2026 is shaping up to be the year of the handheld, portable fan, with many brands developing their own high-tech models. Unsurprisingly, two strong contenders have emerged within this space – Dyson and Shark – and they’re battling it out yet again for the crown of best handheld fan.

This year, Dyson and Shark have both debuted their own handheld fans – the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool and the Shark ChillPill. Both have similar features and functionalities, and with the summer weather ramping up, we’re sure to see both fans in action during the next few months.

But which one should you buy? I have spent time with both fans to determine which one is better, and which to add to your fan collection.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: price and availability

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool came out in April 2026, and is priced at £99.99 / $99.99. It’s available to buy at Dyson and select retailers, like Amazon, Currys, Argos and John Lewis. It comes in Stone/Blush, Carnelian/Sky and Ink/Cobalt colours.

The Shark ChillPill came out earlier in March 2026, and is priced at £129.99 / $149.99. It can be bought at Shark and select retailers, like Amazon, Currys and Boots. It comes in carbon, haze, glacier, matcha, iced latte and dragon fruit colours.

In terms of pricing, both fans aren’t too dissimilar, although it’s surprising to see Dyson on the cheaper end of the spectrum. In fact, not only is the HushJet Mini Cool the cheapest Dyson fan on offer, but it’s also the brand’s cheapest product.

Considering what you get from the Shark ChillPill, it’s appropriately priced. However, some customers won’t want to spend up to £130 / $150 on a handheld fan – many people commented this to me when I was seen out and about using it.

Winner: It’s hard to choose a winner here but I’d say the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool wins as it’s more affordable and good value for money. At under £100 / $100, I don’t think people would mind buying it for this price.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: design

The Dyson and Shark fans have strange and unique designs, both of which got me some very odd looks when I was using them. But needs must in a heatwave so I persevered and here’s what you can expect from both fans’ styling choices.

Starting with the Dyson, the HushJet Mini Cool has arguably the quirkiest look out of the two. I’ve compared it before to the sandworm from Dune, as it has a star-shaped tip which is where the air is projected from. It’s bladeless, and uses a honeycomb mesh to cover the fan for extra protection and hygiene. The star tip can also be twisted 360 degrees to point cool air at or away from you.

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool measures 20.1cm in height, 3.8cm in width and depth, and weighs 212g. It has a flat bottom so it can stand on your desk or you can hold it in your hand, or wear it around your neck. Its controls are on the body of the fan, and include an on/off button and + and - to adjust fan speed. An LED indicator on top of the speed button lights up to show settings and charging.

In comparison, the Shark ChillPill looks like a pair of binoculars. It features two tubes, one slimmer tube with a circular screen on one end for the controls and charging port, and the other thicker tube is where you attach the fan, mist or cooling plate. To adjust the controls, you hold down the screen to turn it on, and twist the ring around it to increase or decrease the speed.

The SharkChill measures 11.2cm in height, 8.41cm in width and 4.5cm in depth, and weighs 350g. As expected, there’s a noticeable weight difference between the Dyson and Shark fans, and the Shark ChillPill is much bulkier. Both models can also be used indoors or outdoors.

Winner: Overall, I’ll give the Shark ChillPill the win for design. It’s unusual but practical, and I got much less strange comments about it compared to the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: features

I think this might be the first time that a Dyson product is simpler than a Shark one. The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool has five speed settings, and a boost mode which increases the airflow up to 25m/s. Powered by HushJet projection, the fan delivers up to 65,000 rpm of cooling air without turbulence, and has an acoustically engineered motor to keep everything quiet while it’s in action.

In comparison, the Shark ChillPill is described as a 3-in-1 fan, mist and InstaChill system. It uses attachments that screw onto the end of the main tube to change its modes. The high-speed fan comes with 10 speeds which gets up to a maximum velocity of 7.5m/s while its mister expels micro droplets and its InstaChill cooling plate lowers skin temperature on contact up to 9°.

Winner: As it offers more fan settings as well as mister and InstaChill plate attachments, the Shark ChillPill wins on features.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: cooling performance

Now down to the most important thing: how cooling are both fans? Starting with Dyson, it may not have as many speeds or attachments as the Shark ChillPill, but wow is it powerful. All five speeds offered cooling relief and the projection was impressive – despite its smaller, handheld size, the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool could easily cool a room.

One slight drawback to its speeds is that the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool does make an obscene amount of noise. Even at level two, I found it to be as loud as a regular-sized fan but its power and projection can’t be argued with.

Similarly, the Shark ChillPill is another brilliant cooling option. As it has double the speeds as the Dyson, each level felt more varied and the high speed cooling was excellent, and well received while at a summer wedding and going through an airport. Like the Dyson, it also gets quite loud in operation.

Where the Shark ChillPill is let down is the mister. It performs nicely but it does leave things feeling a little soggy, and as it’s a small fan and attachment, it doesn’t contain lots of water so it runs out quickly. The InstaCool plate does save it though, as it’s great for holding to pulse points during extreme weather.

Winner: I’m going to rule a tie for this one. The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool might not have as many speeds or features, but it really does an amazing job at cooling you down. The Shark ChillPill does too, although it doesn’t quite snag the crown as its mister could be better.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: battery

For battery life, the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool takes three hours to charge which gives it up to six hours of runtime. The Shark ChillPill fully charges in 3.5 hours and can offer anywhere between 1.5 and 11 hours of use.

With cordless fans, you have to take battery life with a grain of salt. If you’re using both fans at their lowest levels, then you should be able to use them for their full amount of time, but if you’re using Dyson’s boost mode or Shark’s level 10 setting, then you can expect the battery to be much less.

Personally, I found both the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool and the Shark ChillPill to have impressive battery lives. I used the Dyson HushJet Mini Cool through the night during a heatwave, and it held up for the full six hours. I also got several hours out of the Shark ChillPill – not the full 11 but at least six - eight hours.

Winner: Again, I’m ruling a tie on battery life as it all depends on how you use your fan. For me, both performed admirably and lasted a long time.

Dyson HushJet Mini Cool vs Shark ChillPill: verdict

Both the Dyson and Shark handheld, portable fans have unique designs, long lasting battery lives and intense cooling power. While I will continue to use both of them throughout the summer, the Shark ChillPill gets the win for me.

As a 3-in-1 gadget, the Shark ChillPill offers a lot more than just a fan, as it also comes with a mister and InstaCool plate. This versatility, and its sheer amount of speeds and power, means it takes the crown in my opinion. The only areas where it falters is its mister could be better, and at £129 / $149, it’s an expensive option for a handheld fan.

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool is definitely not to be snubbed, though. It’s a brilliant and powerful fan – if you can get over the odd looks you’ll get while using it – and if it’s simplicity you want, it has easy controls that get the job done, and it’s under £100 / $100.

It came as a surprise when Apple announced the second-generation AirPods Max in March 2026. Even though everyone almost continuously expected the new over-ears to drop throughout the years, no one saw the AirPods Max 2 being released a week after a flurry of new product launches by Apple.

Nevertheless, the new flagship noise-cancelling headphones are here, and they look and feel very similar to their predecessors. Indeed, from a physical design standpoint, the AirPods Max 2 is identical to the USB-C model and the original Lightning AirPods Max.

The key difference is the inclusion of the H2 chip, which isn’t new in itself, but it adds features we haven’t seen on Apple’s largest cans before.

These include Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness, Voice Isolation and Live Translation, as well as better noise cancellation. The AirPods Max 2 also have a new high-dynamic-range amplifier, lossless audio, and ultra-low-latency audio via USB-C.

The big question is: are they worth the upgrade, or are you better off getting a USB-C AirPods Max for a lot less money? How useful are the new features in everyday life? I’ve been using the USB-C AirPods Max since they came out and testing the AirPods Max 2 for a week, and I think I have the answer.

Apple AirPods Max 2 vs AirPods Max

Price and availability

The Apple AirPods Max were originally announced in December 2020 and were available for a recommended price of £549 / $549 / AU$899. The USB-C version was launched in September 2024 with the same recommended retail price. New colours include Blue, Purple, Midnight, Starlight and Orange.

These days, it’s getting harder to find the original Lightning version, but the USB-C model can be yours for a lot less than the RRP. In the UK, some offers dip below £400, while in the US, prices can get as low as $450.

Interestingly, the new AirPods Max 2 sells for less than the USB-C AirPods Max’s recommended retail price at Apple UK, but more in Australia and the same in the US, at £499 / $549 / AU$999.

Apple’s pricing strategy has followed a similar pattern in recent years, so there is no surprise there. As always, Apple doesn’t sell the USB-C version on its website anymore, so you can only get it through third-party retailers.

Winner: AirPods Max USB-C, as you get most of the features, now cheaper.

Design and build quality

It’s not just you: the AirPods Max 2 look identical to the original model. Apple has carried over the same industrial design, which means you’re still getting one of the most premium-feeling pairs of headphones on the market, albeit familiar.

The spring-tempered stainless steel headband is paired with anodised aluminium ear cups that are machined from a single piece for added rigidity and a clean finish. The ear cups are attached via a pivoting mechanism that allows them to rotate and adjust independently, helping distribute pressure more evenly across the head.

Up top, the signature knit mesh canopy returns, designed to spread the 386g weight (unchanged from the first generation) more evenly to reduce pressure on the crown of your head. It’s also breathable, which helps during longer listening sessions.

The “acoustically engineered” memory foam ear cushions are also making a comeback, wrapped in a soft knit textile. These create a tight seal around your ears, playing a key role in passive noise isolation and overall sound performance. As before, they are comfortable to wear even if you wear glasses.

The telescoping arms still extend smoothly and hold their position reliably, making it easy to dial in a consistent fit. Controls remain physical rather than touch-based, with the Digital Crown handling volume and playback, and a dedicated noise-control button switching between ANC, Transparency, and the new Adaptive Audio mode.

Physically speaking, there are only two meaningful physical updates. The first is the inclusion of the H2 chip, the same one that powers the AirPods Pro 3 and the AirPods 4. The second, which I’ll discuss in more detail later, is the new high-dynamic-range amplifier. Plus, the AirPods Max 2 can now deliver lossless and ultra-low-latency audio via USB-C.

The colour options are the same as below: Blue, Purple, Midnight, Starlight and Orange. One good thing about the lack of physical changes is that all spare components are compatible with all AirPods Max variants. This means that if you have AirPods Max ear cushions in good condition, you can use them with the AirPods Max 2. The same goes for the bra Smart Case.

Winner: tie. There is little to no difference in the headphones’ design.

Audio performance

The AirPods Max and AirPods Max 2 share the same core audio architecture, built around Apple’s custom 40mm dynamic drivers, designed to deliver detailed sound across the full frequency range. You’re still getting the same balanced, slightly warm sound profile, with controlled bass, smooth mids, and crisp highs that don't become overly sharp.

Apple doesn’t let people meddle with its headphones’ sound profile, and it’s something I always appreciated. I found the AirPods Max and the AirPods Max 2 delightfully well-tuned, with the AirPods Max 2 sounding even better thanks to the new high-dynamic-range amplifier, which is designed to deliver greater dynamic range and lower distortion, especially at higher volumes.

Indeed, songs and movies sound clearer with no distortion. I had no issues with the sound on the USB-C AirPods Max, but when I put on the AirPods Max 2, I could immediately hear the difference. It’s at least partially due to Apple re-engineering its Adaptive EQ algorithm on the cans, which continuously adjusts low- and mid-frequency levels in real time based on fit and seal.

It helps maintain a consistent sound signature across different head shapes and listening conditions. So, for example, if you wear glasses that compromise the passive seal of the cushions, the AirPods Max 2 will adjust the sound to compensate. The feature worked on the previous generation of the headphones; now it works even better.

Combined with updates to the digital signal processing and Adaptive EQ, Apple’s tinkering should result in more precise instrument separation, improved bass accuracy and more consistent performance across genres and listening levels. All of which I can confirm are happening.

The newer model also benefits from lossless audio support (24-bit / 48kHz) via USB-C, which allows it to reproduce more detail than standard Bluetooth streaming when used wired.

That said, over Bluetooth, the two generations sound broadly similar, as they rely on the same driver hardware and share the same wireless limitations. The improvements in the AirPods Max 2 are therefore more about refinement and headroom than a complete overhaul of the sound signature.

Winner: AirPods Max 2. You do get clearer, more defined sound plus 'lossless' USB-C listening.

Noise cancellation and transparency

Active Noise Cancellation is one of the biggest upgrades on the AirPods Max 2. Apple claims the new model delivers up to 1.5x more effective ANC, thanks to updated computational audio algorithms and the H2 chip.

The system uses an 8-microphone array that continuously adapts to your surroundings in near real time, helping reduce consistent background noise, such as transport or office chatter, more effectively than before.

Apple made similar claims about the AirPods Pro 3, and for all I know, they were true, but the buds' fit never suited me, so I could never really enjoy the benefits of improved noise cancellation. The AirPods Max 2 are a whole different ballgame, though. The fit hasn’t changed, which means it’s easy to compare ANC with the older version.

I keep repeating myself, but it’s not like there was anything wrong with the ANC performance of the USB-C AirPods Max. That said, the AirPods Max 2 are a lot better, pretty much cutting background noise to close to nothing. Ambient noise on buses and trains stands no chance. I’m yet to try the cans on a plane, but I’m fairly certain they will perform well in that environment, too.

Transparency mode has also been refined, with more natural-sounding passthrough audio and features like Loud Sound Reduction, which helps soften sudden spikes in environmental noise.

ANC performance is amazing, but Transparency mode is where the AirPods Max 2 really shine. It must look strange when I walk into a shop with my headphones on and talk to people – I always assume they think I won’t hear anything they say.

In fact, it’s almost better to wear the headphones, as they filter unnecessary noise, making the person I’m talking to sound clearer.

On top of that, the AirPods Max 2 introduce Adaptive Audio, which blends ANC and Transparency automatically depending on your environment, something the original model simply can’t do.

Winner: AirPods Max 2. ANC and Transparency modes are far better.

Features and smart capabilities

Features and smart capabilities are where the AirPods Max 2 pull ahead. While the original model runs on Apple’s H1 chip, the newer version is powered by the more advanced H2, unlocking a suite of features that simply aren’t available on the first generation.

The headline addition is Adaptive Audio, which I mentioned above, dynamically blending Active Noise Cancellation and Transparency depending on your surroundings. It’s joined by Conversation Awareness, which automatically lowers your audio when you start speaking, making quick interactions easier without removing the headphones.

The AirPods Max 2 also introduces Personalised Volume, which learns your listening habits and adjusts levels automatically, and Voice Isolation, designed to improve call clarity by reducing background noise.

There’s also support for Live Translation, powered by Apple Intelligence, allowing real-time translation during conversations when paired with a compatible iPhone.

Winner: Admittedly, the AirPods Max 2 has more features, thanks to the H2 chip.

Connectivity and audio support

The AirPods Max 2 bring a handful of meaningful upgrades to connectivity, even if the overall experience remains largely the same as before.

The newer model supports Bluetooth 5.3, compared to Bluetooth 5.0 on the original, offering improved efficiency and potentially lower latency.

In day-to-day use, both headphones benefit from Apple’s seamless ecosystem features, including Automatic Switching, quick pairing and audio sharing across devices like iPhone, iPad and Mac.

The AirPods Max 2 also support 24-bit/48kHz lossless audio via USB-C, enabling higher-quality playback when connected via cable, something the original model can’t match in the same way.

It’s worth noting, however, that while the audio signal is delivered over USB-C, the headphones still process sound internally for features such as EQ, Active Noise Cancellation and Spatial Audio. Apple also notes that the rest of the AirPods Max functionality continues to run in parallel via Bluetooth.

In practice, this means you’re getting higher-quality input compared to wireless playback, without Bluetooth compression, but not a completely untouched, bit-perfect signal in the traditional audiophile sense. The result is noticeably improved clarity and detail, just with Apple’s sound processing applied on top.

There’s also support for ultra-low-latency audio when wired, making the AirPods Max 2 a more viable option for creators working with video or music.

Winner: AirPods Max 2, just about.

Battery life

Battery life remains unchanged between the two generations. Both the AirPods Max and AirPods Max 2 offer up to 20 hours of listening time with Active Noise Cancellation and Spatial Audio enabled.

That puts them in line with most premium over-ear headphones, but there’s no improvement here, despite the move to the more efficient H2 chip in the newer model.

As before, both models rely on the Smart Case to enter a low-power state when not in use, rather than offering a traditional power button.

Winner: tie. No change here.

Verdict

The AirPods Max 2 are a better pair of headphones in almost every meaningful way, but they’re not a reinvention.

Apple has taken an already excellent product and refined it, adding smarter features, noticeably stronger noise cancellation and subtle audio improvements rather than changing the formula entirely.

If you bought an AirPods Max five years ago and they are on their way out, the upgrade makes sense. The jump to the H2 chip brings a more modern, adaptive experience, and features like Adaptive Audio, Conversation Awareness and improved ANC genuinely improve everyday usability.

The decision becomes less clear if you’re looking at the USB-C AirPods Max. In the UK, especially, where discounts regularly bring the older model well below its original price, it remains a strong value option. You’re getting the same design, very similar sound over Bluetooth and the same premium build for significantly less money.

Those who bought the USB-C version recently will find the improvements harder to justify. The AirPods Max 2 are better, but not dramatically so, and much of what’s new falls into the “nice to have” category rather than essential.

With the launch of the Avata 360, DJI has officially entered the 360º drone market. The new model has been teased by the brand for weeks, and rumours have circulated for months, but even with all that, the final product still surprised everyone, including the brand's fans.

DJI’s take on the concept follows the release of Insta360-incubated Antigravity’s A1, the first 360-degree drone ever. It was launched in December 2025, and offered a new take on piloting, thanks to its clever camera mechanism and “shoot first, edit later” approach borrowed from action cameras like the Insta360 X5.

The two drones are in direct competition and offer similar feature sets, but there are key differences in how they operate and in the footage you can capture with them. Antigravity’s approach is to offer a more playful, almost gadget-like experience with the A1, while the Avata 360 builds on DJI’s years of experience as a drone maker and undercuts the rival by a large margin.

Both have their place in the drone market, but the aggressive pricing strategy certainly puts Antigravity on its back foot. That said, the A1’s lightness means that more people will be able to use it without restrictions, and it might also be a better choice for hobbyists. Which is the best drone for 360º footage, and should you buy… either? Let’s find out.

DJI Avata 360 vs Antigravity A1

Price and availability

DJI decided to price the Avata 360 rather aggressively. The drone starts at £409 for the standalone unit, rising to £639 with the DJI RC 2 controller, and £829 for the Fly More Combo and Motion Controller bundle. It is available to pre-order now, with shipping expected to begin in April 2026.

The Antigravity A1, which launched at the end of 2025, carries a much higher price tag, starting at $1,599 / £1,219 / €1,399 / AU$2,199 for the Standard bundle, with higher-tier packages approaching $2,000 / £1,500 / €1,700 / AU$2,900. Recent discounts have brought the entry price down slightly, but it remains firmly in premium territory.

Winner: DJI’s Avata 360 is hands down the cheaper option.

Design and build quality

The weight difference between these two drones is the first thing that defines them. The Antigravity A1 weighs 249 g with its standard battery, which falls under the EU C0 classification threshold. The weight rises to 291 g with the High-Capacity Flight Battery, nudging it into C1.

The DJI Avata 360 tips the scales at 455 g from the outset, a C1 drone by default. That's an 83% weight premium over the A1's base configuration, and you not only feel the gap immediately in the hand, but you will also need an appropriate licence to fly it.

Dimensionally, the two drones take opposing approaches to the same problem. The A1 folds to 141.3 × 96.2 × 81.4 mm, deploying to a 308.6 × 382.3 mm footprint with propellers extended, optimised for transport and rapid deployment.

The Avata 360 follows the design language of its predecessors and is fixed at 246 × 199 × 55.5 mm, with integrated propeller guards that eliminate the need for a folding mechanism.

Both drones feature user-replaceable lenses, which makes sense in the A1’s case, as it uses the Insta360 X5’s camera unit. DJI’s own 360-degree camera, the DJI Osmo 360, doesn’t have this feature, but clearly, the brand added it on the drone for convenience.

Winner: The A1 can be flown in more areas and requires a less advanced licence.

Camera performance

The two drones use fundamentally different imaging technologies, and the specs clearly show this. The Antigravity A1 is built around a pair of 1/1.28-inch sensors shooting in 360°, while the Avata 360 steps up to dual 1/1.1-inch square CMOS sensors, larger in both area and effective pixel count, at 64 MP per sensor.

Both use wide, fast apertures designed to maximise light intake: f/2.2 on the A1, f/1.9 on the Avata 360. That half-stop advantage is modest on its own, but combined with the larger sensor area, the Avata 360 has a meaningful edge in low-light capture.

The A1 tops out at 55 MP stills (10496 × 5248) and 8K video at up to 30 fps, with 5.2K available at 60 fps and 4K at up to 100 fps for slow-motion work. The Avata 360 can do 120 MP stills (15520 × 7760) and 8K video at up to 60fps, double the A1's peak frame rate at maximum resolution. For video, both cap out at 180 Mbps bitrate on the Avata 360 versus 170 Mbps on the A1, a negligible difference in practice.

The A1 relies on a single-axis mechanical gimbal paired with FlowState electronic stabilisation, inherited directly from Insta360’s action camera line. The Avata 360 uses a single-axis mechanical gimbal on the tilt axis supplemented by a 360° virtual gimbal, enabling infinite tilt and roll adjustment in post. For pilots using DJI Goggles, RockSteady 3.0 and HorizonBalancing are also available in single-lens mode.

Colour science is another differentiator. The Avata 360 supports D-Log M across its full resolution range, enabling more pro users to edit footage more effectively in post. The A1 shoots in a fixed colour profile with no log option, which simplifies the workflow but limits flexibility in post-production.

Both drones support intelligent tracking, though their implementations differ. The A1’s Deep Track can lock onto subjects in any direction after capture, since everything is already recorded in 360°, removing the need to frame shots precisely during flight.

However, the A1 is not limited to post-flight tools: its Sky Gene system also enables in-flight subject tracking and automated camera movement, bringing it closer to DJI’s real-time approach than it might initially appear.

The Avata 360 offers ActiveTrack 360°, which tracks subjects in real time across the full spherical frame, with Standard and Cycling modes automatically adapting to subject behaviour.

Winner: The Avata 360 leads in raw imaging capability, with larger sensors, higher-resolution stills, 8K60fps video, and D-Log M support, giving it more latitude for serious creative work, although the A1’s combination of in-flight automation and post-capture reframing makes it a more flexible option than the specs alone suggest.

Flight performance

The two drones approach flight from opposite ends of the control philosophy spectrum. The Avata 360 is a conventional fixed-guard FPV aircraft, piloted via DJI’s RC 2, RC-N2 or RC-N3 remote controllers, or, for a more immersive experience, via DJI Goggles paired with the RC Motion 3.

The A1 dispenses with traditional sticks entirely, using the Grip motion controller and Vision Goggles as its primary interface. You steer by pointing, not by pushing sticks, which makes the A1 feel closer to a first-person flying experience than a conventional drone, particularly for beginners or those transitioning from action cameras rather than drones.

Both are rated for a maximum wind resistance of Level 5 (10.7 m/s), and both achieve ±0.1 m vertical hovering accuracy with vision positioning active, putting them on a broadly equal footing for stability in real-world conditions.

In terms of speed, the Avata 360 can reach 18 m/s in Sport mode (vs the A1’s 16 m/s), and its maximum ascent and descent speeds of 10 m/s in Sport mode exceed the A1’s 8 m/s. The Avata 360 can also take off from altitudes of up to 4,500 m, compared with the A1’s 4,000 m, although this is unlikely to affect most users outside high-altitude environments.

Sensing systems are another area where the two initially diverged. The A1 provides forward binocular vision sensing from 0.5–18 m and downward 3D infrared detection from 0.3–7.5 m, offering a practical safety layer for forward flight and landing.

However, this setup is being significantly expanded, with a firmware update introducing full omnidirectional obstacle avoidance already rolling out to some users.

By comparison, the Avata 360 offers full omnidirectional sensing across all axes out of the box, with forward LiDAR-assisted detection extending to 20 m and a downward 3D ToF sensor with a 10 m precise hovering range, giving it a more mature and fully integrated system at launch.

In terms of video transmission, the A1 uses OmniLink 360, with a maximum range of 10 km under FCC standards and an average latency of approximately 150 ms. The Avata 360’s O4+ system reaches 20 km under FCC, with a lowest latency of approximately 130 ms at 1080p/60fps, giving DJI the edge for long-range flying and responsiveness.

Intelligent flight modes are more closely matched than they first appear. The Avata 360 includes features such as Spotlight Free, ActiveTrack 360° with Standard and Cycling modes, and a Virtual Gimbal enabling infinite tilt and roll during flight.

The A1, meanwhile, combines its Deep Track post-flight reframing tools with in-flight automation via its Sky Gene system, which enables subject-aware flight paths and intelligent capture in real time. This means the A1 is not limited to post-production workflows, but instead offers a hybrid approach that blends automated capture with flexible reframing after the fact.

Winner: The Avata 360 remains the more mature platform, with higher speeds, longer transmission range and a more fully established sensing system, but the gap is narrower than it first appears, particularly as the A1’s software capabilities continue to evolve.

Battery life and charging

Flight endurance figures favour the A1 on paper, though with an important caveat. With its standard 2,360 mAh Flight Battery, the A1 is rated for up to 24 minutes, rising to 39 minutes with the optional 4,345 mAh High-Capacity Flight Battery.

The Avata 360 is rated for approximately 23 minutes from its 2,700 mAh cell. On standard batteries, the gap is narrow, but the A1's high-capacity option is in a different class entirely, offering nearly 70% more flight time at the cost of increasing the aircraft's weight from 249 g to 291 g and pushing it out of the EU C0 weight bracket.

The A1's Explorer and Infinity bundles include a charging hub, which is essential for back-to-back sessions, given the drone's reliance on goggles and controller batteries, as well as the flight pack itself.

The Vision Goggles draw from a separate 4,500 mAh, 32.85 Wh external battery rated for up to 2.5 hours, and the Grip controller carries a 2,300 mAh cell good for approximately 4 hours. Managing three independent power sources isn’t ideal, but it’s a price to pay for cutting-edge technology.

The Avata 360's battery charges via USB-C and benefits from DJI's established charging ecosystem, with Fly More Combo options providing additional batteries and a multi-bay hub for sequential charging.

Winner: The A1 wins on maximum endurance if you're willing to carry the high-capacity battery and accept the regulatory trade-off.

Verdict

These two drones are more complementary than they are direct competitors, and choosing between them comes down to a clear set of priorities.

The Avata 360 makes a compelling case on almost every technical metric. Its larger sensors, higher resolution, 8K60fps video, D-Log M colour profile, omnidirectional obstacle sensing, O4+ transmission and 20 km range represent a meaningfully more capable package.

Plus, at a starting price of £409 for the drone alone, it undercuts the A1 by a considerable margin.

For creators who want serious imaging performance and the flexibility to fly with either a conventional remote or immersive goggles, DJI's offering is difficult to argue against.

The A1 occupies a different position. It was first to market with a fully realised 360° drone experience, and the motion-controlled, headset-first flight system it introduced remains genuinely distinctive.

Its “shoot-now, frame-later” workflow suits travel photographers and creators who prioritise flexibility, and the high-capacity battery option gives it the upper hand in terms of endurance over the Avata 360 (for now).

That said, at £1,219 for the Standard Bundle, nearly three times the Avata 360's entry price, it faces a significantly harder sell now that DJI has entered the category with comparable imaging and superior flight capability at a fraction of the cost.

The arrival of the Avata 360 has sharpened the competitive landscape considerably.

Antigravity deserves credit for building the category from scratch; however, as expected from DJI, it has responded to the challenge with a drone that matches or exceeds it in most measurable areas while also making it a lot cheaper.

Unless the A1's unique motion-control experience or its extended battery life is a specific priority, the Avata 360 represents the stronger overall proposition at launch.

Overall winner: DJI Avata 360. Better imaging, broader sensing, longer range and a dramatically lower price point make it a more compelling buy for the majority of creators entering the 360° drone space. A small caveat is that the drone is certainly aimed at more experienced pilots and enthusiasts rather than beginner pilots. They are better off splashing the cash on the A1.

Getting your daily steps in is one of the simplest things you can do for long-term health. I usually clock mine in my favourite walking shoes, or on a run, but recently I went to Dubai and, to my surprise, absolutely fell in love with the mountains. Yes, there are mountains there!

For four days, we explored the Hatta mountain views and the desert, and only then did I realise I wished I’d brought proper women's hiking boots. Some of the terrain was tricky; I felt stones slipping into my running trainers, and although there was no rain, there were a few streams to navigate, and my toes did not appreciate getting wet.

So I made a promise: the moment I got back to the UK, I’d get kitted out and keep hiking. What stood out most was the sheer sense of escape. I loved the freedom of the mountains, the calm of the forests, the breathtaking views and the variety of colours. Honestly, why hadn’t I done this sooner?

Now I’m obsessed with finding new trails, and with wearing the right kit. A two- to three-hour hike requires more technical features given the conditions you’ll encounter, and comfort is essential. There’s often no going back once you hit that first summit.

To help me put my best foot forward, I tested a range of women's walking boots. A solid pair won’t just protect your feet from countryside sploge, but they’ll also help prevent rolled ankles and slips on wet surfaces.

And if they’re genuinely waterproof (not just water-resistant), they’ll keep your feet dry when the weather turns. Here are the three women's hiking boots I'd recommend right now, based on real-world testing!

Best for comfort

Columbia Women’s Newton Alpine PT Waterproof Boot

If comfort and looks sit high on your priority list, the Newton Alpine PT makes a strong first impression. Cushioning is the standout here: the TechLite+ midsole delivers a soft, forgiving ride without sacrificing flexibility, which isn’t always a given in hiking boots.

On lighter hikes and everyday walks, it smooths out uneven ground nicely – you don't feel every stone underfoot – and it's comfortable enough to wear all day straight out of the box.

Build quality is reassuring, too. Reinforcements around the heel and toe add durability where it matters, while the Omni-Grip outsole does the heavy lifting in wet conditions. Traction is confident on muddy paths, slick rocks and damp terrain, making it a reliable option when the weather turns.

The trade-off is in its “light cushioning” design. You sit closer to the ground, and while that helps with flexibility and ground feel, shock absorption is only moderate. This isn’t a boot built for heavy packs or long, technical hikes and is far better suited to shorter, more casual outings.

For tougher terrain, you’ll want something more supportive and stable. But for “town-to-trail” use, the Newton Alpine PT gets a lot right: it’s comfortable, good-looking, true to size and properly waterproof, handling puddles and wet conditions without issue.

Best value

Decathlon Quechua MH500

If you want a comfortable, versatile hiking boot that won’t drain your bank account, the MH500 is a no-brainer. For what they cost, you’ll get serious bang for your buck - and if you could only own one pair of outdoor shoes, these would be a strong contender.

Whether you’re strolling along the coastal cliffs at Beachy Head or traipsing through muddy woods with the kids, the MH500 is up for the job. The upper blends rubber and crust leather, with a grippy synthetic rubber sole and a thick EVA midsole, giving it excellent flexibility and breathability and making it especially suited to warmer-weather adventures.

The sole stays supportive and confident even on slippery surfaces like tide-pool rocks, and the reinforced toe panel offers decent protection on more technical terrain. Thanks to the Gore-Tex membrane, these boots are completely waterproof and held up impressively in thick mud and heavy rain.

You can grab some Karrimor Mount boots at a similar price point, but the MH500s are still among the best-value options out there. They required no break-in period, performed well across light, moderate, and even challenging terrain, and, with over 2,000 strong reviews on the Decathlon site, I clearly wasn’t the only one impressed.

Best for long distances

Salomon X Ultra 5 Mid GTX

If you want a boot that feels built like a tank but won’t weigh you down, the Salomon X Ultra 5 Mid GTX is a standout. Despite its heavy-duty spec, it’s surprisingly light at around 400g per boot, yet every textile panel, PU-coated leather section and rubber overlay feels reassuringly tough. The overall impression is one of serious robustness.

Sitting just above the ankle bone, this mid-height boot ticks all the comfort boxes. It’s well-padded around the ankle and locks the foot in securely, so once tightened, it doesn’t budge - think cosy, cocooned comfort without any rubbing.

They’re impressively warm thanks to thermo-regulating insulation and extremely waterproof. The Gore-Tex membrane shrugged off streams, puddles and sticky mud during testing, keeping my socks dry all day.

Fit-wise, they're beautifully balanced. Salomon’s SensiFit lacing delivers a snug hold through the heel and midfoot, while the roomy toe box prevents cramping over long distances. The thick, padded tongue also allows you to cinch them tight without pressure points.

Underfoot, the Ortholite midsole provides plush cushioning and arch support, while the Advanced Chassis outsole delivers excellent stability on rugged terrain and mossy declines. High-density, mid-height lugs stayed confident on wet, greasy ground - so if you regularly head off the beaten track in poor conditions, these boots are your durable, long-distance go-to.

For more technical terrain, something with a more aggressive tread like the Danner Mountain N45 GTX may suit better, but for long days on non-technical trails and rolling countryside paths, these are hard to beat.

Verdict

For a genuinely comfortable, lightweight boot for British walking, the Salomon X Ultra 5 Mid GTX is hard to beat. It balances low weight, durability and all-day comfort, making it ideal for three-season adventures across the UK’s fields, hills and forests. They’re not made for heavy multi-day packs or icy conditions, but for moderate terrain; they’re tough to fault, and represent a strong, comfortable boot that feels built to last.

If you want the best value without compromising performance, the Decathlon Quechua MH500 is the standout. At one of the cheapest boots on the market, they’re comfortable, versatile and waterproof, and the flexible sole performs well on light to challenging terrain. They’re not the flashiest, but they certainly aren’t plain either, and they’re one of the best-value boots around and require zero break-in.

If comfort and looking on-trend are your priorities, the Columbia Newton Alpine PT is a cosy town-to-trail option. The cushioning is plush and flexible, they sit nicely around your ankle with no rubbing, and the grey and white colouring looks great for casual trails that end up in your local cafe or cake shop without screaming hiker.

Well, it's official – Sony's latest flagship earbuds are finally here, and the WF-1000XM6 aim to become a whole heap of people's go-to buds over the next couple of years. With basically the same price as the last set, though, and a very new design, which should you be buying in 2026?

I've used both and compared them in detail, so read on to find out which I think you should buy out of the XM5 and XM6 generation, with a keen eye on value and features.

Price & Availability

Although the review embargo is up, and you can check out my full four-star verdict right here, we don't yet know exactly when the WF-1000XM6 earbuds will be available to buy, although it's definitely sometime this month. They'll cost £250, €300 or $299 depending on where you're located.

By contrast, the WF-1000XM5s are now a couple of years old, and that means they're available just about everywhere you could care to look. They came out at the exact same price as the new generation, but as the older model, they're now widely sold for less, even outside of sale events.

Design

Perhaps the biggest differences between the XM6 and XM5 earbuds from Sony come in the design department, where it basically seems to have gone back to the drawing board after years of incremental updates.

The XM5 earbuds have a really rounded appearance, one that fits relatively obviously into the concha of the outer ear, pinching as they narrow to the ear tip you choose. The case, meanwhile, is slim and really rounded, where previous generations had somewhat massive cases.

The XM5s are available in black, silver and a smoky pink, the latter added a while after launch, with each generally having small pricing differences from the others as stock fluctuates.

Some people complain that these buds have a design featuring slick plastic that makes it really easy to drop them as you take them out of either their case or your ears, so that's worth watching out for.

The WF-1000XM6, by contrast, are very different to look at. The earbuds themselves will be available in black and silver only, for now, and have a totally new shape that's far more pill-like in its dimensions.

This is apparently a little smaller than before in terms of narrowness, but it's six of one and half a dozen of the other – the earbuds are very similar in terms of volume, so fit ears differently but not necessarily better. I've found them to be mediocre in terms of comfort, so if you can try them on before buying, that'd be a boon.

The case is also substantially bigger on the newer earbuds, even if the measurements don't make that seem too key. The new case is squarer and harder-edged, and I think it makes it fiddlier to get in and out of pockets, which is a small but telling grievance.

Overall, in design terms, a lot will come down to taste, but I don't think there's much in it – and I prefer the more rounded design of the XM5,s given they're more comfortable and useful as a result.

Sound and features

Comparing the sound of two generations of earbud can be a little like playing spot the difference with a blindfold on, but there are contrasts to be found if you listen to the XM6 and XM5 earbuds side-by-side.

For one thing, the newer earbuds do have better noise-cancelling, which was already impressive before. It's now benefitting from an extra microphone per earbud, and that makes for better muffling and much better wind-proofing.

The overall sound quality of music is also improved a little, with a wider soundstage and slightly richer depth. That said, the XM5 earbuds are still excellent sonically, and you won't be frustrated by any limitations on that side of things.

The features are also very similar between the two, from the 8-hour battery life on a charge to the IPX4 water resistance, and there's no real difference in connection strength either. That means this is a pretty incremental upgrade that leaves the XM6 ahead, but not by much.

Verdict

This hasn't been the hardest conclusion to write, of the many comparative tests I've conducted in my time – while I really do like the WF-1000XM6 earbuds, I would definitely advise people upgrading from cheap earbuds to consider the XM5s as a far more cost-effective option now.

If you time things well and take advantage of price cuts and sales like Prime Day, you could easily save £100 by opting for the older model, and that's a pretty telling gap.

Given the difference in sound quality is pretty minor, and the noise-cancelling goes along similar lines, the biggest factor is the earbuds' design. I actually prefer the older ones on that front, which means the WF-1000XM5s clinch the win in my books.

That said, there's no wrong choice here – both earbuds earned four-star verdicts from T3 at the time they released, which means they both get our seal of approval.

Once you start running distances of 10k or more, especially outside of organised events where there are usually water stations, you need to start carrying your own liquids, either in a back-mounted bladder or in flasks.

This is when a good running pack or vest becomes essential kit, along with your best trail running shoes and a reliable running watch to keep you on the right track.

Running packs and vests vary enormously in terms of capacity, design, and features, with running vests essentially being a term for very low-profile backpacks contoured to fit extremely snugly to avoid bounce.

Some packs are intended almost purely for hydration, and others are capable of carting loads of gear; much of which is obligatory if you’re doing a remote off-road race or an ultra, and essential when speed hiking or fastpacking, ranging from lightweight waterproof jackets and headtorches right through to food, first-aid kits and even lightweight sleeping bags and shelters.

Choosing the right model can be tricky, but the following are three running packs that have served me well for a range of running adventures, all of which I highly recommend.

Best for short and mid-distance runs

inov8 Racepac 8

This compact vest hugs your body like a lovesick limpet clings to a rock and it’s my running pack of choice when doing mid-distance training sessions and events such as my local favourite race, the 20-mile mixed terrain Grizzly, when all I really need is some water, a portable cup, a few gels and an extra layer in case I do myself a mischief and end up having to stop or limp along at a slow pace.

For fluids, I generally employ a pair of 500ml soft flasks positioned into the front pouches (one loaded with electrolytes and the other straight H2O) and then utilise the rear compartment (which can be used to carry a bladder if you prefer) to stash a baselayer – if conditions are dry – or a waterproof shell, if the forecast is soggy.

There are quick-access pouches on each side, perfect for stashing gels, bars and a collapsible cup. A zip pocket on the right chest takes a phone and has a hook for keeping essentials like car keys or a safety whistle extra safe. If you like to carry poles, there are two ways of attaching them to this vest: vertically on the front or horizontally on the rear.

Available in several sizes, the Racepac has a simple but effective bungee-based tightening system across the chest that keeps everything secure, and the main body of the pack is made with mesh-and-honeycomb-foam, so it’s lightweight, comfortable and extremely breathable.

Best for long runs and ultras

Montane Gecko VP 12+

For a running pack that offers backpack-like carry capacity combined with a vest-esque low profile to minimise movement, the Gecko VP 12+ is a winner, which is why I use it for longer training runs and ultra races, such as the Lakeland 50, during which it did me proud.

Unlike many models, this pack comes with two excellent 500ml soft flasks, which slide into a pair of pouches on the chest. There’s also a compartment complete with a Velcro hook for housing a hydration reservoir (or whatever gear you want to stash in there).

Separate from this hydro pouch is the capacious main compartment, which zips securely shut and easily accommodates all kinds of kit that might save your life if things go belly up (layers, emergency shelters, etc.).

The Gecko 12+ comes with a safety whistle attached to a cord in one of the zip pockets. There are also reflective flourishes on the back to keep you safe. Beneath both flask pouches are two deep pockets with zips, where you can keep a phone and snacks within easy reach.

On top of that, there are various extra compartments for energy gels and bars, and on the rear, bungee straps let you carry wet layers separately to dry them. And, of course, running poles can be secured to the front of the pack.

Constructed from polygiene-treated synthetic materials with mesh elements (for airflow), the unisex Gecko 12 secures tightly around your waist via a Velcro belt, and elasticated sternum straps with hooks that attach to a range of hoops facilitate an extra secure fit.

Best for fastpacking, speed hiking and run-commuting

Rab Veil XP 20

For really big days out, or multiday missions, when you have to cart enough gear for a night out, you need much more carry capacity, and this is where a real running backpack comes in. I love a good fastpacking foray, and in warmer weather, the 20-litre Rab Veil XP is just the right size to carry everything you need for an overnight adventure.

Made with a rain deflecting fabric and boasting taped seams and a roll-and-clip top-opening system, it’s also waterproof (tested to IPX4), so it performs well as a hiking daypack in all conditions, and is also the perfect pack for people who run-commute to work and have to carry quite a bit of stuff, including a full change of clothes for the office.

The Veil has a wide, comfortable, and easily adjustable waist belt that fastens with Velcro, plus an excellent bungee-and-hook support system across the chest to keep the pack tightly in place while you’re in motion, and a top clip to secure the contents.

The 3D mesh back system wicks moisture away, and there are various pockets for keeping items such as a phone and gels within easy reach. Hydration-wise, you can stick a bladder in a back pocket (separate from the sealed main compartment), use soft flasks in dedicated pouches on the harness, or even carry a bottle or two in the side pockets.

Good to know

Running packs come in all shapes and sizes, from body-hugging low-profile vests to larger-capacity backpacks, but when you’re considering the options, there are several core components that really need to feature.

Clearly, you are carrying a pack in order to cart essentials, so make sure it’s big enough to take your core required gear on the inside of the pack – bungee-based expansion straps on the bag are great for stashing wet gear, but avoid depending on them to carry your main kit, because things can get drenched or fall out, and they will wobble around while you run.

Staying hydrated is the single most important thing to do while you run, but liquid is annoyingly heavy, so carrying it efficiently is crucial. Some people prefer soft flasks worn on the front (easy to reach and refill during races, and you can always see how much juice you have left), while others prefer back-mounted hydro bladders, which offer more capacity.

Figure out what works best for you, but bear in mind that your requirements might change depending on the event or challenge you’re taking on and the weather conditions on the day: the best running packs offer both carry options.

No one wants to run for hours with a load that wobbles around and has things dangling off it – pick a running pack with a trim fit that offers really secure fastening systems across the chest and waist. Make sure this is adjustable enough to be comfortable for your body shape (for women, having a chest strap you can tailor to your requirements is obviously an extra important consideration).

Think about the things you will definitely want to have within easy reach during a run – phone, gels, bars, gloves – and make sure there are pockets on the pack that you can access without stopping to take the bag off.

And lastly, if you ever run on roads and shared tracks (and everyone who requires a running pack will find themselves doing this at some point), look for reflective safety features on the back of the pack.

For anyone who spends time in the outdoors – for work, play or travel – a top-performing fleece jacket is an absolutely essential piece of kit. I’m outdoors a lot, for all of the above reasons, and I have tested countless tops described as fleeces by myriad brands. Some perform excellently but look awful, while others are super stylish but prove less effective in the elements – occasionally you get one that ticks all the boxes. But before I get into three of my current favourites for spring conditions, it’s worth quickly considering the question, what exactly is a fleece?

Traditionally, fleeces were made from recycled synthetic materials and were regarded as groundbreaking eco-friendly outdoor-active clothing, but the word ‘fleece’ is bandied around very loosely these days, and is used to describe a wide range of tops, from casual-wear hoodies made from all sorts of fabric to garments that look more like wind cheaters and softshells. While a wider material mix might be more acceptable now, however, a true fleece is primarily a midlayer garment, designed to work well when worn above the best base layers and beneath a good waterproof jacket (when required).

Best for basic warmth

Columbia Crystal Leaf Omni-Heat Technical Half-zip Fleece

There is much more going on than meets the eye with the Crystal Leaf, which is available for an extremely accessible price. It’s a thin and lightweight fleece, but the Omni-Heat Helix technology traps warmth inside, while the fabric remains breathable, and internally generated moisture is quickly wicked away from the body when you’re working hard on the trails.

It’s a half-zip top, and there’s no hood on this version, but I believe less is more when it comes to true midlayers – very few people actually use hoods on lightweight tops, and usually they end up sticking out the top of the jacket and getting wet in the rain. And a full zip can reduce thermal protection, and this top is designed to be worn all day, not to be taken on and off. There are no pockets either, which is fine when you’re using it beneath a coat.

I love the thumb holes, which prevent the sleeves from bunching up when you pull on an outer layer and keep skin from being exposed when you’re wearing gloves. The high neck and long back panel both keep drafts out, and being 10% elastane, the material is super stretchy, allowing for a full range of movement when you’re climbing, scrambling or doing anything dynamic. The only downside is that, so far as I can see, no recycled fabric has been used.

Best features

Rab Ramshaw Hoody

If you’re intending to rock your fleece as an outer wear, instead of merely a midlayer, then it’s handy to have a few more features. The Ramshaw, by Rab, is designed to be seen, and (even in the not-for-everyone ‘pollen’ colour I’ve been testing) it’s good-looking fleece.

It’s also pretty thin and light (517g), but when combined with an outer shell, like a waterproof coat, the raised squares on the external face of the fleece are designed to capture air that your body will heat up, creating a good warm layer. With a high degree of stretch, it’s a very dynamic garment, perfect for rock climbing, hiking and scrambling. And it’s made from 75% recycled materials.

Features-wise, it has three fully functional pockets (a pair of hand pockets and a chest pouch), all of which zip shut, so you don’t lose important things mid-trail. It has a full-length zip, so you can dump heat quickly when you need to, plus a good chin guard and a decent hood, which fits under a helmet and can be tightened with toggles to protect your head and ears from the wind. It doesn’t have thumb hoops, but the sleeves are elasticated at the wrists, which prevents sleeves from bunching if you do don an outer layer.

Most stylish

66 North Tungudalur Hoodie

Designed to deliver warmth on the edge of the Arctic Circle (and to turn heads wherever you wear it), gear from 66 North is always seriously stylish and very high-performing (and usually priced accordingly). The Icelandic brand do make much thicker fleeces for mid-winter, but the Tungudalur (available with and without a hood) is a thinner. Low-bulk, lightweight garment, perfect for spring-summer-autumn as outerwear, or when worn beneath a windproof and/or waterproof shell when the elements are feistier.

It has a full zip for easy heat management and a pair of hand pockets with zips. There are no thumb loops, but the wrists are elasticated to stop bunching and prevent sleeves from riding up your arms. I have been testing the lidded version, and the hood can be tightened to keep out the worst of the weather. Although it’s the kind of clobber you want to show off, not hide, it works well as a midlayer beneath a jacket.

Made from high-end Polartec Powerstretch Pro fleece (external link), this trim-fit top is warm, breathable, and tough, with a smooth, abrasion-resistant exterior and a soft-feel inner that is luxuriously comfortable next to the skin. The material mix wicks moisture away excellently and offers four-way flex, for when you’re reaching for handholds or posing at the pub. Lastly, it’s made from 84% recycled material.

Good to know

Fleeces are useful – essential even – all year round: an outer layer for evenings and mornings in summer, a comfy, protective top on cooler spring and autumn days, and a high-performing thermal midlayer beneath a waterproof shell in winter. But it’s hard to find a one-size-fits-all fleece that covers all those occasions.

Thickness, weight and bulk are key considerations, as are features (including pockets, hoods and thumb loops) and style choices – such as a smooth-finish or long-pile fleece – that go beyond the garment's mere look (long-pile tops are considerably warmer).

Then there’s the tech, with design innovations such as Columbia’s Omni-Heat system, raised grids (as seen on Rab’s Ramshaw Hoody), and advanced materials like Polartec Powerstretch Pro (used in 66 North’s Tungudalur Hoodie), all adding to the thermal performance of the tops.

The three fleeces covered here are all low-bulk, mid-weight garments, which I regard as perfect for 9 to 10 months of the year. In mid-winter, and especially if you’re venturing into colder climes or up into the mountains, you’ll need a thicker, heavier, warmer garment like Patagonia’s Classic Retro-X fleece, which is a brilliant traditional number, made from 100% recycled synthetic material, that will keep you very cosy when worn under a waterproof jacket.

When choosing a fleece, if you’re mainly planning to wear it as a midlayer, simplicity, performance, and cost will be the top priorities, so something like the Columbia Crystal Leaf Omni-Heat Technical Half-zip Fleece is probably perfect.

If you think it’s likely you will be wearing it on the outside for much of the time, then the look of the top, and elements like pockets, are more important, so the Tungudalur or Ramshaw fleeces will be better options. Fleeces are always made from synthetic fabrics that will never fully biodegrade, so personally, I choose tops made mostly from recycled materials.

As a fitness writer with nearly 20 years of experience covering running shoes and fitness gear, I’ve tested more trainers than I can count. And when I say I tested more trainers than I can count, I really mean it. It’s actually become a running joke on the school run that I turn up in a different pair every day, and it’s usually a case of the brighter, the better.

The thing is, I’ll run in my best women's running shoes most mornings. I then shower, get changed, and put on another pair of trainers to go about my day. I do my daily chores in them, head out for a lunchtime walk to reset my posture after a morning at my desk, and then often drag the kids out for a post-dinner stroll too.

It’s one of the best ways to catch up after a long day, and walking after dinner has also been shown to support digestion. Quite rightly, walking is the new trend, but you need the right shoes to support your steps. You shouldn’t just pace the pavement in anything.

Comfort, support and durability matter, and so does how they feel after hours on your feet. With that in mind, here are my top three women’s walking trainers: some bright, some more low-key, but all equally super comfy and very much glued to my feet.

Best cushioning

Nike Vomero Premium

These are some of the most fun trainers I’ve worn in a long time. Bright, bold and seriously comfortable, the Nike Vomero Premium delivers cloud-soft cushioning with plenty of bounce underfoot. They’re built for running, but in my opinion, they’re better suited to walking – especially power walks, where comfort and energy return make all the difference.

The full-length ZoomX foam gives a springy, responsive feel, while the dual Air Zoom units add stability and long-lasting comfort for all-day wear.

Despite the high stack height, the wide landing platform and grippy waffle outsole make them feel secure, whether you’re intentionally clocking up steps or rushing between errands.
These are definitely a statement shoe, and the silhouette is clean, modern and pairs effortlessly with leggings and a hoodie.

The engineered mesh upper offers excellent breathability to keep feet fresh on longer, warmer walks (roll on summer!). There’s also slightly more room in the toe box, making them a forgiving option for wider feet if shoes like the Hoka Gaviota 6 or ASICS GEL-CUMULUS 28 feel too narrow. Seriously fun, comfortable, and they make me a few inches taller too.

Best waterproof

Lululemon Beyondfeel Waterproof

Designed specifically for women, the Lululemon Beyondfeel Waterproof is a neutral everyday trainer that feels supportive and balanced underfoot.

Its women-specific construction includes an extra two millimetres of foam for added support, plus a subtly curved outsole designed to match how women typically strike the ground.

There’s also an extra flex groove to mirror a female footstrike for a smoother ride. The fit runs slightly small – I sized up to a 5.5 from my usual 5 – and once I did, the shoe felt spot on and very comfy.

The waterproof upper is snug without feeling restrictive, and there’s plenty of room in the toe box, which is ideal for long days on your feet. Although designed for running, I mainly used these for walking and everyday wear.

The soles feel firm but still offer a satisfying bounce when you need to pick up the pace. Cushioning sits in a sweet spot – more supportive than minimalist shoes, yet far less bulky than high-stack trainers like the Hoka Bondi 8 or On Cloudmonster Hyper.

Most of the padding is also concentrated in the heel, giving comfort and bounce without unnecessary height or bulk. Making them a genuinely practical option for all-day wear.

Reflective detailing across the upper also adds a nice safety touch for evening walks or low-light conditions. I went for the black pair for everyday use, but the understated ‘Riverstone’ beige is equally wearable and works well with jeans, sportswear or even smarter office outfits.

Best for durability

Brooks Glycerin GTS 22

The Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 is my sensible, go-to trainer, the kind you buy once and rely on for months - and beyond. Often billed as Brooks’ flagship daily shoe, it’s a true all-rounder that’s especially suitable for those who spend long days on their feet and need something comfortable and dependable.

This is a neutral trainer with a generous fit. The wide toe box suits my low arches and accommodates thick winter socks without pinching, while the DNA Loft v3 cushioning feels soft and springy underfoot.

What I love is that the shoe handles walking and the occasional quick jog with ease. I often find myself speeding up when I’m late or want to get somewhere quickly, and the Glycerin keeps up without feeling unstable - or triggering an underlying injury.

They’re comfortable straight out of the box, with no break-in period needed, and the underfoot feel is firm and balanced. The outsole grips well on dry and wet roads, and holds up impressively on uneven paths and even icy surfaces. After many miles, there’s no visible wear on the rubber, which speaks to its durability - they are certainly built to last.

Compared to more cushioned, higher-stack shoes like the Saucony Azura, the Glycerin feels more grounded and stable thanks to its GuideRails, which are firmer foam elements positioned above the midsole that don't force your foot into place. They simply step in when your stride gets a bit off.

These shoes feel built for purpose; durable, reliable and a long-lasting trainer for walking, commuting and generally being on your feet all day.

Verdict

The Nike Vomero Premium are easily the coolest walking trainers I’ve worn, not just because of the colour, but also because of the 50mm stack, ultra-plush ZoomX foam, and Air Zoom units.

I assumed they’d feel too cushioned, but when you’re hitting 20,000 plus steps a day, comfort is everything. Too much cushioning simply isn’t a thing.

For all-day wear, however, I still rate the more classic cushioned trainers like the Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 (a favourite among nurses and doctors who are on their feet constantly) over the Saucony Hurricane 25, or Cloudsurfer Max, which are also super-soft but look extremely sporty.

Don't get me wrong; all of these options are great for anyone looking for a lot of cushion and stability in a daily trainer, yet somehow I keep going back to Brooks. Unless it's a rainy day

The success of any camping adventure is entirely reliant on having the best tent you can get your hands on. You might have the most cosy and comfortable sleeping bag ever created and the plushest camping mat in the world, but if the tent you take on the trail fails to keep the elements out, or if it’s cramped or weighs too much, then your trip will be miserable.

I get to test tents for a living, which sounds awesome (and usually is), but when you get a dud design, it results in some seriously uncomfortable nights. Thankfully, I’ve discovered some exceptional shelters, and these are the tents I will be taking out on the trails this year.

Best overall

Nemo Dagger Osmo

Available in both 2- and 3-person models, the latest iteration of the Nemo Dagger Osmo is as close to the perfect tent for backpacking as I’ve ever had the privilege of using. Lightweight, easy to pack and pitch, it’s a superbly designed shelter from the bucket floor upwards.

There’s plenty of room on the inside, with various pockets and features to make organisation and space optimisation easy, and the twin doors and double vestibule design means you can keep backpacks and hiking boots dry while not crowding the sleeping area, and you don’t have to disturb your camping buddy when getting out in the early hours to answer a call of nature.

The materials are recycled, and the whole shelter is made in an eco-friendly way. The pole system is smart, and the materials and components are all top-quality, so the shelter can withstand high winds and serious downpours. There are myriad small design details that improve the camping experience without adding to the carry weight, from the axial corner anchors and strut vents to the ‘Landing Zone’, a triangular storage tub in the vestibules.

Best for solo campers

Lifesystems Solo Peak

If you’re someone who enjoys heading off on adventures by yourself, or if you prefer to sleep solo during overnight escapades with friends, the Lifesystems Solo Peak 1-person tent is a clever little cocoon that weighs very little (1kg) and packs down to the size of a water bottle, but provides excellent shelter in a range of conditions.

With a tiny footprint, you can pitch it in all kinds of tight spots, and yet – considering its diminutive size – it offers enough headroom for you to sit up, and even has a vestibule (albeit a small one) for stashing packs and boots.

The materials are impressively robust and protective, with the fly and groundsheet both boasting a high hydrostatic head rating of 3,000mm. Because it’s small, the interior warms up very quickly and stays cosy, so – if you have a decent sleeping bag and pad – you can use it for most of the year in the UK (I tested it during November and December). It’s also very reasonably priced.

Best for bikepacking

MSR Hubba Hubba Bikepack 2

The European release of the much-anticipated new Hubba Hubba LT2 only recently happened, and the significantly updated shelter is impressively spacious and light. But for me, MSR were always going to struggle to truly improve on the original design, which forms the basis of the brilliant Hubba Hubba Bikepack 2.

Space is everything when you’re bikepacking, and the concessions to packability that make all the difference here are the trimmed pole lengths and the waterproof carry bag, which is designed to be attached directly to the handlebars of your bike (an ingenious innovation that means you don’t need to invest in an expensive bar bag, which would only end up full of tent.

Regardless of whether you’re on wheels or walking, this is an excellent tent for use beside the trail. Designed around a hub-style pole system, the shelter has an excellent nylon fly sheet and a strong geodesic-dome shape, which can withstand strong winds.

The pole lengths have been trimmed to make packing even easier. It also offers two doors, each with a spacious vestibule for storing stuff. Additional features include the ‘StayDry’ rain gutters, a gear loft and a clothesline on the inside.

Buying advice

Choosing the perfect tent is tricky, especially if you enjoy a range of camping experiences, from fast-paced, lightweight overnight adventures to more comfortable car camping outings. The tents listed here are specifically for backpacking and bikepacking escapades – they are all quite different in design, but the common denominator is a low carry weight.

While cost is inevitably a consideration, it’s really important to get a shelter made from robust and genuinely weatherproof materials. Look for details such as sealed seams, which make all the difference in keeping the rain out, and good-quality zips, which will improve the lifespan of your tent.

Ease of pitch and low bulk are two other crucial considerations. Some tents (like the Lifesystems Solo Peak) can be pitched outer first, which means you can escape the weather quickly, while others, such as the Nemo Dagger Osmo and the Hubba Hubba, feature stand-alone inners, which can offer sensational star-gazing opportunities on clear, dry nights.

For me, access to a spacious vestibule is a high-value feature, since it allows you to stash your backpack and hiking boots or walking shoes somewhere dry without taking up room in the main sleeping compartment.

If you're getting a 2-person tent, go for one with two doors so you don't have to climb over your camping buddy in the middle of the night (and they don't have to climb over you).

Lastly, good ventilation is essential for comfort and to allow condensation to escape (otherwise you will wake up damp, no matter how waterproof the fly is).

The idea of a heart-rate monitor might sound a bit pointless if you’ve already got one built into your running watch, but what many people don’t realise is that, for those more serious about their fitness data, these monitors can offer way more accurate results.

Don’t get me wrong, wrist-based heart rate tracking on smartwatches has improved loads over the years, but if you do anything with quick spikes (such as HIIT, intervals and circuits) or you just want cleaner, more consistent numbers, a dedicated HR monitor always wins.

And once you start training in zones, pacing workouts, or simply trying to avoid going too hard every session, accurate heart rate suddenly feels way more relevant.

I’ve used chest straps for years, but I also get why loads of people hate them. They can feel restrictive, they can slip if you don’t get the fit right, and not everyone wants to strap themselves up like they’re a lab experiment.

The good news is, there’s much more choice nowadays. If you want the most accurate traditional option, that’s still there, but if you’re looking for something comfortable without sacrificing accuracy, that’s also an option.

And with that, these are the top three heart rate monitors I recommend, depending on user preference and workout type.

Best overall

Garmin HRM 600

If you’re the kind of person who just wants the most reliable “classic” option, the Garmin HRM 600 has to be the best chest strap out there. As far as chest straps go, it’s comfortable, built to survive years of sweat, and delivers consistently stable heart rate data.

Where it really shines, though, is if you’re already in the Garmin ecosystem. It pairs really nicely with other Garmin devices like cycling computers and watches, and adds extra layers, like storing data when you’re training without your watch, which is handy for team sports, gym sessions, or if you just don’t want to wear your watch.

For runners, it provides additional running dynamics data based on your setup. It’s also the best heart rate monitor where accuracy is paramount, for example, interval runs, or anything where I’m using heart rate to control effort rather than just collecting pretty graphs. If you want a heart rate monitor for more serious training, this is the one to go for.

Best arm band

Polar Verity Sense

If having a tight band strapped around your ribs sounds a bit claustrophobic, the Polar Verity Sense is probably your best bet.

This optical sensor looks more like a smartwatch, with a strap of a similar size, but the main difference is where you wear it. Strapped snugly on your upper or lower arm, it doesn’t need to be around your chest, but it still tends to get a much better read than your wrist during movement-heavy workouts.

In my testing, it was reliably accurate for runs, steady-state cardio, gym sessions and even sweaty circuit work where wrist HR might not give you the most accurate reading. It’s also more comfortable and less restrictive than a chest strap, and doesn’t need readjusting as much - so much so that you forget you’re even wearing it.

It’s also a genuinely versatile little unit. You can connect it over Bluetooth and ANT+ to watches, gym kit and apps, and it’s especially handy if you bounce between platforms as I do. If you’re someone who trains in classes, uses a treadmill one day and runs outside the next, it just fits into everything without needing constant tinkering.

Best all-in-one

Myzone MZ-Switch

The MZ-Switch is the heart rate sensor I’d recommend if you want more flexibility without owning multiple HR monitors. Its biggest selling point is its versatility, with a design that lets the sensor be clipped to multiple band sizes – from chest to arm – each included in the box.

Like the Polar Verity Sense, this makes it worth considering if your workouts change day to day. It can be a chest strap for intervals or harder sessions where you want the best accuracy, an arm band for strength training (where chest straps can feel annoying), or a wrist if you just want something quick and fuss-free.

The other reason it stands out is the Myzone ecosystem. Their tech is properly established in gyms and studios for zone-based training, and if you like that “gamified” approach (effort points, HR zones on screens, training targets), it’s one of the slickest systems going.

Good to know

If you want the simplest, most comfortable upgrade from wrist-based heart rate tracking, I’d start with the Polar Verity Sense. It’s accurate enough for the vast majority of people, it’s easy to live with, and you’ll actually wear it, which is the most important thing.

However, if you like the idea of one device that can adapt to whatever training you’re doing, the Myzone MZ-Switch is probably the most practical option, especially if you’re into zone-based training and gym classes.

And if you're after the most trustworthy, traditional option for proper training sessions, the Garmin HRM-Pro Plus is still the gold-standard chest strap style pick - especially if you’re an existing Garmin user.

Compression socks for running are far from anything magic – they won’t suddenly turn you into an elite runner, but they can make your legs feel more supported during a run and a bit less battered afterwards. That's especially the case if you’re someone who gets tight calves, sore shins, or that heavy-leg feeling the day after a hard session.

I used to assume they were mostly for marathoners or long-haul flights, but once you start stacking up miles, running more than a couple of times a week, or mixing in speed work and hills, you realise your lower legs take a lot of punishment, and anything that helps you feel a bit fresher is worth a look.

The tricky bit is that not all compression socks feel the same. Some are super supportive, while many others are basically just tight socks with a sporty logo. I’ve tried a load over the years, and these are the three pairs I’d recommend for most runners, depending on what you want from them.

Best overall

CEP The Run 4.0

If you want one pair of compression socks you can wear for actual running, not just recovery or travel days, CEP The Run 4.0 is probably your best bet.

These are the ones I keep coming back to because they feel like they’ve been designed by people who actually run. They're supportive in the right places, breathable enough that your feet don’t get too sweaty, and tough enough that they don’t feel like they’re going to give up the ghost after a 60-degree wash.

The main thing that I like about CEP's compression socks is the fit. They tend to do proper sizing based on calf measurements, so when you get the right size, the compression feels super secure rather than just a bit tight. You get that secure feeling around the ankle and calf, which is what you want if your lower legs tend to feel a bit wobbly in longer runs.

The CEP Run 4.0 compression socks typically sell for around £45 in the UK, roughly $50-60 in the US, and about AU$80-90 in Australia. They’re not the cheapest socks in the world, but they feel like proper running kit rather than something you’ll throw in a drawer and forget about. Be sure to shop around, too, as prices vary a lot by retailer.

Best for support

2XU Vectr Light Cushion

If you're a runner who suffers from endless foot problems, such as plantar fasciitis, achy arches, or you just want a bit more underfoot comfort, the 2XU Vectr Light Cushion socks are the ones to go for.

These lower-leg compressors feel way more structured than many of their peers, and they’re especially good if you like the idea of compression for the calves but don’t want your feet to feel bare inside your shoes. The support around the arch is great too, and that’s where these stand out compared to a more minimal sock.

The only downside of these socks is the extra bulk. If your running shoes are already snug, you might notice these take up a bit more room than a thinner compression sock. But for comfort and support, especially if you’re dealing with foot soreness, they’re top-notch.

The 2XU Vectr Light Cushion compression socks are available now, priced at around £30-40 in the UK, $40-55 in the US, and AU$70-90 in Australia, depending on where you get them.

Best for beginners

Danish Endurance Cotton Compression Socks

Not everyone wants super-firm compression, especially newbies. So if you’ve never worn compression socks for running before, or you mainly want something you can wear post-run for recovery, Danish Endurance’s cotton options are a pretty good starting point.

What makes these socks different from the other two on my list is that they're softer and have a more “normal sock” feel, which is exactly why they’re so easy to throw on and wear day-to-day. The compression is gentler, so you’re less likely to end up battling with them every time you put them on, and they don’t feel overly intense if you’re not used to that squeezed-calf sensation.

They’re also good if you want something you’ll actually wear outside of running, such as dog walks, air travel, or even just shoving them on after a long run while you’re watching TV and pretending you’re stretching.

If you’re chasing the firmest performance compression for racing, these aren’t that. But if you want an affordable, comfy, low-drama pair that still gives you that supported-leg feeling, they’re a great option.

The Danish Endurance cotton compression socks come in a host of colours and usually cost less than the more hardcore brands, which helps too. In the UK, you should be able to pick them up for £20-30 (cheaper per pair if you get a multipack). That's about $25-40 in the US and AU$40-60 in Australia.

Good to know

If you’re only going to buy one pair of compression socks and you actually want to run in them regularly, I’d go for the CEP The Run 4.0. They’re the most “pure running” sock here and the best all-rounder when it comes to support, breathability and durability, I'd say.

However, if you’re dealing with foot niggles or you want something that feels more cushioned and supportive underfoot, the 2XU Vectr Light Cushion socks are the best bet, especially for comfort. These are also great for longer runs when your feet can start feeling a bit battered.

And if you’re compression-curious but don’t want to commit to super-tight socks straight away, Danish Endurance's cotton option is the easy pick - being comfortable, affordable and versatile enough that you’ll actually use them.

Winter training demands a different kind of shoe rotation. Shorter days, colder temperatures, slick pavements, and muddy trails all put new stress on your legs and your footwear. Staying consistent through the winter often matters more than chasing peak performances, especially if you want to arrive at spring races healthy and confident.

After setting a new PB at the Royal Parks Half Marathon in March, I rolled straight into winter training mode. Conditions changed almost overnight: leaf-covered pavements, churned-up trails, and track sessions in single-digit temperatures. To keep structure in my training (and avoid niggles), I needed shoes that could handle everything from steady road miles to short, sharp intervals and slippery off-road descents.

I’ve tested a wide range of women's running shoes this year, but three models stood out for very different reasons. Each filled a specific gap in my winter rotation: a stable everyday road shoe, a fast option for harder efforts, and a trail shoe with enough grip to stop me from skating across soggy leaves.

The aim was simple: stay consistent, stay injury-free, and give myself the best possible platform heading into the next race season. A PB never comes from shoes alone, but the right pair at the right time can make staying on track a whole lot easier.

Best for speed work

Brooks Hyperion Elite 5

Brooks has never dominated the carbon-plate market like Nike Vaporfly 4 or Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 - until now. After putting significant miles into the Hyperion Elite 5, from interval sessions to cold-weather track sessions, I have to admit the comfort, bounce, and energy response of this shoe blew me away.

I usually log my long miles in the Adrenaline GTS 25, and as a heel striker, the jump from a stability trainer to a carbon racer could have felt twitchy - but it didn’t. The woven open-mesh upper was surprisingly accommodating for my wider feet, and the bobbled laces kept my feet secure and locked in.

The energy return comes from Brooks’ DNA Flash v2 supercritical nitrogen-infused foam. Unlike the ultra-soft, trampoline-like feel of PEBA foams (think ZoomX in the Nike Vomero Premium or PEBA-based PWRRUN HG in the Saucony Endorphin Speed 5), the Hyperion Elite 5 delivers a firmer, more stable ride while still returning noticeable energy when you push the pace.

During speed sessions, the shoe rolled forward with ease, thanks to the SpeedVault Race+ full-length carbon plate - Brooks’ stiffest racing plate to date. Longer tempo runs felt stable enough to maintain form without fatiguing my ankles or re-injuring my old metatarsal injury, something I couldn’t say for every carbon model I’ve tested.

The pink-and-blue colourway gave me that “look, I’m a runner” edge, and the high-visibility finish was extremely welcome during dark winter runs.

Overall, they're not as explosive as Nike’s top racers, nor as soft as Saucony’s, but far more stable than most carbon options and competitively fast. For runners who want race-day speed without sacrificing control, the Hyperion Elite 5 most definitely puts Brooks on the map in the super-shoe world - and a shoe I’m excited to race in. These trainers scream, 'I’m a serious runner.' They make me excited to race.

Best off road

Salomon S/LAB PULSAR 4

If you love winter trail running and genuinely enjoy mud, puddles, and technical terrain, your shoes have to match the chaos. I wore the Salomon S/LAB PULSAR 4 in torrential British rain, ankle-deep mud, and over mossy, rocky climbs, and they felt built for purpose: pure off-road performance.

The standout is the MATRYX upper. It’s not standard mesh - it’s a woven blend reinforced with Kevlar-like fibres, giving a durable, foot-hugging feel without overheating.

Underfoot, Salomon’s All Terrain Contagrip outsole with 3.5mm lugs delivered reliable traction on wet rock, greasy mud and rooty woodland trails. The lugs aren’t as aggressive as some trail shoes, like the Hoka Speedgoat 6, which uses 5mm lugs, or the Ronhill Reverence, which goes up to 7mm - but I actually prefer this balance. There’s enough bite for winter trails without the shoe feeling clunky on firmer sections.

Despite the rugged build, the shoe is impressively light and nimble. The dual-foam midsole felt soft and responsive, especially through the forefoot, and noticeably more flexible than other off-road shoes I’ve tested, like the ASICS GEL-TRABUCO 10. I could comfortably run road sections to and from trails without feeling like I was dragging my feet - something many pure trail shoes struggle with, especially with my flat-footed, low arch ways.

Waterproofing held up perfectly in the downpour, and the fully gusseted tongue kept out annoying debris. The quicklace system stayed secure without creating pressure points, and the fit feels slightly wider than previous S/LAB models - ideal for longer, muddier miles and thicker winter socks.

If you want a winter trail shoe that’s fast, protective, and reliably grippy, this is the one to beat. Bonus: the salmon colourway looked pretty - and super appealing – though they didn’t stay that way for long!

Best daily trainer

ASICS GEL-Nimbus 28

The mission of the ASICS GEL-Nimbus 28 is simple: deliver a smooth, comfortable ride - and on that front, it delivers. Comfort is led by the lightweight, super-cushioned FF BLAST PLUS foam, which provides a soft, protective feel underfoot while still offering a touch of bounce to keep things from feeling sluggish, combined with ASICS’ PureGEL technology under the heel, where any impact felt is well and truly absorbed, particularly when running on the road.

I tested the Nimbus 28 over several weeks of long, Zone 2 runs and found them consistently comfortable from the first step to the final mile. At just 5ft 2, I also appreciated that ASICS has retained the shoe’s signature high stack height, making me look that little bit taller (it all helps), whilst firmly placing the Nimbus in the “cloud-like comfort” category thanks to the extra cushioning which gives them a squishy, comfortable and relaxed feel.

Despite being a neutral shoe, there’s also a reassuring sense of stability here. The wide outsole, particularly through the heel, creates a confident and stable landing, which was welcome on my longer runs and the updated Hybrid ASICSGRIP outsole also performed well on icy winter pavements and unavoidable muddy pathways, offering reliable traction across mixed road surfaces.

The engineered knit upper enhances breathability and delivers a premium, seamless fit, while the knit tongue adds to the overall comfort. Fit-wise, I found the Nimbus 28 true to size in my usual UK 5, with a slightly lower Achilles collar than previous versions - a small but welcome update.

Compared to the new Saucony Endorphin Azura, I did find the Nimbus 28 a little heavier underfoot, but that aside, it’s a comfortable, high-mileage road shoe, ideal for longer endurance runs - and even walking recovery days when comfort is the priority.

Verdict

Running shoes come in all shapes and styles, each designed for different conditions and running goals. If you’re not sure where to start, a neutral, well-cushioned road shoe with dependable grip like the ASICS GEL-Nimbus 28 is a safe and sensible place to begin. They’re plush, forgiving on the joints and ideal for building mileage comfortably.

Once you start branching out into faster sessions or off-road running, that’s where more specialist shoes come into play. Trail shoes, for example, completely change the experience of running on mud and uneven ground.

I was late to the trail-running party, but now I can’t imagine tackling off-road terrain without a pair of grippy trail shoes, like the Salomon S/LAB PULSAR 4 - the added traction and robust materials brings confidence, control and, unexpectedly, a lot more fun in the mud than I ever imagined - I now run through sludge rather than tip-toe around it, making those Winter miles even more fun.

At the other end of the spectrum, carbon-plated shoes are unbeatable for speed work and racing. Slipping into my Brooks Carbon Hyperion Elite 5 genuinely makes me feel faster, more efficient and ready to push the pace. They’ve become my go-to for my weekly speed sessions and will be firmly reserved for race day at my next half-marathon in the spring.

The takeaway? Having the right trainer for each type of run – miles that tick boxes, trails that test your balance or speed that test your VO2 Max – doesn’t just improve performance, it makes running more enjoyable. And when running feels fun, you’re far more likely to keep lacing up.

Of all Apple’s tablets, I’ve always had a soft spot for the iPad mini. Its compact size is perfect for popping in a bag and carrying around, offering a slightly bigger screen than your iPhone when you need it.

The most recent iPad mini to grace us with its presence came several years after its predecessor, with the iPad mini (A17 Pro) arriving in October 2024 – a mere three years after the iPad mini 6. Rumours now point to its successor, which should arrive after a much shorter gap.

And it could run on a processor that hasn’t even been announced yet.

What's the latest news on the next iPad mini?

Based on a report on MacRumours, a tipster claims to have discovered Apple codenames in a macOS kernel debug kit, and these point towards the next iPad mini running on the A20 Pro chip.

The kit is said to have accidentally released on Apple’s website earlier this year before it was pulled, but the tipster is said to be confident in their analysis.

Previous reports had suggested the next iPad mini would be powered by the A19 Pro chip, which arrived on the iPhone 17 Pro. While the A20 Pro chip is rumoured for the iPhone 18 Pro models that aren’t due until September 2026. It comes with suggestions that the processor will be fabricated with TSMC’s advanced 2nm process and will therefore be quite a step up for the next iPad mini too.

Of course, things could still change. If it does run on the A20 Pro chip, whilst also offering an OLED display as earlier rumours have suggested, it would almost make the unannounced iPhone Fold redundant before it’s even been released.

Other rumours surrounding the next iPad mini suggest it will also come with a redesigned speaker system with vibration technology, and it’s also been claimed it could have a water-resistant design too.

I already said it was my favourite iPad, but if all these rumours come to fruition, the next iPad mini could be my favourite Apple device, period.

While a suitable best tent is clearly the most vital ingredient for a relaxed night under the stars, few other camping items influence comfort, warmth and overall trip success quite so directly as the humble best sleeping bag.

Whether your priorities lean toward lightweight backpacking efficiency, spacious car-camping comfort or premium-level glamping luxury, sleeping bag manufacturers have got you covered with an eclectic range of bags from down-filled to synthetic, and at vastly different price points.

With this in mind, I’ve alighted on three sterling sleeping bags that have really impressed me in 2025 – bags that combine smart design, dependable performance and thoughtful features to help make your next camping trip go with a swing.

My favourite sleeping bags of 2025

Best overall

Rab Solar Ultra 2

Although it’s been on the market for a while, the T3 Platinum-awarded Rab Solar Ultra 2 is a thoroughly well designed three-season synthetic sleeping bag that delivers reliable warmth at an amazingly low price, at least for a Rab product.

Built around the Derbyshire-based company’s Stratus recycled insulation, TILT (Thermo Ionic Lining Technology) heat-reflective lining and 20D Atmos recycled polyester shell, the three-season Solar Ultra 2 offers an impressive 38gsm of loft for a synthetic bag, maintaining excellent thermal performance even in damp conditions.

At 1,140g, the Solar Ultra 2 isn’t the lightest option on the market and it doesn’t pack away as small as a down-equivalent model, but in our tests it has provided a consistent level of warmth across varied conditions, especially in the UK where nights can become quite chilly and damp.

I’m not a massive fan of tightly-tapered mummy-shaped sleeping bags but this one provides a little more room at the elbows and in the foot well, allowing for some extra wriggle room. I’m especially enamoured of this model’s adjustable hood, heat-trapping neck baffle, 3/4 length main zip with anti-snag zip insert and, uniquely, the inclusion of a mobile phone-cum-battery pocket that saves rummaging around in the dark.

If you’re in the market for a keenly-priced, eco-friendly and moisture-resistant synthetic bag for your spring to autumn adventures, the Rab Solar Ultra 2 remains my top choice for 2025.

Read our full review of the Rab Solar Ultra 2

Best for car camping

Quechua Arpenaz 0˚ Ultim Comfort

The Quechua Arpenaz 0° Ultim Comfort cotton sleeping bag from Decathlon is a decidedly non-technical choice in a market dominated by lightweight synthetics – and that’s one reason why I like it so much.

For starters, its rectangular design (225 x 80cm) and plush organic cotton lining create a duvet-like experience that feels so much more homely than a performance-oriented mummy-style bag. And because it’s rectangular, there’s plenty of leg room and internal space to stretch, sprawl or shift positions without feeling hemmed in.

Technically, this bag is built for temperate three-season use around 0°C and comes with 350gm polyester wadding for very decent insulation in periods like early spring and late autumn. I also love the sewn-in insulated neck warmers that pull out from recesses in the hood to lie in a criss-cross pattern across the neck area, and the fact that you can unzip the entire bag for use as a duvet or join it to another single to create a full-sized double.

This model excels in scenarios like car camping, glamping and laid-back outdoor nights where comfort trumps pure performance and you don’t have to worry about pack size and weight (in this instance 2.8 kilos).

However, you should bear in mind that the Arpenaz’s cotton interior, while soft and breathable, absorbs moisture more readily than synthetic fabric so it can initially feel a mite damp in very humid conditions.

Read my full review of the Quechua Arpenaz 0° Ultim Comfort

Best 3-season backpacker

Big Agnes Fly Creek UL 25˚

This adorable high-performance down-filled option from Colorado-based Big Agnes is one of the lightest and smallest sleeping bags I’ve ever seen – just 785g in weight and a tiny 25 x 20cm when stuffed into its moisture-resistant sack. Honestly, pulling it out of its sack is like one of those magic tricks – it just keeps on coming – and it’s just as seemingly impossible when stuffing it all back in which, incidentally, is performed with surprising ease. When laid, out it gradually expands into a voluminous cloud of cosy-giving warmth.

Constructed using 100% DownTek with an impressive 850 fill power, the Fly Creek’s amazing insulation is treated to resist moisture, maintaining its huge loft even in damp conditions and temperatures as low as -4˚C (25˚F). The diamond-quilted shell itself is made from ultra-light, recycled NetPlus ripstop nylon and finished with a durable water-repellent coating to further reduce moisture absorption. And unlike most technical bags, this one comes with a half-length, front-mounted YKK zip which I have found easier to use than the side-zip variety.

The Fly Creek regular measures 152cm in length, with a girth of 137cm and a narrow foot box of 92cm. If this seems a little too measly for you, consider the long version which has more length (160cm), a wider girth (145cm) and a slightly wider foot box (99cm).

If you’re a keen backpacker, bikepacker or mountain trekker who values extremely low weight and small pack size without compromising on outright warmth, the Big Agnes Fly Creek UL 25° is a sterling choice and my favourite down option for 2025. Full review incoming!

Buying advice

Choosing the right sleeping bag depends on how, where and when you plan to use it. For backpacking, weight and packability are the top priorities, so look for lightweight down or advanced synthetic insulation, a tapered mummy shape to maximise thermal efficiency and a temperature rating that matches the coldest nights you expect. High fill-power goose down offers extra reassurance in cold weather at the expense of being more affected by damp conditions. But on the plus side, down-filled bags are much smaller and lighter to pack.

For car camping, comfort and space matter far more than weight and pack size, so choose a wider rectangular bag with thicker insulation and practical features like internal pockets, draft tubes for the neck area and, if necessary, the ability to zip two bags together.

If glamping, consider cotton, flannel or quilt-style designs that mimic your home bedding, along with generous sizing and attractive fabrics. Since portability isn’t an issue, you can prioritise warmth, texture and overall cosiness to elevate the experience. Perhaps even consider packing your duvet and a cotton sheet for the ultimate in glamping luxury.

Trail running shoes are like football kits: every brand rushes to release a couple of new designs each season, to stay relevant and boost sales, but only a few truly offer anything beyond a new colour combination.

I spend a large percentage of my time trail-testing these new shoes, and I always ensure I get a substantial amount of miles on the clock and properly put them through their paces in a range of conditions before I write my reviews.

There have been some interesting new entries this year, including Keen Seek, the company's inaugural running shoe. My favourite all-round everyday running shoes for 2026 are the excellent (but misleadingly named) Topo Athletic MTN Racer 4. Here are my top three trail shoes for specific conditions.

Hoka Mafate 5

The latest iteration of the Mafate family from monster midsole specialists Hoka feels like the most complete and evolved running shoe I have ever ventured out on the trails in. From the Vibram Megagrip outsole, armed with 5mm Traction Lug studs, through to the Warp knit upper, which is given structure and strength by the TPU cage, this shoe offers excellent protection and performance on highly technical trails such as I encounter on Dartmoor and Exmoor, but doesn’t feel over-the-top even when I’m wearing it on my beach-based parkrun pootles.

The Metarocker profile of the shoe keeps your cadence positive, the sockliner prevents grit and debris from getting into the chassis, and there are gaiter attachment points if you want to really get serious.

But, of course, much of the magic happens in the dual-density midsole, designed to cushion the impact of repeated foot strikes over long distances and armed with a supercritical foam top layer to keep your feet happy regardless of how far you run in them.

Tipping the scales at 332g it’s not the lightest shoe, and the heel to toe drop is 8mm, which might feel a bit much for some trail runners, but I found them to be very stable and confidence inspiring on all kinds of terrain and across a range of distances.

Inov8 TrailTalon

There are three versions of the TrailTalon: the standard one (which I've been testing), a more hardcore, heavy and waterproof GTX design (only required for mid-winter, in my opinion), and a 'Speed' version, with a lighter, more aggressive design and a smaller (4mm) drop – ideal for race day.

I spent much of the year running around the hills, through the woods and across the cliffs and beaches of Southwest England in the standard TrailTalon, which features more cushioning than the others, and is consequently considerably more comfortable.

This shoe offers plenty of suspension and rebound, courtesy of the EVO foam Powerflow Pro midsole (which is 18mm thick at the heel and 12mm at the toe end), complemented by Inov8's Boomerang footbeds, made with hundreds of tiny TPU beads, which compress and expand as your feet fall and rise, supplying as much as 40% energy return.

There is a very supportive heel cradle built into this shoe, too, but being an Inov8 hoof, the main feature of the TrailTalon is the outsole, which snarls with 7mm cleats, made with an ultra-tough graphene rubber compound and arranged in a multidirectional pattern to provide Rottweiler-like grip.

The protection levels on this shoe aren’t brilliant (there’s no rand to speak of, and only a small toe cap), but for traction, braking control and staying on your feet in wet and muddy conditions, they’re excellent.

Salomon Ultra Glide 3

While it won’t come as much of a surprise to see Hoka produce the bounciest shoe of the year, and Inov8 to create the most grippy trail flipper, I was shocked to discover myself nominating a Salomon shoe for reasons of comfort. Usually I find designs by this performance-orientated brand to be too tight across the ball of the foot and in the toebox, but the Ultra Glide 3 is completely different. In fact, this genuinely innovative shoe could have been a contender for any of the criteria used here, with its towering EVA-based ‘energy’ foam midsole stack (which starts at 41mm above the heel and drops 6mm towards your toes) and the funky design of the All-Terrain Contagrip outsole (with its wavy profile and arrow-shaped studs), but the levels of comfort inside the upper are especially superb.

Built around a sturdy but flexible TPU skeleton, the chassis is both highly breathable, thanks to the use of mesh, but also well-padded in all the right places to protect and support vulnerable areas like the Achilles.

The Quicklace system is handy (enabling a firm fit and cutting out the chances of your laces coming undone mid-run), and there is plenty of wriggle room for toes to spread (which I like), but the foot hold is also secure and confidence-inspiring.

My only quibbles are a lack of trail feedback and the fact that the tongue isn’t fully integrated, which can let some grit in. But they really do feel like slippers on your feet, while providing top-level performance.

Good to know

Trail-running shoes vary enormously, with various designs skewed towards particular conditions and the personal preferences of the people purchasing them.

If you’re new to trail running, it’s best to opt for a mid-range shoe that offers some cushioning (but not a huge stack), a relatively neutral drop (6–8mm) and an outsole that is grippy, without being super aggressive, until you find your feet and discover what you really like (and hate).

All of the shoes mentioned here are excellent and will serve you well, but they are subjective choices – models like the Inov-8 Trailfly G270 V2 and the Saucony Peregrine 14s are an excellent choice for everyone.

The moment Marshall first announced it was making soundbars, I started to assume that it would be after Sonos' lunch sooner rather than later. Sure enough, although the top-of-the-line Heston 120 was the first launch, it didn't take long for Marshall to release the Heston 60, which seems directly aimed at competing with the Beam.

I'm lucky enough to have used both the Heston 60 and the Sonos Beam (Gen 2) in recent weeks, swapping back and forth to compare them both. Which is best, though? Well, keep reading to find out my detailed thoughts.

Sonos Beam (Gen 2) vs Marshall Heston 60: Design and features

These two soundbars come from very different directions in terms of aesthetics. Sonos iterated on its first-gen Beam, removing the cloth mesh and going for a very modern look, especially in the white version I have.

The Beam (Gen 2) is basically plastic all over, albeit sturdy, heavy-duty stuff, and has touch controls on its top face in case you need them. Its inputs are round at the back, and the soundbar is impressively compact, making it easy to fit on even smaller stands.

Marshall's is a little bigger, but also very different to look at. It summons the ghosts of bygone Marshall amps, with a lovely fabric finish and brassy control buttons. You can also arrange it in two different ways, depending on whether you're wall-mounting it or leaving it on a surface, which is cool.

In terms of features, both soundbars have multiple sound modes to choose from, including bass-dampening night modes and dialogue-boosting voice ones. Marshall adds a welcome feature by letting you tune how intense the effects of each mode feel, but Sonos punches back by letting you turn them both on at once, making for just about a draw.

Where Sonos pulls away, though, is in how modular the Beam (Gen 2) can be. You can add a variety of wireless Sonos speakers to it as surrounds, something the Heston 60 doesn't allow at all right now. You also have more multi-room flexibility with the Beam, in case you have other Sonos speakers in other rooms.

Sonos Beam (Gen 2) vs Marshall Heston 60: Sound and ease of use

If you leave the Sonos Beam (Gen 2) and the Marshall Heston 60 on their own to handle TV audio without any additional hardware, there really isn't much to pick between them in sound terms.

Both are excellent, with Dolby Atmos compatibility to ensure that they can handle the full range of surround sound (in theory). Because of its design, though, the Heston 60 definitely has an advantage when it comes to the verticality of its soundstage, since it has upfiring drivers that the Beam (Gen 2) can't quite match.

That's nitpicking, though, and you have to listen quite hard to discern the difference. For most people, the main contrast will come in the form of a slightly more precise sound from Sonos, compared with some added warmth from Marshall. That means taste plays a big role here.

For one thing, both soundbars let you tune and edit their EQ settings, meaning you can change things to your tastes anyways. For me, though, this means that a lot of my judgment between the two is about ease of use.

Here, I think Sonos scores a clear win, with an app that I found more responsive and slick (as it continues its rebirth following a shambolic launch). I'm more reliably able to find the settings I want quickly, and the fact that I can control a bunch of other speakers easily, too, makes it more powerful.

It's also freer of hitches. In Sonos' app, I never suffer drop-outs in audio while swapping between settings, while Marshall's routinely made me miss a second or two of audio, which is rewinding territory when you're watching something as dialogue-dense as The Wire.

Marshall's app is no problem, to be clear, but it's just not as responsive as the best in the business. Another more significant gripe is that the Heston 60 doesn't auto-switch between inputs (or at least it didn't for me). That's a huge quality of life feature that Sonos' soundbar nails, ensuring you actually don't need to reach for the app or its buttons nearly as often.

Sonos Beam (Gen 2) vs Marshall Heston 60: Verdict

I'm hoping it's clear from everything I've written so far that there's no wrong choice between the Heston 60 and the Beam (Gen 2). Both sound terrific and will provide massive upgrades over the sound that your TV might otherwise be outputting.

That said, I can't pretend I don't have a favourite, and therefore a winner: the Sonos Beam (Gen 2). I think it shows the polish that more experience in the market brings, and the fact that you can far more easily expand on it down the line seals the deal. It's slicker to use, with basically the same compatibility, and I think it can more easily fit into most aesthetics, too.

Price is a question, too, since the Beam (Gen 2) is older – it gets more frequent discounts and sales, although those will doubtless start to appear for the Heston 60 in 2026, too. Right now, you can get the Beam for 24% off in the UK, for instance, which opens up a big value gap that even further underlines my choice.

When the DJI Osmo Action 5 Pro launched in late 2024, it positioned itself as the best action camera from the brand yet, a compact, magnetic, creator-friendly device with a large 1/1.3-inch sensor, excellent stabilisation and reliable 4K performance. It became a go-to option for travellers, cyclists, vloggers and anyone who wanted premium image quality without carrying a full camera rig.

Fast-forward 14 months, and the company has unveiled the DJI Osmo Action 6, a noticeably more ambitious successor. The new model is the world’s first action camera with a variable aperture, and it has a larger 1/1.1-inch sensor with up to 13.5 stops of dynamic range, improved cold-weather endurance, smarter audio, faster charging, 50GB of internal storage and a brand-new 4K Custom Mode designed for multi-platform creators.

It also launches at a slightly higher price than the Action 5 Pro did at release. So, is the Action 6 a meaningful upgrade, or is the 5 Pro still worth hanging on to? Let’s break down every key change in DJI’s most advanced compact cameras to date.

DJI Osmo Action 6 vs Action 5 Pro

Price and value for money

At launch, the DJI Osmo Action 5 Pro entered the market as a premium but accessible flagship, priced at around £329 in the UK, €379 in Europe, $349 in the US and approximately AU$599 in Australia.

Fast-forward to now, and the Action 5 Pro is being sold for significantly less than its original RRP. In the UK, it regularly dips to £250–£270, marking a substantial saving over launch and reshaping the conversation around its value.

Equivalent discounts can be found in other regions, with EU prices falling well below the €300 mark, US pricing often landing around $299, and Australian stock coming in notably under AU$500 depending on retailer and availability.

The Osmo Action 6 arrives with more or less the same RRP. The Standard Combo is set at £329 in the UK, €379 in Europe, and expected to land around $379 in the US (if it ever launches there) and AU$649–699 in Australia. Its pricing keeps it in the upper mid-range of the action camera market.

When considered purely on price, the Action 5 Pro is undeniably cheaper and delivers remarkable value, especially at its current reduced street prices. But when factoring in the leap in capability, longevity, and creative flexibility, the Action 6 offers more per pound (per dollar, per euro) spent, particularly for those who care about image quality and future-proofing.

Both cameras are available via DJI's online store, as well as third-party retailers.

Winner: Tie. The Osmo Action 6 provides better long-term value thanks to its far broader feature upgrade, but for the reduced price, the Action 5 Pro is one of the best value-for-money action cameras right now.

Design and build quality

The DJI Osmo Action 5 Pro and Osmo Action 6 share a familiar design language. The Action 5 Pro has a compact, durable chassis weighing 146g, waterproofing to 20 metres without a case (and 60 metres with one), and dual HDR touchscreens with excellent brightness and colour accuracy.

Its front 1.46-inch display and larger 2.5-inch rear screen are both P3-wide-gamut panels capable of hitting up to 1,000 nits peak – no wonder the Action 6 uses the exact same screen setup. The physical quality of the Action 5 Pro feels premium, solid in hand and when mounted onto helmets or bikes.

On the other hand, the Osmo Action 6 is slightly heavier at 149 g but has roughly the same physical dimensions (72.8 × 47.2 × 33.1 mm), maintaining the compact footprint of its predecessor while packing in more capability.

DJI has given the new camera a more thermally efficient internal architecture, allowing it to sustain higher frame rates for longer without heat throttling, a subtle but important improvement for anyone shooting 4K or using slow-motion modes.

Waterproofing remains just as strong, with an IP68 rating enabling 20-metre dives without a case. However, the Action 6 adds smarter underwater capabilities thanks to its built-in colour-temperature sensor and dedicated dive data logging. This makes underwater footage look more natural straight out of the camera.

The cold-weather improvements are also significant, with the Action 6 rated for reliable operation down to –20°C, a noticeable step up from older models and a major advantage for skiers, mountaineers and winter trail riders.

The Action 6 has an updated magnetic mount, allowing you to switch directions without moving the mount itself. The newer model also benefits from accessory compatibility with new add-ons such as the FOV Boost Lens and Macro Lens, both designed to attach to the updated front plate.

Ultimately, both cameras are tough, dependable and well thought out. But the Osmo Action 6 builds on the 5 Pro’s foundation with improved thermal performance, cold-weather resilience, expanded accessory compatibility and smarter underwater imaging.

Winner: the Osmo Action 6 is a stronger, more refined and more adventure-ready evolution of the Action 5 Pro.

Features

The DJI Osmo Action 5 Pro arrived on the scene in 2024 with one of the strongest feature sets of any compact action camera. Its 1/1.3-inch CMOS sensor delivers detailed, dynamic footage, while its 155-degree ultrawide lens maintains impressive clarity.

The camera offers 4K recording at up to 120 fps in 4:3, strong low-light performance through SuperNight mode, and slow-motion performance that holds up even in demanding conditions. It includes Hyperlapse, Timelapse and Subject Tracking.

Importantly, the Action 5 Pro also features a colour-temperature sensor built into the front plate, enabling better underwater colour reproduction straight out of the camera. And crucially, it uses the same stabilisation algorithms later carried over into the Action 6: RockSteady 3.0, RockSteady 3.0+, HorizonBalancing and HorizonSteady.

The Osmo Action 6’s most notable upgrade is its variable aperture system, the first of its kind on an action camera, which lets you dynamically switch between f/2.0 and f/4.0. This enables stronger low-light performance and the option for creative shallow depth-of-field effects when using the Macro Lens accessory (although the minimal focusing distance is 20cm, so don’t expect miracles).

The new 1/1.1-inch square sensor expands dynamic range to a claimed 13.5 stops, improving highlight retention and shadow detail. DJI’s new 4K Custom Mode also debuts here, letting users shoot once and crop later into vertical, horizontal or square formats, a major workflow advantage for multi-platform creators.

While the Action 5 Pro already offered strong stabilisation, the Action 6 refines subject tracking behaviour and introduces gesture control (ala Insta360 Ace Pro 2), making hands-free operation far easier. The audio system is also expanded, with support for dual direct DJI mic transmitters without needing a receiver, perfect for interviews, two-person vlogs or capturing ambient sound alongside narration.

The Action 5 Pro remains one of the most capable action cameras of its generation, but the Action 6 brings several first-time features, superior sensor technology and a more advanced creator ecosystem.

Winner: Osmo Action 6, thanks to its variable aperture, upgraded sensor and multi-platform shooting flexibility.

Battery life and charging

The Action 5 Pro uses a 1,950 mAh battery rated for up to 240 minutes of recording in controlled conditions when shooting at 1080p/24 fps. In general use, especially in higher resolutions like 4K/60 or 4K/120, runtimes drop, but the camera remains reliable for extended sessions.

Charging the Action 5 Pro via USB-C is reasonably quick, though not particularly fast by current standards. Most users will typically carry one or two spare batteries to comfortably cover a day of mixed shooting.

The Osmo Action 6 retains a 1,950 mAh Extreme Battery, but its improved power efficiency, enhanced thermal management and updated processing pipeline allow it to stretch runtimes further.

DJI claims up to four hours of continuous shooting in 1080p/24, which matches the Action 5 Pro’s numbers on paper but feels more achievable in real-world use thanks to reduced overheating and better control of internal temperatures.

The biggest upgrade is charging speed: the Action 6 can fast-charge to 80% in around 22 minutes, which is a substantial improvement for creators who need to get back out the door quickly.

While the Action 5 Pro delivers solid longevity and dependable cold-weather behaviour, the Osmo Action 6’s faster charging, more efficient operation and superior thermal stability give it a noticeable advantage for demanding creators.

Winner: Tie. The Osmo Action 6 introduces some updates, most notably faster charging speeds, but overall, both cameras last more than long enough on a single charge.

Storage and connectivity

The Action 5 Pro includes 64GB of internal storage, with around 47GB usable, which is super practical for shooting when you forget a microSD card or need overflow space during longer sessions.

It supports microSD cards up to 1TB, and its combination of Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.1 enables quick, reliable wireless transfers. Connectivity is otherwise straightforward: you have standard USB-C for data and charging, plus support for external microphones via compatible adapters.

The Osmo Action 6 has 50GB of internal storage, still enough for 4K recording when shooting without a card. Where the Action 6 clearly pulls ahead is audio and wireless integration: it supports direct connection to two DJI mic transmitters without a receiver, making it a stronger choice for interviews, moto vlogging, travel content and multi-person recordings.

Winner: Tie. The Action 6 introduces some improvements, but the Action 5 Pro is still more than capable enough in most use cases.

Verdict

The DJI Osmo Action 6 is a genuinely more capable camera in almost every meaningful area. The introduction of a variable aperture opens up creative possibilities that simply didn’t exist on any action camera before it.

The new 1/1.1-inch sensor delivers richer dynamic range, cleaner shadows and more natural highlight roll-off. Faster charging, more reliable cold-weather behaviour and direct dual-mic support all contribute to a camera that feels dramatically more versatile, more polished and more “pro-ready” than its predecessor.

However, the Osmo Action 5 Pro remains far from obsolete. Its price drop alone makes it one of the best value-for-money action cameras available today. Its image quality is still excellent, its stabilisation performance holds up against newer models, and its 47GB of usable internal storage is a rare convenience.

For most non-professional users, including travellers, commuters, cyclists and vloggers who want a dependable camera without stretching their budget, the Action 5 Pro remains an incredibly sensible buy. In day-to-day use, it still delivers the core DJI experience: reliable footage, flexible shooting modes, strong stabilisation and a compact, rugged build.

For creators who want the very best image quality, regularly shoot in mixed lighting, need a single clip to serve multiple platforms, or rely heavily on wireless audio, the Action 6 is unquestionably worth the upgrade. For everyone else, especially those buying their first DJI model, the Action 5 Pro at its current pricing is still an exceptional piece of kit.

Alternatively, beginner users should also consider the DJI Nano, or a compact action cam from one of the rivals, such as the Insta360 Go 3S or the latest GoPro Hero.

When it comes to the best video doorbells, models from the Amazon-owned Ring are likely to come into the conversation at some point – but even within the Ring range, you've got a ton of different devices to pick from, with a variety of pros and cons attached.

Here, we're going to guide you through a Plus vs Pro comparison for the Ring range – as comparing the various options can be somewhat confusing. Ring has launched multiple models down the years, with a naming approach that hasn't always been consistent.

Amazon tends to keep older models on sale as well, which makes it even harder to find the right Ring model for you. By the time you've finished this guide though, you should have a clear idea of what's what – so you can buy a new Ring video doorbell with confidence.

Ring video doorbells: what are the options?

The first Ring video doorbell with a Pro label attached was the Ring Video Doorbell Pro launched in 2016, Plus name made its debut in 2020 with the Ring Video Doorbell 3 Plus. Since then, we've seen multiple Plus and Pro models (plus models with other monikers attached), going right up to the present day.

As we've mentioned, older models are often kept on sale, so when you're browsing through doorbell listings do keep an eye on the year of release as well as everything else. This will help you avoid buying an older model when a newer model is available (unless you want to get an older model of course, to save some money).

In terms of latest models, the Pro models are a bit more advanced and expensive than the Plus models. Both are available in wired or battery powered versions, so you can decide if you want the wire-free convenience of a doorbell with a battery, or the benefit of not having to recharge your doorbell battery every few months.

Ring Video Doorbell Plus: price and availability

When it comes to the Plus line, the most recent wired option is the Ring Wired Video Doorbell Plus with Retinal 2K resolution, yours for £159.99 / $179.99 at the time of writing. As well as that 2K video, you've got radar-powered 3D Motion Detection, and 140-degree fields of view horizontally and vertically.

You get all the standard Ring features as well, including motion alerts, two-way audio, weather resistance, and night vision. These features are pretty much standard across the Plus and Pro models – as indeed are the choices of Ring subscriptions, which give you extras such as AI-powered descriptions of events.

Your other choice as far as the latest Plus models go is the Ring Battery Video Doorbell Plus for £129.99 / $149.99 – which, you've guessed it, works from battery power. Video resolution drops to 1536p, though the fields of view increase to 150-degrees horizontally and vertically. You get a less powerful, radar-free motion detection system here too, and a slightly older design.

Ring Video Doorbell Pro: price and availability

Again you've got a choice of wired or battery models: the Ring Wired Video Doorbell Pro will set you back £219.99 / $249.99 and offers Retinal 4K resolution for your video, the highest of any Ring camera. You'll also notice a slimmer, more compact design, which you might prefer over the larger look of the Plus models.

There's up to 10x enhanced zoom, also beating every other Ring model, and 140-degree fields of view horizontally and vertically. The same 3D Motion Detection feature as on the Ring Wired Video Doorbell Plus, powered by radar sensors, is available. Essentially, the only real differences from the Wired Video Doorbell Plus are the 4K resolution and the differences in the design.

Finally we have the Ring Battery Video Doorbell Pro, yours for £179.99 / $199.99, and actually using the old Plus-style design (try and keep up at the back) – presumably this model is next in line for a (4K?) update. You get 1536p video, 3D Motion Detection, and 150-degree fields of view horizontally and vertically. It's mainly the video resolution and the aesthetics that are different from the wired Pro, besides the battery power.

Plus vs Pro: Which should you buy?

Take a peek at our Ring video doorbell reviews – like the Ring Battery Video Doorbell Pro review – and you'll see these are all impressive bits of kit. In many ways, you can't go wrong whichever Ring video doorbell you go for: pick the most expensive device you can afford and you're good to go.

Of the four models here, it's really the Ring Wired Video Doorbell Pro that stands out: it's the priciest, but it offers the highest 4K video resolution, and the most modern design. As for the other three, there's actually not that much to choose between them. The Plus wired model, for example, offers a slightly better resolution than the Pro battery model.

Even the cheapest Plus battery model has a decent 1536p resolution and 150-degree field of view in both directions – just no 3D Motion Detection. It's probably a good idea to decide if you want a wired doorbell or a battery doorbell first, and then compare the Plus and Pro models against each other.

The Insta360 GO Ultra is here, and while it may look like another small step in the GO series, it's actually a giant leap in performance.

With a bigger sensor, crisper 4K60 video, longer battery life, and a host of AI-powered tricks, the GO Ultra feels like a creative tool built for serious content makers.

But how does it stack up against the Insta360 GO 3S, which only launched a year ago and is still one of the most compact, fun-to-use action cameras around?

If you're torn between the two, or wondering if it's worth upgrading, you're in the right place. I’ve reviewed both models and lived with them in the real world. Here's how the GO Ultra and GO 3S compare across specs, shooting performance, battery life, and overall usability.

Insta360 GO Ultra vs GO 3S

Price and availability

The Insta360 GO Ultra launched in August 2025, priced at $449.99 / £389 / €429 for the Standard Bundle. It includes the camera, Action Pod, Magnet Pendant, Easy Clip, Safety Cord, USB-C cable, and a Lens Guard. The Creator Bundle ups the ante with a Mini Tripod 2.0, Quick Release Mount, and Pivot Stand for $499.99 / £429 / €479.

In comparison, the GO 3S debuted a year earlier in June 2024 at $400 / £350 (64GB version), and has since dropped to around $320 / £280. That makes it significantly more affordable, especially for newcomers to action cameras or those who don’t need the Ultra’s extra muscle.

Both are available at the Insta360 Store.

Winner: Insta360 GO 3S, which is the better deal for budget-conscious users – more than enough camera for most casual creators.

Design and durability

At a glance, the GO Ultra and GO 3S follow the same familiar format: a tiny camera that slots into a modular Action Pod with a flip-up screen. But look closer and you’ll spot some big changes to both the layout and the feel of the hardware.

The GO Ultra’s camera unit ditches the GO 3S’s pill-like design in favour of a squarer, flatter body. It’s noticeably heavier, weighing in at 53g compared to the GO 3S’s 39g, but that added bulk comes with serious internal upgrades, including a larger sensor, a new ambient light sensor, and removable microSD storage.

There are two orientation LEDs on the Go Ultra – one on the front and one on the top – to help you quickly figure out how it’s positioned. However, it would’ve been helpful if Insta360 had added more explicit visual cues or printed indicators for vertical or horizontal shooting.

The Action Pod has also grown, both in size and screen real estate. It now features a 2.5-inch flip-up touchscreen, a welcome upgrade from the 2.2-inch display on the GO 3S, and the overall layout has been tweaked.

The record button, power button, and mic port have all been shifted slightly to make room for a DSLR-style grip on the right-hand side, which gives the pod a more substantial, camcorder-like feel in the hand.

Another key change is the mounting system: where the GO 3S clipped in from the sides, the GO Ultra locks in from the bottom, so older mounts aren’t compatible.

Even the accessories have had a rethink. The included pendant now supports an adjustable tilt, which makes POV footage easier to frame, especially if you're wearing it around your neck. The Flexi Strap and Easy Clip Headband have also been updated to stay more secure during high-movement activities.

Winner: Insta360 GO Ultra. It’s heavier and a little chunkier, but the GO Ultra is a clear step up in build quality, ergonomics, and usability.

Image quality

The GO Ultra marks a real step up in visual fidelity, thanks in large part to its new 1/1.28-inch sensor, a noticeable jump from the 1/2.3-inch sensor found in the GO 3S. That extra sensor size makes a difference. Footage looks crisper, dynamic range is better, and low-light performance is a huge improvement, particularly in PureVideo mode, which uses AI to reduce noise and boost clarity in darker environments.

Still photos also have had a big glow-up. The GO Ultra can now shoot up to 50MP stills, compared to the GO 3S’s 9MP or 12.5MP options. That means more flexibility for cropping, better detail in landscapes, and a noticeable difference when viewing on larger screens. Active HDR has also been refined, improving contrast and colour in tricky lighting conditions, ideal for sunset vlogs, shaded trails, or bright city scenes.

Another major upgrade is frame rate. The GO Ultra can record 4K at 60fps, making motion smoother and more immersive, while the GO 3S tops out at 4K30. For fast action, it’s a difference you can feel. There’s also 2x 4K clarity zoom on the Ultra, letting you punch in without destroying image quality, a feature the GO 3S doesn’t offer.

Winner: Insta360 GO Ultra. With a larger sensor, higher frame rates, PureVideo and HDR upgrades, and 50MP stills, the GO Ultra is in a different class to its predecessor.

Features and modes

Insta360’s GO cameras have always punched above their weight when it comes to creative features, and the GO Ultra continues that trend with an even broader toolkit aimed squarely at content creators.

The GO 3S is no slouch, either. It offers all the Insta360 classics like FreeFrame video (which lets you reframe footage after shooting), TimeShift, Timelapse, Slow Motion, and HDR Photo modes. It’s more than enough for everyday use, especially for quick vlogs, short-form content, and first-person footage.

The GO Ultra builds on the foundations laid by its predecessor with more refined and more powerful tools. Most notably, it introduces PureVideo, an AI-enhanced low-light video mode that dramatically improves clarity and brightness in dark settings.

It also supports 4K Active HDR, which has been reworked to handle harsh lighting transitions and high-contrast scenes with less clipping and more detail. Portrait filters and smart skin-tone enhancements, borrowed from Insta360’s Ace Pro series, make it easier to get polished footage straight out of the camera.

There's also a noticeable push toward family-focused and creator-centric features. Toddler Titan Mode, for example, is designed for capturing close-up expressions with a micro lens and hat clip, while the new Family Moments feature in the app uses AI to automatically compile highlights of your week.

The GO Ultra also supports external Bluetooth microphones like DJI Mic 2 and even Apple AirPods Pro 2, and includes Apple Find My integration and a new anti-loss safety cord, features not found on the GO 3S.

Winner: Insta360 GO Ultra. Both cameras are packed with features, but the GO Ultra unlocks a new tier of creative control and flexibility.

Battery life and charging

Battery life has always been a sticking point for GO users, especially for those trying to film more than just short bursts of content. With the GO Ultra, Insta360 finally addresses that in a big way, and the difference is night and day.

The standalone GO Ultra camera lasts up to 70 minutes on a full charge, compared to the GO 3S’s 38 minutes. When paired with the Action Pod, the GO Ultra stretches that to a hefty 200 minutes, while the GO 3S tops out at 140 minutes.

Better still, the GO Ultra can reach 80% in just 12 minutes when charging the camera on its own, and about 18 minutes with the Action Pod. In contrast, the GO 3S needs 23 minutes for the camera and a much longer 47 minutes when charging with the pod.

There are still some caveats. Like most action cams, the GO Ultra runs warm when recording long clips in high resolutions (4K60, for example), and heat can affect overall battery performance in those conditions. Still, even with occasional warmth, the improvements in runtime and charge speed are hard to ignore.

Winner: Insta360 GO Ultra. Double the runtime, half the charging time. It’s a clear win for the Ultra.

Verdict

The GO 3S is still a fantastic little camera. It’s lightweight, relatively affordable, and packed with enough features to satisfy casual creators and everyday adventurers. If you already own one and use it for short POV clips or quick edits, there’s not a huge reason to upgrade; it still does the job, and does it well.

But the GO Ultra is a different beast. It’s heavier and more expensive, yes, but it earns that price tag with genuine upgrades across the board: longer battery life, faster charging, a better screen, swappable storage, more refined video modes, and noticeably improved image quality.

It feels like Insta360 is finally positioning the GO series as a serious creative tool: not just a quirky wearable cam, but a modular rig you can build into your content workflow.

Insta360 has a habit of releasing cameras quickly, and the GO Ultra might feel like it’s arriving hot on the heels of the GO 3S, but unlike some rapid-fire updates, this one brings meaningful changes that push the category forward.

Overall winner: Insta360 GO Ultra. This is the most capable, creator-focused GO camera Insta360 has made. Period.

I was always interested in the appeal of the best robot vacuums, much more so than the generic models that didn’t offer much in the way of additional features and functions. That’s why I decided to focus on iRobot, eufy and Dreame when searching for my own model a while back. I’ve already reviewed quite a lot of robot vacuums, but it’s these three brands that have continued to hit the spot as far as I’m concerned.

While a basic robot vacuum will most likely get the job done, spending a little more on a notable brand like iRobot, eufy or Dreame will ensure that you get a better package overall. For example, there’s the dependability and ease of use that comes from an iRobot model. Meanwhile, eufy is well-known for its clever tech features and mopping capabilities. However, Dreame has some mighty robot vacuums in its product portfolio too.

So, is there really a best brand in this trio of vacuuming heavyweights?

What does a robot vacuum need to do?

I guess that’s the first thing to consider if you’re planning on buying one of the best robot vacuums. Personally speaking, I’m always on the lookout for a robot vacuum that can handle hard wooden floors. That’s where any robot vacuum brands, including iRobot, eufy and Dreame excel. Anyone needing quick and easy cleaning of wood, vinyl or concrete flooring will find these appliances are perfect for the job.

In my experience, little and often is the key to getting the best from any robot vacuum, especially as most models often have fairly small collection bins. However, buy one of the more premium models and they’ll usually have an automatic emptying feature that disposes of the waste from the robot vacuum unit into the main docking station where the unit is regularly recharged.

While I find robot vacuums are best suited to hard floors, I’ve also had successful cleaning results on rugs and carpets too. Again, the higher specification models with higher suction rates and anti-tangle rollers are the ones to go for here. Also central to getting the job done is to check just how good the accompanying app is. The app software allows users to map the layout of their floor areas, and many of the latest robot vacuums have got this down to a fine art. Once mapped, the robot vacuum can be left to its own devices depending on how you’ve set up its cleaning schedule. Easy.

Another key feature to consider is mopping capability. This adds on the ability to wash over hard surfaces using on board cleaning rotors that gently work their way across the floor using a mild mopping action. Robot vacuums aren’t designed to take on anything too messy or mucky, but for they are perfect for tiled surfaces and some wood floors too. Caution needs to be taken if your wood floors are susceptible to moisture, however. Nevertheless, mopping functionality adds a lot of extra appeal for me.

iRobot vs eufy vs Dreame: What are my options?

Well, when I reviewed the iRobot Roomba Combo 10 Max robot vacuum cleaner a while back, I was really impressed with its capabilities. The downside was that it came with a premium price tag, although the great thing about a very competitive robot vacuum marketplace is that prices are frequently slashed. Shop around and it’s highly likely you’ll bag this beauty for a hefty discount and that makes it a very viable option.

As for eufy, the eufy E28 robot vacuum is a cracking appliance that really fits the bill if you’re on the lookout for even more versatility. Alongside packing in even more conventional robot vacuum features and functions, this very recent model comes with the added bonus of a FlexiOne Portable Deep Cleaner. This is a standalone accessory that can be used for areas that need more intensive cleaning. It’s also great for lifting out fresh stains if a spillage has occurred.

Meanwhile, the Dreame X50 Ultra Complete robot vacuum is a fantastic option for anyone needing a little bit of extra cleaning magic. My review example was also finished, rather refreshingly, in white, which was a change from the standard issue black plastic finish of most rivals. However, the real highlights were in the feature set, with the main cleaning unit able to climb over obstacles up to 6cm. On top of that, the mopping system was exemplary, with the mops getting cleaned with hot water and dried too.

iRobot vs eufy vs Dreame: Which robot vacuum should I buy?

As an all-round solution, I think the latter appliance would get my vote when it comes to an iRobot versus eufy versus Dreame robot vacuum shootout. Of course, it very much depends on what you want your appliance to do and, also, the sort of floor coverings that dominate your home. They’re all good machines, but the Dreame does it for me.

The other bonus with all of these robot vacuums is that they can probably be purchased at a discount, which adds extra appeal just in case you’re not yet convinced about owning a hassle-free cleaning machine.

When Nothing finally unveiled the Headphone (1) earlier this summer, it became immediately obvious that it was aiming to disrupt a market that's been pretty stable for a long time – over-ear headphones. There are some huge names that have reigned in the space for ages, and few are bigger than Sony.

Its own newest headphones, the WH-1000XM6, were also released this summer, and that means you might be wondering which of the two is the better buy. The long-standing kings of the category? Or the new entrant that undercuts the competition? Well, I've used both for dozens of hours, making me ideally placed to walk you through which are the best headphones overall.

Sony WH-1000XM6 or Nothing Headphone (1): Price

I've already mentioned it, but let's return to the question of price, because it's completely central to the difference between these two sets of headphones. Sony's cans are super premium, and their price reflects that, sitting at a chunky £400, $449.99 or €450.

By contrast, Nothing has pitched the Headphone (1) just below this level, coming it a more wallet-friendly £299, $299 or €299. Let's be clear, that doesn't make them entry-level, but it can't be ignored that they're about a quarter cheaper than Sony's option.

As I'll cover, this probably all plays into a sense that you get what you pay for, but bear the price difference in mind as you compare the two headphone options.

Sony WH-1000XM6 or Nothing Headphone (1): Design

Getting straight into more detail, these headphones very obviously come from different attitudes to design. Nothing has gone all-out to make its Headphone (1) look unlike anything else on the market, where Sony has instead gone for the stealthy, low-key approach.

I'm a big fan of Nothing's work here, and I'm adamant that the Headphone (1) looks more crazy in images than it does on someone's head, but there's no getting around the fact that it's a louder look. They're still very comfortable, thankfully, but the squared-off design draws the eye a lot more.

Sony's headphones, by contrast, are similar to the XM5s that preceded them, and also score very highly on comfort. They're substantially lighter than Nothing's headphones, at 250g to Nothing's 329g, and that makes them airier to wear for long periods, which pulls them ahead.

The biggest change to the new XM6s' design is the return of a proper folding mechanism, which means their case is smaller and they can fold up even more tightly if you don't use it. Nothing, by contrast, doesn't let its headphones fold up much beyond rotating the cups, and its case is therefore larger (though very thin).

This all means that while Nothing's design is super impressive aesthetically, Sony comes out on top thanks to design work that ensures its headphones fit into daily life more seamlessly.

Sony WH-1000XM6 or Nothing Headphone (1): Features & sound quality

So, which set of headphones wins when you pit them head-to-head on features? Well, both offer one key headline feature – adaptive noise-cancelling. However, when you use them for extended periods of time, it becomes clear that Sony has the upper hand here.

Its noise-cancelling is much more pronounced on the XM6s, and does a noticeably better job of cocooning you while you're on public transport or in an environment with a lot of background noise. Nothing's version is very decent, but a clear step down overall.

That goes for actual raw sound quality, too. Sony's headphones sound about as good as you can get from anything less than an audiophile setup (with the constraints of wireless audio). They have great detail, a good amount of power when you want it, and retain impressive balance across all the registers.

Nothing's sound is very good for £100/$100 less, though – there's a reason why I gave both of these headphones five-star reviews in their respective write-ups. It's punchy, too, and really only falls down in the detail department compared to Sony.

On battery life, Nothing scores a hit. The Headphone (1) can last for up to 35 hours of listening time when ANC is turned on, which is almost identical to the Sony XM6's output. However, only Nothing lets you turn ANC off completely, and doing so lengthens your battery life to a massive 80 hours, making it really handy if you don't have access to a charger but want more time.

Nothing is also ahead on controls, thanks to a focus on buttons and a decision to ignore touch controls. It has a really great paddle button and roller button combo, which lets you intuitively scroll through tracks and adjust your volume, plus a customisable outside button to let you activate a setting you choose from a list.

Sony's on-earcup touch controls are about as good as any I've tried, but I still much prefer physical buttons, and even its power switch can be a little confusing, since you have to hold it down for a while to turn the headphones off when you're done with them.

Sony WH-1000XM6 or Nothing Headphone (1): Overall

So, Sony wins on design, comfort and sound quality, for my money – but that's not the whole story. Nothing has done some stirling work on its first ever over-ear headphones, and demonstrates that battery life and controls offer clear areas where Sony can improve in subsequent models.

Plus, of course, the Headphone (1) is substantially cheaper, making it a great option for someone with a lower budget who's keen to stand out a little, and values unique design decisions over conformity. For most, people, though, if they can afford Sony's more expensive headphones, they're the clear winners overall – and heartily recommended.

If you’re serious about training and want the most accurate heart-rate data possible, one of the best heart rate monitors is still the gold standard. Garmin makes some of the most sought-after models, but with three high-profile straps now in its lineup, the HRM Pro Plus, the HRM 600, and the HRM 200, it’s getting harder to tell which one is right for you.

On the surface, they all look fairly similar. But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear the brand is positioning each of these for different types of athletes. The HRM 200 is the most affordable of the three, designed for everyday heart-rate tracking across Bluetooth and Garmin’s own ANT+.

The HRM Pro Plus is a full-featured strap with onboard storage, running dynamics, and multi-device broadcasting. The HRM 600, meanwhile, modernises the HRM Pro Plus with a rechargeable battery, a removable pod, and app-based workout controls.

All three straps offer solid accuracy and comfort, but only one can be the best. Here’s how they stack up across design, performance, and price, and which one we’d recommend for different kinds of training.

Garmin HRM Pro Plus vs HRM 600 vs HRM 200

Price and value for money

At the time of writing, the HRM 200 is the most affordable of the three, retailing for around $99 / £89 / AU$149. The HRM Pro Plus sits in the middle at $129 / £119 / AU$189, while the HRM 600 commands a premium at $149 / £129 / AU$229. All three can be bought directly from Garmin US, Garmin UK and Garmin AU.

Given its stripped-back feature set, the HRM 200 is the budget-friendly choice for those who just want solid heart-rate data. The Pro Plus offers great value for runners or triathletes who want advanced metrics and offline storage.

But with the HRM 600 costing more than many beginner Garmin watches, its higher price tag might be harder to justify unless you really want its convenience features.

Winner: HRM 200

Design and build quality

All three chest straps are built to withstand serious training, but the HRM 200 and HRM 600 stand out with their fully detachable pods and washable straps, a thoughtful upgrade for anyone regularly sweating it out indoors or in warm weather.

An interchangeable strap isn’t a new concept – the entry-level Wahoo Trackr Heart Rate can do this, too – but it’s nice to see that Garmin is also making an effort to put its screenless wearables on a more sustainable path by allowing people to replace the strap.

Launched alongside the Garmin Forerunner 570, the HRM-600 is the most up–to–date chest strap for the brand. It’s the only one in the lot with a rechargeable battery, which athletes may or may not like. A rechargeable battery certainly means less digital waste, but its performance degrades over time.

The HRM 200 offers an alternative to this with its detachable pod and coin battery approach. Both the HRM 600 and HRM 200 have physical buttons, but their functionality differs slightly (see below). One way to distinguish the two is to look at the underside of the pod: the HRM 600 has a green underbelly, while the HRM 200 is all black.

The Pro Plus uses a fixed pod design, which is slightly more fiddly to clean and almost impossible to replace. There are no buttons to turn it on, either. The HRM Pro Plus uses a coin cell battery to power the pod, which can be replaced without tools (an upgrade from the Garmin HRM Pro).

Winner: HRM 600

Connectivity

All three Garmin heart rate straps use ANT+ and Bluetooth to broadcast data, but there are notable differences in how they handle connections and how much control you have over them.

The HRM Pro Plus keeps things simple. It broadcasts over ANT+ and Bluetooth simultaneously and supports multiple Bluetooth connections. However, it always uses unencrypted “open” connections, which can make it easier to pair with third-party apps and devices (like Zwift or Peloton), but also makes it less secure in busy environments.

The HRM 200 introduces more flexibility. It uses dual ANT+ and Bluetooth and allows users to switch between open and encrypted (secure) Bluetooth modes. This is done by using the strap’s built-in button, with an LED indicator showing which mode is active. This makes it a solid choice for both casual users and those training in shared spaces.

The HRM 600 builds on this with even more user control. Like the 200, it supports secure and open modes via Bluetooth and ANT+, but adds standalone recording and phone-based activity control via Garmin Connect. It’s also capable of multiple simultaneous Bluetooth connections, making it ideal for advanced setups with watches, apps, and training platforms all at once.

Winner: HRM 600

Performance and accuracy

When it comes to heart-rate tracking, all three straps perform exceptionally well (as expected). The HRM 200 provides accurate ECG-style data across ANT+ and Bluetooth and rarely suffers from dropouts.

The HRM Pro Plus and HRM 600 both build on that foundation, with identical accuracy and the added benefit of offline storage. That means they can track workouts without a connected watch or phone and sync them later, making it ideal for swimmers, football players, or gym-goers.

The HRM Pro Plus also tracks advanced running metrics, such as vertical oscillation and ground contact time, which the HRM 200 lacks. The HRM 600 shares these features and has proven just as accurate in testing.

The HRM 600 is also required to unlock two features on the Garmin Forerunner 970: Running Economy and Step Speed Loss. These are not game-changing features; instead, they add to the already impressive running feature list of the triathlon watch. I certainly wouldn’t buy the HRM 600 just so I can access these, but they add to the appeal of the already impressive chest strap even more.

Winner: Tie – HRM Pro Plus and HRM 600

Battery life and charging

Here’s where things diverge. The HRM 200 and Pro Plus both use a CR2032 coin cell battery, which typically lasts approximately one year. Better still, you don’t need a screwdriver to replace them, either, as is the case with earlier Garmin chest straps.

The HRM 600 utilises a rechargeable battery, providing up to 60 hours of active use between charges, which typically lasts for 2 months in real-world use. You can use a standard Garmin charger cable to top up the HRM 600.

Rechargeable batteries are more sustainable, but they come with a catch: if you forget to charge before a big race, you're out of luck. For many, the set-it-and-forget-it nature of the HRM 200 and Pro Plus remains the winner.

Winner: HRM Pro Plus, purely because it’s easier to remove its cover than the HRM 200.

Which Garmin heart-rate strap should you buy?

If you’re looking for a reliable, affordable chest strap and don’t need running dynamics or offline storage, the HRM 200 is your best bet. It’s simple, accurate, and ideal for most gym or cycling sessions.

For runners and triathletes who want the full feature set and are happy with coin cell batteries, the HRM Pro Plus is still Garmin’s most complete chest strap. It balances performance, features and value better than the others.

But if you want a fully modernised experience with a washable strap, rechargeable battery, and app control, the HRM 600 is a smart (if expensive) upgrade. Especially if you also happen to have a Forerunner 970 wrapped around your wrist.

Overall winner: HRM Pro Plus

Step foot in the gym and you'll likely spot two types of lifters: one busting out endless reps with lighter weights, and another lifting heavy loads for considerably less reps. Both have equally impressive physiques, but does one promise more muscle gains than the other?

While both training styles can lead to muscle growth and increased strength, they impact muscle development differently. Below, with the help of an expert, we explore whether one is better suited to your goals.

Do high reps and low weight build muscle?

Yes – you absolutely can build muscle by reaching for a lighter pair of dumbbells and performing more reps. “It can stimulate just as much muscle growth as fewer reps with heavy weights, provided you're working at a similar level of effort and pushing close to failure,” explains Steve Chambers, Personal Trainer and Gym Manager at Ultimate Performance.

By “pushing close to failure” Steve is referring to either muscular failure – when you can no longer push the weight for an extra rep – or technical failure – when you’re too fatigued to complete another rep without your technique breaking down.

“If you stop well short of failure – for example, you know you’ve got at least two to eight more reps in the tank on your final set – it simply will not be challenging enough to stimulate muscle growth,” he says.

"But, when lighter loads are taken to the point where you physically cannot perform another rep without your technique completely collapsing because the target muscle is on fire, then that can activate the same muscle-building process as heavier weights with lower reps.”

Using lighter loads and performing more reps also offers other benefits; it’s less taxing on your joints and nervous system – making recovery easier – and it can help you accumulate more volume, more quickly.

“For beginners or gym goers with very limited experience, moderate to high rep ranges with lighter loads are also ideal because it can help develop safe movement patterns by focusing on perfect form, setting a platform from which they can build greater volume and minimise injury risk,” Steve says.

The most important thing to remember if you are using lighter loads, according to Steve, is maximum intensity. “If you're using light weights and stopping long before fatigue sets in, you’re unlikely to see much muscle growth. Like heavy lifting, effort and progressive overload are essential, so don’t fall into the trap of thinking light weights means you can coast through a set.”

Do high reps and low weight build muscle?

Yes, you absolutely can also increase muscle mass using heavier loads and lower reps. “This type of training helps the body become more efficient at activating your fast-twitch muscle fibres, which are the ones most responsible for explosive strength and muscular size,” Steve explains.

A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research supports this idea. Researchers compared two groups of lifters training to failure – one using high reps with lighter weights, the other using low reps with heavier loads. The results? Both groups saw similar gains in muscle size. Although, when it came to building maximal strength, the low-rep, heavy-weight group had the clear advantage. If you’re therefore looking to build maximal strength, this is your best bet.

Although, Steve does caveat there are trade offs to training in this way: “Heavy lifting places more stress on the joints and the nervous system, which increases the demands on your recovery, and will also requires longer rest periods between sets - typically 3 to 5 minutes - reducing the total number of reps and sets you can complete in a given session.” Plus, those who aren't experienced lifters may be at a higher risk of their form breaking down, increasing the likelihood of injury.

The verdict: is one better for muscle growth?

No – whether you want to lift heavier weights with lower reps, or lighter weights for more reps, you can still successfully build muscle doing either. The most important thing is about lifting close to failure.

“For anyone deliberating between high reps/low weights or low reps/high weights, the most important thing to consider is that the real key to building muscle is the intensity with which you train, how well you execute each movement, and your diet,” says Steve.

Also, don’t forget, if you want to focus more on strength, as well as muscle, then you’re better off lifting heavier loads. However, studies have shown that you don’t need to go all out to failure, as that would also be a one-way ticket to overtraining.

DJI’s been busy releasing entry-level selfie drones in the past 12 months, including the competent DJI Neo and the punching-well-above-its-weight DJI Flip. With the release of the DJI Mavic 4 Pro, the brand firmly reminded us that it's still the king of prosumer camera drones.

That said, the DJI Mavic 3 Pro is an amazing tri-camera UAV, sporting a wide-angle Hasselblad lens, 5.1K video capability, 20MP images, up to 43 minutes of flight time with a single battery, and more, which begs the question: is it worth upgrading to the Mavic 4 Pro?

The short answer to that question is yes, the Mavic 4 Pro is worth the upgrade. Even though it hasn’t reinvented the form factor like the Mavic 3 Pro (which added an extra lens, compared to the DJI Mavic 3), the improvements are significant and could elevate the work of every professional storyteller out there.

After trying both (I've been testing the Mavic 4 Pro for a month), it’s time for the ultimate prosumer drone showdown. Is the new DJI the best drone overall? It certainly is the most capable. Here’s why.

DJI Mavic 4 Pro vs Mavic 3 Pro

Price and availability

The Mavic 3 Pro was launched in May 2023, so exactly two years before the launch of its successor. The recommended retail price for the most accessibly-priced kit (DJI RC) was $2,199 / £1,879 / AU$ 3,099. Even though the drone kept its price high throughout the last couple of years, you can buy it for a little bit cheaper (approx. $/£200) these days.

The Mavic 4 Pro was announced in May 2025 and costs £1,879/ €2,099/ AU$ 3,099. It’s the same original retail price of the Mavic 3 Pro, which is impressive, considering the improvements and general inflation. I’d go out on a limb and say that it might not look like a bargain, for what you get for the money, it really is.

Winner: Same RRP and better features – the Mavic 4 Pro wins this round.

Design and build quality

The Mavic 4 Pro kept the three-camera setup but introduced some significant upgrades to the drone's chassis. One of the showstopper features of the new UAV is the ‘Infinity Gimbal’ with a full 360° rotation and 70° upward shots.

To put it in perspective, the gimbal is so flexible that when you rotate the drone in your hands, it looks like those videos when people test the steadiness of birds’ heads. It just doesn’t move, no matter how far you rotate the Mavic 4 Pro’s body.

The drone is now easier to set up and use. Unfolding the arms automatically turns on the Mavic 4 Pro, and the same is true for the RC Pro 2 controller (I’ll talk about the controller in more detail below). The drone itself is slightly larger (both folded and unfolded) and heavier than the Mavic 3 Pro, tipping the scales at 1,063g (vs 958g). It’s not a noticeable difference, and the increased weight certainly doesn’t affect the battery life.

The camera unit (more on this also below) has been swapped around, with the main Hasselblad camera now sitting at the top as opposed to the bottom as it did on the Mavic 3 Pro. The sensors’ positions have also changed; for example, the forward-facing cameras were moved further up the drone, and have been somewhat replaced by a LiDAR sensor.

Winner: better gimbal, LiDAR, better camera unit – it’s a no-brainer the Mavic 4 Pro is a better drone, despite its weight.

Features

Speaking of LiDAR, it’s one of the big-big improvements – the Mavic 4 Pro has one of these on the right arm. I’m sure everyone who’s interested in a Mavic drone knows what the technology is, but just in case someone needs a refresher, it stands for Light Detection and Ranging.

In layman's terms, it's like a super-accurate version of echolocation, but instead of using sound like bats, LiDAR uses laser light to find objects, even in light conditions where everyday optical sensors might fail to recognise them.

This is a big deal, and even though the Mavic 4 Pro only has one of these, it helps the drone avoid dangerous collisions much better than before. It also has six low-light vision sensors (on top of the LiDAR). In comparison, the Mavic 3 Pro has eight optical sensors, but DJI doesn’t recommend using it close to reflective surfaces such as water because that might confuse the sensors. The LiDAR helps the Mavic 4 Pro determine the difference between reflections and actual obstacles better.

Thanks to the 0.1 Lux Nightscape Omnidirectional Obstacle Sensing technology, the Mavic 4 Pro can return to home without GPS. On that note, video transmission range has also been improved (DJI Q4+) to 30km from 15km on the Mavic 3 Pro (which uses DJI Q3+).

Internal storage has also improved from 8GB to a whopping 64GB on the Mavic 4 Pro. The Creator Combo version of the drone has 512GB of storage. Not quite the Mavic 3 Pro Cine’s 1TB SSD, but it’s considerable nevertheless. Internal storage can be expanded with MicroSD cards, of course.

Winner: better night-time performance, faster obstacle avoidance speed, more storage; chalk another one up for the Mavic 4 Pro.

Controller

The Mavic 4 Pro introduces a new controller, the DJI RC Pro 2 – I was almost more excited to try it than the drone itself! It solves one of my biggest griefs with controllers, namely that you need to screw and unscrew the control sticks every time you use the drone. The RC Pro 2 solves this by folding the sticks down when you close the display. Magic!

Unfolding the Mini-LED screen automatically starts up the RC Pro 2, similarly to how the Mavic 4 Pro will start up when you unfold the arms. The display is not only larger than before (7” vs 5.5”) but it’s also brighter (2,000 nits peak brightness vs RC Pro’s 1,000 nits) and reflects true D-log colours. Plus, it can be rotated (and tilted!) to use as a vertical display for better framing.

Battery life has been increased from three to four hours, and internal storage capacity went from 32GB to 128GB. The RC Pro 2 now also has a built-in, and you can use DJI mics, such as the versatile DJI Mic Mini, to record audio while you fly the Mavic 4 Pro.

The RC Pro 4 introduces the dynamic home point, which follows the controller around, making car filming more accurate. The aforementioned DJI Q4+ transmission for up to 30km is also enabled by this controller and its “enterprise-level multibeam high-gain antennas.”

Winner: The DC Pro 2 is an impressive controller with all the features a professional pilot would expect.

Optical performance and quality

The Mavic 3 Pro introduced the tri-camera setup, with a Hasselblad wide-angle camera (FOV: 84°, Format Equivalent: 24 mm, Aperture: f/2.8-f/11), a medium tele camera (FOV: 35°, Format Equivalent: 70 mm, Aperture: f/2.8) and a tele camera (FOV: 15°, Format Equivalent: 166 mm, Aperture: f/3.4).

An interesting feature to note is that these aren’t just lenses but separate camera units with their respective sensors. The Hasselblad camera has a 4/3 CMOS (Effective Pixels: 20 MP), the medium tele camera has a 1/1.3-inch CMOS (Effective Pixels: 48 MP), and the tele camera has a 1/2-inch CMOS chip (Effective Pixels: 12 MP).

In comparison, the Mavic 4 Pro also sports a tri-camera setup, but the performance of the cameras has changed. The Hasselblad Camera now has a 72° FOV (Format Equivalent: 28 mm) and is brighter than before (Aperture range: f/2.0 to f/11). The medium tele’s specs are the same (FOV: 35°, Format Equivalent: 70 mm, Aperture: f/2.8), but the tele camera is also brighter (Aperture: f/2.8) and can zoom in a bit more (Format Equivalent: 168 mm). The latter has the same FOV as the Mavic 3 Pro (15°).

Two of the three cameras have a new chip, including the Hasselblad’s 4/3 CMOS sensor that now has a maximum resolution of 100MP but can also shoot 25MP still, too. DJI claims it's a mirrorless-level lens! The 168mm tele camera also has a new 1/1.15” chip.

Admittedly, footage produced by the Mavic 3 Pro is far from terrible; DJI has always been famous for its crisp, high-definition imagery. The Mavic 4 Pro takes it up a notch by refining (and often increasing) the quality of both the images and videos. Max ISO went up from 6,400 to 12,800 (Normal mode) and shutter speed to 1/16,000 from 8,000 on the Mavic 3 Pro.

As mentioned before, the maximum resolution of the Hasselblad and tele cameras increased significantly, but the medium tele stayed the same. Slow Mo modes have been improved on both the medium tele and tele cameras (4k/120fps and 4k/100fps, respectively).

Winner: It’s quite clear that the Mavic 4 Pro is a better option for pros than its predecessor.

Battery life

Battery life is often a deciding factor when choosing a prosumer drone, and DJI’s latest flagship makes a strong case for itself. The DJI Mavic 3 Pro, with its 5,000mAh (77Wh) battery, offers up to 46 minutes of flight time in ideal conditions, with hovering capped at around 40 minutes.

In real-world scenarios, users typically see between 23 and 28 minutes, depending on wind conditions and how intensively the camera is used. It's solid, but not exceptional compared to newer rivals.

The Mavic 4 Pro builds on that with a significantly larger 6,654mAh (95.3Wh) battery, giving it an advertised flight time of up to 52 minutes. Crucially, it's not just about capacity; its redesigned power system delivers better energy efficiency, allowing longer flights without adding bulk.

In fact, despite its bigger battery, the Mavic 4 Pro's battery weighs just 332g, slightly lighter than the Mavic 3 Pro’s 335.5g pack. That means more time in the air with no extra weight penalty, a win for anyone shooting longer sessions or covering greater distances in a single flight.

Winner: The Mavic 4 Pro's battery lasts longer and weighs less. No brainer.

Verdict

There isn’t a single category where the Mavic 3 Pro outdid the Mavic 4 Pro. If anything, the improvements are so significant that they make the drone’s predecessor pale in comparison. It’s true that two years have passed since the launch of the Mavic 3 Pro, but even with that taken into account, it’s hard to deny the superiority of the Mavic 4 Pro.

There really is only one area where the Mavic 4 Pro isn’t better: weight. Otherwise, you get a much better drone for the same recommended price as the Mavic 3 Pro. (Of course, there might be some deals coming on that model soon, now that the Mavic 4 Pro has been announced.)

Should you upgrade to the Mavic 4 Pro from the Mavic 3 Pro? If you’re a professional who uses the drone for work, I’d say it’s almost essential you get the new version. It’s safer to fly and allows for more creative freedom thanks to its updated camera system.

If you’re an enthusiast, you might not want to rush that much. The Mavic 3 Pro is an impressive drone with pro-grade features, but it’s a big financial commitment. Getting the Mavic 4 Pro would be a big investment, especially if you’re only shooting videos for social media (and your pleasure).

One thing is certain: the DJI Mavic 4 Pro is an impressive camera drone with serious specs that’ll make even Mavic 3 Pro owners green with envy. Whether that’s enough for pilots to open their wallets is yet to be seen.

There are many reasons why we love the deadlift: it works all the posterior chain muscles, it’s functional, and can deliver superior strength and muscle gains. But, a debate that still surrounds this popular compound movement is which variation is better: sumo or conventional?

On one hand, you’ve got those who are convinced the sumo deadlift is an ‘easier’ lift, or worse, cheating. However, if that were the case, then surely the biggest deadlift number would use a sumo stance? (Newsflash: it doesn’t, it’s conventional.)

Ultimately, it all boils down to your overall goals, body mechanics, and mobility when deciding which is the better lift of the two for you. With the help of an expert, we dive into the nitty-gritty of each one to help you figure that out.

Sumo deadlift vs conventional: key differences

The most obvious difference between sumo and conventional deadlift is the set-up for each lift: the sumo takes a wide foot stance, while conventional opts for the traditional feet hip-width apart. During sumo deadlift, hands will grip the barbell inside the knees, and outside for conventional.

The difference in set-up means the sumo deadlift has a shorter range of motion – as the lifter is positioned closer to the ground and therefore the barbell has less distance to travel – whereas you’re higher up for conventional, so the barbell has a longer distance to travel.

“This divides opinion,” says Ali Woodward, Certified Personal Trainer and Manager at Ultimate Performance. “The nature of the wider sumo stance reduces the stress on the back and hamstring muscles, and places greater emphasis on the quads and adductors. For this reason, many also find they can lift greater loads.” (This is where the thought process that the sumo is ‘cheating’ comes into play.)

While both deadlift variations hit the posterior chain muscles (on the back of the body), there’s a difference in emphasis. “Conventional offers maximal posterior chain recruitment, targeting the hamstrings, spinal erectors, glutes, traps, lats, and even your forearms.” Sumo, on the other hand, hits more of the upper back, quads, glutes, and adductors.

Sumo deadlift vs conventional: strengths and weaknesses

Below, Ali points out the strengths and limitations that each lift possesses. This isn’t to try and tell you one is superior over the other but instead, so that you can easily see if one is better suited to you and your goals.

Sumo deadlift strengths:

• Wide stance reduces the range of motion, often allowing lifters to lift heavier weights with less spinal load​.
• The more vertical torso position makes it easier for some to maintain a neutral spine, meaning less lower back strain.
• Targets inner thighs/adductors: because of the foot position and stance, it hits muscles that the conventional deadlift doesn’t emphasize as strongly.
• Good option for lifters with limited hip or ankle mobility.

Sumo deadlift limitations:

• Less hamstring and glute involvement, due to the stance and form compared to conventional deadlifts.
• It's still a technical lift that requires strong external hip rotation and a tight brace, which some lifters find challenging to learn.

Conventional deadlift strengths:

• Targets glutes, hamstrings, spinal erectors, traps, lats, and even your forearms, delivering maximal posterior chain recruitment.
• It has higher overall muscle activation, making it one of the most metabolically demanding compound lifts, so it's great for building mass and burning fat​,
• It has great carryover to real-life activities, such as lifting and carrying, and can improve posture.

Conventional deadlift limitations:

• It requires more ankle, hip, and thoracic spine mobility than sumo and can also benefit those with longer arms as this helps to offset limited mobility in the hips and ankles.
• Places greater stress on the lower back, because of the more horizontal torso position, therefore load management and recovery are key.
• It can be intimidating or technique-heavy for beginners as there's more to go wrong, especially in spinal positioning​.

Which is better?

“If your goal is general strength or hypertrophy, conventional deadlifting is tecnically better for full posterior chain development,” Ali says. “Whereas, if your focus is glutes and inner thighs, or if you struggle with lower back issues or lack mobility, sumo may be the safer and more effective option with proper technique early on.”

That being said, you may even want to consider the trap bar deadlift, a fantastic (and very functional) variation that will help you nail your form and reduces load on the lower back. Plus, you move some serious timber using the hex bar.

One thing for certain is that one lift shouldn’t be viewed as 'better' than the other. As we mentioned earlier, it comes down to your goals, preferences, and biomechanics in deciding which lift is best for you. Both the sumo and conventional deadlift use the hip hinge movement pattern and, ultimately, the best exercise is the one where you can move correctly and with good form.

If you’re in the market for one of the best robot lawn mowers, one of your biggest decisions is whether to choose a wired or boundary-free model. With more and more options leaning toward boundary-free, the decision can be a tough one, especially since wired models tend to be a bit more affordable.

Both wired and boundary-free robotic mowers bring incredible convenience, making lawn care a breeze. However, they work in very different ways, and understanding the pros and cons of each can help you choose the one that fits your needs best.

Keep reading to learn more about each type – we know that with the investment these mowers require, you'll want to make the right decision!

Wired robot lawn mowers

Wired mowers rely on a boundary wire installed around your lawn’s perimeter, used by the mower to stay within the designated area. These models are typically more affordable and are known for their accuracy in covering specific areas since they follow a pre-defined path.

The best part about wired mowers is that they’re usually easier to install. The boundary wire is buried just beneath the surface of your lawn, and once that’s done, the mower can do its job autonomously. However, installing the wire can take time, especially if you’ve got a large or oddly shaped lawn. You'll also have to have to rework the wire if you want to change the mowing area or add obstacles, which isn't the most convenient.

If you’re looking for a reliable wired model, we absolutely love the Stihl iMow 5 Evo. It offers advanced features like GPS tracking, rain sensors and customisable mowing schedules, all of which you can control through the handy My iMow app.

Boundary-free robot lawn mowers

If you're after something a little more high-tech, boundary-free mowers are where it’s at. These models don’t require any physical boundary wire and use advanced tech like GPS, cameras and sensors to map out and navigate your lawn. They create virtual boundaries, allowing them to mow more flexibly and adaptively, without being confined to a wired path.

The biggest advantage of boundary-free mowers is their ease of use. You won't have any installation hassle, and they're great for larger or more complex lawns since they can adjust to new obstacles or changes in the terrain. They’re also more adaptable and can work with different lawn layouts, which is fantastic if you’ve got an irregular-shaped outside space.

That said, boundary-free mowers do have their limitations. They rely heavily on sensors, and if the GPS signal is weak, they may not perform as precisely as wired models. They also tend to be on the pricier side due to the advanced tech involved.

If you’re interested in a boundary-free mower, the Mammotion LUBA 2 AWD is an excellent choice. It combines RTK GPS with a 3D camera to help navigate the lawn and avoid obstacles – making it a top contender for more complex lawns.

Which one should you choose?

The choice really comes down to the size and shape of your lawn and your budget. If you’ve got a small, well-defined lawn with clear boundaries and you want something more budget-friendly, a wired model might be your best bet. However, if you have a large, complex lawn and want a mower that’s easy to set up, flexible and packed with high-end features, a boundary-free model is worth considering.

In the end, both types offer impressive convenience, so either way, you’re investing in a hassle-free mowing experience. The right choice for you will depend on your specific lawn needs and how much you're willing to spend on cutting-edge technology.

Take a look at the 5 things I wish I’d known before buying a robot lawn mower next.

It's been merely a year since Insta360 launched its latest 360-degree action camera, the Insta360 X4, offering higher resolution and better frame rates in most shooting modes than its predecessor. The rest of the camera world still hasn't caught up yet, but that never stopped Insta360 from innovating further.

Enter the Insta360 X5, the new 360° rugged camera, launched on the 10th anniversary of the company. The new model is a true generational leap over the X4 and sports a significantly larger 1/1.28-inch sensor, new Triple AI Chip, and replaceable lens.

As expected from the brand, it has been heavily advertising some of these features on its social media channels (especially the replaceable lens), so the updates might not come as a shock to lovers of the best action cameras.

Still, one wonders if the upgrades warrant an upgrade from the X4 to the X5? After all, the X4 already had lens protectors (both standard and 'premium'), and all the AI features under the sun. I tested both cameras, and here's what I think.

Insta360 X5 vs Insta360 X4

Price and availability

The Insta360 X5 was launched on 22 April 2025 for a recommended retail price of $550/ £520/ AU$930. It's available via the Insta360 Official Store, Amazon, and select global retailers. The Insta360 X4 remains on the market at a lower price point (RRP $500/ £500/ AU$880), often selling for an additional discount.

Design and durability

Insta360 is famous for its rugged cameras, and the IP68-rated X5 and X4 are both built for action. From a physical dimensions point of view, the two models are almost exactly the same: they share the same height, width, and depth.

The X5 is a hair lighter (200g vs 203g) with the same 2.5-inch touchscreen display. The lens units are located in the same position as before and are the same size, too. The buttons are also identical.

Flip the cameras over to their non-screen side and you'll see the first major difference. The microphone unit is now much larger and positioned under one of the lenses. Better still, it features a "multi-layer" steel mesh Wind Guard that silences wind noise.

The USB-C 3.0 port was moved to the other side, just under the two buttons. This change doesn't affect the user experience, but it's a change, nevertheless.

A more significant upgrade is the magnetic mount compatible base, which means you won't need the screw-on plate anymore to mount your X5 onto the base. This is cool and allows you to swap the camera more freely between the invisible selfie stick, the bike mount, or the car mount.

A big-big upgrade is the changeable lens. The X4 has a lens guard, but the X5 allows you to change the lens itself, much like how you can swap lenses on the GoPro Hero 13 Black (albeit there aren't any special (e.g. macro) lenses for the X Series yet). You can also use lens guards for extra protection.

The X5's waterproof rating has also been increased to 49ft (15m), compared to 33ft (10m) on the X4. This allows you to use the camera deeper underwater without a special housing.

Finally, battery performance also gets a solid boost: the X5’s 2400mAh battery offers up to 185 minutes of recording (in 5.7K@24fps Endurance Mode) and can charge from 0 to 80% in just 20 minutes. By contrast, the X4 uses a 2290mAh battery with a shorter runtime and slower recharge.

Image quality

Both cameras support up to 8K (7,680 x 3,840 pixels) 360° video at up to 30fps. They can shoot in 5.7K (5,760 x 2,880 pixels) at up to 60fps and 4K (3,840 x 1,920 pixels) at up to 120fps (all this in 360 degrees, of course). Maximum photo resolution is 72MP (11,904 x 5,952) on both cameras.

What is different is that the Insta360 X5 leverages supersampling from 11K to deliver sharper, more lifelike footage with minimal loss of detail. Plus, it has a much larger 1/1.28" sensor (compared to the X4's 1/2" sensor), making the X5 better suited for low-light conditions.

The new array, called the Triple AI Chip system, is made up of one 5nm AI Chip and two Pro Imaging Chips, which, combined with the stitching and noise-reduction algorithm, ensure the footage coming out of your X5 is clean as a whistle.

The aperture and focal length of the lens also changed from F1.9/ 6.7mm to F2.0/6mm. The X5 has a slightly narrower aperture, but combined with the larger sensor, overall low-light performance is still significantly better than the X4.

Features and modes

The X5 refines and expands upon the shooting modes that made the X4 so popular. InstaFrame Mode is a standout new feature, which automatically captures both a standard flat video and a full 360° video in one take.

The new PureVideo mode, first introduced on the Insta360 Ace Pro, is particularly impactful at night or indoors. The X5 is the first to incorporate this into a 360° camera. While the Ace series utilised PureVideo for wide-angle footage, the X5 adapts this AI-powered low-light enhancement to immersive 360° content.

The X5 also brings more intuitive ways to start recording, including a new Twist to Shoot gesture (just twist the selfie stick), alongside improved voice commands, gesture controls, and optional remote control pairing.

Of course, you also get all the modes of the X4, including starlapse, timelapse, interval road mode, loop recording, bullet time and time shift.

AI and software

The Insta360 app has always been one of the best in the business for editing 360° content, but it’s had a facelift for the X5 launch. The updated interface is sleeker and more streamlined, with new tools like one-tap dewarp to remove fisheye distortion, and simplified exporting features for quick edits. Of course, all the familiar favourites, from Quick Edit and AI Edit to Shot Lab templates and a full manual editing suite, are still available.

Verdict

The Insta360 X4 was already a top-tier 360° action camera, but the X5 builds on its success with meaningful, creator-focused upgrades. From the larger sensor and PureVideo low-light mode to the replaceable lens system and all-new InstaFrame shooting mode, the X5 delivers on every front.

There is an argument that the X4 has already been quite overpowered with its 8k maximum resolution and a million shooting modes compared to the competition, so one wonders if there is a need for an even more powerful action camera on the market.

That said, the X5 is a worthy successor and the brilliant camera to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Insta360. It certainly isn't just a token model; the X5 is a serious content creation powerhouse. I know many content creators personally who will be the first ones in the virtual queue to buy one.

If you have an X4, equipped with a lens guard, of course, I wouldn't rush to get the X5 yet. The new features make it more convenient to use the camera, but the X4 is still a beast of a model that can provide plenty of creative freedom for users.

For now, I'd keep my eyes peeled for offers on the X4, as I'm sure there will be some floating around very soon. If you have the Insta360 X3 (or maybe even the brilliant Insta360 X2) that has seen better days, investing in the X5 might be something to consider, though.

Aside from protein powder, creatine is one of the most popular and researched sport supplements that you’re bound to find in any gym bros kitchen cabinet. It helps the body recover more quickly so that you can continue pushing hard with your training, leading to better gains.

However, these days, creatine comes in many different forms, with powder and pills being the two most popular. But is one better than the other for optimal gains? Daniel Margis, MSc in Nutritional Medicine and Product Developer at leading sports nutrition brand, ESN, answers.

What is creatine?

“Creatine is a natural substance produced in the body, primarily stored in the muscles and is used to regenerate ATP, the body's primary energy source during high-intensity exercise,” explains Daniel. “It’s one of the most studied health supplements in the world and The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) has stated that creatine supplementation is safe, beneficial throughout the lifespan, and should not be restricted.”

Just to note, taking a scoop of creatine won’t make you super strong or directly lead to muscle growth. But, because it helps to enhance your recovery speed, this allows to train harder, and the harder you work, overtime, you’ll have better results. We’ve got a whole creatine guide that delves into its benefits, side effects and the best time to take it.

The pros and cons of creatine powder

Creatine powder is absorbed faster into the bloodstream than pills, which is arguably more beneficial for those seeking faster performance improvements. “It’s also a cost-effective way to supplement, as it is typically cheaper per serving,” Daniel says. “Opt for a high-quality option such as ESN’s Ultrapure Creatine, which can be quickly absorbed by the body when dissolved in liquid.”

On the other hand, creatine powder (even if flavoured) can have quite a bitter taste and, if you store it in your gym bag, can get quite messy. “It’s also less convenient to consume on-the-go as it requires measuring and mixing, which can be more cumbersome than creatine pills.”

The pros and cons of creatine pills

Creatine pills, on the other hand, are less messy, more portable and don’t require measuring or mixing. If you’re someone who leads a busy lifestyle, then Daniel says they may be best. “It’s also easier to control the dosage as there is a consistent serving per capsule,” he adds. “Just make sure you check the ingredients when choosing your creatine pills to ensure each capsule delivers an optimum amount of creatine in its purest form. ESN’s Ultrapure Creatine Capsules contain 3.4g per daily serving.

“Creatine pills are also more expensive, and they can be larger than the average supplement capsule, making it difficult for some people to swallow.” You may also be required to take multiple tablets (for some brands it's up to five a day) which, ultimately may not be as quick as chugging back a glass of water. Not to mention, if you aren’t the best at swallowing tablets then this will be your worst nightmare.

Is one better for muscle gains?

The short answer here is no. “There’s no significant difference that exists between creatine powder and pills regarding effectiveness for muscle-building,” says Daniel. “Both deliver Creatine Monohydrate as the same active ingredient.”

Your choice between the two is depends on your own individual preferences and budget. “The key factor is consistency in taking the supplement regularly, rather than the form chosen.”

The Intel versus AMD battle had raged on for years. It's like iPhone versus Android, but even nerdier in the battle for best laptop.

Tiresome? Sure, but it's a good time to return to this old feud just for a quick update. Because interesting things are afoot...

I've just had a chance to properly take a look at Intel's latest second-generation Ultra series processors for laptops, and they see Intel do its best to upset the status quo.

For years, AMD has generally been ahead for graphics performance thanks to oodles of experience with the AMD Radeon line – and with real-world battery life. And Intel would generally do better on the CPU side.

I've had a couple of MSI laptops in from the company's Prestige line to see what's what, pitching the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H against the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365. Here's which wins – and why.

Intel vs AMD: Laptop Design

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 and Intel Ultra 9 285H on test are performance chipsets, not ones made for the best lightweight laptops. However, that no longer means you’ll only find them in chunky and heavy PCs either.

Take the MSI ones I'm using for this comparison as an example. The MSI Prestige 16 AI with Intel CPU only weighs 1.55kg. I’ve used it as an everyday portable for the last few weeks, and it disappears into a normal rucksack just as handily as my MacBook Air would. It just takes up a wee bit more space as this is a desktop-replacer size beast.

The AMD-powered MSI Prestige PC is quite a bit heavier and thicker, but that’s largely because it has a different shell design. And it’s made of aluminium rather than a mix of magnesium alloy and plastic.

In theory, the AMD might even be able to fit into a slimmer, less well-cooled case. It has a thermal design power (TDP) of 28W to Intel’s 45W, which tells you the amount of heat a processor is designed to generate when running under strain. However, these aren’t exact, standardised numbers. So let’s not dwell on them too much.

The real takeaway is you won’t ever see these processors in fan-free laptop. And probably not in a ridiculously tiny one, because their peak sustained performance would likely need to be throttled a little too much to make it worthwhile. But if you only thought these kind of performance chipsets were for chunky things, think again.

Intel vs AMD: Performance

Intel caught a lot of stick for its first-generation Intel Ultra chipsets. While they were great all-rounders, their raw processor performance really wasn’t all that impressive, with benchmark results beaten by the Qualcomm-powered rivals, and even some last-generation Intel chips.

It’s because, while the AMD Ryzen 365 AI is part of a pretty steady lineage, Intel's Core Ultra represented more of a shake-up that required some more dramatic work in areas other than the usual performance gains. And it kinda needed that shake-up because Intel had spent a little too long considering itself the best. The company’s share price suggests that sort of thing isn’t healthy.

The good news: the Intel Ultra 9 265H is a lot more powerful than the original Ultra laptops we reviewed. Its single-core performance is great, and so is its multi-core prowess this time. It helps this is a top tier chipset, of course.

Next to it, the AMD holds up just fine on single-core speeds. But when you put the 10 cores of the Ryzen up against the might of the 6 performance cores plus 10 efficiency core of the Intel, AMD can’t quite keep up. We saw roughly 22% better performance from the Ultra 9 285H.

If you’re keen on AMD, though, you can bridge some of the gap by upgrading to the 12-core AMD Ryzen AI 9 375 instead. But according to benchmarking tool Geekbench, the Intel still maintains a lead even then...

Intel vs AMD: Gaming

For ages AMD-powered laptops have been the go-to if you want to play the odd game and can only stretch to a laptop with integrated graphics. Its Radeon chips are pretty tidy.

Intel started catching up with the release of its Intel Xe line, and came close with the Intel Arc series of integrated chips. With the Core i9 285H, however, Intel appears to have jumped ahead. And not by a small margin according to my tests...

In a Cyberpunk 2077 1080p benchmark, with Medium visuals, the Intel laptop scores 32fps, compared to 20fps in the AMD one. It achieves just 62% the speed of the Intel.

If this sounds pretty bad for both, it’s because I had to disable all upscaling techniques with XeSS and FRS to make the results more directly comparable.

The same was true in the 3D Mark Time Spy test, where the Intel scored 4462 points, to the AMD’s 3847. Doing the maths again, the AMD reaches 86% of the power of the Intel.

It’s likely closer to the truth than the Cyberpunk 62% score, because benchmarks are made to be fair. Actual game optimisation is generally less even.

There’s an elephant in the room here, though. AMD has a step-up model with an even better graphics chipset, the AMD 9 AI 370 with Radeon 890M. Still, if you see a laptop with an Intel Arc 140T GPU on offer (the one used by the Intel Ultra i9 285H), you’re in for a bit of a treat.

Intel vs AMD: Battery Life

Battery stamina is yet another area where AMD usually obliterates Intel. Its laptops are often able to pare back performance to a level where you don’t notice the difference in day-to-day use, but it can still result in battery life in the teens of hours

And we had that before all this talk of “AI” processors and their feats of efficiency. Intel? Not so much.

The best results I saw was when using PC Mark’s Modern Office tool, which basically emulates what you might do while at the office (or working from home), including doing nothing but staring at the screen for stretches.

The MSI with the Intel Ultra 9 285H lasted an excellent 15 hours 47 minutes, compared to 13 hours 11 minutes from the AMD Ryzen laptop. It’s another pretty notable turnaround for Intel, given the number of Intel H-series laptops I’ve reviewed over the years that struggle to crack 5-6 hours of normal use.

This isn’t quite the victory it seems versus AMD, though. The Intel laptop, despite being far lighter, also has a bigger battery. A Windows 11 battery report suggests its real capacity is 97.5Wh, compared to 80.6Wh in the AMD-powered laptop.

Guess what? That pretty much makes up the entire difference in runtime. It’s still a neat win for Intel versus its own older generations, though, and does show what a concerted focus on efficiency can do for you even in a performance PC.

The Intel Ultra 9 285H is rated as a 45W processor as standard. That would eat up a 97.5Wh battery in much more than two hours. It can sip the juice when it needs to.

Intel vs AMD: AI Smarts

We’re in an era of AI obsession. And the folks who make tech are even more hooked on the stuff than us ordinary folks.

Neither of these Intel Ultra or AMD Ryzen processors is truly AI-packed, though, compared to a laptop with a “made for AI” Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite chipset. And neither of our testers here is a CoPilot+ laptop.

That’s a Microsoft standard that, among other elements, demands “40 TOPS” of AI performance from the neural processing unit (NPU). Intel doesn’t even try to mask how far the Intel Ultra 285H is from reaching that goal, listing the NPU as having 13 TOPS.

AMD claims the Ryzen Ultra has “up to 50” NPU TOPS. But based on our testing it’s only slightly ahead of Intel’s, by around 17-20%.

When you see super-high TOPS figures in these laptops, it’s often because it’s using the combined AI power of the NPU, the CPU and the GPU. For the AI jobs of the future, we really want the NPU to be going most of the work. While a graphics card, or even one of the “integrated” chipsets seen here, can pump out loads of TOPS, it’s going to use loads more energy than an NPU.

That’s kinda the point of these under-the-spotlight pieces of hardware. They’re primed for AI-related tasks and won’t engage fans, rinse the battery and heat up the laptop too much while working. And, well, neither of these Intel or AMD lines are top of their game in this area yet.

Intel vs AMD: Compatibility?

We are currently in an era of disruptive processors that claim to perform AI miracles, and net you super-long battery life thanks to their phone-inspired architectures. Just one problem: you can’t always be sure if apps will run. At all.

There’s none of that malarkey with the AMD Ultra 9 365 AI and Intel Ultra 285H. They are both, at heart, built on the x86 system architecture that has been the norm basically since the cavemen were about. Okay, so since the 1970s.

There are some kinda interesting compatibility differences on the gaming side, though. The Intel Ultra 285H supports XeSS, Intel’s upscaling tech, while the AMD Ultra 9 AI has to make do with FSR 3. This is AMD’s own tech, but it can be used across different graphics chipsets.

They are both used to improve performance in games that support them, by actually rendering the game at a lower resolution, and using AI/machine learning to bump up the difference.

XeSS can look better than FSR in quite a few games. But FSR will often provide better frame rates, and even has a frame generation feature. Perhaps more important is how well driver support will pan out over the years of these processors’ lifespans. That’s something we’re yet to discover.

Intel vs AMD: Verdict

The Intel Ultra 9 285H is more interesting than the AMD Ryzen processor laptop I've used here. But it’s mostly because we finally have what feels like Intel’s proper riposte to what have traditionally been AMD’s strengths: battery life and integrated graphics performance.

Let’s not get things twisted, though. Intel doesn’t seem to have leapfrogged over AMD for battery life at this level. But gaming performance is really quite impressive, with major frame rate leads in loads of popular games that make them pretty enjoyable on what is not far off a pure business laptop.

Intel has the edge for processor power too, although when a good chunk of the gap can be made up by upgrading to the step-up AMD AI 9 375, it’s not hugely interesting.

It does mean the often lower cost of AMD-powered laptops is the one advantage I can really point to in this class. If you find a couple of laptops where price isn’t a factor and the CPU is the only dividing point, I’d pick the Intel this time around. But, let’s be honest, when is money not an issue?

Trail running and road running are both incredibly popular right now but, as their name suggests, they’re very different, particularly when it comes to pace and location. If you’re a keen runner, you may not care what type of running you’re doing, as long as you’re cruising along. But, for those just getting started, you may be wondering which type of terrain is right for you: the road or trails?

While one form of running doesn’t trump the other—they’re both brilliant for the body and mind—you may find one is better suited to you and your running goals. Two people who have experience in these areas are Red Bull Athletes, Tom Evans, a British Ultrarunner, and Jake Dearden, a HYROX athlete. Below, they take us through the pros and cons of each running to help you decide which one could be the best fit for you.

What’s the difference?

Trail running involves running ‘off-road’ in more natural settings, whether that’s in a forest, up the side of a mountain, or alongside a riverbank. “The stress of running certain splits goes out the window with trail running because there are so many uncontrollable factors,” says Tom. “Whether it's the terrain that you're running on, if it's dry or wet, fast running or slow running, it doesn't really matter—it's just what you've got to go over and through.”

Road running, as the name suggests, mainly refers to running on the road or a paved surface, and is arguably far more accessible than trail running. “It’s great as, for most people, it’s very convenient," says Jake. "Plus it’s also flat and therefore makes it easy to keep specific paces compared to trail running.”

Trail running vs road running: pros and cons

There’s no doubt that the uneven terrain and winding routes you’ll experience on a trail run will make for an interesting adventure. Plus it’s also great for strengthening your joints and muscles, as well as improving your balance. It’s softer surfaces can also be far more forgiving on the joints too, compared to the harsh impact you get from pounding the pavement.

The environment of trail running, in general, is arguably far less stressful too. You’re amongst nature—which many studies have shown can do wonders for our mental health—and, because of the unpredictable terrain, your pace will be much slower, so the pressure of trying to hit certain paces often goes out the window.

That said, trail running isn’t a walk in the park. Uneven terrain can lead to a higher risk of injury, such as twisting or rolling over your ankle. Naturally, it also requires increased concentration, as you may need to jump over and navigate your way around obstacles. For beginners, this can be quite a physical and mental challenge.

Road running, on the other hand, is far easier for people to get started with. You can just lace up your running shoes, step out your front door, and go. The (fairly) even terrain makes it ideal for working on your pace or doing other types of training, such as tempo runs, intervals, etc.

According to ASICS, similar to trail running, research has shown that road running can strengthen the body’s joints and muscles. You’ll also encounter very little to no bugs while running on the road and, if you’re running in well lit areas, it’s arguably safer than trail running.

However, if you’re running on the actual road and not a pavement, you need to keep an eye on your surroundings—this is where a pair of open ear headphones can come in handy. “The surface is also very hard, which places extra stresses on the body and could result in injury,” says Jake. “It can also be quite dangerous as there are hazards such as cars on the road, so you need to remain alert.”

What gear do you need?

You don't need to overcomplicate this; a pair of shorts, t-shirt and a jacket (if the weather is cold) will do, and a high-vis item if you’re hitting the road. The main difference is the shoes.

Trail running shoes typically have more aggressive lugs for better traction on various terrain, a stiff midsole and durable uppers for protection. Road running shoes, on the other hand, are flatter and smoother for the pavement, with more flexible midsoles and breathable uppers.

“You want your road running shoes to be comfortable, responsive and I’d personally say go half a size up from your everyday shoe,” Jake says. “Puma running shoes are my go-to. I never get any injuries and they have enough cushion to withstand the hard surfaces.”

For the trails, Tom likes the Metafuji Trail Running Shoes by ASICS. “They’re incredibly responsive and help to improve my speed on the trails, meaning I can get the most out of my runs and myself.”

If you’re undertaking a particularly long trail run or exploring more rugged terrain, like climbing a mountain, Tom suggests taking a few extra essentials: “I'll take a spare beanie, a waterproof jacket, an extra base layer, a pair of waterproof trousers, and a small medical kit that will include tape, a bandage, and blister plasters.”

Caffeine plays an important role in both athletes' running prep. “If I'm doing a fasted session in the morning, then I like to have caffeine beforehand to feel a little bit more awake, so I'd have a Red Bull Zero 20 to 30 minutes before I start my session in the morning,” Tom says. Jake also does the same, but will also prioritise one after his training. “I like to have my Red Bull Zero after to replenish glycogen stores and as a treat after a hard session as I love the taste.”

Trail running vs road running: which terrain is right for you?

Ultimately, this comes down to you, the runner.

If you have access to trails nearby, then trail running can be an adventure and a great way to imerse yourself in the great outdoors. It’s also a little more gentle on the joints and is brilliant for strengthening your body, but beginners may find it difficult getting to grips with uneven terrain.

Road running is very accessible and predictable, making it a better starting point for beginners. If you’re running on the road, just be aware of your surroundings and wear something high-vis. Just make sure you’re doing a thorough warm up and include some drills to improve your technique to reduce the likelihood of injury.

Nothing just announced more than a little something: not only did the brand reveal the Nothing Phone (3a), it's also got a bigger brother, the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro.

So what's that all about – why two new Nothing handsets? And if you're contemplating buying a Nothing Phone (3a) series device then why might one suit you better than the other? Both are certainly contenders for the best cheap phone category.

I've had both Nothing Phone (3a) models in my possession for over a week prior to the Mobile World Congress show – where they were revealed – and ahead of my Nothing (3a) Pro review, here's a breakdown of how the pair differ.

Nothing Phone (3a) vs Pro: Design

• Phone (3a): Blue / White / Black
• Phone (3a) Pro: Grey / Black
• Both: 8.4mm thin

As you can see from my picture up top, with the Nothing Phone (3a) on the left and the Nothing Phone (3a) Pro on the right, the two handsets look similar yet different.

Gone is the cutesy Minion-like face of the older Nothing Phone (2a)in both instances, with the Phone (3a) adopting a larger camera enclosure and the (3a) Pro adopting a totally new (and much larger) circular enclosure.

The internal componentry, visible through the translucent exterior, is also different for each handset. In my view it's less of a statement than before, more subtle, with the base (3a) having greater visual complexity in this department.

Both handsets are the same size, even if you wouldn't expect so owed to the Pro's circular camera enclosure, with a 6.77-inch display on each – so marginally larger than the last generation, but not by much against the 6.7-inch panel of old.

Nothing Phone (3a) vs Pro: Spec

• 6.77-inch OLED display, 1080 x 2412 pixels, 120Hz, 3000 nits peak
• Glyph Lighting: 3 lights with '26 individually assignable zones'
• Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 processor, 8GB RAM
• IP64 dust- and water-resistance rating
• 5000mAh battery capacity
• 50W wired charging

Here's the key thing: both the Nothing Phone (3a) and Nothing Phone (3a) Pro feature the same core specs across the board, matching one another in every regard – except for the cameras, which I'll come to further below.

That means whichever handset suits you best, you'll get a 6.77-inch display with a much brighter output than last generation – it's 1300 nits outdoors, but can boost to 3000 nits peaks, Nothing reckons – and all the same integral internals.

That includes a Qualcomm mid-tier processor, 8GB RAM (for the UK, there's a 12GB option for India only), a 5000mAh battery capacity with fast 50W charging, and improved IP64 dust-resistance to keep everything protected.

The Glyph Lighting is the same for both, too, here in 26 zones which can be individually assigned to illuminate differently for calls, notifications and so forth.

Nothing Phone (3a) vs Pro: Cameras

• Phone (3a):
  • Main: 50-megapixel, f1/.9 aperture, optical stabilisation (OIS)
  • 2x zoom: 50MP, f/2.0, electronic stabilisation (EIS)
  • Wide: 8MP, f/2.2
  • Front: 32MP, f/2.2
• Phone (3a) Pro:
  • Main: 50-megapixel, f1/.9 aperture, optical stabilisation (OIS)
  • 3x periscope: 50MP (Sony Lytia 600), f/2.55, EIS & OIS
  • Wide: 8MP, f/2.2
  • Front: 50MP, f/2.2

Here's the crucial difference: while both Nothing Phone (3a) and the Pro offer zoom lenses, in the base model it's a 2x zoom, while the Pro has a 3x periscope.

That means a 50mm equivalent for the (3a) and a 70mm equivalent for the (3a) Pro.

The pair use different sensors for their main 50-megapixel cameras, too, which gives the Pro even more dynamic range and lower image noise.

In terms of wide-angle rear optics, however, it's identical for both.

Front cameras, the Pro is slightly less wide-angle, but is higher resolution, at 50-megapixel rather than 32MP.

Nothing Phone (3a) vs Pro: Conclusion

While I'm part way into my full Nothing Phone (3a) Pro testing as I write this comparison, so various tests are forthcoming, the difference between the base (3a) and Pro versions is largely based on camera differences.

In summary: the (3a) Pro has a periscope zoom that's able to reach further, while its main camera's sensor is marginally better than the base Phone (3a), but the pair share the same wide-angle rear arrangement.

Sure, the Nothing Phone (3a) looks fairly different to the Phone (3a) Pro, too, with the latter adopting a far larger circular camera enclosure to deliver on that bolder cameras specification.

The Pro will also cost more, of course, at £449 in the UK ($459 in the US, AU$849 via US Developer Program only). The base Phone (3a) is £329 ($379/AU$459) by comparison, putting it into a fairly different category.

Pre-orders are now open, with the Nothing Phone (3a) going on sale from 11 March, while the Phone (3a) Pro arrives later, from 25 March. In the UK, in addition to buying outright, EE will be offering both devices on contract too.

Just like ‘Is it better to do cardio before or after weights’ is one of the most popular fitness-related questions, so is whether cardio or weights is better for weight loss. Both types of training are incredibly popular and should have a place in your workout programme, but when it comes to weight loss, does one take the pedestal?

We spoke to an expert to cut through the noise so you can find out which you should be focusing your efforts on the most—cardio, resistance training, or even both. But, before we dive into that, a quick recap on what these two types of training modalities involve…

Cardio vs resistance training: what’s the difference?

Cardiovascular training is any type of exercise that works your heart and vascular system. “It primarily uses the aerobic energy system (which uses oxygen for energy) and will increase your heart rate and breathing,” says Eryn Barber, certified personal trainer at The Fitness Group. People often tend to gravitate towards the exercise bike, treadmill, rowing machine or even walking for this type of training, but you can in fact use weights for cardio too.

“Resistance training, however, is a type of exercise that uses resistance, in particular weights, to build muscle and increase strength,” she adds. This could be anything from free weights, like dumbbells, barbells and kettlebells, to workout machines, resistance bands or even your own bodyweight.

Cardio vs resistance training: what are the benefits?

Below, Eryn gives a quick dive into the benefits for both cardio and resistance training, starting with the latter…

Resistance training benefits:

• It builds muscle: Strength training helps to build lean muscle mass which will give you a ‘toned’ appearance. The more muscle you have the higher your basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn at rest), which means more calories burned and a reduction in body fat. A little more on this below...
• It improves strength and bone density: The more muscle you have, the stronger you become, but this isn’t just beneficial for trying to hit a new squat or bench PB. It will help make everyday activites easier too. It's also great for your bone health too, and can slow down the rate of osteoporosis.
• It increases your metabolism: Building muscle increases your metabolic rate as muscle tissue burns calories quicker than fat tissue. The more muscle you have the quicker you’ll be burning calories. Your metabolism also increases for 48 hours after a strength training session. One study found that after 10 weeks of resistance training three days a week, participants' resting metabolic rate increased significantly (by 15%), but didn't for those who took part in aerobic training.
• It aids better mobility: When you lift weights, exercises take you through movement patterns you wouldn’t usually perform in day-to-day life, increasing your range of motion so that you can move better and more freely.

Cardio training benefits…

• It improves your cardiovascular health: When you include cardiovascular exercise into your routine, it will help to lower blood pressure, lower bad cholesterol, and decrease the risk of heart disease.
• It can regulate blood sugar levels: Cardio is particularly good at helping regulate insulin and lowering our blood sugars. This can reduce the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes and decrease symptoms for those who are already diabetic.
• It burns lots of calories: Cardio is very effective when it comes to crunching calories, with running burning the most. This is because it raises your heart rate and uses your aerobic energy system, which can be sustained up to several hours. This means we can complete cardio training over a long period thus burning more calories
• It can give your brain a boost: From around the age of 30, we start to lose brain tissue and therefore our cognitive performance declines. However, a study found that participating in cardiovascular exercise can actually reduce this.
• It boosts your mood: While any type of exercise is good for our mental health, the Mental Health Foundation says research found that performing low-intensity aerobic exercise for around 30 minutes, 3-5 times a week over a period of 10 weeks, was most effective at increasing mood.

Which is best for weight loss?

This depends on a few things. Firstly, when it comes to weight loss, you need to burn more calories than you expend in a day, which is why you ideally need to be eating in a calorie deficit. This will more likely help you lose weight than relying on exercise alone. You may have heard of the phrase ‘80% diet, 20% exercise’ and this rings true. That being said, exercise can contribute to you burning more calories. For optimal results, your best bet is to look at your diet and exercise.

Now, does one type of training trump the other? No. Both can help you achieve your goal of weight loss. Lifting weights will help you burn more calories after exercise and build muscle, thus speeding up your metabolism, while cardio training burns more calories during exercise. “Incorporating a combination of both will ensure you lose weight and body fat simultaneously,” says Eryn.

Resistance training is also very good for changing your body composition and helping you achieve that ‘toned look’, as it can build muscle and decrease fat. However, the numbers on the scales may not change. “This is because muscle is denser than fat, therefore after a long period of strength training your weight might not change much, but the decrease in body fat means you’ll look more defined,” says Eryn.

Another thing you need to consider is what type of exercise you actually prefer: resistance training or cardio. We’ve established that both can help you lose weight, however, in order to do this you need to be consistent with your training. There’s therefore no point lacing up your running shoes if you absolutely hate running, as you’ll most likely lose motivation and stop doing it, making no progress. The same can be said for weight training. Being consistent is what’s going to help you see changes long term.

Ultimately, both types of training will help you lose weight, so pick whatever you prefer and can stick to. If you enjoy both, then combining the two will help you reap the most benefits. Not only will you lose weight and body fat, but you’ll also keep your heart healthy while building muscle and getting stronger.

If you’re torn between investing in a robotic mower or opting for a cordless model, you’re not the only one. The best cordless lawn mowers have been around for a while, with many brands refining their designs to make them one of the most popular choices today. Meanwhile, the best robot lawn mowers – despite existing for over 20 years – have recently surged in popularity, with sales skyrocketing. This growing demand makes choosing between the two even more challenging.

However, as T3’s resident garden tech expert, I’ve put together a detailed breakdown of the pros and cons of both options. By the time you’re done reading, you’ll have all the information you need to make the right investment.

What is a cordless lawn mower?

A cordless lawn mower is a battery-powered mower that operates without a power cord, offering the convenience of unrestricted movement. Unlike traditional corded electric mowers, which require a constant connection to an outlet, cordless mowers run on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, meaning they're a cleaner and quieter alternative to petrol mowers.

Things to consider before buying a cordless lawn mower

Lawn care has come a long way since the frequent use of the best petrol lawn mowers, but that doesn’t mean cordless lawn mowers have become any less popular. Thanks to advancements in battery technology, they are now more powerful and efficient than ever before. Whilst their run time may not always match that of robotic mowers, this largely depends on the model and battery voltage you choose.

For the average homeowner, cordless lawn mowers are also becoming much more affordable, especially when compared to robotic models. They may require slightly more maintenance, but if you're looking to keep costs down, you can't really go wrong.

If manual labor isn’t your thing, then a cordless mower might not be the best choice for you. However, there’s something satisfying about having direct control over your mowing patterns – something I personally enjoy. Cordless mowers also handle complex or uneven terrain much better than robotic models, but if the ground is too challenging, you’ll quickly find out.

Pros and Cons of cordless lawn mowers

Pros:

• More affordable than a robot mower

• Provides direct control over mowing patterns

• Can handle complex or uneven terrain better than most robot mowers

• No wires or gas required – just charge and go

Cons:

• Requires manual effort

• Battery life may limit mowing time (but it depends on what model you go for)

• Needs regular maintenance (blade sharpening, battery charging etc..)

What is a robot lawn mower?

A robot lawn mower is an autonomous, battery-powered mower that automatically cuts your grass without requiring manual operation. Using sensors, boundary wires or GPS, it navigates your lawn, trims the grass regularly, and returns to its charging station when finished.

Things to consider before buying a robot lawn mowers

On the other hand, robotic lawn mowers have traditionally been seen as more of a niche product rather than an essential tool. However, times are changing, and they have quickly become one of the most popular pieces of garden tech available today.

The first major difference between robotic and cordless mowers is the price. You’re unlikely to find a decent robot mower for less than £800 or $1,000 – although one of our favourite models is surprisingly just £400. That said, many robotic mowers require minimal maintenance and do most of the work for you, so whether the investment is worth it depends on your perspective.

Another well-known advantage is that mowing your lawn regularly keeps it looking its best, especially during summer. With a robotic mower, this happens automatically – even when you're not home. They’re also far more energy-efficient and typically have longer run times, making them a great option for larger lawns. That said, robot mowers can struggle with obstacles like toys, hoses, or uneven ground. However, newer models are addressing this issue with advanced LiDAR navigation technology.

The setup process can also be time-consuming, but many premium brands, including Husqvarna and Stihl, offer professional installation services. This feature is usually reserved for higher-end models, but it’s a great option if you want to avoid the hassle.

Once again, you’ll find the pros and cons below:

Pros and Cons of robot lawn mowers

Pros:

• Fully automated – set it and forget it

• Saves time and effort

• Quiet operation and energy-efficient

• Cuts grass frequently, leading to a healthier lawn

Cons:

• Higher upfront cost

• Might struggle with very complex or steep terrain

• Initial setup (boundary wires, calibration) can be time-consuming

• Can get stuck on obstacles like toys, hoses or uneven ground

What's the verdict?

If you value convenience, have a larger lawn, and don’t mind the higher upfront cost, a robot lawn mower is a great investment. It requires minimal effort, keeps your lawn consistently maintained, and operates even when you’re not home. However, setup can be tricky, and obstacles may still pose occasional challenges.

On the other hand, if you prefer a more budget-friendly option with direct control over your mowing pattern, a cordless mower is the way to go. It handles uneven terrain better, costs significantly less, and still offers great efficiency thanks to modern battery technology.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference, and whatever choice you make will be the best one for you.

Read 5 things I wish I’d known before buying a robot lawn mower next.

R.A.D recently launched the second iteration of their iconic workout shoe, the R.A.D One V2, and it had many people excited, myself included. But, is it worth the upgrade from the already brilliant V1?

Like many, I'm a massive fan of the R.A.D Ones, and I live in mine daily, in and outside the gym. It is, hands down, the best workout shoe to have graced my feet. However, as an Active Writer, my role includes regularly testing workout shoes so, of course I reviewed the V2s just before they dropped.

I’ve certainly put both pairs through their paces and, personally, there’s one version that comes out on top for me. But, is it worth buying a pair of the V2s if you already own a pair of the V1s? Let's find out!

Design

This is the area that has arguably divided people’s opinions the most on online forums, with many agreeing that R.A.D didn’t need to “reinvent the wheel” here. However, changes were made and whether they were for better or worse is ultimately subjective.

Now, let’s start with the most obvious change on the V2, that wavy midsole wrap, which was previously far more subtle. Without a doubt, this is what has left people unsure of the design, as it no longer feels as easy to style outside the gym. However, it offers more protection (especially during abrasive movements like rope climbs) and durability so, it helps the shoe have a longer life.

People did make plenty of comments about wanting a roomier toe-box and this is something I personally found in the V2 more so than the V1. The difference isn’t massive, but I do feel like it's there. The mesh and suede-like upper remain fairly similar, albeit, the V2 uses ‘power mesh’ for better breathability.

The V2’s appearance has no doubt grown on me the more I’ve trained in them, especially as their performance is top-tier (which you can read more about below). However, I no longer feel like I can easily chuck on my R.A.Ds with whatever I’m wearing, and that is something I loved about them. They were so versatile.

Winner: V1

Workout performance

I didn’t find the V1 and V2 to be massively dissimilar when it came to training. I predominantly do strength training, with front squats, deadlifts, bench press, as well as conditioning at the end of each session, which often involves running intervals with functional movements.

I think both iterations are brilliant for heavy lifts and even more so with the tweaks to the V2— such as the improved TPU heel clip, midsole wrap, and slightly roomier toe box— offering exceptional stability and support.

However, the area I think the V2 excels, in comparison to its predecessor, is that they're now far better to run in. I never thought the V1s were terrible for this by any means but, personally, there wasn’t enough rebound and, as a result, I didn’t find them comfortable for doing anything further than 600 metres at a time.

The V2s, however, offer more cushioning, thanks to their new reimagined SwellFoam Bio EVA midsole, and it makes a huge difference. As a result, I’ve been able to complete various interval runs— the furthest being 1,600 metres— bouncing along very comfortably. As this is what was majorly lacking for me in the V1 it’s a no-brainer which shoe comes out on top here.

Winner: V2

Comfort

When I first slipped my feet into the V1s, I remember a satisfying smile crossing my face, as they were super comfy. Despite having to test multiple shoes for my job, it’s why they ended up becoming my main training shoe. When I slipped the V2s on, I didn’t have the same experience. They had a slight break-in period but, once that was done, they felt great.

Apart from more SwellFoam in the V2’s midsole, they also have significantly more cushioning around the heel tab and the tongue so, when you put them on, your foot feels very cozy. Again, the differences aren’t massive here, but if we’re to pick an overall winner, honing in on the details is necessary.

I mentioned above about the toe box on the V2 being slightly roomier and this contributes to the foot feeling more comfortable in the V2, as opposed to a little more compressed in the V1. Without too much disgusting detail, my V1s would get quite smelly as my feet would usually get a little clammy after a tough workout, so I’d regularly air them out. Whereas the power mesh upgrade on the V2s has kept my feet feeling fresher for longer.

It’s incredibly close because, ultimately, the V1s feel great straight out of the box with no break-in period, whereas the V2 needs a little more wear before you feel their full effect.

Winner: V2 (just)

Verdict

There’s no doubt that R.A.D Founder, Ben Massey, made waves in the fitness space with the R.A.D One. Both shoes are fantastic but, if you already own the V1 is it necessary to fork out and upgrade to the V2s?

I personally don’t think there’s any rush to go out and purchase a pair of the V2s if you already own the V1 (unless there’s a colourway you love as we all know they sell out ridiculously fast). The V1 delivers on all fronts: performance, comfort and it has that versatile streetwear aesthetic. Although tweaks have been made to the V2 to enhance these areas the V1 still holds its own.

However, and this is a big however, if you didn’t enjoy running in the V1s then I’d say upgrading to the V2s is worth it. I do feel like the upgraded SwellFoam Bio EVA midsole makes a significant difference in this department. It may mean you may have to let go of the V1s iconic design but, I can guarantee once you’ve done a couple of sessions in the V2s you’ll forget all about that.

As spring approaches, many of us will begin preparing our outdoor spaces for the warmer months ahead. Whether you’re sprucing up flower beds, upgrading patio furniture or simply creating a cozy outdoor retreat, there’s one essential element that shouldn’t be overlooked. Yep, it's outdoor lighting.

If the best outdoor lighting is on your mind, you’re in the right place. Two of the most popular options for illuminating your space are LED lighting and solar-powered lights, and whilst you might already understand the basics, there are plenty of questions that often go unanswered when deciding between the two.

To make things easier, I’ve compiled answers to the top five commonly asked questions about outdoor lighting. Whether you’re a seasoned pro or exploring your options for the first time, this guide will help you avoid the usual mistakes everyone makes when it comes to outdoor lighting.

1. Which is cheaper to run?

This question may seem like it would have a simple question, but there's definitely some thought to it. At the end of the day, whilst outdoor LED lighting is highly energy-efficient, it still requires a wired electrical connection to operate. This means it relies on your home's power supply, which could increase your energy bills.

On the other hand, solar lighting is powered by sunlight, making it energy-free after the initial purchase. However, its performance depends on sunlight availability, which may be inconsistent in cloudy or shaded areas. It's one of those issues that completely depends on your priorities!

2. Which is cheaper to install?

Outdoor LED lighting generally has a higher installation cost, especially if electrical wiring needs to be installed. However, LEDs have a long lifespan and low energy consumption, reducing long-term costs.

Solar lighting is typically easier and cheaper to install since they don't require wiring. However, the lifespan of the solar panel and battery may lead to replacement costs over time.

3. Which is brighter?

This is dependent on the particular lights you go for, but outdoor LED lighting is generally superior when it comes to brightness. A lot of options also offer customisable beam angles, colour temperature and intensity, which is ideal for security, pathways and areas needing strong illumination.

Outdoor solar lighting is often less bright compared to wired LEDs, and performance can diminish during the night or on days with minimal sunlight.

4. Which is harder to maintain?

LED lighting is typically easier to maintain due to its durability, though you may occasionally need to replace a bulb or clean a lens.

Solar lighting, on the other hand, requires more frequent upkeep, including regular cleaning of solar panels to maintain efficiency and periodic battery replacements every 1–3 years.

5. Which is more environmentally friendly?

As mentioned, outdoor LED lights are highly energy-efficient, consuming significantly less electricity compared to traditional lighting. However, it does rely on the power grid – which often uses fossil fuels – increasing its overall carbon footprint unless you have access to renewable energy sources.

Solar lighting is generally more environmentally friendly because it harnesses renewable energy from the sun. It requires no electricity from the grid, reducing its carbon footprint.

Do you think AI is a godsend or a sign of the apocalypse? Either way, if you’re shopping for one of the best laptops out there, you should probably get a "made for AI" machine.

Qualcomm and Microsoft started this whole trend off with CoPilot+ laptops. It means you get a PC with brains kinda similar to those of a phone, and a few bespoke Windows 11 features.

Intel wasn’t having any of that, though, so it struck back with its Ultra Series 2 processors, with a lot of the same benefits – super-long battery life, great peak performance, and not much heat generated.

I’ve reviewed just about every CoPilot+ laptop under the sun so far, and have been playing with the top Intel contender Asus Zenbook S 14 OLED for a few weeks. But which is better? Let’s find out.

But, spoiler alert, if you’re remotely interested in gaming after the work day, then you'll definitely want an Intel Ultra Series 2 CPU laptop (unless you opt for a top gaming laptop in its own right).

Qualcomm vs Intel: Design

• It’s slim and light all the way
• No Thunderbolt for Snapdragon PCs
• You currently have more options with Snapdragon

If you’re going to make a new type of laptop, the basic rule is that it should start off slim, pretty looking and expensive – if you want to attract the masses anyway. That’s what you get with this AI crowd.

Qualcomm is working on a new more affordable mid-tier “made for AI” range of laptops. But for now, you’re looking at spending a hefty chunk of change on these PCs. They all have metal casings, are light for their screen size, and feel great in use. Across the board, there’s not a true design dud among them, yet.

You’ll find slightly more design diversity on the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite side of the fence right now, mostly because of Microsoft. Its Surface Pro laptop is, just like the older generations, a true hybrid with a screen part and a keyboard that hooks on magnetically.

At the time of writing, all the Intel Lunar Lake laptops are just that – laptops. All these laptops, across the board, also have cracking displays. Most of them use OLED panels too. It’s another side effect of these being high-end laptops.

One key difference between Intel Ultra and Snapdragon laptops, though, is that the latter machines do not support Thunderbolt ports. They’ll most likely have USB 4 connectors instead. These two are the same in terms of port type and are ultra-fast – just don't offer the same speeds. Laptops with them will typically support connection to up to two 4K monitors. The number and type of connections you get in a particular model are going to be far more important for most folks than Thunderbolt versus USB 4.

Qualcomm vs Intel: Performance

• Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite has the edge for work
• Intel Ultra Series 2 takes an easy win for gaming
• They’re both super-efficient

There’s a clear split in the performance of Intel Ultra Series 2 Lunar Lake and Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite laptops. The most interesting part? Intel steamrolls Qualcomm for gaming.

With an Asus ZenBook S14, Cyberpunk 2077’s benchmark glides by comfortably at a 48fps average with medium settings, 1080p resolution. The Qualcomm-powered Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 only averages 26fps. That’s a massive 84% additional frames per second for the Intel laptop, heading from jerky to playable.

We've seen similar results elsewhere in big games through the years. Lord of the Rings: Shadow of Mordor ran 50% better, with a 96fps average to the Qualcomm’s 64fps average. Alien Isolation ran 82% better on the Intel laptop, with 102fps to 56fps. In almost every game, the Intel-powered PC had far better results than the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite one.

You can play pretty demanding and recent games with an Intel Lunar Lake laptop, without using embarrassingly poor resolutions and graphics settings. It’s going to be much more of a strain with a Qualcomm Snapdragon system. And, sure, while the the snobs will point out neither has the grunt of a dedicated gaming laptop, can those systems play for up to 2.5 hours off battery? And without losing most of their performance? And not cause a racket at the same time? Didn’t think so!

There’s a bit of a flip when we look at raw processor performance, though. By our numbers, the Intel Ultra 7 Lunar Lake laptop is noticeably less punchy on raw CPU power than a Qualcomm.

This has varied a bit between models of Snapdragon X Elite PCs, even when they have exactly the same specs on paper. It’s likely because there’s a balance of both noise and power consumption when on battery, which matters because the latter is one of the top features of these laptops.

If you want your laptop to go in all guns-a-blazing, you’ll have to put in a decent fan even with one of these AI laptops. Sure, it’ll only make a fraction of the noise of a gaming laptop or even some older ultraportables, but I’m yet to use a truly fanless one of these laptops. Even the tablet-style Surface Pro 11 has one, where the MacBook Air is currently a fanless design.

But if you want peak number crunching rather than gaming, Qualcomm Snapdragon laptops win in this fight, albeit with some qualification.

Qualcomm vs Intel: Battery life

• Great light use battery life from both camps
• The capacity is going to matter more than anything else
• Out tests show Intel may have a slight edge

The Qualcomm Snapdragon laptops slightly blew minds with their battery life when they arrived. They absolutely trashed the first-generation Intel Ultra crowd, and outlasted the traditional battery-lover’s choice, AMD Ryzen, without a massive drop of performance on battery.

Second-generation Intel Ultra chipsets then arrived and pretty much did the same thing. In our experience, the longevity of the two breeds of laptop are comparable.

However, second-generation Intel Ultra Asus laptop we reviewed did outlast most of the Snapdragon X Elite crowd. It ran for 18 hours of video, and around 2.5 hours of Cyberpunk 2077. There’s perhaps room for Intel to sneak a victory here, but the difference is not worth hinging your purchase decision on.

For light tasks you’re looking at real-world battery life well into the teens of hours. That’s for jobs like writing documents, video streaming or browsing where you aren’t keeping 17,000 tabs open the entire time. We are guilty of doing that about 94% of the time.

At the other end of the spectrum, serious system-straining gaming might leave you with around 2.5 hours of battery life or less. That’s better than a proper gaming laptop, but clearly worse than a Nintendo Switch OLED, whose power draw is reportedly limited to around 6.5W when playing a tough game like The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

Compare it to the often sub-60-minute longevity of a hulking gaming laptop, though, and you start to appreciate the flexibility of these new AI PCs.

Qualcomm vs Intel: Compatibility

• Intel Ultra is better for app compatibility
• …but Qualcomm Snapdragon is surprisingly good
• Both run apps like any old Windows laptop

Despite being around for months longer than the 2nd Generation Intel Ultra laptops, Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite laptops have far more compatibility issues. Do most apps work? Sure. Do most games work? Yep. But we have encountered a handful of issues during our testing that just aren’t a problem with Intel Ultra Series 2 generation PCs.

These include hardware accessories that you plug in but flat-out won't be recognised, some games crashing on start-up, and some apps complaining they need an “x86” system to run.

Without wanting to get too nerdy on you, this highlights the big difference between Snapdragon and Intel Ultra. The first uses an ARM architecture, once mostly reserved for phones, while even newer Intel Ultra chipsets are still of the classic x86 breed.

While we’ve been impressed by how well stuff runs on Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite laptops, and how rarely you need to think about compatibility, you’re likely to encounter issues before too long if you stray from the most popular or basic of apps. This also takes some of the shine off the raw processor power gains of Qualcomm systems. Bear that in mind.

Qualcomm vs Intel: Verdict

Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite laptops and ones with second-generation Intel Ultra chipsets are made with the same job in mind. They are here for great battery life and AI-ready chops that can go head-to-head with the best from Apple.

The best all-rounder for the average buyer right now is probably an Intel Ultra Series 2 laptop, even if it doesn’t win in all areas.

A Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite will win on CPU power, while Intel claims the gaming and graphics victory. Either of those is pretty significant. But the fewer compatibility issues of the Intel Ultra series pushes it over the top for us. However, at the time of writing some will want to wait for more options to appear in retailers.

DJI has been extremely busy in 2024, releasing one successful product after another. One of these was the very well-received model, the compact DJI Neo, an ultra-affordable selfie drone with skills like no other DJI drone. It could follow you around and can be operated without a controller for one-tenth of the price of a new Mavic Series drone.

To my surprise, the company released another selfie drone, the DJI Flip, mere months after. The newer UAV is larger, somewhat heavier and has a larger sensor; it also added new modes and sports a unique design that involves folding propellers with guards. However, the Flip is twice the price of the Neo.

At face value, the two models offer similar functionality and user experience, making it harder for beginner pilots – the primary target market for both – to decide which one to get. I tested and reviewed both, and even though I love them, one is certainly better value than the other.

Which is the best drone of the two, and how do they compare? Just because one isn’t the best drone, does it mean it’s not worth buying? What are the pros and cons of either model? Find out the answers to these questions and more below in my full DJI Flip vs DJI Neo comparison.

DJI Flip vs DJI Neo

Price and availability

The DJI Neo was announced in September 2024 and is now available to order directly from DJI and authorised retail partners for a recommended price of $199/ £169/ AU$299 for the standalone combo. The Fly More Combo, which includes the RC-N3 Controller and the Two-Way Charging Hub, retails for $289/ £299/ AU$539.

The DJI Flip was launched in January 2025 and is available to buy now at DJI, with prices from $439/ £369/ AU$699 (Standard Combo with the RC-N3 controller). The DJI Flip RC 2 Combo comes in at $639/ £549/ AU$949, with the only real difference being the inclusion of the DJI RC 2 Controller. The ultimate DJI Flip Fly More Combo costs $779/ £659/ AU$1,159 and includes three batteries, three spare propeller pairs, a gimbal protector, a shoulder bag and the parallel charging hub.

It’s worth noting that the Neo received no discounts during Black Friday, which is no surprise considering how cheap it is at full price. Even though the Flip is more expensive, I doubt we’ll see huge discounts before DJI decides to start getting rid of its stock (in anticipation of a new model, perhaps).

Winner: the Neo is not just cheaper but one of the most affordable premium drones out there, which makes it more appealing to beginner pilots.

Design and build quality

The DJI Flip and DJI Neo drones offer distinct design philosophies aimed at beginner drone users, balancing safety, portability, and ease of use.

The DJI Flip stands out with its foldable design, making it highly portable for users who need convenience without sacrificing durability. Its integrated propeller guards are designed with a web-like structure, providing an extra layer of safety during flights.

Weighing 249g, I found the Flip solid yet light, striking a balance between robustness and portability. Its infrared sensors, positioned above the camera unit, allow it to avoid obstacles in front of the drone and feature similar downward-facing cameras to detect optimal landing surfaces. It only has 2GB internal storage but is expandable with microSD cards.

On the other hand, the DJI Neo adopts a non-foldable, ultra-lightweight design that weighs only 135g. In all honesty, I don’t mind the non-folding design, as the Neo is ultra-compact as it is. Its compact size and built-in propeller guards make it exceptionally beginner-friendly, particularly for indoor flights. While its design leans more toward a toy-like appearance, the Neo remains durable enough to withstand occasional bumps and minor crashes.

The addition of downward-facing cameras enhances stability by assisting with takeoff, landing, and hovering – even in environments without GPS (both the Neo and Flip have built-in GPS). This makes the Neo ideal for casual users or younger pilots who value simplicity and hassle-free operation over advanced features.

The Flip offers a more advanced, polished design with a focus on versatility and safety, making it suitable for beginners interested in progressing toward professional-level drone use. The Neo, with its lightweight and straightforward design, targets users seeking an easy-to-use, durable drone for basic flying experiences. That said, both drones excel in offering safe and accessible entry points into drone flying but cater to slightly different audiences.

Winner: the Flip is more robust and has a folding design, yet it’s still under the 250g limit, a widely adopted regulation for drones by aviation authorities like the FAA (U.S.) and the CAA (U.K.)

Flight performance

The DJI Flip offers an impressive flight performance for beginners, featuring a 31-minute flight time and a range of up to 14 km. It includes AI-powered subject tracking, a 3-axis mechanical gimbal for stable footage, and strong wind resistance up to Level 5 (10.7 m/s). These features provide a smooth and stable flying experience, making it beginner-friendly yet capable of semi-professional tasks.

The DJI Neo offers an 18-minute flight time and a 7 km range, with a single-axis mechanical gimbal and electronic stabilisation for smooth footage. It features Level 4 wind resistance (up to 8 m/s) and improved tracking thanks to apost-launch firmware update. Its lightweight build makes it ideal for stable, indoor, and beginner-friendly flights.

I found that the DJI Flip offers a more refined and versatile flight experience, handling outdoor conditions and advanced manoeuvres more easily. Its stability in the air allows me to produce smoother, cinematic footage that might appeal to users interested in pushing their creative limits. The DJI Neo prioritises simplicity and safety, making it perfect for casual flying. It feels more forgiving for beginners but lacks the agility and control that the Flip provides.

The more advanced Flip offers both QuickShots and the more advanced MasterShots, giving users access to a variety of automated flight patterns and cinematic shooting modes. This makes it ideal for capturing professional-looking footage with minimal effort. The smaller Neo primarily features QuickShots, focusing on simpler, user-friendly automated shots. Both can follow pilots automatically, though.

Winner: the DJI Flip is the better choice due to its smoother handling, greater stability, and adaptability to various flying environments.

Camera performance

The DJI Flip delivers exceptional camera performance for a beginner drone. It features a large, 1/1.3-inch sensor with Dual Native ISO integration, paired with a 24mm wide-angle lens and a bright f/1.7 aperture.

It’s capable of capturing high-resolution 4K video at 60fps and 48MP still images, delivering exceptional detail and clarity. Its 3-axis mechanical gimbal ensures ultra-smooth stabilisation, even during dynamic movements. AI-powered subject tracking further enhances its creative capabilities.

The DJI Neo delivers solid camera performance with a focus on simplicity and ease of use. It has a smaller, 1/2-inch image sensor and offers 4K video recording at 30fps and 12MP photos, supported by a single-axis mechanical gimbal and electronic stabilisation. While it delivers decent footage, it lacks the advanced stabilisation and high-resolution imaging of the Flip, making it more suited for casual content.

The DJI Flip excels in camera performance with superior stabilisation and image quality, making it ideal for users interested in capturing professional-looking, dynamic footage. Its advanced gimbal system allows for smoother, more stable shots in various conditions. The DJI Neo, while capable of capturing clear 4K video, focuses on simplicity with basic stabilisation, making it better suited for casual content and social media clips.

Winner: the DJI Flip is the stronger choice for users seeking creative flexibility and higher-quality visuals.

Battery life

The DJI Flip offers significantly longer battery life, providing up to 31 minutes of flight time. This extended duration allows for more creative flexibility and longer shooting sessions. The Neo has a shorter battery life, offering up to 18 minutes of flight time, which is more limiting but still sufficient for casual and beginner users.

While both have their The DJI Flip supports faster and more efficient charging with an advanced charging hub that can charge multiple batteries in sequence, maximising flight time between sessions. The DJI Neo uses a simpler charging setup, typically charging one battery at a time, which can be slower and less convenient for extended use.

Winner: the Flip’s longer battery life makes it more suitable for capturing complex shots and exploring larger areas.

Verdict

Although both drones have their place in the broader DJI ecosystem, the Flip is admittedly a more competent drone with longer battery life, better sensors, and more versatile flying capabilities than the Neo. It costs more but is still much cheaper than most mid-range DJI drones of yesteryear.

Where does this leave the DJI Neo? Being as affordable as it is, I can’t imagine its popularity decreasing significantly due to the Flip’s presence. The dinky drone’s feature set punches above its weight, and the app ecosystem is second to none. To be able to acquire a quality DJI drone with 4K resolution for under $200 is nothing short of a miracle.

However, if you can stretch your budget a little more, I would recommend getting the Flip instead. The larger sensor produces crisper images and smoother videos, not to mention the MasterShots and slow-motion footage. It’s simply a more capable beginner drone sold for a very reasonable price.

With the introduction of both the Garmin Enduro 3 and the Garmin Fenix 8, the brand has once again made the decision more difficult for those in the market for a rugged, adventurous and long-lasting smartwatch that can match even the longest and most gruelling adventures.

Where you once had to opt for the range-topping Epix Pro model to get the full effect of a crystal clear AMOLED screen, the company has now fitted this to its latest iteration of Fenix, alongside more lifestyle-oriented features, like the speaker and microphone that allows calls to be taken from the wrist.

But the Fenix has long been a go-to for battery life (and the best Garmin watch, in general), and the sheer amount of fitness tracking features it offers, with its rugged casing proving tough enough to handle diving expeditions underwater and trips to the top of mountains on land.

The model sat in a league of its own until Garmin unleashed the Enduro 3, a lighter GPS multisport smartwatch that shunned some of the Fenix 8’s baked-in toughness in favour of a best-in-class solar battery set up that can last a whopping 320 hours with GPS tracking enabled and enough sunlight to charge it.

Sure, there’s lots of crossover between the two models, but after spending weeks testing both, we’ve aimed to tackle the topic: Garmin Enduro 3 versus Garmin Fenix 8 - which smartwatch is worth your money?

Garmin Enduro 3 vs Fenix 8

Price and availability

Both watches were only launched recently, with the Enduro 3 being the newest out of the two.

Considering the Fenix 8 first, seeing as it has the most variants, prices start at £949.99/ $999.99/ AU$1,699 at Garmin UK, Garmin US and Garmin AU (43mm bezel, AMOLED). There is also the choice of a 47mm AMOLED model, costing £949.99/ $1,099.99/ AU$2,199.

If you have tree-trunk wrists and require the largest 51mm bezel AMOLED version, you will have to stump up £1,199.99/ $1,199.99/ AU$2,199.

If battery life is your main concern, it’s worth checking out the Fenix 8 Solar, which comes in either the 47mm bezel size, which costs £1,039.99/ $1,099.99/ AU$1,849, or the larger 51mm option at £1,039.99/ $1,199.99/ AU$2,049.99

Pricing for the Enduro 3 is far simpler, as it only comes in one version and one bezel size (the same 51mm bezel as the largest Fenix 8) and it costs £769.99/ $899.99/ AU$1,549 if you purchase it directly from Garmin UK, Garmin US and Garmin AU.
We had a little nose around the web and found a number of websites selling both models, including Currys, Cotswold Outdoors, SportsShoes.com, Blacks and Amazon.

Design and build quality

If we are to be completely fair, we should really be comparing the Fenix 8 Solar with the 51mm bezel to the Enduro 3, purely because it uses essentially the same MIP screen technology and looks largely similar.

There is a clear difference in the bezel design, with the more expensive Fenix 8 opting for a shiny titanium finish in some models. But both actually use titanium in the bezel material, it’s just slightly skinnier on the lighter Enduro 3.

The Fenix 8 has a little metal sensor guard on the side, which is supposed to beef up the overall durability, while the buttons feature a leak-proof design, which makes it much better for deeper water activities.

Weirdly, both of the watches have a 10ATM water rating, but the Fenix 8 features specific dive features, including scuba diving with single gas, apnea diving and a specific depth app. The Enduro 3 lacks these features.

Without taking the two watches out and smashing them with a hammer, it’s very difficult to say which can withstand the most aggressive beatings, but it is safe to say they are equally tough when it comes to fending off scratches (both use a Sapphire Power Lens) and scrapes.

Flip the Fenix 8 over and you’ll notice the addition of a metal rear cover, which the Enduro series used to boast but it is missing in the latest iteration. Instead, you’ll have to make do with a solid fibre-reinforced polymer casing instead.

The Enduro 3 also comes fitted with an ultra-lightweight elastic nylon hook and loop strap, which is easily adjusted on the fly but doesn’t exactly make it look particularly premium. On the other hand, the Fenix 8 can be optioned with silicone bands, as well as titanium bracelets and more.

Above all else, it is the screen technology that separates the two, as the AMOLED display in certain Fenix 8 models is far superior when it comes to brightness, sharpness and the sleek animations it can run.

Features

When it comes to the activities these watches can track, the sports specific profiles, the athletic metrics and the all-encompassing health features, there is very little to separate the two.

Both feature essentially the same sensor set, with the Garmin Fenix 8 offering an additional depth sensor for diving. Aside from that, there’s everything from GPS and satellite to thermometers, optical heart rate sensors and even an ambient light sensor.

Both of these watches can track pretty much everything, including heart rate variability (a great marker for overall health) and the quality of sleep, which will impact your training readiness every day.

The Fenix 8 is billed slightly more as a lifestyle watch, so packs a microphone and speaker that allows Apple Watch Ultra 2-style phone calls from the wrist. Is this worth the extra outlay over the Enduro 3? Probably not, especially considering the fact you need your phone at hand anyway, but it’s a nice feature if you need to answer a call mid-run or workout.

It does allow for more smartphone interaction than other Garmin models on sale, including those Apple users. A Phone Assistant function allows you to interact with your favoured smart assistant, while a Voice Command option can be used to instruct the watch to take actions.

In addition to this, the Fenix 8 AMOLED Fenix 8 introduces an upgraded strength training mode, providing more detailed tracking of reps and form. Plus, the AMOLED display makes following along to individual exercise animations a little easier, as the graphics are sharper and more fluid.

In fact, the overall user interface is just so much sharper, more vibrant and interesting on the Fenix 8 AMOLED model, including the basic menu screens and settings functions.

Arguably the headline feature of the Enduro 3 is its battery life, which we will get onto next, but it is also marginally lighter and cheaper to buy overall.

Battery life

This is the big one, because the Enduro 3 has been designed from the ground up to offer the most battery life. The solar panels built into the face are now larger, while the decision to opt for an MIP display as opposed to the flashy AMOLED generally uses less juice.

The result is a watch that can last almost double the time of the already pretty staggering Fenix 8 Solar when used in a general smartwatch mode, so long as you have access to plenty of sunlight.

Things get even more interesting when you start factoring in GPS and other satellite systems, as many Enduro 3 owners are likely going to rely heavily on navigation when attempting ultra-marathons and other gruelling endurance events in the wild.

With all sat nav systems and multi-band GPS running, Gamin says the watch will run for 120 hours with solar or 72 hours without it. That’s huge and more than enough for even the toughest athletes.

The 51mm solar-powered Fenix 8 will manage 64 or 84 hours of runtime depending on the amount of lux, while the AMOLED manages between 49 and 62 hours depending on whether you have gesture control activated or not.

Fans of multi-day expeditions will also be pleased to hear that with expedition GPS activated, where the watch intermittently takes GPS readings, the Enduro 3 can run for up to 77 days without sunlight and effectively run for an unlimited amount of time without it.

Without factoring in solar power, that’s 27 days more than the comparative 51mm Fenix 8 Solar model can handle under the same conditions.

Verdict

There is very little separating the Enduro 3 and the Fenix 8 when it comes to a comprehensive feature set - they essentially both pack the entire Garmin suite of sensors, navigation, activity tracking and health-tracking capabilities.

Determining the best watch for you will chiefly be down to personal preference, as the Enduro 3 is currently only available in black and in one bezel size, which just so happens to be enormous. It’s also not quite as rugged as the Fenix 8, nor does it come with the option of a slick AMOLED display or those added smartphone features.

But then some of the hardcore out there will argue that an AMOLED display and the ability to answer calls from the wrist is distracting when you’re trying to survive a 24-hour fell run, while the added peace of mind from such a monster battery life is worth the stylistic and lifestyle compromises.

Perhaps more importantly, budget is going to play a massive role in the decision making, as there is no escaping the fact that the Enduro 3 is a sizable chunk of change cheaper than any of the aforementioned Fenix 8 models and is basically just as capable.

So is the Garmin Fenix 7 – here's how it compares to its successor: Garmin Fenix 8 vs Fenix 7

In today’s fast-paced world of tech, the once mighty Garmin Fenix 7 is now considered old hat, at least since Garmin launched an all-new model with plenty of enticing features designed to tempt owners to upgrade and newcomers of the brand to part with serious sums of cash.

As a gentle reminder, the Fenix has long been one of the best outdoor watches and has stood as one of the most premium models in the brand's extensive smartwatch lineup. Designed to accompany folk on long, arduous adventures while offering serious GPS-based navigational assistance, Fenix smartwatches can track every conceivable performance metric along the way.

Whether you are a fan of water sports, diving in ghostly chasms, or exploring the world’s tallest peaks, the Fenix has been designed to excel in all environments. Plus, the classic, almost horological take on the bezel design means it also doesn’t look out of place at a swanky evening function.

Despite launching a Garmin Fenix 7 Pro model in May 2023, the brand has seen fit to pinch elects from its wider smartwatch range and shoehorn them into the latest Garmin Fenix 8, which includes a crisp AMOLED display, the latest sensor suite, and a host of new design touches.

As a result, the original and entry-level Fenix 7 models do look a little long in the tooth by comparison; should you upgrade, though? Or is it worth sticking with what you’ve got?

Even for those that are new to the Garmin Fenix game, there is a choice to be made, as the potential to make huge savings by opting for the previous generation is very real and, as you’ll find out, you won’t be missing out too much.

Garmin Fenix 8 versus Garmin Fenix 7

Price and availability

The Fenix lineup has always been one of the most difficult to navigate, with seemingly endless bezel sizes, displays, solar options, and Pro models that represent the latest in Garmin’s technological advancements.

For example, the Fenix 7 was eventually offered in Standard, Solar, Sapphire Solar, Pro Solar and Pro Sapphire Solar guises. Depending on the model, these could then be optioned with either a 42mm, 47mm or 51mm bezel.

Head to the Garmin UK, Garmin US or Garmin AU, and it’s a mixed bag whether you can actually buy the smallest, 42mm Fenix 7S Standard model anymore.

It’s still available in the US priced at $649.99, while the likes of Decathlon in the UK stock it for £385.99, while Amazon AU has it for AU$655.83 - a bargain whichever way you cut it.

Solar and Sapphire Solar models are also missing from both the UK and Australian websites, with only Garmin US still stocking the 47mm Sapphire Solar for $799.99.

Step up to Pro Solar, which introduces solar charging and a new heart rate sensor on the back, and it becomes a lot easier to find one at Garmin UK, Garmin US and Garmin AU. These cost £739.99/$799.99/AU$1,349 respectively.

The range-topping Pro Sapphire Solar, with the hardier sapphire crystal lens, costs £899.99/ $899.99/ AU$1,699, but there are a number of outlets, including Curry’s, Argos and Decathlon that sell the Fenix 7 for cheap.

Navigating the Fenix 8 model line-up is slightly easier, purely because there is slightly less choice… for now. See Garmin UK, Garmin US and Garmin AU for reference.

Prices start at £949.99/ $999.99/ AU$1,699 for the 43mm bezel, AMOLED display model. There is also the choice of a 47mm AMOLED model, costing £949.99/ $1,099.99/ AU$2,199.

If you have extra large wrists and require the largest 51mm bezel AMOLED version, you will have to stump up £1,199.99/$1,199.99/AU$2,199.

If battery life is your main concern, it’s worth checking out the Fenix 8 Solar, which comes in either the 47mm bezel size, which costs £1,039.99/ $1,099.99/ AU$1,849, or the larger 51mm option at £1,039.99/ $1,199.99/ AU$2,049.99.

Design and build quality

Both the Fenix 7 and Fenix 8 are marketed as rugged outdoors smartwatches, so both are built to handle extreme environments. Having rigorously tested both models, we can honestly say that they among the toughest and longest-lasting fitness watches out there.

The Fenix 8 ushers in a few new touches that apparently add to its performance out in the field, including an additional sensor guard that now covers some of the vitals at the side of the watch. How much difference this makes, we can’t really say. But it looks cool.

In addition to this, Garmin has moved away from mechanical buttons in the latest iteration of Fenix, which also brings with it the ability to offer proper diving features. Although both have an official water rating of 10ATM, the Fenix 8 is certified for depths of up to 40m.

This is thanks to those buttons and the lack of mechanical connection, as the leakproof inductive technology means the company could do away with seals and O-rings that can potentially fail and allow water to seep in.

The other pretty obvious difference is the introduction of a super crisp and equally bright AMOLED touchscreen on the Fenix 8, which is so much clearer and easier on the eye than the memory-in-pixel display Garmin has relied on for so long.

With the new display comes a revised user interface, which will look broadly similar to those already deeply embedded in the Garmin ecosystem, but it is altogether more graphical in its approach. The animations are smoother, and the overall visual results are more in line with something like the Apple Watch Ultra 2 than previous generations.

However, for those who use their watches for serious endurance endeavours or timing triathlons and whatnot, having a super crisp modern display isn’t a dealbreaker, and the one found on the Fenix 7 is perfectly good enough.

What’s more, the AMOLED display also means the smallest bezel size in the Fenix 8 is 43mm, as opposed to the 42mm option in the 7S and the 7 Solar models. Battery life is also impacted by the latest screen technology, as lots of interaction drains it much faster.

For those who really want to go the distance, the Fenix 7 Solar can still hold its own. But more on battery life later.

Features

Hopefully, you are fairly well versed in what the Garmin Fenix lineup offers in terms of features because the list requires a mammoth article of its own.

If we are to directly compare the previous generation with the Fenix 8, it’s wise to mention that non-Pro versions of the Fenix 7 feature Garmin’s previous generation heart rate sensor. It’s just not as accurate or quick to react to changes in heart rate as the latest generation, found in 7 Pro and the latest Fenix 8 model.

Similarly, the Fenix 8 utilises a multi-band GNSS chipset, which significantly enhances its performance in tracking location, even in challenging environments like dense forests or urban areas with tall buildings.

The maps are also much easier to interact with thanks to that crystal clear AMOLED, not to mention the fact they simply look a lot better. This new GPS chipset also means it locks on to satellites much faster than previous generations ever could.

Garmin also introduced a built-in LED flashlight when it launched the Fenix 7 Pro, which is a very handy addition and saves you from fumbling for a smartphone in the dark. It’s much brighter on the Fenix 8, although Garmin doesn’t provide the statistics to work out by how much. There’s no flashlight on the Fenix 7 Standard edition.

Alongside the previously mentioned AMOLED display, the diving features and the additional protection around the sensors, Garmin has also ushered in a microphone and speaker array that allows users to connect to a smartphone and make calls off the wrist.

It also allows more smartphone interaction than other Garmin models on sale, including Apple Watch users. A Phone Assistant function allows you to interact with your favoured smart assistant, while a Voice Command option can be used to instruct the watch to perform actions.

Battery life

If you are used to owning one of the best smartwatches, you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the battery life on both the Fenix 7 and the Fenix 8. Even without solar charging adding to battery life, the latest generation AMOLED Fenix can manage up to 29 days in smartwatch mode.

The entry-level Fenix 7 isn’t quite as impressive, as that can run for 11 days in smartwatch mode, but seeing as the Pro Solar models are currently so cheap, it is probably fairer to compare these models, which can run for 14 days with sunlight.

That said, the latest Fenix 8 Solar blows everything out of the water with its 48 days of runtime in smartwatch mode, provided you have enough sunlight to keep it topped up.

Perhaps more importantly, we should look at the “All Satellite Systems + Music” battery life figure, which gives a good indication of the absolute worst-case scenario. With regards to the Fenix 8, that figure is 18 hours, but with the Fenix 7 Pro Solar, that figure drops to just 7 hours.

Verdict

The Fenix 8 is a unique case, in so much as it borrows so many elements from other watches in the Garmin stable. The fact it sports the AMOLED display effectively makes the Garmin Epix Gen 2 redundant now.

In this respect, it now sits at the top of the pile among some of the best Garmin watches on sale and, thanks to this, sports an equally eye-watering price tag to suit. It is clearly better than the Fenix 7 it replaces, but is it really worth the extra money?

If you consider the savings available on the previous generation, the improved screen clarity, faster GPS performance, and increased battery don’t really seem enough to justify the massive additional outlay. You can almost buy two Fenix 7 Pro Solar models for what a new Fenix 8 Solar costs.

So, if you already own the Fenix 7 and you are happy with it, keep it on the wrist. There’s no need to dash out and spend more of your hard-earned cash. But if you are looking for a brand new model, we highly recommend the Fenix 8.

However, and this is a big however. If you really want the best battery life in the game and you’re ok with a MIP display, it’s worth looking at the latest Garmin Enduro 3. It is cheaper, lighter and more ready to go the distance than the Fenix 8 while still packing most of the latest features.

You can say a lot about Garmin, but you can’t accuse the brand of not offering enough choice.

Pilates has witnessed a significant surge in popularity in recent years. Despite its inherent connections with the ancient practice of yoga, it has only been in existence for approximately a century.

Developed by German physical trainer Joseph Pilates to help athletes and dancers overcome injuries, his method of training develops strength and flexibility by focussing on controlled movements that increase mobility, improve posture, and strengthen muscles.

Unlike traditional weight lifting, which uses physical weights, such as dumbbells, kettlebells and barbells, to add resistance, Pilates relies on body weight and is more a mix of callisthenics, yoga and dance than it is other forms of resistance training.

As you can probably tell, the differences between weight lifting and Pilates programmes are stark, but each has its place, depending on your ultimate goals. Here, we break down each discipline so you can work out if it’s for you.

What is Pilates and why is it good?

You could attend three Pilates classes in three different locations, and none of them will be exactly the same, simply because the instructor has carte blanche to use the fundamentals to shape how a session plays out.

Essentially, you can expect lots of controlled bodyweight movements that are designed to increase strength and mobility. There is a big focus on the core and abs, while instructors will teach the art of breathing techniques to ensure the various poses and moves can be held for lengthy periods of time.

Pilates often lacks the more spiritual element of yoga, focussing instead on small controlled movements that get the lactic acid firing and can make it one hell of a workout, especially for the uninitiated.

It is a fantastic, low-impact form of exercise that promotes proper posture, improved flexibility and mobility, as well as greater cardiovascular capabilities and improved overall strength.

What’s more, it can be perfect for those nursing niggles or bouncing back from injuries, as the low-impact, bodyweight nature ensures sessions can be tailored to an individual's needs.

How does Pilates compare to weightlifting?

Where Pilates aims to strengthen muscles using slow, controlled bodyweight movements, such as single leg circles and shoulder bridges, weightlifting utilises physical weights (think dumbbells, kettlebells, barbells and the like) to create resistance.

Due to this, anyone participating in a weightlifting programme can easily employ something called ‘progressive overload’. This is where the weight can gradually increase over a series of weeks or months to ensure continued muscle growth and improvements in strength.

Annoyingly, human muscles quickly adapt to stimuli, so if you keep lifting the same amount of kilos over and over again, you aren’t going to see much progress. Instead, you have to incrementally crank up the weight or add more and more reps into a workout to see gains.

Progress in Pilates usually comes in the form of more complex exercises or classes that use additional props, such as resistance bands, Swiss Balls or Reformer machines, for example.

What’s more, while Pilates does incorporate most major muscle groups in the body, it focuses heavily on the core, with a huge amount of ab and lower back work that often leads newcomers to experience muscle soreness in their midsection.

However, the classes will also incorporate mobility work. They teach the best practices when it comes to breathing techniques, and many Pilates converts find classes to be relaxing and a great way to clear the mind, whereas heavy weightlifting can be a stressful experience for some.

What are the downsides of Pilates?

If you are looking to pack on serious muscle or be the strongest person in the room, practicing Pilates won’t cut it. Although great for toning, strengthening and increasing mobility, Pilates programmes generally don’t employ enough resistance and progressive overload to achieve a bodybuilder’s physique.

If that is the end goal, you will want to stick to a disciplined weightlifting programme that features progressive overload, periods of rest to allow the muscle to heal and grow, as well as a well-balanced diet that includes plenty of protein.

The other potential downside of Pilates is the difficulty some find in holding tricky positions for a period of time. Most moves require solid core strength and a level of mobility many don’t possess…especially those who have only lifted weights all of their lives.

But that’s the beauty of a Pilates class, as it can be tailored for absolute beginners and then adapted to become more difficult as skill levels increase.

What are the downsides of weightlifting?

As with any form of resistance exercise, weightlifting brings with it an inherent risk of injury, particularly among those who have very little experience or training in a gym environment.

Some of the best advice is to seek the assistance of a personal trainer if you are thinking of embarking on a weightlifting programme for the first time. Learn how to perform the movements safely and have a trained professional assess the sort of weight you should be using.

Unlike Pilates, weight lifting can also have a negative impact on mobility, with the most impressive physiques in the gym often suffering from poor shoulder mobility or a limited range of motion in the lower body thanks to busy gym schedules leaving little room for stretching.

Finally, there is more of a risk of overtraining where weightlifting is concerned, with many newcomers trying to cram as much in as possible, ignoring the requirement for rest and recovery.

Overtraining can result in injury and even lead to overtraining syndrome. It can also make you feel fatigued and generally grumpy while increasing your susceptibility to common colds and illnesses. It can also impact sleep and generally make you feel sore and miserable.

So take it easy, factor in plenty of rest and make sure a good diet and plenty of uninterrupted sleep are on the cards.

Which routine is best for me?

This will really depend on your end goal. If you want to tone muscle, get stronger, become more flexible and learn to relax while working out, Pilates is most definitely for you.

In fact, even the most hardcore, gym-going weightlifters would benefit from sprinkling the odd Pilates class into their schedules purely because it is so good for strengthening the all-important core muscles, improving flexibility and balance, as well as bolstering the cardiovascular system.

However, if you are more concerned with increasing muscle mass, improving explosive strength, becoming more athletic, and generally being stronger than your mates, following a dedicated weightlifting programme is going to prove the most beneficial.

Alternatively, have your cake and eat it by having a go at both weightlifting and Pilates. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

One of the major killers of muscle gains is overworking a particular muscle group and not allowing it enough time to effectively recover. The best push-pull-leg and upper/lower body workout splits aim to prevent this from happening.

Put simply, a push-pull-legs (PPL) routine will maximise time in the gym, while allowing ample time for recovery between sessions, while an upper/lower split will do largely the same by alternating the body parts worked at any one time to avoid any form of overlap.

So long as the exercise form is good and you are effectively introducing progressive overload, where the weight gradually increases over time, both popular workout routines are proven to effectively increase muscle size, while generally improving strength.

What is a push-pull-legs workout?

This workout routine can either be performed three times a week, offering ample opportunity for recovery for recovery (great for beginners) or six times a week for more advanced bodybuilders looking for serious muscle gain.

In essence, it separates the workouts into ‘pushing’ upper body movements, ‘pulling’ upper body movements and a day dedicated solely to legs. The general idea is that programming ‘push’ and ‘pull’ sessions on different days avoid any overlap, as different muscle groups are used for pushing and pulling movements.

On ‘push’ days, you’ll perform exercises such as bench press and overhead press, while a 'pull' day involves pulling exercises, including deadlifts, upright rows and bent-over rows.

Legs is self-explanatory, as this day will focus solely on the lower body with things like squats, Romanian deadlifts and dedicated exercises for the quads, hamstrings, glutes and calves.

Even those looking to hit the gym and strength train six times a week will find plenty of opportunity to rest the various muscle groups. For example, if you start your week with a ‘push’ session on Monday, you won’t actually hit those muscle groups again until Thursday.

What is an upper/lower body split?

An upper/lower body split is fairly self-explanatory, as it works the muscles in the upper body one day and then focuses on the legs and lower body muscle groups the next. Typically run over four days, the split will usually follow an “Upper, Lower, Rest, Upper, Lower, Rest” format.

Rather than honing in on targeted exercises, an upper/lower split will often focus more on compound movements that work lots of muscle groups at once. Think squats, deadlifts, and overhead pressing, rather than dumbbell flies for chest sculpting and leg curls for quads.

Due to this, programming an upper/lower split can be very simple, with only a handful of exercises and fairly basic equipment required. Once your upper and lower body exercises are locked in, you can simply repeat these and gradually increase the weight over time to stimulate muscle growth.

Which is best for beginners?

Both of the workout regimes can be performed by beginners. However, both will require gym newbies to learn how to perform some of the most basic exercises correctly. It’s better to master form than to simply throw lots of weight around and hope for the best.

A push-pull-legs split is typically involves things like the barbell bench press, overhead barbell press, tricep dips and more. Pull day will see pull-ups thrown into the mix, as well as bent-over rows, bicep curls and exercises for the shoulders.

As a general rule of thumb, an upper/lower split can be more beneficial for complete newcomers, as it provides a holistic training plan that works the entire body in equal measure. The PPL split will, but its very nature, put greater emphasis on the upper body.

As mentioned previously, the upper/lower split can include some basic compound exercises that, if performed correctly, can reap huge rewards pretty quickly. Once a basic foundation of strength is established, gym-goers can then look to focus on more specialist exercises to grow or tone that particular body part.

The potential drawbacks

A push-pull-legs routine places more emphasis on the upper body, so it means the legs naturally get slightly neglected. If you’re looking to grow some serious quads or shape up those glutes, it’s worth programming the more holistic upper/lower split.

Similarly, all of this really hinges on how much time you want to dedicate to a workout routine, as volume (or the amount you train a particular muscle group per week) is key to overall muscle growth.

With that in mind, performing an upper/lower split just once a week, with one day a week dedicated to each area, isn’t going to provide the volume that’s required to build muscle in most people. A PPL performed once a week is likely to provide more volume, purely because it works the upper body twice.

Ideally, an upper/lower split requires at least four days a week, although it is possible to stretch that to six. A serious PPL split will also require six days in the gym for faster growth… so long as rest, diet and protein intake is all on point.

A word on rest and diet

Both of these workout splits neatly promote rest in their programming, either by factoring in a rest day in between workouts or avoiding a previously worked muscle group, so as not to overwork it and potentially cause injury or overtraining syndrome.

That said, gym newcomers might feel generally sore, experiencing delayed onset muscle soreness. Even if a particularly painful muscle group isn’t being worked, simply moving around a gym can be a chore. After all, bodybuilding and muscle growth is all about creating tiny microtears in the muscle fibre, which leads to the body repairing these tears, creating a larger and stronger muscle overall.

With that in mind, it’s worth noting that you don’t actually grow in the gym. You grow when you rest, so getting plenty of sleep and a solid amount of rest in between sessions is key to muscle growth.

If you are actively working out, you'll need around 1.6-2.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body mass per day. Not only that, but because your body doesn't have protein reserves (unlike carb and fat reserves), you'll have to supply it with protein frequently so it can grow.

You can use protein powder and other protein supplements when needed, but try to cover the bulk of your protein needs with natural protein sources such as lean meat, nuts, eggs, oily fish, leafy green veg, tofu etc. For 'hard gainers', adding weight gainer supplements to the nutrition plan could also be beneficial.

Indoor training used to be a necessary evil for anyone looking to get a head start on the next cycling season, clamping your bike into a turbo trainer and thrashing away in front of a screen (if you were lucky).

Just over 10 years ago, indoor riding consisted of blindly riding along with no structure or attempting to follow a vague interval plan where efforts were based on your heart rate of perceived exertion. Power metres were still very much in their infancy and reserved for pros or those with deep pockets.

Then, this thing that looked like a video game appeared and promised to revolutionise indoor training with a virtual world teeming with other riders, races and structured workouts to help while away those dark winter months.

Since Zwift’s arrival on the scene, a host of other indoor training platforms have been developed, such as Rouvy and MyWhoosh. These platforms all claim to offer a slightly different indoor riding experience, but which is best, and which should you invest in to get the biggest headstart for the new season? I’ve spent loads of time on the turbo trainer to see which is worth your cash.

What you need to get started

You can ride in any of these indoor training programs to varying degrees. The most basic requires a dumb turbo trainer (a dumb trainer only generates resistance and does not measure your power output) and a power meter. This setup is a great starting point for indoor riding, but the rider has to alter the resistance manually, either by changing gears or changing the resistance on the trainer.

The mid-tier setup uses a smart trainer, such as Zwift Ride. These trainers have built-in power metres and allow the training program to alter the resistance automatically. This means the trainer can simulate gradients or hold a specific power in structured workouts.

The money-no-object setup combines a smart trainer with some other connected accessories. I’ve been riding the Wahoo Kickr Move, Kickr Headwind Smart Fan, and Kickr Climb, which lifts the front of the bike up to simulate climbing. It's a very immersive setup that is as close as it gets to riding outside but is by no means necessary for indoor riding.

The final piece of the puzzle is the indoor training software itself. Zwift is the original and has developed into a multi-world indoor riding paradise, but there are other platforms vying for a piece of the pie. In recent years, Rouvy and MyWhoosh have developed into great alternatives that offer something a little bit different from Zwift.

Zwift features over 2000km of virtual roads to ride. Some are entirely fictional, like the island of Watopia, but some are based on real locations, such as the World Championship locations of Yorkshire and Innsbruck or other iconic cycling locations, such as the Champs Elysee and Alp d’Huez.

These locations provide the backdrop to what is arguably Zwift’s strongest feature: the community. Whatever the time of day, there are always plenty of other riders out on the virtual roads to ride with. A near-constant schedule of group rides at various speeds means there's always something to commit to, as well as a packed schedule of racing for the more competitive riders.

If you're looking for structured workouts and training plans, Zwift also has you covered with plans and workouts that focus on everything from sprinting to building your FTP. It’s also possible to build custom workouts if nothing fits your requirements. Zwift is an incredibly well-rounded training platform, but the one downside is cost. At this price point, it is expensive for casual use, but if the weather outside is foul, then I’ve found it to be good value for money as I wouldn't otherwise ride at all.

Everything is getting more and more expensive these days, so when MyWhoosh appeared on the scene offering a completely free indoor training platform, it was a breath of fresh air. Just because it’s free, though, doesn't mean the platform scrimps on features.

Whereas Zwift lets riders choose from a range of themed courses, both fictional and real, MyWhoosh uses accurate recreations of real-world locations. Current locations include Arabia, Columbia, Australia, Alula, and Belgium, which offer a good range of roads to ride.

All the locations feature real-world routes, such as Abu Dhabi’s Yas Marina circuit (from F1 fame) and the bergs from the Tour of Flanders, but there are some fictional routes to keep things interesting.

The training tools in MyWhoosh have been developed by the coaches from UAE Team Emirates, so if they're good enough for Tadej Pogacar, then they're probably good enough for us mere mortals. Plans include discipline-specific programs for road racing, climbing, and time trialling, among others, as well as broader programs designed to build your FTP or lose weight.

Group riding suffers a little compared to the competition. With fewer riders on the platform compared to Zwift, the environment can feel a bit sparse at times, but plenty of Bots roam the courses, so it doesn't feel totally deserted.

MyWhoosh is the official platform for the UCI Cycling eSports World Championships but only hosts a handful of races a week, meaning there's much less opportunity to jump into a race than on Zwift.

It feels harsh to pick holes in a completely free platform and to be honest; there aren't many flaws. If a lack of community doesn't bother you, MyWhoosh is an excellent choice for getting the miles in.

Rouvy takes another approach to realism, blending the real and virtual worlds to create a hugely immersive riding experience. The environment you ride in is a real-world location with a huge range of options, including the epic climbs of the Tour de France, Norway, Columbia, and Iceland.

There is a huge range of routes, in excess of 300, with more being added. The videos of the routes are then augmented with your virtual avatar, which speeds up and slows down as you change your effort. The immersion is so deep that pedestrians and vehicles move on the roads as you ride, which makes it feel very realistic.

As with Zwift and MyWhoosh, there's a suite of training plans and workouts to choose from, depending on your goals. Some workouts have been designed with pro tour coaches, including Lidl Trek and Visma Lease-a-Bike, so you can be sure you're in for a tough ride!

The community aspect is not as deep as Zwift’s, but like MyWhoosh, Rouvy can add ghost riders to the world to make it feel more populated. On Zwift, it’s common to have a group of a few hundred riders at most events, but Rouvy’s numbers are considerably lower. There’s a calendar of racing for those with a competitive streak, but again, field sizes are not as large as on Zwift.

What Rouvy lacks in community, it more than makes up for in realism. The ability to ride so many real-world routes would keep even the most trainer-averse riders occupied over the winter.

What platform is right for you?

It’s hard to overlook Zwift when choosing the best platform for you. It’s got a huge community, a steady stream of well-attended events, and plenty of kilometres of roads to explore. However, it is the most expensive of the bunch, and I don't think the realism or immersion is as strong as Rouvy’s.

If you're looking for a low-budget option, then it doesn't get better than MyWhoosh. A fully fledged training and racing platform at zero cost is amazing. If it’s realism and engagement you're after, then Rouvy is the one for you, with hundreds of real-world routes to choose from.

With Movember 2024 upon us, a lot of people are going to be thinking about how to grow a beard, what kind of style to get, and other facial hair-related questions.

Anyone who has a beard knows that keeping it looking good relies heavily on having the best beard trimmer, as well as a plan for what you want the hair to look like, and an acceptance that sometimes your dream look isn't possible.

Two of the best beard trimmers on the market are the Philips BT9000 Prestige and the Braun Beard Trimmer 7, which sit at the high-end and offer tons of features ideal for growing and maintaining facial hair – for Movember and beyond.

Both have their own strengths and weaknesses, and we'll explore those below. It's worth remembering that a weakness for some people might be a strength (or at least a non-issue for others), given how different facial hair can be.

Philips BT9000 Prestige: What are the main features?

The Philips 9000 Prestige beard trimmer stands out for its premium build and precise SteelPrecision tech, and features an all-metal design that promises long-lasting performance.

The 9000 offers 30 adjustable length settings, from 0.4 mm to 10 mm, controlled through its cool precision dial. This model incorporates an adaptive motor that adjusts according to beard density, ensuring smooth and consistent trimming even with dense growth.

With up to 120 minutes of runtime after a one-hour charge, the 9000 also includes a convenient quick-charge option. Fully washable and built with a durable metal housing, it’s designed for users who value both luxury and high precision in grooming, and are willing to splash a little more cash.

As a premium option, the Philips 9000 retails for £129.99, and the lowest we've seen is £117.99 on Amazon right now. Read our full Philips BT9000 Prestige review for more details.

Braun Beard Trimmer 7: What are the main features?

The Braun Series 7 beard trimmer is designed for precision and adaptability, featuring an impressive 40 length settings that range from 0.5 mm to 20 mm.

All of these settings make it ideal for users with varied grooming needs, from close stubble to full beard styling, and its AutoSensing motor tech detects and adjusts to beard thickness, providing consistent power for an even trim.

Battery life is rated as up to 100 minutes on a one-hour charge and the Series 7 also includes a quick-charge option, which is good for those who forget to charge (myself included). The Series 7 is also fully waterproof, making it easy to clean and versatile for both wet and dry use, and it comes with a barbering tool for enhanced precision.

The Braun Trimmer 7 retails for around £80, but we've seen current deals for £54.99, including direct from Braun's website. Read our full Braun Beard Trimmer 7 review for more details.

Philips BT9000 Prestige vs. Braun Beard Trimmer 7: Which is the best?

The Braun Series 7 and the Philips 9000 Prestige are both high-performance beard trimmers, each with unique features for precision grooming, and whichever one you prefer will rest on your style and preference.

The Braun trimmer offers 40 length settings, which makes it particularly versatile for a wide range of beard styles, including longer lengths, and also features an AutoSensing motor to adapt to beard thickness.

The Philips BT9810, on the other hand, targets users who appreciate a premium build with its metal design and durable SteelPrecision technology, and offers 30 length settings adjusted via a precision dial that provides accurate control for shorter trims.

Equipped with an adaptive motor similar to Braun’s, the Philips BT9810 ensures smooth trimming across all beard types. Both models are fully washable, but Philips places a bit more emphasis on the high-end feel and exact precision for detail-focused users.

As you might have guessed, these two trimmers are both premium and compare well. Perhaps the only main difference is the Philips 9000 can deliver up to 20 minutes more per charge, with the company rating it at two hours of usage.

Philips BT9000 Prestige vs. Braun Beard Trimmer 7: verdict

Ultimately, the best beard trimmer out of the Philips BT9000 Prestige and Braun Beard Trimmer 7 will depend on your budget. The Philips costs a fair chunk of change more than the Braun trimmer, and that might make a difference. The feature lists are very comparable, and the only real difference is the Philips gets around 20 minutes more battery life, for a total of two hours.

When making a decision, it's always worth checking out other available trimmers, and we rate the Philips Series 7000 Trimmer pretty highly, too, especially if you can find one for a good deal.

When it comes to buying the best smart speaker or display, one of the key brands that pops up time and again is Amazon Echo. Since the launch of its first Echo device in 2015, Amazon’s Echo family has grown significantly, and now includes Dot, Show, Pop and Spot models – but what are they? And which should you choose?

The four devices in question are all smart speakers, although the Echo Show is better known as a smart display, because of its screen. All Echo devices have a lot of similar features and functionalities, but they’re predominantly known for Amazon Alexa, a personal voice assistant that’s built into each Echo model.

Depending on the speaker or display that you choose, you can expect to receive plenty of smart features, including powerful audio, organisation, timers and reminders, and control over other smart devices. But as you’d expect, these features differ from model to model and each device is good for different reasons.

So, which should you choose? Dot or Show? Pop or Spot? Here’s everything you need to know about Amazon Echo devices and which one you should buy for your household.

What is the Echo Dot?

The Echo Dot was first released in 2016, and is a Wi-Fi and Bluetooth smart speaker. It has a circular design with a flat base and is available in charcoal, glacier white and deep sea blue colours. In terms of pricing, the newest generation of the Echo Dot is £54.99 / $49.99.

Predominantly designed to be used as a smart speaker, the Echo Dot has clear and powerful audio, and can be used to listen to music, podcasts and audiobooks. This is made available with its Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity, and compatibility with Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Audible and other apps.

Aside from playing music, the Echo Dot comes with Alexa, so you can ask it questions, set timers and reminders, and have a casual conversation with it. It can also be used to set routines and control compatible smart home devices, like Philips Hue lights –  see our full Echo Dot review for details.

Since its launch, the Echo Dot has seen many generations, with the latest version being the Echo Dot (5th generation) that was released in 2022. In addition to the standard Dot speaker, you can find the Echo Dot Kids, a kid-friendly version of the smart speaker, which comes with parental controls, kids apps and features, and the Echo Dot with Clock – although if it’s an alarm clock you’re looking for, then take a look at the Spot.

What is the Echo Show?

The Echo Show is best described as a smart display, as unlike the Dot or Pop, it has a touchscreen. It has all the Echo Dot features mentioned above, plus you can use it to watch movies, make video calls and it has better access to your smart home controls.

There are four different versions of the Echo Show: 5, 8, 10 and 15. The number depicts the size of the touchscreen, so the Echo Show 5 has a 5-inch display, and so on. Multiple generations have been launched of each Echo Show device, and vary in features. For more details about each specific model, see our Echo Show 5 review, the Echo Show 8 review, the Echo Show 10 review and the Echo Show 15 review.

For more visual information and smart home controls, the Echo Show is what you’d want to choose. Having said that, Amazon released the Echo Hub in 2023, a central hub for smart home devices. It’s not the same as Show or Dot devices, as it’s not a dedicated speaker – instead, you’ll have to link the Hub to other speakers. I’d say that the Echo Show falls in between the Dot and Hub in terms of features, but more on that later.

Prices start at £89.99 / $89.99 for the Echo Show 5 and go up to £259.99 / $249.99 for the Echo Show 10. As of writing, you can only find certified refurbished versions of the Echo 15, and rumours have been circulating that it might be discontinued.

What is the Echo Pop?

The Echo Pop is a Wi-Fi and Bluetooth smart speaker that’s best described as a smaller and more condensed version of the Dot. It has a similar round design but instead of a complete circle, it looks like the Dot has been cut in half. The cheapest Echo device to date, the Echo Pop costs £44.99 / $39.99 and is available in charcoal, glacier white, lavender bloom and midnight teal colours.

As the Echo Pop was launched in 2023, there’s currently only one generation of it. It has similar features to the Echo Dot, including its ability to play music and podcasts, access to Alexa skills and voice commands, and control over smart devices. Where it differs is its audio and size. As discovered in our Echo Pop review, our reviewer found that the sound wasn’t as powerful as the Dot, but its compact size made it ideal for smaller spaces.

What is the Echo Spot?

The Echo Spot was originally launched in 2017 before being discontinued in 2019. But Amazon brought the Echo Spot back in 2024 with a different design and functionalities. Available in black or ocean blue, there’s currently only one generation of the Echo Spot and it costs £79.99 / $79.99.

When it was first released in 2017, the Echo Spot had a similar design to the Dot and was packed with Echo Show functions. The 2024 version has a shape like the Echo Pop and it doesn’t have video calling features like the 2017 version used to.

While the Echo Spot can be used as a speaker, it’s best described as a smart alarm clock. Despite its Pop-like design, the Echo Spot has a 2.83-inch touchscreen located on the top half of the device, which displays the time and information, like song titles. The Echo Spot is similar to the Dot and Pop in terms of features, as it can play music, set reminders, timers and routines, and you can ask Alexa to turn off compatible smart lights. See our Echo Spot review for more details.

Dot vs Show vs Pop vs Spot: which one should I buy?

Simply put, if you were to buy an Amazon Echo device, I’d suggest choosing an Echo Dot. It’s one of the best smart speakers on the market today for sound, clarity and power, and with Alexa built-in, it can also be used for automation and control of your smart home devices. While it lacks a screen, the Echo Dot makes up for it in other areas – and considering there are just so many screens nowadays, it’s nice to not have to use one sometimes!

But why might you choose the others? If you’d rather have a display or screen, choose the Echo Show. It has admirable speaker features, and it's also handy for your smart home. Having said that, for more control over your smart home, I’d recommend the Hub but if you want something with both entertainment and smart home features, the Echo Show is what I’d recommend.

The Echo Pop is pretty impressive, and it definitely appeals to those who want a smart device but don’t want a huge amount of functionality. It also has a more petite size so it’s good for smaller homes and rooms. Similarly, if you like the size and features of the Pop but fancy a screen or clock, I’d suggest the Echo Spot. It’s also handy if you want a speaker just for your bedroom and something that can work as an alarm clock to get you up in the morning.

Google announced the third iteration of its Pixel Watch during its Made by Google event in August, which was a little earlier than the traditional October calendar spot. 

The latest smartwatch makes a couple of improvements that put it on track to be one of the best smartwatches out there for Android users, but what are those improvements and how is the Google Pixel Watch 3 different to the Pixel Watch 2?

We've put them up against each other to help you figure out what new features the Pixel Watch 3 offers over its predecessor and what enhancements have been made to that simple and elegant design.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs Pixel Watch 2

Price and availability

The Pixel Watch 3 starts at £349/ $349/ AU$579 at Google, which is for the 41mm model with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. The 45mm model – which is new for the Pixel Watch 3 – starts at £399 / $399 / AU$669. For 4G LTE connectivity, you'll pay an extra £100 / $100 / AU$170. 

The different Pixel Watch 3 models offer different colour options. The 41mm model is available in Polished Silver with a Porcelain or Rose Quartz Active Band, Champagne Gold with a Hazel Active Band, and Matte Black with an Obsidian Active Band. The 45mm model comes in three colour options: polished Silver with a Porcelain Active Band, Matte Black with an Obsidian Active Band, or Matte Hazel with a Hazel Active Band.

The Pixel Watch 2 only comes in a 41mm size option, but it is still being sold by Google (as well as third-party retailers) and is now cheaper than it was when it first launched, currently starting at £239 / $239. However, it was initially the same price as the 41mm Pixel Watch 3, at least in the UK and US.

There are four colour options: polished Silver with a Bay Active Band, Polished Silver with a Porcelain Active Band, Matte Black with an Obsidian Active Band, and Champagne Gold with a Hazel Active Band. Three of the four colours are the same as those offered on the 41mm Pixel Watch 3.

Winner: The Google Pixel Watch 3 comes in two sizes.

Specifications

Winner: The Google Pixel Watch 3 offers better specs on paper.

Design and build quality

Google hasn't dramatically changed its Pixel Watch since it first launched in 2022, but that's no bad thing. The smartwatch is simple, elegant and it works. In the third generation, it retains the polished pebble-shaped casing with a rotating crown in the middle of the right edge, while an action button is positioned above, built into the underside of the aluminium case.

The strap mechanism remains the same as the Pixel Watch 2 in the Pixel Watch 3, with a button to release the strap and slide them out. To re-insert, you have to line up the grooves and click it back in to place. It's not the most user friendly and it's one of the areas we said we'd have liked to have been improved in our Pixel Watch 3 review.

We mentioned the Pixel Watch 3 comes in a larger case option to the Pixel Watch 2, which is one of the biggest differences in design and build between these two smartwatches, though the bezel surrounding the display has also been reduced by 16 per cent. It means that even in the smaller 41mm model you get a larger and more useable display in the Pixel Watch 3 compared to the Pixel Watch 2. 

The Pixel Watch 3's display is also brighter than the Pixel Watch 2, with a 2,000 nits peak brightness over the Pixel Watch 2's 1,000 nits peak, meaning the latest model is better for seeing what's on the screen during bright, sunny days. The new model can reduce to 1 nit too, making it better for night time viewing, and there's a 1Hz to 60Hz responsive refresh rate, so everything is a little more fluid for smoother interaction.

Winner: The Google Pixel Watch 3 offers a bigger and better display than the Pixel Watch 2, plus an extra size option.

Features

The Google Pixel Watch 2 offered some integration with Fitbit, but the Pixel Watch 3 fully embraces the Fitbit features and that results in a number of extra tricks and a more seamless experience. It means you get things like the Morning Brief, Cardio Load and Target Cardio Load on the Pixel Watch 3, along with the new specific running features.

These include the run workout builder, real-time running guidance and daily run recommendations, which appear in the Fitbit app once you have set up the feature. There is also a run performance in the Fitbit app and advanced run form tracking. 

The Pixel Watch 3 will also show media controls on the screen when you're working out so you can change what you're listening to without digging out your phone, and heart rate from your Pixel Watch 3 can be used on compatible exercise equipment too, like the excellent Peloton Bike+. 

For features like sleep stages, Sleep Score and Sleep Profile, as well as Stress Management Score, in-app blood glucose tracking and in-app menstrual health tracking, these are available across both the Pixel Watch 3 and the Pixel Watch 2. You also get everything the Pixel Watch 2 offers in terms of safety features on the Pixel Watch 3, including Safety Signal, Fall Detection, Emergency Sharing, Emergency SOS and Safety Check so in this department, these devices are pretty much on par.

When paired with a Pixel phone, the Pixel Watch 3 and the Pixel Watch 2 will also both allow you to control your Pixel's camera remotely, and there's some integration with Nest on both smartwatches too. The Pixel Watch 3 does take things one step further here though, enabling you to see a live view of your Nest cameras on your wrist, and use your Pixel Watch as a remote for your Google TV too. 

There's also support for Voice Recorder, allowing you to start a recording on your wrist with the Pixel Watch 3, and ultra-wideband is on board the Pixel Watch 3, allowing for things like Digital Car Keys – something the Apple Watch Series 10 offers and something the Pixel Watch 2 misses out on. 

Winner: The Google Pixel Watch 3 offers a number of extra features over the Pixel Watch 2.

Battery life

The Google Pixel Watch 2 made some big battery improvements over the original Pixel Watch so it's not a huge surprise that the Pixel Watch 3 remains around the same as the Pixel Watch 2 in the 41mm model. 

Both the 41mm and 45mm of the Pixel Watch 3 claim to offer around 24 hours with the Always On display turned on, though we got more than that during our review period of the 45mm model.

There's also a Battery Saver mode that offers up to 36 hours, putting it in line with the Apple Watch Ultra. This mode isn't offered by the Pixel Watch 2 so the Pixel Watch 3 definitely has the slight upper hand here. 

Charging is a little faster on the Pixel Watch 3 compared to the Pixel Watch 2 as well, with the 41mm model charging to around 50 per cent in 24 minutes compared to 30 minutes in the Pixel Watch 2. You'll get 100 per cent in 60 minutes for the 41mm Pixel Watch 3, while the Pixel Watch 2 took 75 minutes to get to 100 per cent. For the 45mm model, it takes around 28 minutes to get to 50 per cent and 80 minutes to get to 100 per cent.

Winner: The Google Pixel Watch 3 is quicker to charge, and the 45mm model gave us more than 24 hours.

Verdict

The Google Pixel Watch 3 might look similar to the Pixel Watch 2 but it makes some subtle improvements that result in big differences overall. The introduction of a larger case option is great for those that want a bigger smartwatch, and the reduction in the bezel means that even in the smaller model, you get a more useful display. That's without the extra brightness and responsive refresh rate too. 

On the features front, both the Pixel Watch 2 and the Pixel Watch 3 offer plenty, but the Pixel Watch 3 does have the edge, not only offering a range of running features but Fitbit-specific features like Cardio Load, Target Cardio Load and Morning Brief. There are also some additional lifestyle features such as being able to see a live view of Nest cameras on the Pixel Watch 3, as well as music control during exercise. 

The Google Pixel Watch 2 is the cheaper option of course, but while it offers a similar design, it is only available in one size option, it doesn't have as many features on board and you don't get the advantages of the new display or the faster charging. We would recommend the Pixel Watch 3 over the Pixel Watch 2 despite the price difference, but if you want to save some money and the new features don't phase you, the Pixel Watch 2 is still a very good smartwatch.

Apple has once again treated us to a huge September hardware launch – featuring the iPhone 16, the Apple Watch 10, the AirPods 4 and more – but as the dust settles, it's worth taking a deeper dive to weigh up just how significant the iPhone upgrades actually are.

Let's not forget that in our iPhone 15 review we gave the 2023 handset a full five stars. Last year's models remain on sale direct from Apple (most of them anyway), and will be in line for an iOS 18 software update too. But there are other features in the 2024 models that are very tempting indeed...

Here, then, are all four iPhone 16 models – standard, Plus, Pro and Pro Max – and how they compare to the four equivalent iPhone 15 models that came before. Here we've cut through the noise to bring you all the salient comparison points on these phones, from battery life to screen size.

iPhone 16 vs iPhone 15

Specs: The new A18 chipset inside the iPhone 16 is some 30% faster than the A16 powering the iPhone 15, Apple reckons – and more power-efficient too. Graphics and AI processing get significant bumps, making this a substantial year-on-year upgrade (indeed, it leapfrogs the A17 chip altogether).

The dual-lens rear camera keeps the same 48MP+12MP setup, but is upgraded to let in 2.6x more light, and enable macro photography, Spatial Photo and Spatial Video capture. The 12MP selfie camera remains the same, while the newest Wi-Fi 7 standard replaces Wi-Fi 6.

Design: The 6.1-inch, 2556 x 1179 pixel display is virtually the same on both models, so there's no major screen difference. However, the iPhone 16 gets the Action Button (first revealed on the iPhone 15 Pro range), plus the new Camera Capture button (which features on all four of the iPhone 16 models). The rear cameras, meanwhile, are aligned vertically on the latest iPhone 16 model – that's how Spatial Photo capture is possible for three-dimensional images. 

Every colour except black gets changed: Pink, Yellow, Green, and Blue give way to Ultramarine, Teal, (a darker) Pink, and White. The dimensions are the same, though the iPhone 16 is a fraction lighter, and the IP68 rating for water and dust resistance is the same across both phones too.

Features: The iPhone 16 comes with iOS 18 on board, and the iPhone 15 will get the same update – only Apple Intelligence features, including AI art and a smarter Siri, aren't going to be available on the iPhone 15. That explains the leapfrogging in the processor stakes, you see? These AI features will turn up with the iOS 18.1 update – although first in the USA, with the UK and other regions from December or later. 

Apple has boosted battery life on the iPhone 16 compared to the iPhone 15: one battery charge will last for around 22 hours of local video playback compared to the 20 hours of its predecessor, while streamed video will last for 18 hours between recharges rather than the previous 16.

• The iPhone 16 costs from £799 / $799 / AU$1,399, while the iPhone 15 was the very same price at launch – but as you can see from the widget embedded above is nowon offer for less, and should cost you around £699 / $699 / AU$1,249 or less. 

iPhone 16 Plus vs iPhone 15 Plus

Specs: The iPhone 16 Plus gets the same A16-to-A18 processor jump over the iPhone 15 Plus as the standard model, with the 30% speed increase and improvements in graphics and AI. It also draws less power, which leads to better battery life overall.

The camera upgrade matches the standard iPhone 16 vs iPhone 15 improvement too, with 2.6x more light capture, macro photography, and Spatial Photo and Spatial Video captrue. There's no change to the 12MP selfie camera, while updated Wi-Fi 7 support takes over from Wi-Fi 6.

Design: The one big difference in the Plus is that it delivers a larger screen than the standard iPhone. Generation-on-generation that's still true, with little changed: it's a 6.7-inch, 2796 x 1290 pixel display that's virtually the same in the 16 Plus as it was in 15 Plus. 

The Pink, Yellow, Green, and Blue colours become Ultramarine, Teal, (that new, darker) Pink, or White, with Black retained for this model. The sizes and IP68 ratings match, though the iPhone 16 Plus is just a little bit lighter.

As with the standard iPhone 16 (and, indeed all models in the new range), the iPhone 16 Plus gains a new Camera Capture button for easier access to various camera features, as well as the customisable Action button on the side.

Features: It's the same software story as the iPhone 16 vs iPhone 15 here, with the iPhone 15 Plus eligible for an iOS 18 update, but without Apple Intelligence. If you want to have text generation and notification summaries, you're going to need the newer model.

The other benefit of the Plus model is a larger battery capacity in addition to that bigger screen. Apple reckons the iPhone 16 Plus is good for 27 hours of local video playback between battery charges (up from 26 hours), and 24 hours of streamed video playback (up from 20 hours). Upgrading to the newer iPhone Plus model should therefore give you a slight battery life boost thanks to software enhancements. 

• The iPhone 16 Plus costs from £899 / $899 / AU$1,599, while the iPhone 15 Plus was the very same equivalent at its launch. However, the older model is now on offer, so will now set you back £799 / $799 / AU$1,399 or less – as you can see from the shopping widget embedded above. 

iPhone 16 Pro vs iPhone 15 Pro

Specs: The internal chipset goes from the A17 Pro to the speedier A18 Pro – it's less of a jump than you get between the entry/Plus iPhone 16 and iPhone 15 models, but graphics get a 20% boost, and the improved power efficiency should help in terms of extra battery life.

There are three rear cameras, but the ultra-wide one jumps to 48MP from 12MP, while the optical zoom goes up to 5x from 3x. There's no change to the selfie camera around the front of the device. Meanwhile Wi-Fi 6E support is upgraded to the latest Wi-Fi 7 standard, as it is on all iPhone 16 models. 

Design: The iPhone 16 Pro gets a bigger 6.3-inch, 2622 x 1206 pixel display, up from a 6.1-inch, 2556 x 1179 pixel display. The newer phone is also slightly bigger and heavier as a result. But most of that screen real estate is borne of bezel reduction rather than device size increase. There's the new Camera Capture button, as present across the full iPhone 16 range, while the IP68 rating is the same generation to generation. 

There's only one change in the colour options: both models offer Natural Titanium, Black Titanium, and White Titanium, but the iPhone 16 Pro introduces a new Desert Titanium model, replacing the Blue Titanium we saw with the iPhone 15 Pro.

Features: Both these devices are capable of running iOS 18 and all the features on board, including the AI smarts under the Apple Intelligence branding. You just might find some of these new tools (like AI art generation) run a little faster on the iPhone 16 Pro – but we don't know just yet, as Apple Intelligence hasn't rolled out to market just yet.

We already mentioned battery life with the A18 Pro chip, and the iPhone 16 Pro can apparently last for 27 hours of local video playback and 22 hours of streamed video playback between charges. That compares to 23 hours and 20 hours respectively for the iPhone 15 Pro, so there's a purported big jump in the newer model owed to that new processor and new software tweaks. 

• You can get the iPhone 16 Pro from £999 / $999 / AU$1,799, which is the very same price as the iPhone 15 Pro was at launch. It's good to see no 'hidden tax' in the new model, but if you do want to save some extra then, as you can see in the shopping widget above, the older model is now on offer. 

iPhone 16 Pro Max vs iPhone 15 Pro Max

With the cameras, the selfie camera is the same, but thes three rear cameras now include a 48MP ultra-wide camera (up from 12MP), though optical zoom stays at the same 5x level as on the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Then for Wi-Fi, the newer Wi-Fi 7 standard replaces Wi-Fi 6E.

With the cameras, the selfie camera is the same, but the iPhone 16 Pro Max's three rear cameras now include a 48MP ultra-wide camera (up from 12MP), though optical zoom stays at the same 5x level as on the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Then for Wi-Fi, the newer Wi-Fi 7 standard replaces Wi-Fi 6E.

Design: As with the smaller Pro, there's a slight size and weight increase, with the 6.7-inch, 2796 x 1290 pixel screen of the iPhone 15 Pro Max giving way for a larger 6.9-inch, 2868 x 1320 pixel one in the iPhone 16 Pro Max. That's largely thanks to more trim bezels, though, rather than a significant upscaling in design. 

There's the new Camera Capture present and correct for the newer model, while the  IP68 rating is the same on both of these phones. The colour options are the same as on the Pro models: Desert Titanium replaces Blue Titanium, to go alongside the Natural Titanium, Black Titanium, and White Titanium choices available in both current and last-gen devices. 

Features: You're not going to have any trouble getting iOS 18 or Apple Intelligence to run on either the iPhone 16 Pro Max or the iPhone 15 Pro Max, though again you might notice slightly better performance in the AI processing on the newer 2024 iPhone model. 

When it comes to battery life, you're looking at up to 33 hours of local video playback and up to 29 hours of streamed video playback between charges on the iPhone 16 Pro Max. That compares with 29 hours and 25 hours respectively on the iPhone 15 Pro Max model, so Apple thinks this new processor and updated software combination should be very kind to your battery life indeed. 

• The iPhone 16 Pro Max costs from £1,199 / $1,199 / AU$2,149, while the iPhone 15 Pro Max is no longer officially sold by Apple. However, as you can see in the shopping widget above, third-parties are still selling this product – and at a discount (from its otherwise original like-for-like price). 

The Apple Watch Series 10 and Series 9 are the latest iterations of Apple’s immensely popular smartwatch line, each packed with cutting-edge technology designed to enhance your daily life. Here, we compare the two so, hopefully, you can make a more educated decision about which one to get.

The Apple Watch Series 9 was already a significant upgrade with its S9 chip, advanced fitness features, and sleek design. However, Apple has pushed the envelope even further with the Series 10, which features a larger screen, a slimmer profile, and even more robust health-tracking capabilities.

At first glance, these two models seem quite similar, but subtle differences in design and functionality make each unique. The Series 10 introduces a larger display – up to 9% bigger than the Series 9 – while also reducing the overall thickness by almost 10%, creating a more modern, streamlined look.

Beyond the aesthetics, the Series 10 is packed with additional features like sleep apnea detection, which makes it a strong contender for the title of the best Apple Watch. Meanwhile, the Series 9 continues to deliver strong performance at a more affordable price, making it a solid option for those who don't need the latest upgrades.

In terms of performance, both models are powered by Apple’s SiP chips – the S9 for the Series 9 and the S10 for the Series 10 – each with a four-core Neural Engine that enhances everything from app performance to on-device Siri.

However, the Series 10 takes it a step further with additional features like faster charging and an upgraded Ultra Wideband chip, making it even more convenient for busy, tech-savvy users. These enhancements build on the solid foundation of the Series 9, which already excels in fitness tracking, health monitoring, and seamless integration with Apple’s ecosystem.

Is it worth upgrading from the Series 9, or should you skip the current iteration and wait for the next generation? Let's find out.

Apple Watch Series 10 vs Series 9

Price and availability

The Apple Watch Series 9 starts at $399 in the US for the 41mm GPS aluminium model, while the 45mm version is priced at $429. If you opt for the GPS + Cellular versions, they cost $499 and $529 for the 41mm and 45mm models, respectively. For those wanting a more premium build, the stainless steel case model begins at $699 for the 41mm size.

In the UK, the pricing mirrors this structure, with the 41mm GPS aluminium model priced at £399 and the 45mm at £429. The GPS + Cellular models are £499 and £529, with the stainless steel variant starting from £699.

Over in Australia, the 41mm GPS aluminum model starts at AU$649, while the 45mm version is AU$699, and the GPS + Cellular models are AU$799 and AU$849. The stainless steel case starts at AU$1,199.

For the Apple Watch Series 10, pricing is slightly higher due to the updated design and features. In the US, the 42mm GPS aluminium model starts at $429, while the 46mm is priced at $449. The GPS + Cellular versions cost $529 and $549 for the 42mm and 46mm models, respectively. The titanium case models, which replace the stainless steel option from Series 9, start at $799.

In the UK, the 42mm GPS aluminium model is priced at £429, and the 46mm at £449. GPS + Cellular models are £529 and £549, while the titanium model starts at £799.

In Australia, prices for the 42mm GPS aluminum model start at AU$699, while the 46mm is AU$749. The GPS + Cellular models cost AU$849 and AU$899, and the titanium model starts at AU$1,249.

These price differences reflect the Series 10's enhancements, including a larger display, thinner profile, and premium titanium casing, as well as new health tracking features that make it more advanced than the Series 9. However, both models continue to offer Apple's signature build quality and functionality at different price points.

For the best prices, check out T3's cheap Apple Watch deals roundup. Head over to Apple to see the full Apple Watch lineup currently available.

Key specs compared

The most notable differences are the slight size increase and the more advanced display in the Series 10, which is 9% larger and significantly brighter than its predecessor. This makes for improved readability, especially when viewed from an angle. Additionally, the S10 chip promises enhanced performance and efficiency, though the day-to-day impact might be negligible for most users.

Design and build quality

The Apple Watch Series 9 retains the iconic design of previous models, with 41mm and 45mm case sizes. It features a bright LTPO OLED display, available in aluminum and stainless steel finishes.

The watch offers the same digital crown and side button layout as before, and supports new colour options like pink. The Series 9 is powered by the S9 SiP and includes a 2nd-gen Ultra Wideband chip. It supports gesture controls like Double Tap and on-device (offline) Siri, making it more responsive and intuitive.

The Apple Watch Series 10 introduces a sleeker, thinner design with slightly larger 42mm or 46mm cases. The display is 9% larger than the Series 9, utilising a wide-angle LTPO3 OLED screen for improved brightness and readability. It’s said to be bigger than the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s screen.

The new display isn't only larger but also more energy efficient. Whereas before, the screen only refreshed once a minute when not active, the Series 10's display updates once a second, meaning you can see the second hand ticking away even with your wrist down. We're getting closer to a true, always-on display that doesn't eat battery life!

The Apple Watch Series 10 (re)introduces the titanium case option, available in natural, gold, and slate finishes. It offers a lightweight, durable design, making it 20% lighter than the stainless steel variant. The titanium case also provides high resistance to corrosion and is ideal for those seeking a premium look and feel with superior durability.

The integrated antenna is positioned to enhance connectivity while maintaining the streamlined, sleek design.

The speaker has also been upgraded. While specific size details aren’t readily available, the Series 10’s speaker is designed to deliver better audio clarity and volume, especially when using features like Apple Music, Podcasts, or when making calls via FaceTime.

The speaker enhancements also support the watch’s capability to act as a microphone for phone calls and FaceTime, with built-in noise suppression for clearer communication.

Strap options are interchangeable between the two, with both supporting a range of bands from Apple’s extensive collection.

Features: health, fitness, and smart capabilities

Both models are powerhouses when it comes to health and fitness features. You’ll find the usual heart rate monitoring, ECG, blood oxygen tracking, and a temperature sensor on both models.

Both the Apple Watch Series 9 and Series 10 run on watchOS 11, which introduces several key features. These include customisable new watch faces and improved Smart Stacks widgets for easier app access. Both models support on-device Siri, allowing faster access to health data without needing cloud servers.

The Mindfulness app has also been updated to focus on mental well-being. While the Series 9 and Series 10 share most features, sleep apnea detection is exclusive to the Series 10 hardware.

A key feature introduced with Series 9, the double-tap gesture control, carries over to the Series 10, allowing users to interact with the watch without touching the screen.

The Apple Watch Series 10 is optimised for water sports with its advanced water resistance rating, allowing it to withstand depths of up to 50 meters. Additionally, it features a built-in depth gauge, which can measure depths up to 6 meters, making it suitable for activities like swimming, snorkelling, and shallow diving. The watch also includes a water temperature sensor, helping users monitor environmental conditions while engaging in water-based activities.

Battery life and charging

Battery life remains consistent across both models, with an estimated 18 hours in regular use and up to 36 hours in Low Power Mode. However, the Series 10 edges out slightly in terms of charging speed, reaching 80% charge in just 30 minutes, compared to the Series 9’s 45 minutes.

For comparison, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 provides up to 40 hours of battery life with the always-on display (AOD) turned off, and about 30 hours with it on. However, the charging speed is slower, with fast charging replenishing ‘only’ 50% of battery life in around 30 minutes.

The Google Pixel Watch 3 offers around 24 hours of battery life with the Always-On Display (AOD) enabled and up to 36 hours in Battery Saver Mode. Charing speed is the same as the Galaxy Watch 7, topping the watch up to 50% in 3 minutes.

Verdict: which is better?

Is the Series 10 the best Apple Watch yet? It sure is. However, both the Apple Watch Series 9 and Series 10 are outstanding smartwatches, each with its own set of strengths.

The Series 9 remains a strong contender, especially considering its lower price and extensive feature set. For those who don’t need the absolute latest technology, it’s an excellent choice and offers fantastic value.

For those looking for the latest in wearable tech, the Series 10 offers tangible improvements in display size, brightness, performance metrics for athletes, and additional health features like sleep apnea detection. If you’re heavily into fitness or want a future-proof device, the Series 10 is worth the investment.

The larger display is tempting, but unless you're Series 9 is all scuffed up, we would suggest not upgrading for the environment's sake, if for nothing else. If you have an older Apple Watch, maybe a Series 7 or earlier version, upgrading to the Series 10 will make it feel like your wrist wearable has been supercharged, so you should definitely consider swapping them.

In conclusion, if budget is your priority, the Series 9 is still an excellent, capable watch. But if you’re after the cutting edge of technology and don’t mind spending a bit more, the Series 10’s enhancements will serve you well into the future.

With the launch of the iPhone 16 Pro Max, Apple has once again made the most technologically advanced iPhone ever. But it's up against an equally capable competitor, the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra – which is one of the best Android phones ever, and will likely stay that way until there's a new model in 2025. But which one is better – Apple or Samsung?

While these are both flagship phones there are some important differences in these rival manufacturers' approaches, not least when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI): where Samsung's AI features are already on its phone, Apple users will have to wait at least a month – with many customers in some parts of the world having to wait longer still.

So in the ongoing battle of Apple versus Android, let's see how these two flagships face off. Is the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, with its built-in stylus, or the Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max, with its new camera setup, the best pick for you?

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra v iPhone 16 Pro Max: Price and availability

The Galaxy S24 Ultra was launched in early 2024 and cost the same as its equivalent S23 Ultra did at launch. At that time it was £1,249 / $/1,199 / AU$1,949 for the 256GB model (although Samsung upped the storage to 512GB for free as an introductory offer). Samsung isn't running that promotion just now but it is offering £100 off in the UK and a free Chromebook Go laptop.

The iPhone 16 Pro Max will be priced at £1,199 / $1,199 / AU$2,149 when pre-orders open on 13 September (for a 20 September on-sale date). That's also for the entry capacity of 256GB. That's a year-on-year price hold and, besides any trade-in offer, it's rare to see Apple's phones discounted. 

iPhone 16 Pro Max v Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: Design & Display

The Galaxy S24 Ultra is flatter than its S23 Ultra predecessor, and features a titanium frame. The display is a 6.8-inch AMOLED that's capable of 2,600 nits of brightness and its resolution is 1,440 x 3,088 with variable refresh rates of up to 120Hz. 

There are four colours to choose from: Titanium Violet, Titanium Yellow, Titanium Black and Titanium Grey. As ever with the Ultra you get the S Pen stylus, which is stowed in the body but can be popped-out to use for writing, drawing and interacting with your device. 

The iPhone 16 Pro Max is marginally different to its 15 Pro Max predecessor: at first glance it looks much the same but there are some key changes. The 6.9-inch Super Retina XDR is the largest iPhone screen to date (thanks to smaller bezels) and delivers variable refresh at up to 120Hz. It's an OLED with a resolution of 2,868 x 1,320 and a peak brightness of 2,000 nits.

The new iPhone comes in four colours: Black Titanium, White Titanium, Natural Titanium and Desert Titanium. There's also a new Camera Button that works not just as a shutter button but as a context-sensitive control for features such as colour presets and camera modes. 

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra v iPhone 16 Pro Max: Cameras

The main Samsung camera is a 200-megapixel offering with an f/1.7 aperture and optical image stabilisation (OIS). There's also a 5x optical zoom (120mm equivalent) with 50MP resolution, an f/3.4 aperture, and OIS, and a 3x optical zoom (70mm equivalent) 10MP resolution, with an f/2.4 aperture and also OIS. The 13mm wide camera offers 12MP at f/2.2.

We found the new sensor in Samsung's 5x optical zoom camera to be miles ahead of its predecessor (even though that was a 10x zoom), and the various cameras work well together: they feel like a single camera system rather than a collection of different cameras. Samsung's "nightography" mode is very good for low-light shooting too.

The cameras in the iPhone 16 Pro Max are significantly upgraded compared to its predecessor. The main camera is still 48-megapixels in resolution with f/1.8 aperture, but Apple is calling it a 'Fusion Camera'. It's capable of 4K resolution at 120 frames per second video, too. The 13mm wide-angle camera gets a big resolution bump, also to 48MP at f/2.2, while a 12MP sensor handles the 5x optical zoom (to a 120mm equivalent). The new cameras deliver a new three-dimensional capture feature, Spatial Photos.

Apple is clearly very pleased with the Pro Max cameras, especially for serious photography and film-making: there are multiple video speed options, real-time colour grading, and what Apple says are four "studio-quality" mics for a suitably impressive soundtrack.

AI is a key selling point for both Samsung's and Apple's devices. In the Samsung we found it to be a mixed bag though: there's lots of room for improvement, but Generative Edit can be very impressive when you use it to remove objects or replace backgrounds. We're still in the early days of this tech but when it's good, it's very good. Many of Apple's AI features are coming soon rather than available at launch, so for example Apple's equivalent to Generative Edit won't be available... yet.

iPhone 16 Pro Max v Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: Battery & Performance

The processor inside the Samsung is a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 processor, backed with 12GB RAM. The battery is 5,000mAh with support for 45W wired charging and 15W wireless. We found it delivered silky-smooth performance and all-day battery life: on a very long travel day that began at 5am, we still had 20% battery left at 10pm. 

The processor in the new iPhone is Apple's own A18 Pro, which generation-on-generation Apple claims delivers up to a 20% faster graphical performance and an overall 15% speed increase while using 20% less power. Battery life is up to 4 hours longer, Apple claims, quoting 33 hours of video playback. As with previous iPhones the iPhone 16 Pro Max supports MagSafe wireless charging at up to 25W. It's certainly a powerhouse, but without having yet tested it, we can't confirm whether it'll have the better battery life or performance capability.

Nor can we  attest to the iPhone 16 Pro Max's performance – because many of its AI features aren't here yet. Some are coming in the forthcoming iOS 18.1 update, but other key ones including image generation are now delayed to iOS 18.2, most likely arriving in December or later. Samsung's Galaxy AI is already here, with some great live transcription and photo features, with the promise of yet more to come in the future too. 

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra v iPhone 16 Pro Max: Initial Conclusion

As ever, a direct comparison between Apple and Samsung is tricky because these phones are from different ecosystems, run different operating systems, and are going to be sold primarily to people who've already chosen their preferred platform. These two phones are the most powerful and impressive for each of their respective platforms. But there are still some important differences: Samsung has already implemented its AI features, for example, while Apple's are still to be delivered. 

From a purely hardware perspective, the iPhone 16 Pro Max is the more powerful phone here – but it's also the phone most focused, pun fully intended, on a very particular kind of user. Unless you're really serious about your photos, the standard iPhone 16 is likely to be more than good enough for you. The Samsung is more of an all-rounder, albeit a high-spec one, and for the time being it's also ahead in AI.

If you're looking for a mid-range best mattress, then Nectar and DreamCloud are two popular brands that are well worth investigating. Both offer high-quality, hybrid options at competitive prices. But which one is right for you? In this article, I'll compare similar models from each brand to help you decide.

Nectar are best known for their memory foam mattresses, with their flagship Nectar Memory Foam mattress being their most popular model. They also offer the Nectar Premier Mattress for those wanting a more luxurious, all-foam mattress. But more recently, they've started producing hybrid mattresses too, which combine the pressure relief of memory foam with the support and bounce of coils. 

The cheapest of these is the Nectar Essential Hybrid Mattress. Moving up in price are the Nectar Hybrid Mattress and, at the top end, the Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress.

When it comes to DreamCloud, things are a lot simpler. Right now, this company offers only one mattress available to buy in the UK: the DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress. Which, just like the Nectar hybrids, aims to combine the supportiveness of springs with the cloud-like qualities of memory foam, in a way that provides the best of both worlds.

To compare Nectar vs DreamCloud, then, we'll pit two hybrid, mattress-in-a-box models at similar prices against each other: the Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress and the DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress.

Nectar vs DreamCloud: Pricing

At time of writing, the DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress costs £949 for a single, £1,649 for a double, £1,749 for a king and £1,899 for a super king.

The Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress, meanwhile, costs £775 for a single, £925 for a double, £1,000 for a king, and £1,075 for a super king. You can also add a mattress protector for £50, or a duvet and a pair of premium pillows for an extra £126. 

Verdict: Nectar. At current prices, the Nectar mattress is significantly cheaper.

Nectar vs DreamCloud: Materials and construction

The Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress boasts an eight-layer design, combining memory foam and individually wrapped coils, with thicker coils along its perimeter. It's 13 inches in height, includes a quilted cooling cover and is designed to minimise motion transfer. The company rates it as medium-firm, between 6 and 6.5.

The DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress, meanwhile, consists of five layers including a quilted foam and cashmere top cover, gel memory foam, a supportive innerspring layer with individually wrapped coils and Reinforced Edge support. It's medium-firm (rated 6.5) and 14 inches in height, leading our reviewer to write: "On a bed frame, it'll look like you'll be sleeping on a high-end hotel bed." (Of course, that may also mean you need to buy larger sheets).

Verdict: Dreamcloud. Both mattresses are high quality designs that benefit from premium materials and sophisticated construction, setting them apart from cheaper mattresses. But the DreamCloud is an inch taller so we'd say it just edges the Nectar here.

Nectar vs DreamCloud: Comfort and feel

The Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress does a great job of providing a balance of support and comfort. Our sister site's testers found it scored highly on motion isolation and cooling qualities, although edge support was not as strong as some rivals, so that might be a consideration if you frequently roll towards the edge of your bed.

As for the DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress, our reviewer found it provides a cosy yet firm feel, with good cooling properties and excellent support, especially for back sleepers. Again, though, edge support wasn't as solid as on some other hybrid mattresses. Overall, though, she concluded: "it's one of the very best I've slept on… [I] have always woken up incredibly refreshed."

Verdict: Draw. Both mattresses offer an impressive level of comfort and support for back and side sleepers. Note, though that as they both have a medium-firm feel, neither is suitable for heavier people or stomach sleepers, or anyone who generally prefers a soft mattress. 

Nectar vs DreamCloud: The small print

When it comes to keeping customers happy, Nectar and DreamCloud score highly; both currently have a score of 4.1 on TrustPilot. And that's not surprising, because they both offer free delivery, a 365-night trial period and a forever warranty on their mattresses. Both also offer customer support via live chat and phone, from Monday-Friday 9am-5.30pm.

There doesn't seem to be any catch with the 365-night trial for either company. You simply phone any time within the 365 days, ask for a return and you'll get a full refund.

DreamCloud recommends you give the mattress at least 30 days, although doesn't insist on it. They also say the mattress must be "clean and undamaged". The only other difference seems to be that Nectar says "We’ll pick up your mattress for free, and donate it to the British Heart Foundation" while DreamCloud says "We will work with you to get the item donated or otherwise disposed-of through local organisations within your community."

Verdict: Draw. Both brands provide excellent terms and conditions, including a generous trial period with no apparent catches, so there's very little between them. 

Nectar vs DreamCloud: Verdict

When it comes to their top-end hybrid mattresses, comparing Nectar vs DreamCloud is pretty easy. Essentially, it comes down to one thing: price.

That's because both the Nectar Premier Hybrid Mattress and the DreamCloud Luxury Hybrid Mattress offer excellent levels of comfort, support and cooling. Both companies offer a generous free trial, free delivery and good customer support. Ultimately, then, the best way to choose comes down to which will be kinder to your pocket. And at time of writing, that was Nectar. 

Having said that, bear in mind two things. First of all, we're only comparing prices on each company's main sites, not those of third party retailers, which may be cheaper. (Although be aware you may not get the free trial if you buy in this way.) And second, mattress companies tend to discount their products frequently and without much notice, so do double check to make sure the price differential hasn't reversed since we wrote this article.

Want to build more leg strength, muscle and power? Look no further than the barbell back squat and leg press, two compound exercises that promise to give your lower body muscles a run for their money (in a good way).

While the squat is often hailed as the ‘gold standard’ of any lower body strength training programme, the leg press is a machine used by both, beginner and advanced athletes. So, which of the two is superior when you want to build massive legs?

Technically speaking, it would be wrong to label one as better than the other, as both exercises deserve a plan in your training programme. But, if you only have time for one, which should you do to build bigger pins? With the help of an expert, we answer that very question…

Leg press vs squats: What's the difference?

Jumping straight in with the obvious, the leg press is a machine-based exercise, while the squat is a free-weight movement which you can use various pieces of equipment for, such as a barbell, dumbbell, kettlebells (and even your body weight).

Both exercises target the same major muscle groups – the quads and glutes – however, they’re not the same beasts. The squat brings other muscles into play, such as your upper body and core muscles to help your torso remain upright and stable. This is why it can take people years to learn how to squat properly, it requires constant practice, time, and coordination. 

The leg press, however, takes your core and upper body out of the equation as the machine supports both. “This means you can really focus on going heavy without fear of suffering an injury to your lower back,” says Steve Chambers, Gym Manager and Certified Personal Trainer at Ultimate Performance. 

Leg press vs squats: the benefits

For those who struggle with squat technique, or find it’s a burden on their back, the leg press is a brilliant alternative. “It stands to reason that you’ll get more out of using a machine that allows you to be more stable and focus purely on using your legs,” says Steve.

Machines also require less skill than free weights as they provide more support, which makes them effective for building your legs in a short space of time, particularly if you’re new to the gym. “This allows lifters to train close to failure and accumulate higher amounts of training volume, two key drivers of hypertrophy,” Steve adds.

However, don’t mistake the leg press’ ‘low skill’ as ‘less effective’, as even the most advanced athletes use this machine. “Six-time Mr Olympia Dorian Yates, ditched free-weight back squats in favour of leg presses, so you’re in good company.”

Squats, on the other hand, as we all know are the crème de la crème of lower body exercises for packing on mass and boosting strength. “Just one single squat works a whole host of different muscle groups, including the quadriceps, gluteal muscles, adductor group, erector spinae, abdominal muscles, and the hamstrings. It is for that reason that the squat is often called the most effective compound move,” says Steve.

The movement pattern of a squat in general is one that we also mimic in everyday life, whether that be sitting down, picking something up, or climbing stairs, so as well as its ability to increase strength and muscle, it’s also functional.

Leg press vs squats: which is best for building bigger legs?

As we mentioned right at the start of this article both, the leg press and squat, deserve a place in your training. However, depending on your body mechanics and skill level may determine which exercise you opt for (if you’re only picking one out of the two).

“If you’re a novice lifter, and you struggle with range of motion, have poor flexibility, existing lower back injuries, or long femurs and short torsos, then I would recommend the machine-based leg press as a great place to start to build up your leg strength. The risk/reward ratio for forcing yourself to put a bar on your back if you have any of these issues is just not worth it, and the leg press is likely to deliver better results.” 

Don’t struggle from any of the issues above and can squat with top form? Then Steve says to head on over to the squat rack, or you could always combine both.

Overall, to increase the size of your legs Steve says the most important factor is training with progressive overload and therefore choosing the exercise that you’re most comfortable with so you can do this effectively.

“The exercise itself doesn’t really matter. The role of an exercise is to allow you to apply progressive overload to the muscle in a safe manner. So, whether you decide to use the traditional barbell back squat or a machine-based leg press is completely unique to you and your circumstances.”