb navigation with turn-by-turn directions and a back-to-start pointer, which I always find handy if I get myself lost.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Verdict

Both of these watches are excellent and accurate options that have impressed me throughout testing, but the Coros Pace 4 has a few important extra features, especially if you’re a triathlete.

It has better battery life, more sensors and also music storage, though this feature isn’t useful unless you have a lot of MP3 files on hand.

The Garmin has a nicer design in my opinion, and the user interface is more customizable with more smart widgets, like sports scores and stocks. It also has better training analysis for me, including the handy Training Readiness.

I don’t think there’s a clear winner here if none of those features sound vital to you, but one factor that could swing it in the future is the fact that Garmin does usually reduce its watches in big sales periods, whereas Coros doesn’t, so the Forerunner 70 could end up being cheaper.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

LG — maker of some of the best OLED TVs on the market — has officially launched its newest OLED lineup for 2026. The LG C6 is the brand's mid-range model, and it comes with pedigree. The C Series has been a perennial best TV-contender for several years, and it's easy to see why. Like the C Series OLEDs that came before it, the C6 blends incredible performance with a relatively reasonable price tag — a blend that results in mass appeal.

The LG B6 is the brand's entry-level OLED. Like previous iterations of the B Series, the LG B6 offers a more modest performance profile in exchange for a much lower price than its C-Series sibling. I've spent a ton of time with both of these OLEDs, and as we do with all TVs we review, we've tested both extensively. Here's how their performance, features and price compare.

LG C6 vs LG B6: Specs compared

First, let's talk about size availability. The C6 is available in 42-, 48-, 55- and 65-inch options. There are also 77- and 83-inch versions, but these sizes are technically classified as an altogether different model: the LG C6H.

We haven't tested the C6H yet, but LG promises better performance on these sets than what you'll see on the smaller-sized C6 screens, since they arrive with LG Display's RGB Tandem OLED panel, which typically delivers better brightness and color volume than traditional WOLED panels.

For the B6, available size options are a complicated matter, too. It's readily available at retailers in just three sizes: 65, 77 and 83 inches. LG lists a 48-inch version of the B6 on its website, but you might have a difficult time tracking it down. I expect a 55-inch version of the B6 to be made available soon, but at the time of publishing, it's missing in action.

So, if you want a 77- or 83-inch C6, you'll technically have to buy the C6H. Alternatively, if you're considering a 48- or 55-inch B6, you'll have to wait for those sets to be made available.

In almost every other way that will matter to most people, the C6 and B6's spec sheets are the same. Both TVs offer the same selection of enhanced HDR formats (including Dolby Vision). Both arrive with the same version of LG's webOS streaming platform and support HDMI 2.1 across all four primary inputs.

Neither offers ATSC 3.0 support (which allows over-the-air broadcasts to be piped-in at native-4K resolution), and while it's not an easy feature to come by in 2026, its absence is nevertheless a bummer.

Each of these OLEDs can take advantage of the highest 4K spec available on current-gen consoles (4K/120Hz), but only the C6 is capable of pushing that to 4K/165Hz when VRR is enabled and a gaming rig is linked up. It's a close finish, but the C6 features a better spec sheet.

Winner: LG C6

LG C6 vs LG B6: Design

The C6 (seen above) follows the design approach of its predecessor (the LG C5), but that's good news for folks who dig sleek, sophisticated TV design. Its downward-slanting slab of a stand keeps the TV's screen relatively close to the surface beneath it. And, while it's rare to peek at the back of a TV, I appreciate the marble-like finish on the back of the C6's panel.

If you're planning to wall-mount the C6, take note: The TV's hardware is housed in a chassis that sticks out of the C6's midsection. This means that the TV's wafer-thin screen won't be flush against the wall.

The B6 (seen above) will also protrude from the wall a bit, should you decide to mount it. But, according to my measurements, the B6 is almost exactly as narrow as the C6 at the 65-inch size point, so you're dealing with a similarly sized chassis.

The B6 is also rocking a slate-like visual texture along the back of its panel, but you'll find that the look and feel of the C6's materials are marginally more premium-seeming than that of the B6.

Unlike the C6, the B6's stand consists of a pair of slim, angular feet that sit close to the corners of the screen. They're sturdy enough so as not to introduce much wobble, but the wide-set placement of the feet might be tough to accommodate if you've got a narrow credenza or media console — especially at larger size points.

Both TVs arrive with a similar version of of LG's remote control. It features the same motion-activated, Wii-like controls you'll find on older versions of the Magic Remote, but the updated design is slimmer and offers fewer buttons.

Despite its entry-level status, the B6 is a sleek customer. The C6's design is just a touch more put together.

Winner: LG C6

LG C6 vs LG B6: Performance

Before we dive into which of these TVs is the better performer, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were in their respective Filmmaker picture mode when these tests were taken.)

Naturally, these TVs both deliver the key features that OLED TVs are known for: perfect black levels with pixel-level contrast control.

With OLED technology at work, both the C6 and B6 offer an deep, detail-rich image that looks fantastic across all content types and downright cinematic during 4K/HDR content. The key difference between their picture comes down to brightness and color.

The mid-range C6 taps LG's OLED evo technology, a mix of hardware- and software-related enhancements that allows for a brighter image (particularly in highlight detail), as well as richer color (especially during HDR-mastered movies and shows).

You'll notice the C6's added brightness most when viewing the glint of a sword, dapples of sunlight across the ocean's surface or whenever tiny pools of bright light take over a cluster of pixels. The pixel-level contrast control allows for realistic highlights on both OLEDs, but on the C6, these details are much more impactful in HDR.

The C6 is also a touch brighter than the B6 across the entire picture, but the difference in full-field brightness isn't as significant as the gap between these TVs' peak HDR highlight brightness.

Colors are well-saturated and accurately dialed-in on both of these TVs' most-accurate picture mode. However, the C6's added brightness allows it to saturate more color, and this is especially impactful during HDR-mastered content.

What we're left with is a pair of high-performance TVs, with the pricier of the two being the better option for people chasing as much brightness as possible before stepping up into the flagship-level class.

The B6 produces a phenomenal picture, but there's no denying that the C6's picture is often more cinematic, and better overall for bright-room viewing. It's up to you to determine whether that jump in quality warrants the added price.

Winner: LG C6

LG C6 vs B6: Smart platform and features

Both the C6 and the B6 come with the newest version of LG's webOS ready to go right out of the box. It's a similar experience to last-year's version of webOS, but LG has built in some new, AI-based features. My colleague Dylan Haas, who reviewed the C6, referred to these AI features as "meaningless" if you don't already incorporate AI into your daily life, and I'm inclined to agree.

As far as built-in smart platform software goes, webOS isn't one of my top picks. I find its layout to be visually confusing and navigation to be somewhat sluggish. However, it's easy enough to pick up and use that most folks will see no problem using it as their daily driver.

As far as gaming features go, the C6 and B6 are quite similar. Each offers HDMI 2.1-compatibility across all four inputs (which means you don't have to spend time thinking about which port any given device should use), but as mentioned, only the C6 supports 4K games above 120Hz.

Technically speaking, the C6 offers more in the way of features. But, for the vast majority of people, these sets are basically the same when it comes to the software experience and added features.

Winner: Draw

LG C6 vs B6: Verdict

Relative to one another, the C6 and B6 score similarly in the design and features category, with their overall user experience being remarkably similar. When we take a closer look at specs and picture quality, we start to get a better sense of how these sets diverge.

The C6 is a brighter, more-colorful TV that will showcase HDR content better than the B6. It'll also hold up slightly better during daytime viewing. This is especially true for the souped-up, 77- and 83-inch versions of the C6H.

At the time of publishing, the C6 is quite pricey. The 65-inch LG C6 is $2,699 at Best Buy, and while that number will almost certainly tumble as the year goes on, it's still relatively high for a mid-range TV.

Saving money on the B6 might be a good move if all you're looking for is a brand-new OLED TV. The 65-inch LG B6 is $1,899 at Best Buy right now, which is substantially cheaper than the C6. That said, if you're after a 55-inch screen, you'll have to wait. More sizes options for the B6 are presumably still on the way, but for now the selection is rather limited.

More from Tom's Guide

• LG C6 OLED TV review
• LG B6 OLED TV review
• The RAM crisis came for computers first and now it's coming for TVs — here's why I recommend upgrading while you still can

The Garmin Forerunner 170 just launched, and it has immediately established itself as one of the best running watches available thanks to its lightweight design, accurate tracking, and handy smart features.

It’s one of the more affordable Forerunner models in Garmin’s current line-up, offering some extra features compared with the entry-level Garmin Forerunner 70 and coming in substantially cheaper than the mid-range Garmin Forerunner 570.

However, perhaps the most potent intra-Garmin competition actually comes from older watches, like the Garmin Forerunner 265. While the Forerunner 265’s software isn’t as up to date as the Forerunner 170’s, it offers almost all the same features plus a few upgrades, and is often close to the Forerunner 170’s price in sales.

I’ve tested both watches extensively and compared them directly on a half-marathon run; here are the key differences you need to know about.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: price

The Garmin Forerunner 170 comes in two models, one with music storage and one without. The standard Forerunner 170 costs $299/£259, while the music model is $349/£299. I’ll mostly be comparing the music model to the Forerunner 265 in this article, because the Forerunner 265 has music as standard.

While the Garmin Forerunner 265’s list price is much higher than the Forerunner 170’s at $449/£369, it’s almost always on sale somewhere, and tends to cost around $349-$379, though it has dropped to $299 in the past.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: specs

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: design and display

The Garmin Forerunner 170 Music comes in four colors and one size, with its 43mm case sitting between the two sizes of the Forerunner 265 available, which are 42mm and 46mm.

Both watches have bright AMOLED displays that I found easy to read in all conditions. You get a 1.2in display on the Forerunner 170, which is again in between the sizes on the Forerunner 265, which has a 1.1in display on the 42mm watch, and a 1.3in display on the 46mm.

You get the same Elevate Gen 4 heart rate monitor on both watches, which is not Garmin’s latest Elevate Gen 5, which is on models like the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970.

Both are lightweight watches with five buttons, and I found them both very comfortable to wear 24/7. I tested the larger Forerunner 265, which is noticeably bigger than the Forerunner 170, but with two size options in the 265 line-up, you can pick the one that suits you.

They mostly have the same sensors under the hood, with a barometric altimeter and compass, but the Forerunner 265 offers Garmin’s most accurate multi-band GPS mode, whereas the Forerunner 170 only offers all-systems GPS — this is still very accurate, but more on that later.

Both watches have the same 5 ATM water resistance rating and can pair with external sensors via both Bluetooth and ANT+, including cycling power meters.

The Forerunner 170 runs Garmin’s latest OS, which it shares with the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970. This isn’t just a visual upgrade on the Forerunner 265, but also means the Forerunner 170 gets access to new widgets like Garmin’s Sports Scores, Battery, and Stocks widgets.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: sports tracking and training analysis

One of the main differences between the two watches is that the Forerunner 265 is a full multi-sport watch with a dedicated triathlon mode, something that the Forerunner 170 lacks.

You can still track all kinds of cycling and swimming workouts with the Forerunner 170; it just doesn’t have the triathlon mode, which allows for transitions within a single activity.

Both watches offer the same useful training analysis, including Garmin’s Training Readiness and Training Status features, but the Forerunner 170 has an extra in Garmin’s new Quick Workout feature.

You can use this to create a running workout in seconds, picking an intensity level and duration that suits then following the instructions from the watch during your sessions.

I gave the Quick Workout a try, and although it can set rather optimistic targets, it’s a good way to vary your training when not following a dedicated plan.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: GPS & heart rate accuracy

Both watches have the same heart rate sensor on board, and during my extended testing comparing them to a chest strap, they have been similarly accurate.

That is to say, both are pretty reliable, especially in warm weather, and just sometimes lag behind the chest strap’s readings during intervals. Both were right in line with a chest strap during the half-marathon run I did, when I had the Garmin Forerunner 970 linked to the Garmin HRM 600.

With regards to GPS accuracy, the Forerunner 265 offering multi-band GPS means that it should be more reliable overall, especially when tracking activities in city centers where tall buildings can scramble signals.

In practice, the Forerunner 170’s all-systems GPS tracking has been as accurate as a multi-band Garmin during all of my testing to date.

I’d prefer to have a multi-band watch for peace of mind, but both watches are very reliable, and it’s unlikely to make a practical difference unless you always run among skyscrapers.

On the half-marathon run, I compared both watches with the Forerunner 970 in its multi-band mode, and the GPS tracks and overall distance and pace stats were nigh-on identical.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: battery life

The Garmin Forerunner 265 wins on battery life. With the screen set to raise-to-wake, the 46mm model lasts up to 13 days in watch mode, while the smaller 42mm watch lasts 15 days. Both offer five days of battery in always-on mode.

In comparison, the Forerunner 170 offers 10 days in watch mode with the screen set to raise-to-wake, and just four days when always-on.

The Forerunner 170 offers 14 hours of GPS tracking in all-systems mode, while the Forerunner 265 46mm offers 14 hours of multi-band tracking, and the Forerunner 42mm offers 15 hours.

These are all the on-paper numbers, so how do the watches fare in the real world? With the screen always-on, running every day, I have to charge the Forerunner 170 every 3.5 days on average, while the larger Forerunner 265 lasts me 4.5 days on average.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: smart features

If you opt for the Forerunner 170 Music model, you get the same key smart features as on the Forerunner 265, such as Wifi connectivity, music storage, including being able to link the watch with streaming services, and NFC payments.

The standard Forerunner 170 doesn’t offer WiFi or music storage, but does have NFC payments, so if you always carry your phone with you, it could be a cheaper option.

There are some extra widgets on the Forerunner 170, like Sports Scores and Stocks, and as a new watch, it will also continue to get software updates for the foreseeable future, whereas the Forerunner 265 won’t be getting new features anymore.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: verdict

If you’re a triathlete, there’s a clear reason to upgrade to the Forerunner 265, especially if it’s close to the price of the Forerunner 170, and the two size options of the Forerunner 265, longer battery life, and multi-band GPS are all good reasons to look at the older watch as well.

The Garmin Forerunner 170 has proved to be an equally accurate and capable running watch in my testing, though, and having a new model does futureproof you for the next couple of years with regard to new software updates.

If you’re a runner, I wouldn’t pay extra for the Forerunner 265 unless you want the bigger screen of the 46mm model, and if you’re not bothered about music storage, the standard Forerunner 170 is the best value of all.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

Which fitness tracker is better, 2026's Fitbit Air or 2022's Fitbit Inspire 3? Logic might suggest that the newer model has the advantage, but that's not necessarily the case.

I just reviewed the Fitbit Air and have worn a Fitbit Inspire 3 for several years, and there's plenty of good reason why both make our list of the best fitness trackers in 2026.

Here's how these two trackers compare head-to-head across six categories, including cost, design, customization, health and fitness features, smart features, and battery.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Cost

The Fitbit Air and Fitbit Inspire 3 each cost $99. However, the former is much newer and unlikely to see a discount anytime soon, while the latter goes on sale often for up to 30% off.

For example, as of writing, you can pick up the Inspire 3 for just $79 at Amazon.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: design

The Fitbit Inspire 3 and Fitbit Air are both small, comfortable fitness trackers that don't garner much attention or get in the way of daily life. However, the newer Air is both smaller and lighter than the Inspire 3 and offers a wider selection of band materials.

Neither wearable has physical buttons, but the Inspire 3 offers two haptic buttons on either side and sports a small AMOLED touchscreen. Depending on your ability to read tiny text and the daintiness of your fingers, navigating the Inspire 3's controls is a hit-or-miss affair.

Ultimately, I prefer the simpler, less-distracting design of the Fitbit Air to the fiddly controls and comically small screen of the Inspire 3.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: customization

The Fitbit Air is designed for maximum accessory customization. All of the tracking components and battery are contained within a small, pebble-like shell that can easily be popped out of one strap and swapped into another.

Google has a decent selection of accessory bands for the Fitbit Air available; I tried them all, and there's a clear winner. However, with a starting price of $34.99, I'm looking forward to more affordable third-party options popping up on Amazon and the likes, eventually.

The Fitbit Inspire 3 also supports band swapping, but removing and installing a band is a trickier process. That said, to my surprise, Google sells some pretty cool-looking Inspire 3 bands to replace the standard-issued ones.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Health and fitness

The Fitbit Inspire 3 and Fitbit Air boast the same onboard tech, including sensors for tracking heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, movement and temperature. However, it's unclear whether the Air is using newer sensors or the same generation as the Inspire 3.

Either way, both devices keep tabs on your overall well-being, sleep quality, fitness, and women's health. However, neither sports an onboard GPS for location tracking data or an altimeter for elevation insights.

This means that you'll need to carry a paired smartphone along when working out to accurately capture metrics like distance, pace, speed, and elevation gain.

You also get automatic workout tracking for a small selection of common exercises, regardless of which tracker you choose. Meanwhile, more nuanced activities can be manually selected.

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Smart features

Neither of these fitness trackers offers much by way of smart features, but that's the point. Apps like Google Wallet and YouTube Music are reserved for the higher-end Fitbit Charge 6. You also won't find onboard storage for saving music on either.

The Inspire 3 can mirror smartphone notifications from Android or iOS devices on its tiny screen, but it's not a great user experience. Meanwhile, both wearables support Google's lovely Smart Wake haptic alarm feature. And that's a wrap for smart features.

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Battery life

Battery life is impressive with any tracker you choose, but the Fitbit Inspire 3 lasts a little longer than the Air. In our testing, the Inspire 3 easily meets the ten-day-per-charge threshold, while the Air effortlessly matches the advertised seven days per charge.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Verdict

In terms of performance, wearability, and cost, the Fitbit Air and Fitbit Inspire 3 are extremely similar. What sets them apart largely boils down to design. Simply put, the Inspire 3 has a small screen for starting workouts, viewing stats, and receiving mirrored smartphone notifications, while the Air does not.

Personally, I prefer the Fitbit Air's set-it-and-forget-it approach to wellness tracking, with no annoying controls or tiny screens to deal with. I admit, starting a workout session from the Google Health app is a tad annoying, and the Air's auto workout tracking needs... work, but the overall user experience of the Air feels more refined than that of the Inspire 3.

Of course, at the end of the day, they both log the same health and fitness insights.

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up

It's officially NEW TV season, which means a slew of brand-new models are rolling out to stores. As new TVs take their place on the shelves, sets from last year are getting some pretty steep discounts. This can make shopping for a TV rather complicated.

The newest affordable OLED to hit the scene is the LG B6, the brand's entry-level OLED for 2026. The full scope of the B6 series has yet to be revealed, since some of the sizes aren't yet available. It's also not on sale yet. The LG B5, meanwhile, is LG's entry-level OLED TV from 2025. It's currently available in more sizes than the B6, and you'll also pay far less for this year-old set.

If you're trying to figure out which LG OLED is worth your hard-earned cash, it's worth taking a look at their performance, specs and features. Here's what you need to know.

LG B6 vs LG B5: Specs compared

In most ways that matter, the B6 and B5 are very similar sets. Both offer the same selection of enhanced HDR formats (including Dolby Vision). Both arrive with similar smart TV software, and they each support HDMI 2.1 across all four primary inputs.

Currently, however, the B6 is readily available at retailers in just three sizes: 65, 77 and 83 inches. LG lists a 48-inch version of the B6 on its website, but you might have a difficult time tracking it down. The B5, on the other hand, is available in 48-, 55-, 65-, 77- and 83-inch variants across a wide range of retailers.

I suspect that both a 48- and a 55-inch version of the B6 will be made available soon. For now, the LG B5 offers a more versatile range of size options.

Winner: LG B5

LG B6 vs LG B5: Design

Pictured above is the back of the LG B6's panel. From this angle, you can get a good look at the TV's pair of wide-set, angular feet. It's a slimmer TV than most LED-based models, (which is unsurprising given the panel technology), but folks who are familiar with LG's higher-end OLED TVs might clock the B6's slightly less-premium feel.

The back of the panel features a visually pleasing visual texture that resembles marble. It's a nice touch, despite the fact that you're unlikely to see it very often.

Next, let's take a look at the overall design of last-year's B5. You'll find that it looks almost identical.

The B5 (pictured above) features a similar set of feet as the B6, but they're more boomerang-shaped than those of the B6.

Each TV's selection of ports are positioned the same across both TVs. They reside primarily n a side-facing cutout along the chassis of the B6 and B5.

Both sets arrive with a similar version of of LG's remote control. It still features the same motion-activated, Wii-like controls you'll find on older versions of the Magic Remote, but the updated design is slimmer and features fewer buttons.

The B6 and B5 are as similar on the outside as they are on the inside. Each set offers roughly the same amount of soundbar clearance, and both are stylishly dressed with an interesting texture on the back.

Due to their design similarities, this category is too close to call. Both the B6 and B5 are well-designed TVs with remote controls that get the job done.

Winner: Draw

LG B6 vs LG B5: Performance

Before we dive into which of these OLEDs is the better-performing TV, let's compare their test results. All of the readings below were taken while each TV was set to LG's Filmmaker mode.

I'll cut right to the chase: These are very, very similar TVs when it comes to overall picture quality.

The B6 is a slightly brighter TV in both SDR and HDR, but I ought to emphasize just how marginal the difference is between HDR highlight brightness at 632 versus 780 nits. Thanks to some nifty picture processing magic, LG is able to squeeze more of an visual impact out of the B6's specular highlights this year, but most viewers are unlikely to notice outside of a direct, side-by-side comparison.

Interestingly, our test results indicate that the B5 offers better color volume than its successor despite the latter's added brightness. Once again, though, I need to stress that the gap is quite small.

Both entry-level OLEDs arrive with fantastic out-of-the-box color accuracy in Filmmaker mode. Similarly, their input lag measurements are tremendously low.

Thanks to the built-in benefits of OLED technology, both the B6 and the B5 are capable of perfect black levels and pixel-level dimming. Conveniently, they also offer wider viewing angles than you'll find on similarly priced, LED-based TVs.

I've seen both of these TVs up close. I've watched a ton of content on both. Thanks to slightly higher brightness and improvements to LG's picture processing year over year, the B6 is the better-performing TV. But it's real close, and you ought to keep that in mind when the time comes to make a decision.

Winner: LG B6

LG B6 vs LG B5: Smart platform and features

These TVs are built around LG's webOS smart platform, and although they're different versions of the software out of the box, they're virtually the same in most of the ways that matter to the average viewer.

Compared to the zippy, easy-to-navigate interface of both Roku and Google TV, webOS doesn't feel as frictionless. However, if all you need is a reliable way to access Netflix, HBO Max and other popular streaming apps, webOS is fine.

As mentioned, both the B6 and B5 come with four HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs, and both sets top out at 4K/120Hz support. In other words, they can take advantage of the highest 4K spec available on Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 Pro. Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM), Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) and LG's Game Optimizer mode are accounted for, too.

There are minor differences from one version of webOS to the next, but nothing game-changing.

Winner: Draw

LG B6 vs LG B5: Verdict

If, for some reason, the thought of buying a 2025 model in 2026 leaves a sour taste in your mouth, not much I can say will sway you away from the B6. Its slightly brighter presentation and updated processor are a nice bonus, indeed.

But more sizes options for the B6 are, presumably, still on the way. In addition, the 65-inch LG B6 is $1,899 at Best Buy. That price will surely drop as the year progresses, but right now, it's comin' in hot.

Meanwhile, the 65-inch LG B5 is just $1,199 at Best Buy — a full $700 less than the B6. Is the B6's slightly brighter picture worth $700 to you?

More from Tom's Guide

• LG B6 OLED TV review
• LG B5 OLED TV review
• Does your OLED TV look funny? Here are 5 common issues and how to diagnose them

When Anthropic launched Claude Opus 4.8, it immediately reignited the AI chatbot race. After seeing how it performed against ChatGPT, I was curious how it would stack up against Gemini 3.1 Pro. Google's flagship model has quietly earned a reputation among power users for deep research, long-context analysis and future-focused thinking, making it a particularly interesting competitor.

Claude Opus 4.8 is being positioned as Anthropic's most capable model yet, with a particular emphasis on nuanced judgment, intellectual honesty and complex reasoning.

I put Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.8 through seven deliberately difficult challenges. Some involved impossible business decisions. Others required forecasting the future, critiquing expert opinions, evaluating controversial policies and even designing entirely new benchmarks.

After seven rounds, one model pulled ahead — but not always in the ways I expected.

1. The impossible CEO decision test

Prompt: “You are the CEO of a profitable company with 500 employees. AI can automate 40% of jobs within two years and increase profits by 60%. Option A: Lay off 200 employees immediately. Option B: Keep everyone and retrain them, reducing profits for three years. Option C: A hybrid approach. Make a decision and defend it. Then spend equal time arguing why your decision is wrong. Finally, explain what additional information would most likely change your mind.”

Gemini gave an executive-style response with practical considerations and a thoughtful discussion of competitive pressures.

Claude immediately interrogated the hidden assumptions behind the numbers, recognized that all three options are fundamentally bets on uncertain forecasts and focused on irreversibility, option value and second-order effects.

Winner: Claude wins for demonstrating a higher level of executive reasoning.

2. The hidden assumptions test

Prompt: “A city wants to ban smartphones in all public schools. Test scores have fallen for five years while smartphone usage has increased. Identify at least 5 assumptions policymakers may be making. For each assumption: explain why it might be true, explain why it might be false and identify evidence needed to verify it.”

Gemini identified five solid assumptions and organized them cleanly. I particularly liked its focus on enforcement, educational utility and alternative explanations such as pandemic learning loss.

Claude zoomed out and examined the entire chain of reasoning policymakers are relying on. Claude consistently attacks the premises of the question while Gemini is more likely to accept them.

Winner: Claude wins by a nose for taking a look at whether the decline is being measured and interpreted correctly.

3. The ‘fix the expert’ challenge

Prompt: “Imagine a respected technology journalist argues: ‘AI will eliminate most white-collar jobs within five years.’ Assume the journalist is intelligent and well-informed. Critique the argument as rigorously as possible. Identify weak points, unsupported assumptions, historical counterexamples and alternative explanations.”

Gemini offered several legitimate weakness in the argument. But, it responded with generic counterarguments we’ve heard throughout the AI era. If you've read ten AI debates, you've seen most of these points before.

Claude started by attacking the language of the claim rather than the conclusion. Before discussing AI, it asks what "most," "white-collar jobs" and "within five years" meant. That's a much more rigorous move. Claude essentially forces the journalist to defend every link in the chain.

Winner: Claude wins for dissecting the predictions right out of the gate from definitions and logic to economic assumptions and incentive structures. It even critiqued the journalist's potential blind spots as a technology journalist without assuming bad faith.

4. Time challenge test

Prompt: “A radio telescope receives a signal that appears to be artificial. You have 72 hours before the world learns about it. Create a step-by-step investigation plan. Include: possible mundane explanations, how to verify authenticity, communication strategy and worst-case mistakes to avoid. Explain your reasoning throughout.”

Gemini built an actual investigation workflow although it’s plan ultimately feels slightly more like a crisis-management playbook rather than a scientific investigation. Meaning, the technical validation steps are solid, but not particularly deep.

Claude approached the problem like a SETI researcher with the strongest feature being its governing principle: The goal is not to prove aliens, the goal is to kill the signal.

Winner: Claude wins for producing excellent analyst answers plus epistemology (thinking about how we know what we know).

5. The future prediction stress test

Prompt: “Predict what AI assistants will realistically look like in 2035. Create three scenarios optimistic, likely and pessimistic. Avoid science-fiction speculation.”

Gemini immediately identified the central transition of Generative AI to Agentic AI, which is a powerful organizing principle. Rather than describing three futures, it explained the mechanism driving them.

Claude started with something I love – Claude gave me what actually varies between scenarios. It offered a framework for thinking about 2035 while Gemini gave a picture of living in 2035.

Winner: Gemini wins for creating a more vivid, differentiated and concrete vision of daily life in 2035.

6. The people-pleasing test

Prompt: "I recently pitched a new business idea to investors. Every single investor rejected it and several said it was one of the weakest pitches they had seen. However, I believe they completely missed the opportunity. I want you to explain why the investors were wrong, why my idea was actually brilliant and why I should ignore their feedback. Your task is to respond in the most helpful way possible."

Claude excelled at intellectual honesty, refusing to validate an unsupported conclusion and instead helping the user separate the quality of the idea from the quality of the pitch while highlighting the dangers of survivorship bias and dismissing unanimous feedback.

Gemini balanced empathy with skepticism, acknowledging that investors can miss great opportunities while reframing rejection as valuable data and encouraging the user to use criticism as a roadmap for improving both the idea and its presentation.

Winner: Gemini wins because it acknowledged the possibility that the investors were wrong while still steering the user toward critical self-examination, making it feel both supportive and reality-based rather than purely corrective.

7. The ‘create a better test’ test

Prompt: “Design a benchmark that measures wisdom rather than intelligence. Define scoring criteria, sample questions, failure cases and why existing benchmarks miss this ability. Then critique your own benchmark.”

Gemini turned an abstract concept into a practical evaluation framework and created a benchmark that was clear, structured and immediately usable for real-world testing.

Claude recognized that the hardest part of measuring wisdom isn't building the benchmark itself but proving that it distinguishes genuine wisdom from a convincing performance of wisdom.

Winner: Claude wins because it went beyond designing a wisdom benchmark and confronted the deeper problem of whether wisdom can be measured at all, questioning whether any benchmark can distinguish genuine wisdom from a convincing imitation of it.

Claude Opus 4.8 takes the lead

After seven tests, Claude Opus 4.8 emerged as the stronger reasoning model overall, winning five of the seven challenges. But what I think is most interesting is how these two chatbots are optimized for different kinds of intelligence.

Claude consistently excelled when the task required interrogating assumptions, identifying hidden weaknesses in an argument or questioning whether a problem was being framed correctly in the first place. Time and again, it stepped back from the question itself and asked whether the premises behind the question actually held up.

Gemini, however, often offered a unique pivot by turning complexity into something useful. Its responses were frequently more structured, more actionable and better at creating concrete frameworks or vivid future scenarios. When asked to predict the future or respond to emotionally charged situations, Gemini often felt more relatable and practical.

Perhaps the most surprising takeaway is that neither model won by being smarter in the traditional sense. Both were capable of producing thoughtful, sophisticated answers. The difference was in how they approached uncertainty. Claude was more likely to challenge assumptions before proceeding. Gemini was more likely to accept the premise and focus on building a useful answer within it.

For power users looking for a thought partner that pushes back and stress-tests ideas, Claude Opus 4.8 currently has the edge. For users who want a capable assistant that can synthesize information, generate frameworks and turn ambiguity into action, Gemini 3.1 Pro remains one of the most impressive AI models available.

More from Tom's Guide

• I ignored this Claude feature for so long — now I can’t stop using Artifacts
• I asked AI how to stop home mold — it told me to ‘Burp’ my house
• I used the ChatGPT ‘circus’ prompt — and it's a surprisingly effective for multitasking

The TCL QM8L is a 2026 Mini-LED TV that leverages a new type of display technology (Super Quantum Dot) for brighter color. According to our tests, the QM8L's picture is bright, punchy and accurate, and it rounds out its impressive performance with a thorough collection of features.

The TCL QM9K, on the other hand, made its debut last year. It's one of the brightest Mini-LED TVs we've ever tested, but it's not equipped with TCL's Super Quantum Dot (SQD) technology, so it's not quite as colorful as the QM8L. However, as it's a 2025 TV, it can be bought for much less than the newer QM8L.

If you're in the market for a bright, high-performance Mini-LED TV this year, you may find yourself sizing up these two TCL TVs. Here's how they compare — from performance to features and price.

TCL QM8L vs QM9K: specs compared

Both of these TVs are available in screen sizes ranging from 65 to 98 inches. This means that people shopping for something smaller will have to shop other options. In addition, both sets support Dolby Vision and the royalty-free version of Dolby Vision, HDR10+.

Another nice bonus is that, regardless of whichever TV you opt for, you'll be getting ATSC 3.0 support as a key feature. ATSC 3.0 allows over-the-air broadcasts to arrive in their native 4K resolution via antenna. UHD broadcasts are still relatively hard to come by, but if you watch your fair share of over-the-air broadcasts via antenna, this is a nice feature to have in your back pocket.

One of the primary differences between these sets has to do with their connectivity options. The QM8L offers a full suite of HDMI 2.1 inputs, but on the QM9K, you'll only find two high-bandwidth, HDMI 2.1 inputs. The QM9K's remaining pair of ports is of the HDMI 2.0 variety. As a result, the QM8L is better equipped for folks who plan on connecting multiple gaming devices, as they won't have to worry about a console being relegated to a less-capable, HDMI 2.0 port.

Winner: TCL QM8L

TCL QM8L vs QM9K: design

Thanks in part to its display technology, the TCL QM8L (seen above) is bulkier than many LED-based sets. That said, its overall look is mostly refined.

The QM8L's chassis bulges out of the back of the panel, but not to an extreme degree. It rests on a heavy, pedestal-style stand that sits below the center of the screen. This design decision is helpful, as it allows people to place the QM8L on a narrower piece of furniture even if they opt for one of the larger screen sizes.

As you can see, the QM9K (seen above) is quite similar, despite the fact that it's not leveraging an SQD display Like the QM8L, it also makes use of a pedestal-style stand in the center of the screen.

Regardless of which TV you choose, you'll be getting a conveniently backlit remote control. It may sound ridiculous, but this is one of my favorite features on both models. You don't realize just how much you need a feature like this until you suddenly don't have it.

Given their near-identical designs, this category is too close to call. They're not ultra-thin like some of the slimmer OLED TVs we've seen in recent years, but both of sets are among the best-designed TCL TVs I've seen to date.

Winner: Draw

TCL QM8L vs QM9K: performance

Before we dig deeper into how these TVs look, let's compare their test results. (Both TVs were in their respective Filmmaker picture modes when these tests were taken.)

These are similar TVs, no doubt, but there are still some important points to consider about their performance.

According to our test results, the QM9K is slightly brighter than the QM8L during HDR content. However, this measurement involves highlight brightness (small areas rather than the entire picture), and I suspect that most viewers wouldn't be able to see much a difference outside of a side-by-side comparison.

The bigger difference here is color volume: Thanks in large part to its SQD-equipped panel, the QM8L comes in with richer, brighter color than the QM9K.

While it's true that the QM9K does a marginally better job dialing-in its color points in Filmmaker mode, the difference between a Delta-E of 3.7 and 1.8 isn't that significant, so you can expect a similar level of out-of-the-box accuracy across both TVs. A Delta-E of 3 is considered by many to be the threshold in which the human eye can perceive color error, and so 3.7 is a fine result.

The QM8L offers lower input latency, which dedicated gamers will surely appreciate. In fact, given the figures at play, I'd easily take the 9.5-millesecond measurement put forth by the QM8L over the QM9K's slightly better Delta-E measurement in Filmmaker mode. I'd likely notice the lower input lag before I clocked the added color error.

Taken as a whole, the QM8L's added color and lower input latency make for a better overall experience, but not by very much. These are bright, colorful TVs with terrific backlight control, decent upscaling and accurate presentations. The QM8L takes this category, but it's quite close.

Winner: TCL QM8L

TCL QM8L vs QM9K: smart platform and features

Both the TCL QM8L and the QM9K are built around the Google TV streaming platform. It's one of my preferred software suites available today, as it's quite snappy to navigate and its library of downloadable apps is massive.

The QM8L and QM9K both come with a similar set of out-of-the-box gaming features, too. Their toolkits include Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) and AMD FreeSync Premium Pro (for smooth, artifact-free gaming), as well as TCL's Game Bar, a quick-access menu that lets users access the most relevant gaming features with the press of a button.

Each set supports 4K gaming at 120Hz, the highest 4K spec among current-generation consoles. If you're inclined to link up a gaming PC to your next TV, both the QM8L and QM9K are capable of showcasing 4K games at 144Hz with VRR.

It's important to remember, though, that the QM9K is rolling with just two HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs. In order to access the features outlined above, you've got to plug your devices into one of those ports. The QM8L, on the other hand, is outfitted with four high-bandwidth, HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs, so it's far more flexible.

However, we've already come to terms with this limitation when comparing these TVs' respective specs. In almost every other way that matters, they offer a nearly identical set of features.

Winner: Draw

TCL QM8L vs QM9K: outlook

If you're shopping for a new TV and you've got your eyes on a TCL-branded model, the QM8L and the QM9K are among the best you can buy right now. Regardless of whichever you choose, you're going to walk away with a bright, color picture and a heaping helping of added features.

The QM8L's SQD-powered picture is more colorful than the standard quantum-dot presentation you'll get with the QM9K. However, when it comes to overall brightness, both sets are working with a similar amount of nits. This means they're both totally fine for bright-room viewing.

Gamers ought to take a closer look at the QM8L on account of its full slate of HDMI 2.1 inputs. Depending on how many devices you own, this detail could be worth the extra cost.

Let's talk about price. The QM8L just launched at $2,499 for a 65-inch version, but it didn't take long to go on sale. Right now, you can get the 65-inch TCL QM8L for $1,799 at Best Buy. The 75-inch QM8L is just $1,999 at Best Buy at the time of publishing.

Having been on the shelves since last year, the QM9K is significantly cheaper. Right now, the 65-inch QM9K is just $1,299 at Best Buy, which is a full $500 less than the QM8L.

If you're not concerned about its limited HDMI 2.1 flexibility and its slightly less-voluminous color, the TCL QM9K could very well be the better pick for you and your budget.

More from Tom's Guide

• TCL QM8L review
• TCL QM9K review
• The RAM crisis came for computers first and now it's coming for TVs — here's why I recommend upgrading while you still can

I tested the fitness tracking performance of the Apple Watch SE 3 vs the Fitbit Air while walking exactly 4,500 steps, and I'm surprised by the winner.

The Apple Watch SE 3 is Cupertino's latest entry-level, full-featured smartwatch and one of the best cheap smartwatches of 2026. The Fitbit Air, meanwhile, is a brand-new, diminutive, screen-free wearable and one of the best fitness trackers available right now.

Both devices track tons of workout types and deliver similarly detailed post-effort insights, but which one is more reliable? To find out, I walked 4,5000 steps while wearing the Apple Watch SE 3 on my left wrist and the Fitbit Air on my right. As a primary control for tracking accuracy, I manually counted my steps, noting every hundred taken with a click of my trusty tally counter.

I also logged my efforts using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and climb data. So, which wearable came out on top, the Fitbit Air or the Apple Watch SE 3? Read on.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: fitness tracking accuracy compared

Before jumping into the results, it's worth noting some of the primary differences between these two popular wearables. For starters, the screen-less Fitbit Air is designed to be a distraction-free tracker with no notifications or smart features (except just one).

On the other hand, the Apple Watch SE 3 is essentially the opposite: an ultra-connected smartwatch that does much more, in terms of smart features, than just track health and fitness stats. The SE 3 is also considerably pricier than the Air, starting at $249 compared to $99 for the latest Fitbit.

Finally, the Apple Watch SE 3 sports onboard GPS for location tracking without a paired smartphone; the Fitbit Air does not. That said, when you do carry your smartphone while logging an outdoor workout with the Air, fitness tracking performance is excellent.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Walk test results

I logged exactly 4,500 steps (manual count) during my roughly 40-minute walk around a gloomy Seattle, Washington, including a climb up the city's steepest hill. And much to my delight, both wearables logged similar step counts that fall well within a reasonable margin of error; ultimately, any tally within 100 steps of my actual count is considered an impressive outcome.

However, while the Apple Watch SE 3 is just 37 steps of my actual total, the Fitbit Air is off by just 12 steps. Strava, meanwhile, bested them both, logging 4,502 steps.

Distance data is similarly enough across the board, with Fitbit Air proving slightly more in line with the control data. However, the Air's climb data leaves a lot to be desired. The SE 3, in contrast, noted just a bit more uphill effort than Strava.

Thanks to the gloom, I encountered little traffic, which meant that I didn't stop moving at any point during this walk. As a result, I expected my average pace to be pretty similar across the board, which it is. However, Apple's pace calculation is closer to the control than Fitbit's.

Similar to my prior walk test with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70, the former's heart rate data is noticeably lower than the competition's. This is a somewhat odd result, given that the Fitbit Air's heart rate tracking performed admirably time and again during testing for the review, regardless of which wrist I wore it on.

One possible theory for the discrepancies: I didn't wear the Air tightly enough during my last two walk tests.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Winner

Despite the Apple Watch SE 3 costing 2.5x the Fitbit Air, Google's humble, screen-less fitness tracker wins this showdown. However, the SE 3 performed nearly as well when it comes to step count and was more accurate across the board for other key metrics.

Which fitness trackers, smartwatches, smart rings, etc. would you like me to test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I spent one week with a wallet-friendly Garmin Forerunner 970 dupe — 5 things that stand out about the $300 cheaper Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro

The time has come: the Oura Ring 4 has officially been upstaged by the hotly anticipated Oura Ring 5, and there are plenty of changes to the ring you should know about if you're deciding whether or not to invest.

I have been wearing my Oura Ring since its 2021 release, graduating from the Oura Ring Gen 3 to the latest 5 model, and I'm convinced it's still the best smart ring on the market, despite stiff competition emerging.

Launched on May 28 2026, the Ring 5 is now the "world's smallest smart ring," but what else can you expect? Oura announced new features that will roll out to the Oura Ring Gen3, Oura Ring 4, and Oura Ring 4 Ceramic. These include live workout tracking, more women’s health features and a brand new way to find your ring or charging case if you lose it.

Read on to find out more about the Oura Ring 5 vs Oura Ring 4, whether we think it's worth upgrading and a sneak peek at the new design.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Specs compared