The iPhone 18 Pro Max is the biggest, best iPhone you can buy right now. But I've never liked the 'Max' models and always preferred the smaller, regular Pro models. Maybe it's a hangover from my time with the iPhone 13 mini or perhaps it's just that I don't like walking around with a dinner plate in my pocket for making phone calls or taking a picture.

If you're like me, you'll no doubt be wondering whether or not the iPhone 18 Pro offers enough new features over last year's iPhone 17 Pro to make it worth the upgrade. There are the usual upgrades, in the form of a faster processor and therefore better battery life, but what about the rest?

Well, I think photographers and gamers are going to be most impressed with this year's offering, thanks to the variable aperture integrated into the main camera and the improved vapor chamber nestled inside the iPhone 18 Pro's chassis.

Are you thinking of upgrading this year — or are you happy to stick with your current phone? Let me know in the comments. In the meantime, let's get into it.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: specifications

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Price

Following the announcement of the iPhone 18 Pro at Apple's 'Surprise and shine' event, pre-orders go live on September 12, with the phone going on regular sale on September 18. Apple has quietly removed the iPhone 17 Pro from its store, so anyone looking to pick up a 17 Pro now will need to do so through carriers.

As expected, the iPhone 18 Pro arrived with a $100 / £100 price hike, putting the starting price at $1,199 / £1,099 compared to the iPhone 17 Pro's $1,099 / £1,099 starting price.

All things considered, with the ongoing RAM crisis raising prices on almost every area of consumer electronics, a $100/£100 bump isn't as bad as it could have been. The question is whether or not the following upgrades are worth that much to you.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Design and display

At a glance, you might have trouble telling the iPhone 18 Pro apart from the iPhone 17 Pro. Both phones have the same ergonomic 6.3-inch form factor, a size that nicely balances usability and screen real estate. The iPhone 17 Pro made waves with its aluminum unibody design and Ceramic Shield 2 back, and the 18 Pro maintains that unified look

The most notable design shift is that Apple has shrunk the Dynamic Island by 25% for the 18 Pro, as well as increased its functionality. It takes up less screen real estate when not in use but can now show three Live Activities at once, while continuing to enable Face ID for securely unlocking the phone. It's a minor change, and probably not one that many users will worry too much about.

In all other ways, the two phones are more or less identical. The iPhone 18 Pro is a touch heavier at 7.44 ounces (211 grams) vs the 7.2 ounces (204 grams) of the iPhone 17 Pro. But with the dimensions remaining unchanged, including the camera plateau, it means you won't be forced to buy a brand new case if you do decide to upgrade.

Where you're of course going to see a change is in the color scheme. The iPhone 17 Pro is hard to miss thanks to its Cosmic Orange finish but the iPhone 18 Pro goes in for a more muted palette.

The iPhone 18 Pro (and 18 Pro Max) is available in Black, Silver, Glacier, and Burgundy. This is one extra shade compared to the iPhone 17 Pro, which comes in Cosmic Orange, Deep Blue or Silver.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Cameras

The camera system is probably the single biggest upgrade on the iPhone 18 Pro and your main reason for switching up from last year's model. While the iPhone 17 Pro boasts a phenomenal 48MP main lens with a fixed f/1.78 aperture alongside a 48MP ultrawide and 48MP telephoto, the iPhone 18 Pro is set to take mobile photography to the next level.

Apple outfitted the iPhone 18 Pro with a variable-aperture main camera. This gives users true hardware-level control over depth of field and how much light reaches the sensor, heavily outclassing the digital portrait blur we've relied on for years. In the iPhone 18 Pro camera app you'll find four stops that you can cycle through (ƒ/1.48, ƒ/1.8, ƒ/2.8 and ƒ/4.0) and you'll actually see the laser-cut blades moving above the camera lens.

This means you can manually change aperture between, for example, f/1.48 for portraits (to get more of that background blur) or go up to f/4.0 if you want all of the scene to look sharp.

There was some concern Apple was going to limit this feature to the iPhone 18 Pro Max but it's great to see the regular Pro is getting it as well.

Video mode has also been improved, with the iPhone 18 Pro letting users apply cinematic effects after capture to videos shot at up to 60 fps. In Time-lapse mode, users can now record videos in 4K and Dolby Vision HDR. Audio Mix also has new algorithms that deliver higher-quality voices and can now isolate music.

There's no doubt that if you're constantly using your iPhone for photography and want the best experience possible, you're going to want to upgrade to this year's model from the iPhone 17 Pro.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Performance and battery

The iPhone 17 Pro is no slouch, thanks to the A19 Pro chip built on a 3-nanometer process. However, the iPhone 18 Pro seems ready to blast past it thanks to Apple's next-generation A20 Pro chip, manufactured using TSMC's cutting-edge 2nm process.

We won't know for certain until we put it through our benchmarking tests, but there's sure to be some big performance gains over the 17 Pro. Apple says the 18 Pro features 50 percent more memory bandwidth than what we saw with the A19 Pro. The new 7-core GPU design is up to 40 percent faster than A19 Pro — a significant upgrade for graphics rendering and I'll come to why that matters in a moment.

The A20 Pro also features a new Dual 16-core Neural Engine, which accelerates on-device AI models and computational photography, and includes 32 total cores for double the AI processing power of A19 Pro.

Backing that processor performance is a vapor chamber that boasts three times more surface area than the one inside the iPhone 17 Pro. Apple says this new thermal management system will enable a 40 percent performance gain over last year's model.

These two improvements will manifest in two particular ways: gaming and battery life. In fact, Apple claims the 18 Pro has the same battery life as the iPhone 17 Pro Max. Again, we'll need to put it through our own battery life benchmarks to be sure, but Apple says you'll see up to 34 hours of video playback on the 18 Pro vs up to 31 on the 17 Pro.

If you use your iPhone primarily as a gaming device (and my colleague Mark tried out a demo of the upcoming Monster Hunter game on iPhone 18 Pro this week) then chances are you'll be well served by upgrading to the iPhone 18 Pro.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Software and Apple Intelligence

Both the iPhone 17 Pro and the iPhone 18 Pro will have access to Apple's latest software tricks, but this year's model will run iOS 27 out of the box. The 17 Pro, meanwhile, launched with iOS 26 but will be eligible for the update in the coming weeks.

The real difference lies in hardware integration for Apple Intelligence. With 12GB of RAM on both devices, the AI playing field looks level on paper. However, with the aforementioned A20 Pro's Neural Engine, we'll see a snappier response for on-device AI tasks.

And with Siri AI finally starting to hit its stride, Apple's AI offering feels like it's just starting to catch up with the competition.

However, for the most part, the 17 Pro will remain able to use almost all the AI software features Apple has to offer for at least a few more years. Access to new AI features alone isn't a big enough reason to consider upgrading.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Final thoughts

If you're already rocking an iPhone 17 Pro, I feel it's going to be tough to justify an upgrade based on what's already at your disposal. Apple's 2025 effort has a gorgeous 6.3-inch display, a triple 48MP camera setup, and 12GB of RAM to power Apple Intelligence. It’s an incredibly capable device that still has years of top-tier life left in it.

That said, if you’re a photographer or a gamer, I think there's enough here to make an upgrade look tempting. The variable aperture feature is, of course, the headline draw, but also think about the fact that you can now get a 2TB storage option with the iPhone 18 Pro. Yes, it's a very expensive $2,399 / £2,399 to do so, but if you're shooting a lot of 4K video or installing dozens of AAA games, then you're going to want it.

All told, the iPhone 18 Pro is an entirely predictable refresh — there's just enough newness here around the features people actually use (photography, battery life, etc) but it stops well short of a major design and features overhaul.

Of course we'll know more about the 18 Pro and how it holds up to its predecessor once we get it into the Tom's Guide benchmarking and review process. In the meantime, let me know in the comments below whether you think an iPhone 18 Pro upgrade is a must-have or if you're content to hold on to the iPhone 17 Pro for a few more years yet.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max hands-on: Sneaky awesome upgrades, but worth the price hike?
• iPhone Duo hands-on: Apple nailed it — and just put everyone else on notice
• Apple Watch Series 12 hands-on: A new heart rate sensor and a readiness score (at last)

Alongside Apple's first foldable iPhone, a new generation of Pro iPhones has arrived, which means it's time to compare the iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max. Other than a smaller Dynamic Island, Apple hasn't changed the overall design much from last year's model, but there are several upgrades on the new iPhone 18 Pro Max, including a variable aperture camera, longer battery life and the new A20 Pro chipset.

This guide breaks down the key differences between the iPhone 18 Pro Max and iPhone 17 Pro Max, so you can make a more informed decision before placing your pre-order or upgrading to the newer model. So, whether you already own the iPhone 17 Pro Max or are choosing between the two, we'll help you figure out which one makes more sense.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Specs

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Price, availability and colors

Amid the ongoing RAM crisis, Apple has increased the prices of both the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max by $100. This means the iPhone 18 Pro Max now starts at $1,299, compared to the iPhone 17 Pro Max's $1,199 launch price. Unlike the last time Apple raised the Pro Max's price, there's no base storage increase to soften the blow either.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max comes in four color options: Silver, Glacier, Burgundy, and Black. Notably, Black is making a return after being absent from the iPhone 17 Pro lineup. In comparison, the iPhone 17 Pro Max launched in just three colors: Silver, Deep Blue, and Cosmic Orange.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max will be available for pre-order starting September 12, with general availability beginning September 18. Check out our iPhone 18 Pro pre-order deals page for the best offers available.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max is no longer officially available from Apple, but you can still find it through retailers like Best Buy and several carriers. With the new model now here, you may also be able to grab it at a decent discount. Check out our iPhone 17 deals page for the latest offers.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Design and display

Apple refreshed the iPhone Pro lineup's design just last year with the iPhone 17 Pro, so there aren't many major changes this time around. Looks-wise, you're getting the same horizontal camera plateau on the back, although the rear glass is now slightly more color-matched to the rest of the device.

In terms of dimensions, the iPhone 18 Pro Max is exactly the same size as the iPhone 17 Pro Max, but there is a noticeable difference in weight. The iPhone 18 Pro Max weighs nearly 249 grams, compared to 231 grams for the iPhone 17 Pro Max. In terms of durability, both phones are also IP68-rated and feature Ceramic Shield 2 on the front and Ceramic Shield protection on the back.

As for the display, the iPhone 18 Pro Max features the same 6.9-inch Super Retina XDR OLED panel with support for up to 120Hz refresh rate. Peak brightness also remains unchanged at 3,000 nits.

The main difference is the smaller Dynamic Island on the iPhone 18 Pro Max. Thanks to its reduced size, the new model can now display up to three Live Activities at once, compared to two on the iPhone 17 Pro Max.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Cameras

Cameras are where Apple has made some of the bigger changes with the iPhone 18 Pro Max. On paper, you're still getting the same triple 48MP camera setup, consisting of a 48MP main camera, 48MP ultrawide, and 48MP telephoto camera with up to 8x optical zoom. But the big upgrade this year is the addition of a physical variable aperture on the main camera.

This allows the aperture to physically open and close to control how much light reaches the sensor, giving the camera more flexibility depending on the scene you're shooting. It should make a noticeable difference in both photos and videos, although we'll have to test it properly to see how much of an improvement it actually makes.

Apple has also added new Pro Controls, allowing users to manually adjust settings like ISO, shutter speed, white balance, exposure, and more directly in the Camera app

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Performance

The iPhone 18 Pro Max features Apple's new A20 Pro chipset, which is the company's first mobile chip built on a 2nm process. Apple has led the smartphone performance race for quite a while, but compared to the A19 Pro inside the iPhone 17 Pro Max, there are even more improvements this year in both performance and power efficiency.

You still get a six-core CPU but there's now a 7-core GPU that promises up to 40% faster graphics performance. Plus, the Neural Engine now features up to 32 cores, which should provide a major boost to AI performance on the iPhone 18 Pro Max. Memory bandwidth has also improved, with Apple claiming the A20 Pro offers 50% more bandwidth than the A19 Pro.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max also features a second-generation vapor chamber, which should help improve thermal performance and allow the phone to sustain peak performance for longer.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Battery and charging

Apple never discloses the official battery capacities of its iPhones, but the company is claiming some big battery life improvements with the iPhone 18 Pro Max. Apple says the iPhone 18 Pro Max can now last up to 43 hours of continuous video playback on a single charge, compared to 37 hours on the iPhone 17 Pro Max.

We'll have to test that ourselves, but considering we were already impressed by the iPhone 17 Pro Max's battery life, we're expecting the iPhone 18 Pro Max to be an absolute battery champion.

Charging speeds have increased as well. The iPhone 17 Pro Max supported up to 40W wired charging, delivering up to a 50% charge in around 20 minutes. The iPhone 18 Pro Max increases that to 60W, with Apple claiming you can now reach 50% in just 15 minutes.

Wireless charging, however, remains the same on both phones, with up to 25W MagSafe charging support.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Software and special features

The iPhone 18 Pro Max will launch with iOS 27 out of the box. That said, the same software update will also be available for the iPhone 17 Pro Max around the time the new model goes on sale, which means there isn't much separating the two phones on the software front.

Both phones will get the new Siri AI and Apple Intelligence features, so you aren't really missing out by sticking with the iPhone 17 Pro Max. However, with the improved Neural Engine, better thermal performance, and longer battery life, the iPhone 18 Pro Max should handle some of those AI and more demanding features better in the long run.

And since the iPhone 18 Pro Max is a year newer, you can also expect it to receive software updates for slightly longer than the iPhone 17 Pro Max.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 17 Pro Max: Outlook

The differences between the iPhone 18 Pro Max and iPhone 17 Pro Max may not look huge from the outside, but Apple has made some meaningful upgrades underneath. The improved battery life, faster charging, A20 Pro chipset, and new variable aperture camera make the iPhone 18 Pro Max a much bigger upgrade than the familiar design might suggest.

Of course, we'll have to properly test both models side by side before giving our final verdict. But based on what we've seen so far, the iPhone 18 Pro Max looks set to be an absolute performance and battery champion, even compared to the already impressive iPhone 17 Pro Max.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone Duo hands-on: Apple nailed it — and just put everyone else on notice
• I just went hands on with the Apple Watch Ultra 4: Better battery, improved heart health tracking, and new holistic features galore
• Keep your new iPhone 18 Pro or iPhone 18 Pro Max safe from day one: The cases to buy right now

The Apple Watch Series 12 just dropped, and you might be wondering whether to buy an Apple Watch Series 11 on sale or wait and pre-order the new watch. Both watches will run the new watchOS 27 software, both have the same battery life, and both look pretty much identical, but there are some key differences. We’ll dive into them below, so read this before adding either watch to your cart.

Apple Watch Series 12 vs Apple Watch Series 11: 6 biggest differences

Heart rate monitor

They might look the same, but flip the watches over and you’ll spot the biggest difference from a health and fitness-tracking perspective: the newer watch has a completely redesigned heart rate monitor. Apple says it’s the most accurate heart rate sensor in a wearable, with larger, more power-efficient green LEDs that measure your heart rate every five seconds, compared to every five minutes in the Apple Watch Series 11.

But why does this even matter? Continuous heart rate monitoring lets the watch provide more accurate heart rate variability (HRV) data. On the Apple Watch Series 12, you’ll be able to see your Recovery HRV score, which shows signs of stress and recovery, as well as your overall HRV, which offers insights into your overall health.

The new heart rate monitor also allows you to use Apple’s new Readiness score. More on that below.

Daily Readiness score

Readiness provides a single score out of ten with one of four different recommendations: Recover, Pace Yourself, Ready, or Go For It. Readiness updates throughout the day as new data comes in, and is based on your overnight vitals, sleep score, recent physical activity, and training load.

Charging speed

Even with continuous heart rate monitoring, both watches have the same 24-hour battery life in smartwatch mode. That said, the Apple Watch Series 12 offers faster charging and slightly longer GPS-mode battery life — 10 hours instead of 8 on the Series 11.

With the Series 12, 15 minutes of charging gives you 12 hours of battery life, making it easier to ensure you don’t miss any sleep-tracking data.

Audio Intelligence features

The third huge difference between the two devices is that the Apple Watch Series 12 has Apple’s Audio Intelligence features on board. This uses Apple Intelligence to tell you what song is playing in the background in real time, detect important sounds you might have missed, get a transcript of the last 15 seconds of conversation with Live Rewind, and take notes of your conversations throughout the day with Siri Recap.

These features will drop later in the year, and you can read more about the Audio Intelligence features on the Apple Watch here.

Processor

The Apple Watch Series 12 has the new S11 chip. As well as the features above, Apple says this chip has redesigned algorithms to improve the distance accuracy of indoor walk or run workouts, as well as a more accurate pedometer. With the Apple Watch Series 12, you’ll also be able to see how many steps you’ve taken each day from your home screen.

Durability and cases

While the two watches look pretty much identical, the Apple Watch Series 12 watches with aluminum cases have a tougher screen.

Finally, you’ll also get new finishes with the Series 12 — there’s a new radiant gold titanium casing, as well as two new ceramic casings in pearl white and night blue.

Which should you pick?

So, should you pre-order the Apple Watch Series 12, or save your money and buy the Series 11 when it goes on sale? We’re yet to fully test the Series 12, so stay tuned for our full review dropping later this month, but from the heart rate sensor alone, this seems like a worthy upgrade from a health and fitness tracking standpoint.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)
• Apple Watch Series 12 hands-on: A new heart rate sensor and a readiness score (at last)
• Apple Watch Ultra 4 is official: All the upgrades explained

After weeks of rumors, Apple finally announced the AirPods 5 on September 9 at its "Surprise and Shine" iPhone Duo event.

Like the AirPods 4 before them, the AirPods 5 will come in two distinct flavors: a base model with ANC and a higher-end model with a wireless charging case and a volume slider on the stem.

Both versions of the AirPods 5 will be powered by the H2 Wireless Chip that offers personalized spatial audio and live translation, but is all that reason enough to upgrade from the now two-year-old AirPods 4? The answer isn't exactly clear cut.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Price and availability

Because there are two AirPods 5 models, there are two prices: $129 / AU$219 for the base model and $149 / AU$249 for the higher-end model.

The AirPods 4, now a few years old, are obviously less expensive. They start at just $99 for the base model. Interestingly, however, the more advanced AirPods 4 with ANC is still sitting at $149. That's going to make the decision pretty easy if you need ANC.

My favorite Apple earbuds are the AirPods Pro 3, and those start at $249. It's a pretty big leap in price, but I think they're all-around a better option, especially when compared to the AirPods 4.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Design

Admittedly, there's not a lot of difference on the design front. Apple claims the AirPods 5 offer "an all-new multiport acoustic architecture" but you certainly wouldn't know it just by looking at them.

The major design difference between the AirPods 5 and AirPods 4 can be found on the stems of the newer model. It's so small you'll likely miss it, but if you look close you'll see a touch-capacitive divot that acts as a volume slider. It's a very minor detail that the AirPods 5 take from the more-expensive AirPods Pro 3.

Speaking of nice-to-have features, the AirPods 5 with Wireless Charging Case (the proper name of the more-advanced AirPods 5 model) do offer wireless charging (duh). You can use the same charger as the Apple Watch, Qi-compatible chargers or plain old USB-C if you don't already own a wireless charging mat.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Controls

Besides the aforementioned volume slider functionality, both the AirPods 5 and AirPods 4 use touch sensitive stems to control your music.

Both pairs of true wireless earbuds can differentiate between squeezes and taps, but it's up to you to learn which one does what.

I've never been a huge fan of touch technology in earbuds and prefer to use my voice or my phone to control playback, but it's nice to have the option in a pinch.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Sound quality

Here's where things are going to get a bit murky. Apple claims that, due to its improved sonic architecture, the AirPods 5 are going to sound better than the AirPods 4. Sound, as we all know, is subjective, and I can't really comment on their sound quality until I've heard them myself.

So until then, let's hear from someone who's listened to both.

Kate Kozuch, the Head of Video here at Tom's Guide was in Cupertino this week to check them out. According to her, the "bass was a noticeable improvement" on the AirPods 5. That counts for a lot in a pair of open earbuds like the AirPods.

Still, Kate didn't feel like there was a big enough difference between the two to warrant an upgrade. "This is coming from an AirPods 4 user: I don't think anyone needs to upgrade from AirPods 4."

If you want the best sound quality in a pair of wireless earbuds, then, your best bet is still going to be the pricier AirPods Pro series.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Features

The AirPods 5 take some of the best features of the AirPods Pro (besides sound quality, obviously) and bring them down to a more affordable price.

Like the Pro, the AirPods 5 offer Spatial Audio support, live translation and "significantly improved" ANC. How significant? According to Apple, the AirPods 5 cancel out "50 percent more external noise compared to AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancellation." So pretty big.

Now, keep in mind that these are open earbuds, so the ANC isn't going to be world-class here. I'd still expect a pair of Bose over-ears to do a better job than the AirPods 5, but hey, I'll take any improvement we can get.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Battery life

One of our biggest complaints against the AirPods 4 was that their battery life was a little lacking. You could get around 5 hours of listening with ANC off, and 4 hours when you turn it on. That's a lot less than the competition and it means having to constantly reach for a charger.

The base AirPods 5 don't seem to offer much of an improvement here, but the AirPods 5 with Wireless Charging Case offer an additional hour with ANC turned on thanks to a redesigned battery.

Will an extra hour make or break the experience? Probably not, especially when rival earbuds like the Sony WF-1000XM6 offer around 8 hours with ANC turned on.

AirPods 5 vs AirPods 4: Early outlook

If you're just getting AirPods for the first time, the AirPods 5 seem to be worth the extra $30 to get the ones with wireless charging.

If you're someone who already owns a pair of AirPods 4, however, it's not so cut and dry. Spatial audio, the audio slider and live translation are all great, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure I'd toss out my old earbuds just to tap into them, especially when key areas like battery life haven't been improved all that much.

There are also some really great AirPods alternatives out there and, if you don't mind spending more for them, the award-winning AirPods Pro Series that I use every single day are some of the best wireless earbuds on the market. If you can, skip the AirPods and go straight for the AirPods Pro, but if the budget is tight, the base AirPods 5 will get you half the performance for around $100.

More from Tom's Guide

• I interviewed Apple CEO John Ternus on the making of the iPhone Duo — here's what made him say 'yes, that's it'
• People are freaking out about the new 'always-listening' Apple Watches — here's what Apple CEO John Ternus told us
• Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: price, specs and features compared

If you’re a fan of the best smartwatches, you’ve been treated in recent weeks with the launch of the latest models of the Garmin Fenix and Apple Watch Ultra.

The Garmin Fenix 9 line-up launched in late August, with the top-of-the-range Fenix 9 Pro being Garmin’s most advanced sports watch yet.

A couple of weeks later the Apple Watch Ultra 4 was announced at Apple’s September event, boasting new features like continuous heart rate tracking and a readiness score.

We’ll thoroughly test both watches and compare them in our full reviews, but for now here’s a breakdown of how the pair stack up with regards to their key specs, features and price.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Specs compared

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Price

The price is simple when it comes to the Apple Watch Ultra 4; it will set you back $799, the same price as its predecessor. There’s also only one model of the watch, which comes in either black or natural titanium,

Things are a lot more complicated with the Garmin Fenix 9 line-up, with three sizes, two display options and standard and Pro models to consider.

The standard Garmin Fenix 9 costs from $999, whereas the Fenix 9 Pro costs from $1099 and has a full titanium case and the option to add inReach connectivity as its key upgrades. I’m going to focus on the Fenix 9 Pro for this comparison, because it’s the top model in Garmin’s line-up.

Whatever Fenix you opt for, however, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is going to be the more affordable option, and it’s $400 cheaper than a Garmin Fenix 9 Pro with inReach.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Design and display

Both watches have rugged, durable designs with full titanium cases and sapphire crystal displays. The Apple Watch Ultra has a square 49mm case, whereas with the Fenix 9 Pro you can choose between circular 43mm, 47mm and 51mm case sizes.

Another choice you get with the Fenix 9 Pro is the display type, because there is a memory-in-pixel Fenix 9 Pro Solar with solar panels on its face to boost battery life.

The standard Fenix 9 Pro has a 3,000 nit AMOLED display, matching the brightness of the Apple Watch Ultra 4’s Retina display.

Both watches stick with their classic button layouts — the Ultra 4 has three buttons, one of which is a digital dial, while the Fenix 9 Pro has five buttons.

They have equivalent waterproof ratings and both can be used for diving to depths of 40m.

A big design advantage for the Fenix 9 Pro is its built-in flashlight, which has white, red and green modes and is brighter and more useful than the flashlight option on the Ultra 4, which uses the watch face itself to light the way.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Health and fitness features

Both watches are packed with useful sports and activity tracking features, and the Apple Watch Ultra 4’s new continuous heart rate monitor and readiness feature are two big improvements that bring it into line with features that have been available on Garmin watches for some time.

We’ll be testing Apple’s claims that the new heart rate monitor on the Ultra 4 and Apple Watch Series 12 is the most accurate on the market, but I have been impressed by the heart rate accuracy on the Fenix 9 Pro so far in testing, and on past Apple Watch models.

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 has more health tracking features, like alerts for signs of an irregular heart beat and hypertension, whereas the Garmin’s strengths are in more extensive training analysis, with additional metrics rating your overall endurance and predicted race times.

Both watches have all the sports modes and stats you need to track workouts, and are also comprehensive daily activity and sleep trackers.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Smart features and connectivity

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is a true smartwatch and offers more useful day-to-day features than the Fenix 9 Pro, especially with its new Siri AI-based features, like Live Rewind, Sound Recognition and Siri Recap.

There’s also a wealth of useful third-party apps available for the Apple Watch, whereas Garmin’s Connect IQ app store is much more limited, and Apple Pay is easier to set up and use than Garmin Pay.

The Fenix 9 Pro’s smart features do include music storage and the ability to link up with streaming services including Spotify, but the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is certainly smarter all round.

Both watches offer LTE and satellite connectivity though, which can be useful for staying in touch with others when you don’t have your phone, or to send SOS alerts if you get into trouble when adventuring off-the-grid.

This feature is only available on the more expensive Fenix 9 Pro model with inReach connectivity, and you will need a subscription with both watches to use these services, except for SOS alerts, which are free on both (for one year with the Fenix 9 Pro, for two years on the Apple Watch Ultra 4).

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: navigation

Garmin’s on-watch navigation tools are the best in the business, and you can quickly create and follow routes on the Fenix 9 Pro thanks to its routable maps, as well as getting specific info on what’s ahead of you when tackling long climbs or descents.

You can also view and use these maps with your sports modes, so you can see your activity stats and a map at the same time, unlike on the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which has its maps and routing features in a separate app to Workouts (though you can use third-party apps to shows maps during an activity).

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Battery life

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 got a battery life bump that means it now offers up to 50 hours on a charge with the always-on display enabled, and 18 hours of GPS tracking in its most accurate mode.

However, this is an area where the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro certainly has the edge, no matter what size of the watch you opt for.

The Fenix 9 Pro 43mm lasts up to 10 days in watch mode and has 18 hours of GPS tracking. The 47mm watch lasts up to 18 days in watch mode and has 32 hours of GPS tracking, and the biggest 51mm watch I’m testing can last a whopping 31 days in watch mode and has 56 hours of GPS tracking.

Both watches can extend these ratings by using various low-power modes during activities, but if it’s battery life you want, the Fenix is the watch to go for.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Which should you buy?

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro is built to be the ultimate adventure and sports watch and focuses more on battery life and training features than the Apple Watch Ultra 4, and it also offers more design choices and the flashlight, which I find invaluable.

For its part the Apple Watch Ultra 4 looks to be a very capable sports watch with more smarts and health features than the Fenix 9 Pro, and it also comes in a lot cheaper.

Both are among the best options in their category, but which suits you better will largely depend if you’re mainly looking for a sports watch, or a smartwatch.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple Watch 11 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — which one should you buy?
• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)

Apple has once again launched new Apple Watches, including the flagship Apple Watch Series 12 and premium Apple Watch Ultra 4. The question is, which one is right for you?

I'm here to help you answer that. Below, I've compared the Apple Watch Series 12 vs. Apple Watch Ultra 4 across seven categories, including cost, design, display, health and fitness, safety, AI, and battery life. Here's everything you need to know before you buy.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Specs compared

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Price

This is an easy one; the Apple Watch Series 12 starts at $399, half the $799 cost of the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Even the priciest Series 12 configuration, 46mm with 5G+GPS, is $250 less than the latest Ultra model.

That said, if you opt for the Series 12 with an upgraded ceramic case (vs standard aluminum), it surpasses the Ultra 4 in cost: $899 for the 42mm and $949 for the 46mm. Note: there is no ceramic Apple Watch Ultra 4.

Both the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Apple Watch Series 12 are available for preorder from September 9 with a September 18 ship date.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Design and durability

Even though the Apple Watch Series 12 features an upgraded Ceramic Shield 2 screen coating — which is 60% tougher than the Ion-X glass used on the Series 11 — the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is hands-down the more rugged model.

The Ultra 4, like those before it, boasts 100 meters of water resistance, enough for scuba diving and double that of the Series 12. Additionally, the Ultra 4 sports a sapphire crystal display, which is more scratch-resistant than even Ion-X glass.

From a usability standpoint, the Ultra 4's design includes an additional, customizable "Action" button on the side of the case opposite the digital crown and side button.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Display

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Apple Watch Series 12 each use the same display as their respective predecessors. Ultimately, the Ultra 4's display offers slightly more real estate than the 46mm Apple Watch Series 12, and a noticeable amount more than the 42mm model.

You'll find LTPO3 wide-angle OLED panels with 326 pixels per inch of resolution in both the latest flagship and Ultra models, but the latter's display is more powerful than the former's.

While the Series 12 maxes out at a respectable 2,000 nits, which is generally bright enough for viewing in bright sunlight, the Ultra 4 reaches 3,000 nits of max brightness. In my experience, that's bright enough to read the screen in even direct sunlight.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Health and fitness features

When it comes to onboard health and fitness tech and features, the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 are essentially a match. They both have Apple's new, redesigned holistic sensor array, which promises far more accurate heart rate tracking, ECGs, and heart rate variability insights compared to prior Apple Watches.

Both watches support a wide range of trackable workout types, along with onboard GPS for logging outdoor activities without a paired phone, but the Ultra 4 has a more advanced dual-band antenna compared to a single-band GPS on the Series 12.

Translation: In settings with obstructed skies, like cities or forests, the Ultra 4 will likely generate slightly more accurate location-based data than the Series 12.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Safety features

Apple's latest smartwatches are each jam-packed with useful safety features, including fall and crash detection, high/low heart rate alerts, Hypertension Alerts, and sleep apnea notifications. However, the Ultra 4 (and Ultra 3) have one unique safety tool not found on any other Apple Watch: Emergency SOS via satellite.

This feature allows users to connect to a satellite, even without a paired smartphone and/or a cellular signal, and send a message to friends and/or emergency responders with location and other details.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: AI features

The Apple Watch 12 and Ultra 4 support the latest, greatest Siri AI-based features, including the onboard voice assistant itself, along with Live Rewind (lets you ‘go back in time’ up to 15 seconds), Sound Recognition(alerts users to sounds like sirens and alarms), and Siri Recap (takes high-level notes of conversations and generates summaries).

Some are concerned about potential privacy issues, but Apple stresses that Live Rewind only activates when you deliberately double-press the Digital Crown. In addition, audio is not recorded or stored for either feature and Siri Recap offers only AI summaries and not transcripts or speaker names.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Battery life

If you want the best battery life in an Apple Watch, your best bet is the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which is rated to last up to 50 hours per charge, more than double the 24-hour rating of the Apple Watch Series 12.

Apple Watch 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Which should you buy?

Apple has long been careful to differentiate the flagship Apple Watch series from the pricier Ultra series, and that's still the case in 2026. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is tougher-built with double the water resistance, twice the battery life, a brighter screen, better GPS, and more impressive safety tools.

On the flip side, the Apple Watch Series 12 is much more affordable than the Ultra 4, with all the same cutting-edge health and fitness tools, AI features, and nearly the same-size screen (in the 46mm model). Oh, and it's also more comfortable on the wrist thanks to a slimmer case.

For most of us, the Apple Watch Series 12 is going to be the more sensible option. But if you fancy yourself to be a rugged, outdoor adventurer or hardcore athlete, then the extra cost of the Apple Watch Ultra 4 may be worth it.

Which new Apple Watch would you rather rock? Let me know in the comments.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple Watch 11 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — which one should you buy?
• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)

Choosing whether or not to upgrade from the excellent iPhone 17 Pro to the forthcoming iPhone 18 Pro may give some Apple fans pause for thought this year. Why? Because Apple is heavily expected to debut the brand-new iPhone Ultra at its 'Surprise and shine' event next week.

The decision becomes whether or not to remain with what's tried and tested, or jump ship to a new form factor that could result in greater productivity and a host of other benefits the best foldable phones have to offer. On the other hand, you're likely going to sacrifice camera performance, which is typically something Pro users value highly.

In fact, the photography improvements Apple is allegedly making could be your biggest incentive to switch up from last-year's iPhone 17 Pro to iPhone 18 Pro. And even though the Pro phones aren't cheap, you're still going to save money based on what the Ultra is rumored to cost.

Although we now have a fixed date for the iPhone 18 Pro event, Apple's phones are still a while away from hitting shelves. Thankfully, we've got a pretty good idea of what's coming and I'm here to provide your iPhone 17 Pro vs iPhone 18 Pro comparison so if you do decide to skip the Ultra, you can see what improvements you'll get by staying with the Pro model.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: specifications

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Price

Let's start with release dates first. Apple's "Surprise and shine" event is on September 9 and pre-orders typically open on the Friday after the event. However, Apple's iPhone 18 Pro event is on a Wednesday this year, rather than a Tuesday. The latest rumors claim pre-orders will open on September 12 with sales beginning September 18.

Pricing is less certain but it's almost universally accepted that Apple is going to raise prices this year. The iPhone 17 Pro held the line nicely at $999 for its base configuration, but reports suggest Apple may increase the price of its Pro models this year due to rising memory and component costs.

Globally, some analysts have predicted increases of up to $100 or even $200 depending on the model and storage configuration. If you're on a strict budget, the slightly older 17 Pro might soon see some excellent carrier discounts.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Design and display

At a glance, you might have trouble telling the iPhone 18 Pro apart from the iPhone 17 Pro. Both phones are tipped to retain the ergonomic 6.3-inch form factor, a size that nicely balances usability and screen real estate. The iPhone 17 Pro made waves with its aluminum unibody design and Ceramic Shield 2 back, and the 18 Pro is expected to maintain that unified look.

The most notable design shift could be on the front. Apple is reportedly working on a smaller Dynamic Island for the 18 Pro, finally freeing up a bit more display space.

Furthermore, the 18 Pro's screen is rumored to receive an efficiency upgrade through newer LTPO+ technology, delivering improved outdoor brightness and better energy efficiency compared to the standard LTPO XDR OLED panel on the iPhone 17 Pro.

Where you're of course going to see a change is in the color scheme. The iPhone 17 Pro is hard to miss thanks to its Cosmic Orange finish but the rumor is the iPhone 18 Pro will be a little more elegant.

The iPhone 18 Pro (and 18 Pro Max) are likely to feature the rumored Dark Cherry and Light Blue options tipped for this year's lineup. Other color options will very likely include silver and dark gray.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Cameras

The camera system could be the single biggest upgrade on the iPhone 18 Pro and your main reason for switching up from last year's model. While the iPhone 17 Pro boasts a phenomenal 48MP main lens with a fixed f/1.78 aperture alongside a 48MP ultrawide and 48MP telephoto, the iPhone 18 Pro is set to take mobile photography to the next level.

Apple is reportedly outfitting the iPhone 18 Pro with a variable-aperture main camera. This would give users true hardware-level control over depth of field and how much light reaches the sensor, heavily outclassing the digital portrait blur we've relied on for years. Add in a new stacked image sensor that improves dynamic range and low-light noise performance, and the 18 Pro could be the undisputed champion for smartphone photographers.

The only sticking point in that is there have been some rumors that variable aperture could be exclusive to the Pro Max. The hypothesis is the mechanics required for a variable lens will only fit in a larger phone, ruling out the smaller Pro. This would undoubtedly be a huge blow for those of us that prefer Apple's smaller phones and could be a big reason why you choose to remain with the iPhone 17 Pro over its successor.

One more thing to mention is that there have been claims Apple will remove the capacitive capabilities of the Camera Control button for the iPhone 18 Pro. This is due to some users accidentally launching the camera app inadvertently and could be very helpful if you use your iPhone as your main camera.

Bottom line is that variable aperture on the iPhone 18 Pro could make or break whether or not a lot of people decide to upgrade from the 17 Pro.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: performance and battery

The iPhone 17 Pro is no slouch, thanks to the A19 Pro chip built on a 3-nanometer process. However, the iPhone 18 Pro is expected to be powered by Apple's next-generation A20 Pro chip, manufactured using TSMC's cutting-edge 2nm process.

This move to a smaller manufacturing process should allow Apple to significantly improve both raw performance and power efficiency.

Because of this newfound efficiency — and a slight physical battery increase from the 17 Pro's 4,252 mAh up to roughly 4,288 mAh on the 18 Pro — battery life could take a leap forward.

You can expect the iPhone 18 Pro to easily outlast its predecessor, when it comes to both longevity and overall performance. As always, anyone who wants the fastest possible speed and the most power will always benefit from upgrading to the newest model.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Software and Apple Intelligence

Both the iPhone 17 Pro and the iPhone 18 Pro will have access to Apple's latest software tricks, but this year's model will run iOS 27 out of the box. The 17 Pro, meanwhile, launched with iOS 26 but will be eligible for the update in the coming weeks.

The real difference lies in hardware integration for Apple Intelligence. With 12GB of RAM on both devices, the AI playing field looks level on paper. However, leaks suggest the A20 Pro mentioned earlier features advanced packaging that integrates RAM more closely with the processor, freeing up bandwidth for lightning-fast on-device AI tasks.

The 18 Pro will simply handle complex generative prompts and on-the-fly photo editing faster than the 17 Pro.

We'll have to wait to find out if there are any iPhone 18 Pro-specific software or AI features (perhaps around the variable aperture) but for the most part, the 17 Pro will remain able to use almost all the software features Apple has to offer for at least a few more years yet.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Final thoughts

If you're already rocking an iPhone 17 Pro, I feel it's going to be tough to justify an upgrade based on what's already at your disposal. Apple's 2025 effort has a gorgeous 6.3-inch display, a triple 48MP camera setup, and 12GB of RAM to power Apple Intelligence. It’s an incredibly capable device that still has years of top-tier life left in it.

That said, if you’re a power user or a serious smartphone photographer, the iPhone 18 Pro’s rumored variable aperture, highly efficient 2nm A20 Pro chip, and significantly larger battery might just be too tempting to pass up. Just keep in mind that the variable aperture and longer zoom could be limited to the iPhone 18 Pro Max.

We'll find out for sure once new Apple CEO John Ternus takes the stage to make these phones official and reveal what the final prices are going to be. In the meantime, let me know in the comments below whether you think an iPhone 18 Pro upgrade is a must-have or if you're content to hold on to the iPhone 17 Pro for a few more years.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone Ultra exclusive: Gurman on price, release date rumors and 'day one' weapon against Android
• iPhone 18 Pro camera upgrades — everything we know about the new sensor
• iPhone Ultra and 18 Pro Max unboxed ahead of Apple event — these could be the final designs

September is just around the corner, and that can only mean one thing: It’s time for Apple to reveal its latest iPhones.

For the past seven years, the Pro Max has been Apple’s most expensive (and arguably desirable) model, but in 2026 we’re expecting the company’s first foldable to eclipse it in terms of media coverage.

You can see how the iPhone Ultra is lining up against the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 in the battle of the foldables here, but what about the non-folding flagships? Both remain big hitters, so here’s how the iPhone 18 Pro Max is set to stack up against the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra as we approach Apple’s September launch date.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Specifications

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Release date and price

For over a decade, Apple has released almost every new numbered iPhone in September (with the exception of the iPhone 12 because of the coronavirus pandemic), and 2026 will be no different.

Scratch that, it will be slightly different. While the company has announced its “surprise and shine” event for Wednesday September 9, where it’s set to reveal the iPhone 18 Pro family, as well as the new foldable iPhone Ultra, the regular iPhone 18 has reportedly been pushed back to 2027.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max will be there, however, but the bad news is that it’s facing a price hike. The mild good news is that it’s now expected to be $100, given we were potentially bracing for more than double that at one point.

Going by Apple’s previous pricing, that would see the 256GB model starting at $1,299, rising to $1,499 for the 512GB model, $1,699 for 1TB and $2,099 for 2TB.

That’s actually pretty similar to Samsung’s Galaxy S26 Ultra — or at least its MSRP when it was new in March 2026. It cost $1,299 for the 256GB model, $1,449 for 512GB and $1,799 for 1TB.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Design and screens

Given the iPhone 17 Pro series introduced a couple of new design tweaks — the raised camera section and the two-tone colorways — we’re not expecting major changes this time. At a glance, the iPhone 18 Pro Max may be barely distinguishable from the iPhone 17 Pro Max, right down to the 6.9-inch OLED display.

There will reportedly be a couple of minor changes, mind. To make space for a larger capacity battery, it will apparently be about 0.25mm thicker and seven grams heavier. The Dynamic Island will apparently also be around 35% smaller.

It would be a big surprise if the screen specs were any different, given the 6.9-inch size. So we’re likely looking at a resolution of 2,868 x 1,320, or around 460 pixels per inch (ppi). ProMotion will offer adaptive refresh rates of up to 120Hz.

We know the exact screen specifications of the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra and they’re pretty similar. It also has a 6.9-inch OLED panel, capable of 120Hz, though the top resolution is higher at 3,120 x 1,440 meaning a sharpness of 505ppi (though it defaults to a lower 2,340 x 1,080 resolution to save battery).

This year, Samsung introduced a new feature called Privacy Display. When enabled, this prevents others from seeing what’s on your phone screen by switching to dedicated narrow pixels that can only be seen head on. This can be automatically enabled on a per-app basis, so you can have it magically enable itself for your banking apps, but not for YouTube, say.

That innovation aside, there’s little difference between this and the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra — both in terms of screen technology and looks. Though that design does allow for a built-in S Pen for note taking and doodling — a real advantage over the iPhone 18 Pro Max.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Performance

Let’s start with the one we have already benchmarked. Powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy and backed by either 12 or 16GB RAM depending on the model, the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is a truly impressive performer. It even has a vapor chamber for heat dissipation, which keeps it running cool even when running graphically demanding content.

Here’s how it benchmarked compared to the iPhone 17 Pro Max:

A modest lead on multi-core and gaming benchmarks, but a huge one when it comes to AI performance.

But, of course, this is against last year’s iPhone and its A19 chipset. It stands to reason that Apple will at least close the gap and more than likely go further, especially as the A20 Pro is rumored to be built using the 2nm manufacturing process, meaning a step change in terms of performance. We’re reportedly looking at 18% speed boost and 30% better power efficiency, which would see it blow past the S26 Ultra (though with the Galaxy S27 Ultra likely to regain the throne in early 2027).

On the subject of efficiency, Apple is set to gain another big advantage over Samsung with the iPhone 18 Pro Max: stamina. While the iPhone 17 Pro Max lasted an impressive 17 hours and 54 minutes in our tests, the next generation is likely to last even longer. That’s not just thanks to the 2nm chip’s efficiency savings, but because Apple is reportedly including a larger battery. This will reportedly be 5,391 mAh for models with a SIM tray, and 5,567mAh for those without — a big step up from the 4,823 mAh/ 5,088 mAh cells found in the 17 Pro Max.

By contrast, the Galaxy S26 Ultra packs a 5,000 mAh battery. It lasted a respectable 16 hours and ten minutes in our review test.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Cameras

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra currently tops our list of the best camera phones. A big step up from the previous generation, the 200MP main camera and 50MP 5x telephoto lens have wider apertures, allowing for 47% and 37% brighter images respectively.

Add in a supplemental 10MP 3x telephoto lens and a 50MP ultra wide camera, and you’ve got an incredibly flexible camera setup that takes great shots whatever the environment. At the time of writing, it can’t be beat.

On raw specs alone, it doesn’t look like the iPhone 18 Pro Max will be challenging for the title, given leakers point to the same trio of 48MP lenses (regular, ultra wide and 4x optical zoom) again.

But the iPhone 18 Pro Max does reportedly have an ace up its sleeve: variable aperture. This lets you adjust the amount of light entering the lens, rather than having to rigidly stick to presets decided by Apple. While this is a feature that will only appeal to experienced photographers, in the right hands, it could make a huge difference to photographic composition.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Outlook

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is the best Android phone you can buy right now. It will probably remain so until the Galaxy S27 Ultra replaces it in early 2027.

But if you’re open to iOS, then it looks like the iPhone 18 Pro Max will eclipse it in a few key ways. It’s set to be faster, last longer, and while the camera specs will likely be weaker, keen photographers will have a lot of fun with the variable rate aperture.

Of course, the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra has a few key advantages, and not just in its overall camera layout. Privacy Display is a marvelous innovation beautifully implemented, the S Pen is really handy, and as it's been out for nearly six months, it can be had for less than its high $1,299 asking price.

It’s worth considering, however, that we only have iPhone 18 Pro Max rumors and leaks to go on at the moment. While they’ve been pretty reliable in the past, we won’t know for sure what Apple has up its sleeve until September 9th’s iPhone 18 event.

Which is the better smartwatch for hikers, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 or the Garmin Instinct 3? The latter may be built for logging outdoor adventures, but both watches use similar tracking tech, offer a dedicated hiking mode, and also cost about the same.

To find out, I wore the Garmin Instinct 3 on my right wrist and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 on my left wrist, fired up a hiking workout on both, and started the ~1,700-foot climb to Snow Lake, a scenic high-altitude alpine lake located in the Cascade Mountains, an hour east of Seattle. I also logged the trek using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 as a control.

I hiked 7 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

So, which smartwatch, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 or the Garmin Instinct 3, proved to be the more reliable hiking companion? Find the results for each watch, along with Strava, below.

1. Samsung overcounted my climb and undercounted my distance

According to AllTrails, the Snow Lake Trail is 6.7 miles, which is exactly what Strava logged. The Instinct 3 came pretty close, depriving me of 0.15 miles of effort, while the Galaxy Watch 9 undercounted by 0.21 miles.

AllTrails additionally lists 1,686 feet of elevation gain for the hike, a tally that both Strava and Garmin came incredibly close to nailing; the former undercounted by just 12 feet and the latter overcounted by a mere 7 feet.

The Galaxy Watch 9, meanwhile, overcounted my uphill efforts by a whopping 180 feet.

2. The Galaxy Watch 9 didn't count my steps

While distance and elevation are the two metrics I care about most when tracking a hike, along with moving pace (more on that below), it's always nice to get a sense of my step count. Unfortunately, the Galaxy Watch 9 neglected to count my steps, which is odd, given it has no trouble doing so when you track a normal walking workout.

3. Samsung doesn't record a 'moving pace'

My brother, who was visiting from the U.S. East Coast, joined me on this hike. Our plan was to make it to the lake, cool off, enjoy the tranquility (along with a cheeky beverage), and then head back down.

During our mid-hike break, I left all three workout sessions running. Most smartwatches in 2026 are smart enough to notice that you've stopped moving and automatically pause your workout until you're in motion again.

Post-outdoor workout, the best smartwatches provide two pace metrics, one reflecting your average moving pace and the other showing your average elapsed pace with pauses included in the calculation. As you might guess, the former is more useful and reflective of your actual efforts.

Unfortunately, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 only provided one average pace metric without specifying which, but the answer seems obvious. For what it's worth, Garmin and Strava both noted a similar average elapsed pace to Samsung's: 34 mins 10 secs per mile for Garmin and 33 mins 06 secs per mile from Strava.

4. Heart rate and calorie data matches up nicely

Now for the good news. The Galaxy Watch 9's heart rate data is a near match with Garmin's, a result I love to see. Both smartwatches also calculated a similar number of calories burned during my 3.5-hour excursion.

Winner: Garmin Instinct 3

The Garmin Instinct 3 long ago established itself as my go-to smartwatch for logging outdoor adventures thanks to its reliability, ridiculously good battery performance, bright screen, and rugged design. And it once again excelled on all fronts in this hiking comparison versus the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

Not only did Garmin calculate more precise distance, climb, and pace data than Samsung, it also logged my steps, something the Galaxy Watch 9 failed to do, all while using way less battery. In other words, the Garmin Instinct 3 wins this comparison.

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

More from Tom's Guide

• I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winner is clear
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — and we have a new Android champ
• I walked 7 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 5 — here's the winner

When it comes to luxury vehicles, the matchup I frequently scrutinize is Audi versus BMW. These German powerhouse automakers have plenty of models that combine cutting-edge hardware with intricate design, but for this face-off, I’m looking at the 2027 Audi Q6 e-tron Premium quattro and the 2026 BMW iX xDrive45.

Priced similarly around the $80,000 mark, these two mid-size SUVs offer future-proof tech with their all-electric drivetrains. Moreover, they target the same premium buyers and some of the best electric cars around — yet their design philosophies couldn't be further apart. The Audi Q6 e-tron leans into Audi’s signature athletic proportions and tech-forward refinement, while the iX xDrive45 embraces BMW's bold, avant-garde styling and executive-level treatment.

In order to see which approach truly delivers, I drove each one for a week to compare their premium features, real-world driving efficiency, and charging performance — all to ultimately award one with my recommendation.

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Specifications

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Design

When it comes to pure curb appeal, I’m genuinely torn because each SUV brings its own distinct aesthetic to the table.

The BMW iX leans into a bold, utilitarian style with an upright stance and geometric surfacing. Its signature illuminated kidney grille commands attention — especially at night with its subtle glow — giving it an intimidating presence reminiscent of the BMW XM Label with high-tech styling scaled for everyday driving.

In contrast, the Audi Q6 e-tron delivers a sleek, athletic silhouette with the classic luxury flair expected from an established automaker. Its sculpted lines, sweeping roofline, and intricate active lighting signatures give it a low-slung stance that looks ready to tackle highways with confidence

Whether you prefer the rugged, imposing presence of the BMW or the sculpted elegance of the Audi really comes down to personal taste. I like them both.

Winner: tie

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Efficiency

Looking at the spec sheet farther above, you’ll notice similarities across their battery capacities and estimated range. Both promise 300+ miles on paper, but it always comes down to real-world driving to see which one is truly the more efficient EV — and based on my testing, the BMW iX xDrive45 pulls ahead.

Over 339.9 total miles of driving, the BMW iX xDrive45 delivered a solid average efficiency of 3.3 mi/kWh. That outpaced the Audi Q6 e-tron, which still managed a respectable 3.2 mi/kWh average over 116.8 miles of testing.

I also found the Q6 e-tron surprisingly more efficient on short trips with mostly city driving, topping out at 3.7 mi/kWh on my best run, while the iX xDrive45 lagged behind at 3.0 mi/kWh. However, the iX proved far more efficient at sustained highway speeds, reaching 3.8 mi/kWh against the Audi’s 3.5 mi/kWh.

Another detail worth noting for first-time EV buyers is the faster Level 1 charging rate I got from the iX, which averaged 3.82 mi/hr versus the Audi’s 3.48 mi/hr. While both deliver admirable numbers for mid-size luxury haulers, the iX xDrive45's highway stamina and overall numbers give it the win.

Winner: BMW iX xDrive45

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Driving performance

Having tested last year’s Audi Q6 e-tron and Q6 Sportback, I knew what to expect with the 2027 model — and not surprisingly, it takes the win for overall driving performance.

With a combined output of 456 hp from its front asynchronous and rear permanent-magnet synchronous motors, the Q6 e-tron packs a noticeable punch over the BMW iX xDrive45’s 402 hp. I noticed slightly sharper throttle response and punchier acceleration out of the Q6, while its 20-inch wheels helped it tackle tight corners and navigate cramped parking lots with greater agility.

The BMW iX xDrive45 is by no means sluggish, providing effortless thrust from its dual-motor AWD system, but its larger 21-inch wheels and longer footprint don't allow as much finesse around sharp bends. At times it feels remarkably like a two-door coupe on steroids with its sporty handling, but it simply isn't as nimble as the Audi.

Winner: Audi Q6 e-tron

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Comfort

While their exteriors are what garner attention first, stepping inside highlights true luxury craftsmanship. Both offer distinct perks when it comes to comfort and everyday usability, but the BMW iX xDrive45 easily takes the crown for passenger comfort, cargo utility, and effortless convenience.

Benefiting from a larger footprint, the iX xDrive45 delivers a lounge-like cabin feel. Rear passengers enjoy extra legroom over a flat floor, and the cargo hold provides vastly more trunk space behind the second row.

BMW also leans heavily into next-gen luxury touches. It features an adaptable ambient lighting system that dynamically responds to drive modes, a head gesture-based lane change assist that works impressively well, and its signature Backup Assistant that makes maneuvering out of tight parking spots a breeze. If that's not enough, it features one of the fastest automated self-parking systems I've ever tested.

The Audi Q6 e-tron puts up a serious fight with its driver-focused technology. Its adaptive cruise control system is remarkably responsive in heavy traffic, its sharp 360-degree cameras stay crystal clear even at night, and it also has dual chargers for added convenience. What impressed me most, however, is the augmented-reality head-up display (HUD). Beyond projecting turn-by-turn navigation arrows directly onto the road ahead, it provides real-time distance alerts whenever I creep too close to the vehicle in front of me.

Still, when it comes to sheer passenger space, rear-seat pampering, and intuitive driver-assistance comforts, the BMW iX is the more relaxing and accommodating place to spend time.

Winner: BMW iX xDrive45

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Value

Both of these luxury SUVs command premium prices, but you pocket over $10,000 in savings simply by going with the 2027 Audi Q6 e-tron Premium quattro. When I weigh that price difference against the sheer amount of equipment included, the value proposition tips decisively in favor of the Audi.

You get a lot more for less here, as the Q6 e-tron certainly doesn't skimp on equipment. Its standout amenities include an expansive panoramic glass roof, integrated rear side-window sunshades for passenger comfort, and a dedicated front passenger display built directly into the dashboard — a sleek high-tech touch that BMW doesn’t offer here.

To be fair, the BMW’s higher real-world efficiency will yield modest savings on home electric bills and public charging over years of ownership. However, based on my real-world test results, those incremental energy savings aren't nearly enough to offset a five-figure upfront price gap.

For delivering stronger horsepower, cutting-edge cabin screens, and an upscale package for over $10,000 less, the Audi represents the smarter luxury buy.

Winner: Audi Q6 e-tron

Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45: Verdict

Ultimately, this Audi Q6 e-tron vs. BMW iX xDrive45 matchup comes out to a draw, as both all-electric mid-size SUVs have their distinct strengths.

The BMW iX xDrive45 earns its stripes as the superior long-distance cruiser, winning on overall efficiency, whisper-quiet cabin refinement, and vastly more rear-seat legroom and cargo space. Meanwhile, the Audi Q6 e-tron punches back with sharper driving dynamics, greater horsepower, and unmatched value for the money.

Both are stellar luxury EVs that cater to slightly different priorities. But if I had to sign the check and spend my own money, I'd go with the Audi Q6 e-tron. Pocketing more than $10,000 in upfront savings while still getting punchier acceleration, tighter handling, and standout cabin tech like the passenger dashboard display makes the Audi the more compelling choice.

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

This year, folks in the market for a mid-range TV have a handful of enticing options. We recently tested the Hisense U7SG — a quantum dot-enhanced Mini-LED TV — and found that it offers a bright, punchy picture and plenty of features for the price.

And then there's the TCL QM7L. Despite its mid-range status, this Mini-LED TV comes with TCL's Super Quantum Dot (SQD) technology, which has proven effective when it comes to saturating a wider range of color than the U7SG's traditional quantum-dot display.

These sets offer similar performance in a similar price range. However, there are some differences you ought to be aware of before you shop.

Hisense U7SG vs TCL QM7L: Specs compared

Before we talk about how they differ, let's cover the similarities: Size availability, HDR and ATSC 3.0 support are about the same across both TVs.

However, while both sets arrive with the standard set of four total HDMI inputs, only two of the QM7L's inputs offer HDMI 2.1 compatibility. With the U7SG, you'll enjoy a full suite of HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs.

With four high-bandwidth ports, the U7SG offers more flexibility, as they all support 4K content at 120Hz (and up to 165Hz with VRR). Only two of the QM7L's inputs support 4K content at 120Hz and up to 144Hz. Fortunately, the QM7L's dedicated eARC input isn't pulling double-duty as one of the TV's only high-bandwidth inputs.

Winner: Hisense U7SG

Hisense U7SG vs TCL QM7L: Design

Due in part to the nature of its display hardware, the Hisense U7SG (seen above) is thicker than many Mini-LED TVs we've seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it's constructed out of sturdy plastic and the overall aesthetic is similar to what you'll find in its price range this year.

The U7SG's panel sits on top of a pedestal-style stand that takes the form of a heavy plate that sits below the center of the screen. For some viewers, this type of stand is more convenient than a pair of feet, as the center-positioning allows the U7SG to sit on narrow pieces of furniture.

As you can see from the photo above, the QM7L is very similar in its design approach. It, too, features a thick, heavy panel, which measures about the same depth as the U7SG.

Like the U7SG, the QM7L also relies on a centered, pedestal-style stand. Conveniently, the QM7L's stand can be attached in two height configurations. This helps to ensure that people with taller soundbars have an setup option in which the soundbar won't obstruct the screen.

Both TVs ship with backlit remote controls, which is quite nice to have in a dark room. Of the two, I prefer TCL's remote design, but there aren't too many differing characteristics worth calling out.

Given the similarities, this category is a toss-up. The U7SG and QM7L aren't as slim and premium-looking as other LED TVs we've seen in recent years, but neither looks (or feels) poorly designed.

Winner: Draw

Hisense U7SG vs TCL QM7L: 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.)

In many ways, these TVs offer similar performance profiles. As mid-range Mini-LED TVs with quantum-dot color, they offer bright, colorful pictures — far brighter than what you'll see on entry-level LED TVs. This is especially true during HDR movies and shows, where the U7SG and QM7L each deliver over 2,000 nits of highlight brightness.

While we consistently tracked higher HDR highlight brightness on the U7SG, it's worth mentioning that the gap between the U7SG's roughly 2,900 nits of highlight brightness and the QM7L's 2,300 nits is not very substantial.

We measured similar readings for Delta-E, a figure that represents color error (with lower numbers being more desirable). There's not much of a difference between a Delta-E of 3 and 2.6, and both measurements indicate that the U7SG and QM7L feature accurate color that won't appear out-of-tune to almost every viewer.

The biggest difference between them concerns color. The QM7L is one of a few TVs to harness TCL's proprietary Super Quantum Dot (SQD) technology. This has proven to be effective at boosting color compared to standard quantum-dot color (the kind you'll find on the U7SG).

In certain viewing conditions, people are more likely to notice the QM7L's punchier color than they are the U7SG's higher brightness. (Impressively, the QM7L's color is right in line with what we measured on the more-expensive TCL QM8L.) It mostly depends on the content.

To my eyes, the QM7L does a slightly better job of upscaling sub-4K content than the U7SG, too.

Additionally, my colleague Sean Captain noted that the U7SG has a tendency to crush near-black shadow detail during select HDR content.

The added color and tighter contrast make the QM7L an all-around better performer, but it's worth noting just how close these TVs are in their presentation.

Winner: TCL QM7L

Hisense U7SG vs TCL QM7L: Smart platform and features

Both TVs are built around the Google TV streaming platform, and the software feels more or less the same on each set. Google TV is one of my preferred streaming platforms (just behind Roku), as navigation is relatively easy and it supports nearly every streaming service and app you could want.

In addition, the U7SG and QM7L both arrive with a similar set gaming features right out of the box. These features include Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) and AMD FreeSync Premium Pro (for smooth, tear-free gaming).

Each set supports 4K gaming at 120Hz, the highest 4K spec for current-generation consoles like Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the U7SG can stretch this to 165Hz with a gaming rig hooked up, while the QM7L can only reach 4K/144Hz.

Remember: The QM7L comes with just two HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs. In order to access any of these advanced gaming enhancements, you've got to use one of the QM7L's designated HDMI 2.1 ports. The U7SG, on the other hand, comes with four HDMI 2.1 inputs, which adds to its gaming prowess.

However, we've already settled this advantage when we were comparing these TVs' specs. In almost every other way that matters to the average viewer, the U7SG and QM7L are equals when it comes to features.

Winner: Draw

Hisense U7SG vs TCL QM7L: outlook

Here's some good news: Regardless of which of these mid-range TVs you pick, you'll be setting yourself up for terrific performance relative to price, as well as a thorough selection of features for gaming and streaming. As I see it, the choice comes down to price and performance.

At some size points, these TVs are priced similarly. The 65-inch Hisense U7SG is on sale for $899 at Best Buy right now, and the 65-inch TCL QM7L is just $899, too. However, from what I've gathered, the 65-inch U7SG is more likely to be on sale for this price, while the 65-inch QM7L has fluctuated in recent weeks between $899 and $1,199.

At the 55-inch size point, the TCL QM7L is currently $799, while the U7SG sits just below $700. If you're intent is to shop for a 55-inch screen, the U7SG is more likely to be cheaper, too.

But if you're looking for the best possible performance, my choice would be the QM7L across all size options. Its SQD-powered color can be a difference-maker during certain content.

Unless the U7SG's full slate of HDMI 2.1 inputs is essential to your setup, I suspect that most A/V enthusiasts would prefer the QM7L's excellent presentation.

More from Tom's Guide

• Hisense U7SG review
• TCL QM7L 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

Although I cover artificial intelligence now, earlier in my career I was a comedy writer and wrote jingles. As I was going through my Google Drive recently, I came across a folder from my very early writing days.

The old piece was fun to see, and had been used for a writing workshop I took at Harvard about 20 years ago. The story is very much a product of its time because it includes instant messaging, Clippy (that animated paper clilp) and a reference to a fax machine. But the humor still holds up because it's about workplace struggles with technology.

I figured that piece would be a good one to test ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini as writing coaches.

I wasn’t looking for the chatbot that could rewrite it most aggressively or smooth out every sentence. I wanted to know whether any of them could recognize what was already working, find the places where the story dragged and help me improve the comedy without stripping away my voice.

Here's what happened when I gave all three of them the draft.

The draft

I gave all three chatbots the same draft and the same instructions. All three offered useful advice, but one understood the story on a much deeper level.

The piece begins with what should be a very simple request from a boss: reserve the main conference room for an important meeting in an hour.

Unfortunately, the narrator has never used the email system to book a room before. What follows is an escalating workplace crisis involving a 21-year-old intern, a sleepy coworker, a phone call from the office bathroom and a woman named Sharon who brushes her teeth at her desk.

I left everything untouched for the test. That meant keeping the dated references, awkward sentences and obvious mistakes, including “starred” instead of “stared,” “the the” and “marshmellows.”

Those errors gave the chatbots something easy to catch, but proofreading wasn’t really the point. I wanted to know whether they understood why the story was funny.

The entire piece builds toward the boss casually revealing that he solved the problem by putting a sticky note on the door — the same solution the narrator rejected when the intern suggested it. A good writing coach should understand why that callback matters and avoid “improving” the story in a way that weakens it.

The prompt I used

I entered the same prompt each time: Act as my writing coach. Don’t rewrite this piece for me. Identify what is already working, where the humor or momentum drops, and the three changes that would make the biggest difference. Preserve my voice, comedic timing and the period in which the story takes place. Be specific and quote brief examples from my draft when useful.

I judged the responses on how specific the feedback was, whether each chatbot understood the comic escalation and whether its suggestions would actually make the piece better.

I also paid attention to restraint. I wanted help seeing the draft more clearly, not a chatbot taking over and writing a different story.

ChatGPT focused on timing

ChatGPT zeroed in on the rhythm of the piece and gave me some of the most precise line-level edits.

One of its strongest suggestions was to make better use of the introduction and then it told me how to better raise the stakes in the middle of the story to keep things moving. It also suggested trimming certain aspects of the story to give the dialogue more room and help the jokes land without changing what's actually happening.

It also suggested minor tweaks that involved creative elements that I may not have considered to help connect two of the strongest visual jokes in the middle of the story.

ChatGPT understood the timing of the piece and gave me edits I could use immediately. However, it spent more time polishing individual moments than examining whether every step in the story made sense.

Claude found the hole in the story

Claude approached the piece differently. It looked beyond individual lines and explained how the comedy was built.

It identified the central joke as the gap between the size of the task and the size of the narrator’s panic. Reserving a conference room should take a minute. Instead, it becomes a crisis involving several coworkers, a bathroom phone call and increasingly desperate attempts to avoid admitting that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.

Claude also understood why the seemingly random details belonged in the story. Sharon’s toothbrush isn’t there just because it’s funny that someone brushes her teeth at her desk, but it elevates another element of the story — something that I hadn't even noticed that I had subconsciously done.

More importantly, Claude spotted a problem the other chatbots missed: we never learn what the employees in the story actually do for work. The narrator moves through the story too quickly, which is something that impacts the entire story. Claude noticed it.

So while the chatbot didn’t try to decide the joke for me. It pointed out that I needed to choose. Claude worked to protect my ideas and text without interjecting it's own ideas. It seemed to understand the story and knew exactly which punchlines were holding it together.

Gemini gave the clearest advice

Gemini’s feedback was the easiest to absorb and apply.

It quickly identified the strongest moments in the story, recognized why the premise is relatable and the punchlines. Its suggestions were direct. Like ChatGPT it suggested I tighten the opening, trim some of the descriptions and expand the dialogue.

Gemini even showed me exactly where the opening could lose a few words and how the dialogue could be made punchier. I wouldn’t have had to interpret much before beginning a revision.

That clarity was Gemini’s biggest strength, but its analysis didn’t go as deep as Claude’s. It helped me tighten the story in front of me without finding the one place where the story’s logic breaks down.

The best AI writing coach

Claude gave me the best writing advice because it understood both the jokes and the structure supporting them.

ChatGPT was especially strong on rhythm and gave me the most inventive suggestion with the returning Tetris image. Gemini delivered clear advice that I could apply without overthinking it. But Claude found issues with the piece that I hadn't even noticed, which is exactly what a writing coach or editor does — and would have immediately improved the story.

Claude also gave me a choice instead of trying to write the solution itself. It showed me where the gap was, explained why it mattered and left the joke to me. That’s exactly what I want from a writing coach.

All three chatbots are certainly capable of offering useful writing advice, but they were useful in different ways.

ChatGPT was the strongest line editor, especially when it came to pacing and recurring imagery. Gemini offered the clearest path into a revision. Claude was the best at stepping back and seeing how every part of the story worked together.

The test also reinforced why I prefer asking AI to respond to my writing instead of writing it for me. When a chatbot rewrites an entire draft, it becomes difficult to separate your choices from its choices. Asking for a limited number of specific recommendations keeps you in control. You can consider the advice, reject what doesn’t fit and make the changes yourself.

The wording of the prompt helped. Telling the chatbots to preserve my voice and the period of the story discouraged them from modernizing the technology or replacing the dated details. Asking for only three changes forced them to prioritize instead of burying the useful feedback inside a long list of corrections.

I still wouldn’t accept any chatbot’s writing advice without questioning it. An AI can correctly identify a slow section and then suggest cutting the exact detail that makes the story sound like you. But if I were returning to an old draft and wanted help seeing what I could no longer see, I’d choose Claude.

Let me know in the comments what you think about using AI has a writing partner.

More from Tom's Guide

• 7 code words that could mean an AI data center is coming to your town
• ChatGPT can learn your repetitive tasks by watching you — here are 7 prompts to try
• The best way to use ChatGPT for writing isn't writing — 7 prompts I use to make it my creative partner

Weighing an iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro decision figures to be the question that most would-be iPhone upgrades answer when Apple releases its new phones in September. True, we're expecting to see a brand new iPhone Ultra join Apple's phone lineup, but that high-end model may not appeal to everyone, thanks to its folding display and anticipated cost. If you want a more conventional phone, the Pro models will be the way to go, especially with Apple likely to stagger its launches for the iPhone 18 series.

As with past Max vs. Pro debates, you'll be deciding between a bigger, longer-lasting phone and a less expensive, more compact model that offers many of the same features. But rumored iPhone 18 Pro features could throw new wrinkles into the mix that might steer you toward one model over the other.

Apple's latest phones are still a few weeks away from hitting retail shelves, but rumors about the changes to the two Pro models give us a pretty good idea of what to expect. Here's how an iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro comparison shakes down based on the latest news swirling around the upcoming devices.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Rumored specifications

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Rumored price and release date

If rumors about Apple's iPhone release plans pan out, we won't be waiting long to see what's new with either the iPhone 18 Pro or iPhone 18 Pro Max. We're expecting Apple to hold its annual fall phone launch event on September 9, though the agenda could be less crowded than usual.

That's because a persistent rumor has Apple pushing back the iPhone 18 to a spring 2027 launch, when it will debut alongside the lower-end iPhone 18e. Instead, this upcoming Apple event should focus entirely on the Pro models as well as the new iPhone Ultra.

A less welcome change could involve pricing for both the Pro and Pro Max. With RAM shortages pushing up component costs, Apple has pretty much confirmed you're going to be paying more for an iPhone this year. The exact amount of the iPhone 18 Pro price hike is still unclear, but rumors suggest the iPhone 18 Pro could cost between $1,299 to $1,399, compared to the $1,099 iPhone 17 Pro. Similarly the larger model's price could jump from the iPhone 17 Pro Max's $1,199 starting point to anywhere between $1,399 and $1,499.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Design and display

After the iPhone 17 Pro series introduced the camera plateau and a new two-tone look to Apple's higher-end phones, don't expect major changes to the look of the iPhone 18 Pro. That said, both the Max and Pro models are expected to shift away from the two-tone approach to a more unified design this time around.

Similarly, the different screen sizes should remain in place for the 2027 model year — 6.3 inches for the Pro and 6.9 inches for the Pro Max. However, you could find a bit more screen space on both iPhone 18 Pro offerings, as Apple is said to be shrinking the size of the Dynamic Island feature on this year's displays. Specifically, we're looking at a 35% reduction, at least if measurements on iPhone 18 Pro mockups are anything to go by.

That said, the iPhone 18 Pro Max could be slightly bigger than its predecessor, thanks to a rumored increase in battery size for the larger of the two Pro models. (We'll get into that rumor a little bit later.) Leaker Ice Universe has suggested the iPhone 18 Pro Max will weigh around 7 grams more than the iPhone 17 Pro Max while increasing thickness by about 0.25mm. Those aren't huge changes, but it could make the difference in bulk between the Max and Pro feel even more stark than before.

Apple tends to use the same colors across its Pro models, so both the iPhone 18 Pro and 18 Pro Max are likely to feature the rumored Dark Cherry and Light Blue options tipped for this year's lineup. Other color options could include silver and dark gray.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Cameras

By all accounts, the triple 48MP camera setup on the back of the current Pro models should stay in place for Apple's upcoming phones, but a big change could be brewing this year — and it might be limited to the iPhone 18 Pro Max.

Rumors suggest Apple is going to add a variable aperture camera to at least one model this year, a feature that would give users more manual control over the size of the aperture. As a result, cameras with a variable aperture offer better control over the depth of field in shots; you would also expect sharper close-ups and better performance in low-light.

It's unclear if the variable aperture camera is headed to both iPhone Pro models, though some rumor mongers believe the feature could be exclusive to the Pro Max. The speculation is that the mechanics required for a variable lens would only fit in a larger phone, ruling out the more slender iPhone 18 Pro.

The cameras on the iPhone 18 Pro Max could enjoy another edge over the standard Pro model — a longer zoom. Rumors point to a 6x optical zoom for the iPhone 18 Pro Max while the Pro makes do with a 5x zoom.

We'll see if these rumored camera differences pan out, but it makes sense from a marketing perspective. Better camera performance would be another reason for iPhone shoppers to pick the pricier Pro Max beyond the larger screen and bigger battery that have distinguished previous models from the standard Pro.

There is one potential change that could affect cameras on both iPhone 18 Pro models. Apple is reportedly scaling back the physical button to address frustrations like users inadvertently launching the camera app.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: performance and battery rumors

Performance should be similar between the iPhone 18 Pro Max and iPhone 18 Pro, as both models are expected to feature Apple's new A20 Pro system-on-chip. The A20 is likely to be built on a 2-nanometer process, so it will fit in more transistors than 3-nm A19 powering the current iPhone 17 Pro models. The result should be better performance and lower power consumption.

iPhone 18 Pro performance could also see a boost from Apple's rumored use of a Wafer-Level Multi-Chip Module for the A20 Pro. That approach integrates the system-on-chip with the DRAM at the wafer level, leading to more performance and power efficiency improvements ideal for the kind of AI features Apple is so keen on bringing to its devices.

As usual, the big difference between the Pro Max and Pro models will be battery life, as the larger phone simply has more room to include a larger power pack. But Apple reportedly really wants to ramp up the difference with the iPhone 18 Pro Max, as some rumors tip that phone to sport a 5,567 mAh battery. That would be a 9% boost over the size of the iPhone 17 Pro Max's battery.

The iPhone 18 Pro is also tipped to get a bigger battery than its predecessor, though the increase should be more modest. The iPhone 18 Pro's rumored 4,288 mAh battery would be only 1% larger than the 4,252 mAh cell powering the iPhone 17 Pro.

The iPhone 17 Pro Max lasts more than 2 hours longer than the iPhone 17 Pro in our battery tests. Look for that gap to grow with the iPhone 18 Pro series if these rumored battery sizes are accurate.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Software and Apple Intelligence

Both the iPhone 18 Pro Max and iPhone 18 Pro will ship with iOS 27 pre-installed, and there's not much guesswork as to what features the new software will bring to those phones. Apple has already released an iOS 27 beta after previewing the software update this past June at WWDC 2026.

Besides under-the-hood improvements aimed at boosting responsiveness and app launch times, iOS 27 focuses on introducing a much smarter version of Siri, including a dedicated Siri app. The virtual assistant is integrated into more apps, while Siri enjoys greater access to information stored on your device to better understand your context.

That doesn't preclude iPhone 18 Pro-specific software features debuting with the new phones — particularly camera capabilities that could take advantage of the rumored variable aperture. But we wouldn't expect to hear much about those until Apple's rumored September 9 event.

iPhone 18 Pro Max vs. iPhone 18 Pro: Outlook

Past decisions between the iPhone Pro models have boiled down to whether you want the bigger screen and longer battery life offered by the Pro Max version — and if you can swallow the higher cost. That's likely to continue this year, with a potential twist in just how many extra camera capabilities the iPhone 18 Pro Max has over its smaller counterpart.

Should the iPhone 18 Pro Max be the only model to get that variable aperture feature, it could be the iPhone to get if you put a premium on mobile photography. But the higher price of the Pro Max could make the cheaper iPhone 18 Pro a more attractive buy for users who don't need the longer battery life, bigger screen and more capable cameras likely to be found on the Pro Max.

More from Tom's Guide

• The best Samsung phone might not be the best for you — take our quiz to find out which you should buy
• I've been training with the Galaxy Watch 9 for a month — 3 things I like (and 3 I don't)
• We've tested the best Android phones available right now from Samsung, Google and Motorola

When I drove the 2026 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX-Prestige earlier this year, it stood out in the compact SUV segment as the benchmark for what a modern hybrid SUV should be. Between the outstanding real-world fuel economy I got out of it and its rich suite of hi-tech features, the Sportage Hybrid proved that you don't have to sacrifice comfort or innovation.

Most recently, however, I racked up a week behind the wheel of the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Limited. Both compact crossovers hover right around that competitive $40,000 sweet spot, making this matchup a direct test of how they perform across all my key categories.

With as-tested prices of $43,590 for the Cherokee and $41,985 for the Sportage, only one can truly earn my recommendation.

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Specifications

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Design

I’ve raved about the bold, futuristic styling of the Sportage Hybrid, especially compared to the more conventional aesthetics of rivals like the Hyundai Tucson Hybrid. Details like its dramatic boomerang-shaped daytime running lights and angular cutouts give it a space-age aesthetic that clearly draws inspiration from forward-looking designs like the all-electric Kia EV9.

Yet, as eye-catching as the Kia is, the Jeep Cherokee’s proportions ultimately win me over. With its lower stance and visibly planted look, the Cherokee delivers a more athletic curb appeal—one that arguably has broader aesthetic appeal.

It strikes a classic balance of rugged capability and clean, understated lines without trying too hard, giving it an aggressive, timeless road presence that looks right at home whether parked in my driveway or cruising on the open highway.

Winner: Jeep Cherokee

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Fuel economy

I love hybrids for one simple reason: their significant fuel savings over traditional ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. While their EPA-rated fuel economy numbers indicate a narrow 2-mpg gap on paper, my real-world testing yielded surprising results.

While the 2026 Kia Sportage Hybrid showed off incredible hybrid optimization in quick bursts — peaking at an impressive 76.8 mpg on one of my best short-distance trips — the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Limited proved to be the far more consistent performer over the long haul.

Across 220.2 miles of driving, the Cherokee averaged a stellar 36.6 mpg, comfortably outperforming the Sportage Hybrid’s 30.1 mpg over its 231.9-mile test run. The Cherokee also held the edge on long-distance drives, notching a better mark of 39.6 mpg compared to the Kia’s 34.5 mpg.

The 6.5-mpg combined spread adds up quickly at the pump. Assuming gas sits at $4 per gallon, driving 1,000 miles a month would save you roughly $283 a year behind the wheel of the Cherokee.

Winner: 2026 Jeep Cherokee

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Driving performance

Both compact SUVs excel at being remarkably effortless daily drivers, but each has distinct strengths.

Under the hood, the Kia Sportage Hybrid pairs a 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder with an electric motor to generate a punchier 232 horsepower. In contrast, the 2026 Jeep Cherokee’s hybrid powertrain relies on its 1.6-liter turbo setup to produce a respectable 210 horsepower.

Out on the road, that power surplus gives the Sportage a clear edge in straight-line quickness, making it feel noticeably peppier off the line. For a hybrid, it delivers the punchy, instantaneous throttle response I want when merging or overtaking.

The Cherokee punches back with its agility around curves. Thanks to a wider stance and lower center of gravity, the Cherokee feels far more planted when navigating winding roads and sharp turns — never feeling top-heavy.

Whether you prefer the straight-line eagerness of the Sportage or the sure-footed cornering poise of the Cherokee, neither disappoints behind the wheel.

Winner: tie

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Comfort

Step inside, and the difference in cabin execution becomes immediately clear. While both vehicles offer solid utility, the Kia Sportage Hybrid elevates the experience with a Tron-like aesthetic that matches its futuristic exterior.

The Sportage delivers superior comfort by pairing plush seating with expansive rear legroom, giving passengers plenty of room to stretch out. At night, customizable ambient lighting transforms the cabin with a vibrant, modern glow that makes the Cherokee’s interior feel dated by comparison.

Where the Sportage truly pulls ahead, however, is in driver assistance and visibility tech. Activating the lane centering assist is effortless thanks to a dedicated button on the steering wheel, while Kia’s Blind-Spot View Monitor projects a live video feed of your blind spot directly onto the instrument cluster. Rounding it out is a crisp 360-degree camera system that makes parking in tight spots painless.

To be fair, the Jeep Cherokee offers a roomy layout with ample legroom in both rows, and its climate control system worked flawlessly to chill the cabin during a recent heatwave. However, for daily driving tech and maneuvers, the Cherokee settles for a basic backup camera instead of a full surround-view system.

Winner: Kia Sportage Hybrid

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Value

When I look at their as-tested prices, the value proposition tilts heavily in Kia’s favor. At $41,985, the Sportage Hybrid SX-Prestige undercuts the $43,590 Jeep Cherokee Limited by nearly $1,600 — yet it packs in a staggering list of premium features that the pricier Cherokee simply leaves out.

For less, the Sportage offers a head-up display (HUD), an expansive panoramic glass roof, a smart power automatic liftgate, a rich Harman Kardon audio system, and significantly more cargo space and passenger room. It genuinely feels like a near-luxury crossover without the luxury price tag.

The Jeep Cherokee certainly puts up a fight with its superior real-world fuel economy, which will save you a few hundred dollars at the pump over time. But when you factor in the lower upfront sticker price, deeper tech roster, upscale creature comforts, and everyday practicality, the Sportage delivers unbeatable bang-for-the-buck value.

Winner: Kia Sportage Hybrid

Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid: Verdict

After tallying up the results, this Jeep Cherokee vs. Kia Sportage Hybrid matchup comes out to a draw. Both compact SUVs bring compelling strengths to the table that make them easy to recommend depending on what you prioritize most, all without spending a fortune.

I was genuinely surprised by the 2026 Jeep Cherokee Limited because it delivers superior real-world fuel economy, carves corners with ease, and boasts an athletic stance that is easy to admire. In fact, it stands out as one of the most accessible options in Jeep's lineup — far more approachable than the premium Jeep Wagoneer S I tested previously. For drivers who want reliable long-distance efficiency paired with classic road presence, the Cherokee makes a remarkably strong case for itself.

Still, if I had to throw down my own money right now, I’d lean toward the 2026 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX-Prestige. While it’s a deadlock on paper against the Cherokee, Kia’s generosity with premium features ultimately makes it the unmatched everyday driver at a lower sticker price.

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’ve been writing about fitness trackers for the better part of a decade, and one thing I always do when unboxing a new device is look at how well it does the basics. One of these easy-to-measure basics is how many steps I’ve taken; hence, these Tom’s Guide walking tests were born.

A few weeks ago, I unboxed the Garmin Cirqa — Garmin’s first screenless tracker, which is set to take on the likes of the Fitbit Air and the Whoop 5.0. My first walking test compared the Garmin Cirqa to the Fitbit Air, and it was pretty disastrous. Since then, I’ve customized the button on my Cirqa and worn it continuously for the past few weeks.

To see if things had improved, I strapped it on and walked 12,000 steps with the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3. Of course, I don’t think most people would be trying to choose between these two devices — they are extremely different. But I wanted to see how the $199 Cirqa kept up with Apple’s most expensive and smartest smartwatch. Read on to find out which came out on top.

I walked 12,000 steps with the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 and the $199 Garmin Cirqa

If you’ve read one of these articles from the Tom’s Guide fitness desk, you’ll know that manually counting 12,000 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 Ultra 3 on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right. Both trackers count your steps using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arms.

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 Ultra 3 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 beyond a certain point, but annoying for me when writing these articles. For this comparison, I downloaded a third-party Pedometer+ app onto my Apple Watch.

I split this test into three walks, and when I got home, I downloaded all the data and compared the results:

As you can see, this one is incredibly close. The Garmin Cirqa came out on top, but by 100 steps, as it counted 103 steps more than I did manually, whereas the Apple Watch Ultra 3 missed 242 steps.

It goes without saying that when we’re talking about a hundred steps, this isn’t much at all over the course of 12,000. The average person takes 2,000 steps a mile, so missing or overcounting 100 in the grand scheme of things won’t really make a difference to your tracking.

It’s also important to point out, again, that I don’t think many people would be choosing between these two devices, as they are designed for very different consumers. Instead, the test was to see how Garmin’s $199 screenless tracker could keep up with a watch four times its price, and I’m impressed.

One thing I did (which I’m sure made my Garmin Cirqa’s data more accurate) was to customize the activity on the side button. When you unbox the device, it’s automatically set to Timed Activity, and in my experience, these activities don’t give you an accurate step count goal.

Instead, I changed the button to automatically start a walk. To do this, head to your Garmin Connect app and click the Cirqa icon. From there, go to Activity Options and then Edit to change the On Device option.

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

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

Which 2026 smartwatch is the more accurate fitness tracker, the Google Pixel Watch 5 or the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9? I just had to know.

So, I did what any tech geek with access to both devices and two wrists would do: I strapped one to each arm, logged a ~35-minute walk, and then compared the data. As a primary control for accuracy, I manually counted all 4,000 steps.

I also tracked the walk using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus. Find the results of this comparison between the Pixel Watch 5 and Galaxy Watch 9, and key takeaways, below.

I walked 4,000 steps with the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 vs Google Pixel Watch 5

So, which of these flagship Android wearables — two of the best smartwatches around — is the more competent fitness tracker: the Galaxy Watch 9 or Pixel Watch 5? Have a look for yourself.

Google's step count was closer

As you can see, both the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 logged step count totals within 20 steps of my actual count, which is a seriously impressive and commendable result. However, in the interest of friendly competition and this article, the Pixel Watch officially wins in this category.

The Pixel Watch also logged more accurate climb and distance data

Again, both the Google Pixel Watch 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 performed extremely well when it came to accurately logging distance and climb. That said, the Pixel Watch's data was again closer to the control on both counts.

Google's pace data is slower than expected

Despite logging more precise distance, climb, and steps, the Pixel Watch 5 reported an oddly slow average pace for my walk. Not only is it more than a minute slower than Strava's pace, but it's also lower than pretty much every pace metric I've recorded during one of these walk test comparisons (and I've done many).

Samsung's heart rate data is lower than expected

Speaking of strange results, Samsung's heart rate data for this comparison is way lower than expected. Again, I've done lots of these comparisons, and from the cumulative results, I generally expect an average heart rate of around 125 bpm and a max of around 160 bpm.

That may seem high, but keep in mind I am a brisk walker and purposely take steep, hilly routes to thoroughly assess elevation-tracking accuracy. That said, Google's average heart rate is also strangely high, even if its max heart rate metric appears to be on the money.

The Google Pixel Watch 5 wins

Ultimately, in this fitness tracking accuracy comparison between the Google Pixel Watch 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, the Pixel Watch takes home the trophy, with more accurate step count, distance, and climb data.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 also performed well at tracking most of my key metrics, with the exception of its questionably low heart rate recording, which I plan to investigate further as I work toward publishing a full review. Stay tuned for that!

In the meantime, what smartwatches, fitness trackers, or other wearables should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa — Round 2: We have a new champ
• I’ve been wearing the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 for nearly a week — 5 things I like and 1 thing I don’t
• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

The TCL QM8L is an all-new, Mini-LED TV that leverages Super Quantum Dot (SQD) display technology for brighter, bolder color. According to our test results, the QM8L's picture is, indeed, quite punchy, and the QM8L rounds out its impressive performance with a thorough collection of features.

The TCL QM7L is the brand's mid-range Mini-LED TV for 2026. Like its step-up sibling, the QM7L also leverages SQD technology, and while it's not as impressive-looking as the QM8L, it's much more affordable.

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

TCL QM8L vs QM7L: Specs compared

When it comes to their respective spec sheets, there are two significant differences worth unpacking: size availability and HDMI functionality.

While the QM8L is available in four sizes ranging from 65 to 98 inches, the QM7L is available five sizes between 55 and 98 inches. If you're in the market for something smaller than a 65-inch screen, the QM7L has you covered.

On the other hand, although both sets arrive with the standard set of four total HDMI inputs, only two of the QM7L's inputs offer HDMI 2.1 compatibility. Folks who spend up on the QM8L will enjoy a full suite of HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs.

With four high-bandwidth ports, the QM8L offers a bit more flexibility, as they all support 4K content at 120Hz (and up to 144Hz with VRR). Fortunately, the QM7L's dedicated eARC input doesn't overlap with one of its high-bandwidth inputs.

The QM7L's additional, 55-inch screen will matter more to people shopping for that screen size than its lack of two additional HDMI 2.1 inputs, but the QM8L's added flexibility here is more likely to affect a wider swath of people shopping in this price range.

Winner: TCL QM8L

TCL QM8L vs QM7L: Design

Due to the nature of its relatively complex display hardware, the TCL QM8L (seen above) is bulkier than many high-end LED TVs. That said, its design is quite refined despite the added bulk.

The QM8L's panel sits on top of heavy, pedestal-style stand that sits below the center of the screen. While the stand design introduces slightly more wobble than what you'll typically experience with a pair of wide-set feet, the placement of the pedestal lets people to place the QM8L on a narrower piece of furniture if they so choose.

As you can see from the photo above, the QM7L is nearly identical in its design approach. Its panel also bulges out around the middle, and it features a similar, pedestal-style stand.

The stands on both sets can be attached in two height configurations. This is particularly convenient for people with tall soundbars.

Additionally, both TVs ship with nearly identical, conveniently backlit remote controls. The QM8L's remote has a brightness rocker on its side.

Given the similarities, this category is too close to call. The QM8L and QM7L aren't as slim and premium-feeling as other TVs in their price range, but both of these sets are among the best-designed TCL TVs I've seen this year.

Winner: Draw

TCL QM8L vs QM7L: 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.)

The story of these TVs is rather simple. They're two of the first TVs to feature TCL's souped-up, quantum dot-based technology, Super Quantum Dot. Both the QM8L and QM7L deliver a wider array of color than previous TCL QLEDs thanks to a new color filter and a major reworking of the brand's picture processing algorithms.

However, according to our test results, the QM8L carries a significant advantage over the QM7L: peak brightness.

The QM8L is capable of driving way more brightness to small, concentrated areas of the picture, resulting in a punchier, more-cinematic look during certain content mastered in HDR. Additionally, its full-screen brightness in both SDR and HDR is slightly higher than that of the QM7L.

Somewhat surprisingly, the QM8L's added brightness doesn't make that big of a difference when it comes to color. You might notice better saturation of dark, low-luminance color on the QM8L, but for the most part, the QM7L does an excellent job of keeping up here.

In many viewing conditions, the real difference-maker is the QM8L's first-rate array of Mini-LEDs. Both the QM7L and QM8L do a terrific job of limiting haloing, but the QM8L is a step above the QM7L in this regard.

Everything else — color accuracy, input latency and upscaling — is very close. But if you're looking for the best-possible performance, the QM8L's added brightness and superior backlight control will be appealing to you.

Winner: TCL QM8L

TCL QM8L vs QM7L: Smart platform and features

Both TVs are built around the Google TV streaming platform, and they perform similarly. Google TV is one of my preferred streaming platforms (just behind Roku), as it's easy to navigate and supports nearly every streaming service and app you'd want on a smart TV.

The QM8L and QM7L both come with a similar set gaming features, too. These 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 key gaming features instantly.

Each set supports 4K gaming at 120Hz, the highest 4K spec among current-generation consoles like Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5. With a gaming PC linked up, both TVs support 4K games at 144Hz, too.

As a reminder, the QM7L comes with just two HDMI 2.1-compatible inputs. In order to access those gaming enhancements, you've got to use one of those ports. The QM8L, on the other hand, comes with four.

That said, we've already settled this when comparing specs. In almost every other way that matters to the average viewer, the QM8L and QM7L roll with a similar set of features.

Winner: Draw

TCL QM8L vs QM7L: outlook

In our full review of each TV, the QM8L received a four-star rating and the QM7L earned a slightly higher, four-and-a-half-star rating. As you can see, however, the tally above has the QM8L at two points higher than its mid-range sibling. So, what gives?

Well, it all comes down to value. Right now, the 65-inch TCL QM8L is $1,399 at Best Buy. That's a fantastic sale price, considering that this model launched at $2,499.

But the 65-inch QM7L is just $1,199 at Best Buy at the time of publishing (down from its original price of $1,499). That's $200 bucks cheaper than the QM8L. Plus, the QM7L is available in a 55-inch model, which is a popular screen size for people who shop in the QM7L's mid-tier price range. For this reason, it has wider appeal.

While the QM8L delivers a brighter, better-looking picture overall, I suspect that most shoppers would be almost as impressed by the QM7L — and walk away with an extra $200 in their pocket, too.

More from Tom's Guide

• TCL QM8L review
• TCL QM7L 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 Pixel Watch 5 is Google’s most accurate smartwatch ever for tracking outdoor activities. Google even benchmarked its performance against pricier wearables, including the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Garmin Fenix 8 Pro, two of the best smartwatches available for fitness tracking, but can it really compete?

I decided to find out by strapping the Pixel Watch 5 to one wrist and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to my other and walking seven miles around Seattle, Washington.

Google says that the latest Pixel Watch is twice as accurate at route mapping in environments with obstructed skies like “urban canyons,” so I made a point of cruising around the Emerald City’s denser neighborhoods, like South Lake Union, which is jam-packed with gleaming corporate skyscrapers.

I also made my way through several expansive parks, meandering beneath enormous canopies of old-growth trees.

So, how did the Pixel Watch 5 do? Check out the results below.

I walked 7 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 5

Note: I split my walk into two separately tracked legs and ran Strava on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and climb.

The Pixel Watch bested the Apple Watch at tracking my distance

For distance-tracking precision, the Google Pixel Watch 5 proved slightly more capable than the Apple Watch Ultra 3 during this demo, assuming, of course, Strava's data is correct (which it generally is).

That said, both devices did pretty well at logging my miles — well within a reasonable margin of error — but the latest Pixel Watch did just a little better.

Elevation tracking is a toss-up

Things get a little trickier when we look at elevation. For the first leg of my walk, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 proved more accurate, with a total climb tally that's just 18 feet less than the control. Google was more generous with my uphill efforts, to a fault, logging 41 additional feet of gain compared to the control.

During the second leg of my walk, though, the Pixel Watch beat the Apple Watch with a total climb that was just 11 feet greater than Strava's measure, compared to 24 feet over for the Ultra 3.

Both watches noted similar paces

Strava tends to log slightly quicker pace data than most modern smartwatches I test, and the same is true here, even if Strava's data isn't that much faster.

That said, for each of the two legs of my walk, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Google Pixel Watch 5 calculated remarkably similar paces, a result I love to see.

Heart rate data is also a near-match

The same is true for heart rate data: Both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Google Pixel Watch 5 measured strikingly similar averages and maxes during each of the two portions of this test. I know this article is mainly about GPS performance, but I would be remiss not to mention this impressive outcome.

Ultimately, this comparison has left me feeling downright cheery about the state of modern smartwatch fitness tracking, with each device performing incredibly well across the board.

Which begs the question: Can the Google Pixel Watch 5 keep up with the pricier Apple Watch Ultra 3 when it comes to logging outdoor workouts using onboard GPS in tricky environments? I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.

Which of these two smartwatches would you be more likely to use to track an outdoor workout? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 4 XL — I walked 6,000 steps, and the winner is clear
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'