Computers - Organizer

6:34 pm | January 22, 2026

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets Pro Website Hosting | Comments: Off

The story of Mochahost began in 2002, when its future founders recognized a profound need for high-quality web hosting companies and decided to launch one of their own. Founded in San Jose, Mochahost’s key objective was to strike a balance between “top-of-the-line” services and a pocket-friendly price, and, at the same time, cover everything from personal blogs to large businesses.

Today, their main office is in New York, and they seem to have expanded beyond a US-centric strategy. In the past, their only data centers were in Texas and Illinois. Now they offer a choice of eight locations covering Texas, Canada, the UK, India, Singapore, Germany, Mexico, and Australia.

We first reviewed Mochahost in 2021, and a lot has changed since then. Where a visit to their site then was like a blast to the past (as in, the early 2000s), it's now caught up with the times and sports a simpler look in trendy colors.

Want to try Mochahost? Check out the website here
Also check out our roundup of the best WordPress hosting

Plans and pricing

Like most other hosting companies, Mochahost offers potential customers a range of plans to choose from. Unfortunately, while its website may be more up to date, its hosting plans seem to lag a bit further behind.

Mochahost's primary offerings are shared and VPS hosting, with a couple of WordPress-specific plans thrown in. There are no Cloud hosting plans nor dedicated servers available here.

Yet being somewhat entrenched in the past isn't always a bad thing, since it means Mochahost is also one of the few remaining service providers that still offers Windows web hosting in both the shared and VPS space. Because of this, Mochahost can offer relatively niche hosting solutions, such as Java Tomcat hosting.

Shared hosting

Shared hosting plans at Mochahost start with the Soho plan at $3.99/mo on a 1-year term, with renewal prices on that plan hiking up to $12.99/mo. At the high end of that spectrum is Mocha, costing $9.99/mo and $20.99/mo on renewal. These prices aren't exactly low, but Mochahost is relatively generous with resources and provides cPanel access, Imunify 360 security, free SSL, free weekly backups, and free site migrations.

The problem is that several competitors are offering similar freebies and resource levels at much lower prices. For example, with just a bit less storage space, HostPapa comes at a much better price point. Personally, unless Mochahost offers stunning performance figures for its hosting plans, these prices seem a bit too high to be excellent value for money.

WordPress hosting

As if in retrospective shame of its high shared hosting prices, Mochahost throws $1/mo WordPress hosting plans in your face. The problem is that the dollar deal is only valid for the first month and renews at $14.99/mo (Lite) to $99.99/mo (Business).

Most of the freebies on Mochahost's WordPress plans are similar to those on its shared hosting plans. The only advantage beyond those is that if you sign up for the Starter or higher plans, you get WP Rocket included. That's about $59/year in value, which isn't enough to offset the monthly hosting charges here.

To put things in perspective, Cloudways hosting plans start at around $14/mo for cloud hosting ($11/mo if you're willing to forego their premium servers), with a custom server management dashboard. It also doesn't restrict you to a specific number of WordPress sites. At Mochahost, you'll need to be on their Pro plan or above to run more than a single site.

Windows shared hosting

Windows shared hosting plans at Mochahost range from $4.45/mo to $8.45/mo. We won't debate this pricing, since, as we all know, a considerable portion will go to Microsoft for its operating system license.

Resource allocation is similar to the Linux shared hosting plans we discussed earlier. You also get the comparable Windows hosting tech stack, meaning Plesk instead of cPanel, plus MS SQL/MariaDB, and all the .NETs you could want. The one point you'll want to be aware of is the relatively low memory allocation. On the cheapest Soho ASP.NET plan, all you get is 300MB.

Plus, since these are relatively niche plans (yes, it sounds a little weird to consider Windows hosting as niche, even today), you also have a narrower range of data center locations to choose from: either in Europe or the US.

VPS hosting

As with its shared hosting plans, VPS at Mochahost comes in both Linux and Windows variants. The same price adjustments apply, with Linux VPS plans slightly cheaper. The lowest-tier Linux VPS costs a mere $24.38/mo for a 1-year term, renewing at $48.75/mo thereafter. For that, you get 2 CPU cores, 4 GB of RAM, 80GB NVMe, and unlimited bandwidth/mo.

Impressively for the price, Mochahost also throws in cPanel (most hosting companies today charge separately for this on a VPS). For specs, the VPS plans at Mochahost seem like a relatively good deal, especially for managed plans.

There's also a lot of leeway for scalability since their top-of-the-line VPS comes with a whopping 64 CPU cores, 128GB of RAM, and 960GB NVMe storage.

Ease of use

Mochahost offers its users either Plesk of cPanel to help manage their hosting plans (Image credit: cPanel)

When creating an account with Mochahost, the first step is to select a hosting type, operating system, and a plan, and there are a whole lot of them. The next step is choosing a billing cycle, and this is where you’ll see details on the price and the plan’s key features. There, you can choose whether you want to be billed monthly, annually, biannually, or triannually.

To finalize the creation of your account (and your order), you’ll be required to provide Mochahost with some standard personal information. Then you’ll set a password, choose a preferred payment method, and complete your purchase.

The best part about Mochahost plans is that they all come with recognizable control panels, either cPanel or Plesk. These are industry-standard and help you manage your hosting server easily and quickly.

Speed and Reliability

For testing, we put the spotlight on Mochahost's Soho plan, which is the entry-level tier on its shared hosting list. We then uploaded a standard test WordPress website and ran WordPress core benchmarks and a load test to see if it holds up well under stress.

Aside from speed, it's notable that Mochahost offers separate uptime guarantees of 99.9% and 99.95% for its shared and VPS hosting services, respectively—nothing super-impressive, but just about meeting industry norms.

WordPress benchmark test (Soho)
CPU & Memory	Operations with large text data	6.82
	Random binary data operations	8.38
	Recursive mathematical calculations	4.71
	Iterative mathematical calculations	7.18
	Floating point operations	7.11
Filesystem	Filesystem write ability	3.55
	Local file copy and access speed	4.79
	Small file IO test	8.4
Database	Importing large amount of data to database	6.52
	Simple queries on single table	8.79
	Complex database queries on multiple tables	7.2
Object Cache	Persistent object cache enabled	0
Wordpress core	Shortcode processing	6.33
	WordPress Hooks	8.45
	WordPress option manipulation	9.06
	REGEX string processing	7.95
	Taxonomy benchmark	7.69
	Object capability benchmark	7.89
	Content filtering	3.47
	JSON manipulations	7.85
Network	Network download speed test	10
Overall	Your server score	6.8

On WordPress core tests, Mochahost shared hosting did reasonably well with an overall score of 6.8 (out of ten). The scores were not dragged down in any specific area, meaning it offers a relatively well-rounded experience across CPU and memory, the filesystem, the database, and other elements.

The key takeaway here is that while these are relatively strong results, they aren't the best we've seen by far. As an example, SiteGround is a host with comparable shared hosting prices to Mochahost and scores much better in core WordPress benchmarks.

Siege test (Soho)
Concurrent users	5	9	15
Transactions	2253	3524	5503
Availability	100	100	100
Elapsed time	299.1	299.48	299.23
Data transactions	66.29	102.44	147.04
Response time	0.66	0.76	0.81
Transaction rate	7.53	11.77	18.39
Throughput	0.22	0.34	0.49
Concurrency	4.99	8.98	14.95
Successful transactions	2253	3525	5503
Failed transactions	0	0	0
Longest transaction	2.67	11.22	12.21
Shortest transaction	0.07	0.07	0.07

Mochahost also performed well under Siege, a tool we use to send an increasing user load to hosting servers. At 5, 9, and 15 concurrent users, Mochahost held its own and achieved a 100% success rate on every transaction attempted. This is pretty impressive, since most of the hosts we test start indicating some degree of failed transactions even at the 9-user mark.

One notable point, however, is that despite a 100% success rate, the longest transaction time increased from an initial 2.67 seconds at the 5-user load to 12.21 seconds at the 15-user load. This means that while all requests were processed, users on a real-world site would likely experience longer wait times as load increases.

Still, it's a fair cop overall and one that somewhat justifies Mochahost's steeper-than-typical price tags on its shared hosting plans.

Customer Support

Mochahost support page — Mochahost offers several support channels including a phone support line (Image credit: Future)

Like most web hosting companies today, Mochahost uses a chatbot as its first line of defense in customer support. From what we've seen, the chatbot scans a knowledge base and, if an answer isn't found, hands you over to a customer support representative.

We tested the process and were impressed that the handover from the chatbot to a real-live agent took just a minute. This stands in stark contrast to some hosts, where it took hours for a real human to respond to queries.

Aside from live chat, you can also get assistance by submitting a support ticket (for existing customers), or calling a phone support line.

Mochahost knowledgebase — Mochahost's knowledgebase is presented as a wiki-style site (Image credit: Future)

Aside from the support channels that allow you to talk to them, Mochohost also offers a relatively decent knowledge base. It's wiki-style and easy to navigate, but primarily covers how-to documentation. That means you can easily find out how to get things done, but you'll likely need to contact their support team if you're facing an actual problem.

The competition

HostGator is Mochahost’s fellow US-based rival, with data centers within the USA. With a full range of hosting options and features, competent support, and pricing, both can offer a bit of something to suit everyone’s needs. However, HostGator's pricing is lower even on renewal.

Bluehost and Mochahost are both suitable for newcomers and veterans alike, although neither host is without its flaws. With Mochahost’s cheapest plan, you won't get as many valuable features as with Bluehost.

Final verdict

Mochahost isn't one to promise you the moon and stars, and its plans are certainly not in the cheapest tier. However, its hosting servers perform well even under load, assuring potential customers of a firm, but a steady-performing website, so long as you don't create problems with your own designs and code.

There is a shortcoming in the lack of cloud and dedicated server plans. Yet Mochahost more than makes up for this with robust VPS offerings that go beyond the dedicated server plans offered by some hosts.

Finally, if you need Windows hosting for some reason, then Mochahost is one of the few places where you can still find these plans.

We've also highlighted the best web hosting

Spaceship web hosting review

6:00 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets Pro Website Hosting | Tags: IO, SSL | Comments: Off

In recent years, we've seen several hosting brands attempt to expand their services and challenge the envelope of the best web hosting services. Spaceship is the result of one such effort, with the parent company being Namecheap.

Granted, Spaceship offers a slightly more futuristic site design and interesting product names (e.g., Starlight, Hyperlift). However, even this is subjective, since one man's meat can be another's poison. Additionally, the superficial design differences don't affect the performance of the core products themselves.

In some instances, the product offerings are also identical in many ways. For example, the cloud WordPress hosting offered by Spaceship is EasyWP, which is another product that Namecheap has tried to spin off as a standalone offering.

Hero image for Spaceship hosting review — (Image credit: Future)

Want to try Spaceship? Check out the website here

What types of hosting does Spaceship offer?

Spaceship offers an extensive product range that includes domain name services, web hosting, and associated services like a CDN, VPN, and domain name-based communication services. And because it's stripped out some essential services from hosting, these can also be considered other services, such as email hosting and auto backups.

Spaceship shared hosting

Spaceship's shared hosting plans start at $1.21/mo and top off at $2.87/mo on two-year cycles. They all begin with a 30-day free trial before any charges are due. The lowest-tier (Essential plan) comes with 20GB NVMe storage, free SSL, SiteJet AI website builder, and security services from Imunify360.

As you move up the plan tiers, storage space increases, and you also get the inclusion of AI tools that can help you write content for your site.

The kicker is that email services are free for only 30 days or one year, depending on the email plan you choose during sign-up. You'll also have to decide if you want auto-backups, which start at $11.76 for 5GB on the two-year plan. Added together, that initially low hosting price doesn't feel so low anymore.

Spaceship Cloud WordPress hosting

With WordPress sites driving much of the internet today, it's unsurprising that Spaceship also offers cloud-based WordPress hosting. These plans include the same 30-day free trial option as Spaceship's shared hosting plans. Thereafter, prices range from $28.88/year to $48.88/year, depending on which plan you choose.

Likewise, email services on these plans are free for a year, after which you'll have to pay separately for them, outside your hosting fees. At least you get HackGuardian for free, along with MalwareGuardian Autoclean protection on the two higher-tier WordPress plans.

Spaceship VPS hosting and App hosting

Spaceship VPS plan prices — (Image credit: Future)

Spaceship offers a range of Virtual Private Server (VPS) plans called Starlight Virtual Machines. These come in three flavors: standard, CPU-optimized, and memory-optimized. The prices are also similar to Spaceship's cloud plans and are available on a monthly, quarterly, yearly, or pay-as-you-go basis.

For example, the standard VPS offers 1 CPU core, 2GB of RAM, 25GB of NVMe storage, and 1 TB of bandwidth. This is priced at either $4.90/mo, $13.88/3 months, $42.44/yr, or $0.007/hr.

You can also add on block storage of between 50GB and 500GB to these plans, of course, for an additional fee. Block storage plans cost between $30.44/year and $302.44/year, and you can attach up to 3 blocks to each virtual machine.

Spaceship Hyperflift plan prices — (Image credit: Future)

App hosting comes in the form of Starlight Hyperlift plans, which are essentially micro VMs. These allow you to connect to GitHub, then pull and build your code for deployment. It's a convenient and super-cheap way of deploying apps quickly. Hyperlift plans cost between $30.88/year and $453.88/year.

Can I build a web store with Spaceship?

Since Spaceship comes with the SiteJet AI website builder and supports WordPress, you can technically build an online store. That means you either create one from scratch or run WooCommerce.

There are no ecommerce specific features at Spaceship, so you'll have to find all your ecommerce needs elsewhere, such as payment gateways, specialized plugins, and so on. However, most of what you'll need is available with the Softaculous app installer (free at Spaceship).

If you want a dedicated ecommerce or online store, consider a service dedicated to this, such as Shopify or Squarespace. Or if you're planning to build for extreme traffic, a more scalable option like Cloudways or ScalaHosting.

How fast is Namecheap?

To measure Spaceships' performance, we uploaded our standard WordPress test site. This site sports a relatively simple design with online store functionality and a handful of products.

We then run two key tests: One to assess how well the hosting server handles WordPress in general, and the other to see whether it can withstand increasing user traffic over set periods.

WordPress benchmark test (Essential plan)
CPU & Memory	Operations with large text data	9.57
	Random binary data operations	7.64
	Recursive mathematical calculations	5.82
	Iterative mathematical calculations	9.1
	Floating point operations	6.05
Filesystem	Filesystem write ability	3.6
	Local file copy and access speed	4.86
	Small file IO test	8.59
Database	Importing large amount of data to database	4.03
	Simple queries on single table	7.44
	Complex database queries on multiple tables	5.38
Object Cache	Persistent object cache enabled	0
WordPress core	Shortcode processing	5.79
	WordPress Hooks	8.29
	WordPress option manipulation	8.94
	REGEX string processing	0
	Taxonomy benchmark	8.17
	Object capability benchmark	7.63
	Content filtering	3.38
	JSON manipulations	7.1
Network	Network download speed test	8.72
Overall	Your server score	6.4

It's interesting (and yet unsurprising) to see that Spaceship shared hosting servers offer nearly identical performance characteristics to Namecheap servers. In core WordPress performance areas, Spaceship servers held up well under scrutiny, with results slightly above average.

Siege test (Essential plan)
Concurrent users	5	9	15
Transactions	10483	11535	12814
Availability	100	100	100
Elapsed time	299.83	299.8	299.68
Data transactions	53.43	58.8	65.34
Response time	0.14	0.23	0.35
Transaction rate	34.96	38.48	42.76
Throughput	0.18	0.2	0.22
Concurrency	4.95	8.99	14.96
Successful transactions	10484	11539	12815
Failed transactions	0	0	0
Longest transaction	5.08	5.11	5.16
Shortest transaction	0.02	0.02	0.02

The siege load testing tool we use is the more critical of the two since it best reflects how well a site hosted on Spaceship will perform in real-world scenarios. Unsurprisingly, performance here was also similar to Namecheap, with Spaceship successfully processing all transactions even at 15 concurrent users.

Even better, the longest transaction times were consistent, meaning your website users won't have to deal with overly long wait times, even when many users are on your website. While it may sound like something all web hosts should be capable of, this delicate load-balancing act isn't always present among hosting brands.

How easy is Spaceship to use?

Spaceship hosting manager screenshot — The Hosting Manager at Spaceship allows you easy control over your web hosting plan. (Image credit: Future)

Right on its About Us page, Spaceship states that its "primary mission is to redefine speed and simplicity." This is about half right since we've already seen that Spaceship offers above-par performance. However, the usability factor is a separate ballgame altogether here.

After you've signed up for a Spaceship plan, the site attempts to take you through what it calls an "unboxing process," which initially worked well for us. However, after completing the final step, we were unceremoniously booted to the website's main page with no explanation. After that, we were on our own and had to follow the standard experimentation process. Not an altogether smooth transition.

Spaceship user dashboard — User dashboard at Spaceship (Image credit: Future)

The user dashboard at Spaceship is also a little hard to use, especially for those new to web hosting. Sure, it looks cool (subjective), but it doesn't offer much of a different experience from cPanel. You'll still have to plod through the options one by one and figure them out on your own.

The bigger problem is that our default WordPress installation didn't work. This ended up in a chat with support, which took around 30 minutes to resolve. The strange thing was that the issue was caused by a misconfiguration in the .htaccess file, which the system itself created. Not an entirely great experience nor first impression if you're a new Spaceship user.

What is Spaceship's support like?

Spaceship knowledgebase — You can find some how-to guides in Spaceship's knowledge base. (Image credit: Future)

Spaceship offers 24/7 support via a knowledge base, live chat, and email (there's no telephone support).

The web knowledgebase is a modest collection of how-to articles organized into several categories. Sometimes, even the categories don't make much sense. For example, although Spaceship offers the SiteJet AI website builder, there is a knowledge base category that covers the Alf website builder instead. At the same time, Alf is what Spaceship calls its automated support chatbot, so you can understand our confusion.

Aside from the knowledge base, you can also choose to chat with their AI agent (and get transferred to a human) or email them for support. The process of getting in touch with them is smooth. We tried the process, and it took us just a few seconds to connect to a real support agent.

Final verdict

Spaceshop hosting plans start at pretty unbelievable prices, but you'll quickly realize that if you need all the regular features a hosting plan comes with, those low prices will soon balloon. At the same time, stripping them out offers a good deal if you don't want email or backups with your plan.

While their server performance is decent, we're concerned about the failure of their automated WordPress installation system. For new users, this can be a breaking point and lead to a disastrous first impression.

Spaceship web hosting FAQs

Does Spaceship provide free SSL?

Yes, Spaceship does offer free SSL certificates for most of its hosting products. Spaceship also protects custom-redirects with SSL for better data integrity. These features are part of an all-round security suite that helps keep you safer at Spaceship.

How secure is Spaceship?

Aside from SSL, Spaceship comes with many security features that protect everything from their servers to your apps. This includes suspicious login monitoring, passkey logins, virus and malware monitoring, strict firewall rules, and robust encryption on its email services.

Does Spaceship support ecommerce sites?

You can build an ecommerce site on Spaceship using the provided tools, such as the Softaculous app installer. However, Spaceship doesn't offer some features you'll need, such as payment processing. For that, you'll have to source a third-party provider from elsewhere.

Is Spaceship hosting reliable?

Spaceship hosting offers an impressive 99.99% uptime guarantee across all its web hosting plans. The industry standard is around 99.9% for shared hosting and 99.99% for VPS and cloud plans. However, Spaceship does not explicitly state what happens if it fails to deliver on that uptime guarantee, unlike some other providers that specify compensation tiers in the event of a breach of the service level agreement.

I tested this budget, subscription-free fitness tracker and it actually offers Whoop some serious competition – especially in terms of value

3:06 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Fitness Trackers Gadgets Health & Fitness | Comments: Off

Amazfit Helio Strap: One minute review

The Amazfit Helio Strap is a good lower-cost alternative to a Whoop band or even some of the best fitness trackers like Fitbit, as long as you enter with the right expectations. The hardware itself is substantially cheaper, and no subscription is required for day-to-day use of a Helio Strap.

In return, you get all-day health and fitness tracking, with more of a focus on active forms of exercise than some lifestyle wearables. Amazfit doesn’t provide quite as explicit training readiness insights as a Whoop band, but with stats that focus on your training load and overall condition, it doesn’t take a degree in sports science to join the dots for yourself and get most of the benefits.

This is a less upmarket band than some of the competition. Its central part is plastic, with no metal parts, but this is a win for comfort as it further lowers weight.

Amazfit Helio Strap: Specifications

Component	Amazfit Helio Strap
Price	$99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU
Dimensions	33.97 x 24.3 x 10.59mm
Weight	20g with band
Case/bezel	Fiber-reinforced polymer
Display	N/A
GPS	N/A
Battery life	Up to 10 days
Connection	Bluetooth
Water resistant	Yes, 5ATM

Amazfit Helio Strap: Price and availability

It costs $99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU
Less than the Polar Loop
Much less than the ongoing Whoop subscription

Despite having less tech inside than a more traditional fitness tracking wearable, the pricing of these screenless wearables (other than the Whoop MG) is less aggressive than some other categories. It’s because they’re a lifestyle buy as much as anything

The Amazfit Helio Strap is one of the better-priced options, though. It costs $99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU, far less than a Whoop band or the Polar Loop.

There’s no need for an ongoing subscription here either, although one is of course offered. It’s called Aura (not to be confused with Oura). This adds an AI-based wellness advisor and lots of audio-based relaxation content, costing $69.99 (around £52 / AU$100) a year, although during testing we were offered a year’s worth for £19.99. There’s a 14-day free trial too.

Value score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Design

Screen-free
Does not feel premium, no metal
Extremely light – set and forget

The Amazfit Helio Strap is a screen-free wearable, and an exceptionally light one. It weighs just 20g, strap included. You can thank the relatively low-frills style of the central unit for this, which is just a puck of plastic. All you see when wearing the Hello Strap is the fabric of the strap itself, which hooks up to the tracker’s block using traditional watch fastenings. Amazfit also offers an arm strap, should you prefer to wear it off the wrist.

I have at times had to check whether the watch was actually still attached, which is just not something that happens with the GPS running watches I tend to wear daily. There is one important caveat to note on the design, though; the Amazfit Helio Strap is not as slimline as you might guess. It sticks out a way from your wrist and its sides don’t fully hug its surface either. In person it’s thicker than the Coros Pace 4 watch I was using at the same time, which is at odds with the vibe most of these screenless wearables try to give out.

That said, Amazfit doesn’t sell the Helio Strap as a casual step and sleep tracker. It apparently has the keener exerciser in mind, as you can see from the Hyrox-themed strap attached here. Hyrox and Amazfit have entered a partnership (Amazfit is now the official timekeeper for the event), but the standard version of the strap is plain two-tone dark grey.

This watch isn’t a friend to those tight-fit long-sleeved base layers that hug the wrist, but actually wearing the Hello Strap has been an entirely discomfort-free experience. Of course, you will still need to make the strap reasonably tight for the most accurate heart rate results so the little sensor mount on the back will leave an imprint in your wrist. It comes with the territory.

Amazfit rates the watch’s water resistance at 5ATM, so you won’t have to take it off too often. The official guidance is the Helio Strap is “suitable for splashes, snow, showering, swimming” but shouldn’t be worn in the sauna or for a “hot shower” as the steam can damage the internal seals.

Design score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Features

Relatively slight on features
Transmit HR data to gym machines and fitness watches
Set up to 10 haptic alarms

Wearables like the Amazfit Hello Strap are not out to wow us with their expansive feature lists (after all, they’re designed not to be interacted with) but it does do more than you might guess.

It has a temperature sensor, for example, used to check for variations from the norm overnight. Such a change could be an indicator of illness. You can set up to 10 alarms too, which use the Helio Strap’s vibration motor to alert you. It’s not a massively powerful buzz, though, so you might not want to rely on it to wake you up for work each day.

A little unusual for a screenless wearable, Amazfit also stresses its active fitness tracking skills. You can manually start a specific tracked exercise in the app on your phone, and the Helio Strap can also be set to automatically detect workouts and log them as such. When you start a tracked session in the app, the Helio Strap can transmit live heart rate data to another device. Some more advanced gym machines support this, as do cycling computers and some fitness watches. It uses Bluetooth for this, not ANT+, which was the classic technology of heart rate chest straps.

What else is there to note? The Hello Strap uses a tiny little charge puck that connects to a pair of metal contacts on the back. Easy to lose, but also easy to transport in a pocket.

Features score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Performance

Battery life as described
Solid heart rate accuracy
Plenty of metrics provided in-app

Low upkeep is one of the best parts of the Amazfit Hello Strap. Despite weighing next-to-nothing, Amazfit still says it delivers “up to 10 days” of battery life. And that is entirely consistent with our experience. After using it for a week, the Helio Strap had 35% charge left. While two-week battery watches with screens are common enough, they weigh a lot more than the Helio Strap.

A lot of this wearable’s metrics rely on heart rate data. The Hello Strap’s is mostly solid with some small issues that may not dull its appeal too much, especially at this price point. Throughout the day, passive tracking is decent and there are no wild spikes as you walk around your home or office. This can happen when a tracker takes any sign of walking as a suggestion your HR is likely rising fast.

You don’t manually start tracked activities on the watch, but when comparing the results of long runs on the Helio Strap with those of a chest strap, though, the Amazfit Hello Strap occasionally overestimates heart rate by around 10bpm. Not a hugely meaningful difference to most, and certainly good enough for an indication of heart rate zones, but still not quite as accurate as the best Apple Watches. Amazfit does talk about the Helio Strap as a wearable to pair with another fitness watch, to fill in stat gaps throughout the day and night, and during other workouts the results were (relatively) bang-on accurate. But there’s definitely scope for tracking accuracy to improve in a firmware update.

As for tracking steps, the Amazon Helio Strap recorded slightly lower counts over a five day period, apart from one day when they were almost identical just 3000 steps apart. Over the five day period the Helio Strap recorded 94% of the steps of the Garmin Forerunner 970. It’s also worth noting the Garmin was worn on my dominant arm (the Helio Strap was not) so that could have a part to play here.

Sleep tracking performance is solid. A couple of nights during testing I wore the Amazfit Helio Strap alongside three other wearables to see how great the disparities would be: the Garmin Forerunner 970, Polar Loop and Coros Pace 4. All four of these watches failed to pick up on any of the moment you briefly wake up and wonder why the alarm clock reads 4:55am. But those times you actually have to get up to go to the toilet? It picks them up. The Amazfit Helio Strap also did consistently note a change in sleep state and heart rate during those missed moments of wakefulness, though – the next best thing.

It’s also important not to underrate the quality of the Amazfit Helio Strap app. It’s Zepp, shared with other Amazfit wearables. And its layout is kinda great for the purposes of a wearable like this. On the front page you get a handy summary of stats you likely want to see daily, with a traffic light system too show which (if any) are a bit dodgy. These include resting heart rate, sleep duration, Skin temperature, exertion load and more.

This layout returns in a separate Sleep tab, where we get stats like heart rate variability, Deep Sleep duration and skin temperature, again with the traffic light system.

Amazfit also goes big on a concept called BioCharge, which is an estimation of your overall energy level. The one missing next step is what you get with Whoop, where such data – and other bits – are used to more explicitly tell you whether you should work out on a specific day or not. And the paid-for Aura subscription is more about wellness and relaxation that that kind of athlete-focused experience.

Performance score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Scorecard

Category	Comment	Score
Value	Cheaper than most and with a no forced subscription? Typical of Amazfit, the Hello Strap is decent value.	4/5
Design	It may not be a luxury wearable but the super-low weight is fantastic for comfort.	4/5
Features	While screen-free wearables are never feature-packed, this one has a few neat extras including heart rate broadcasting.	4/5
Performance	You get good overall stat accuracy with just some missed wakeful moments during sleep tracking.	4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Should I buy?

Buy it if...

You want a good-value screen-free wearable

While not Amazfit’s most aggressively-priced tracker, it beats the big-name competition and then some.

You value comfort highly

At just 20g, you can often forget the Amazfit Helio Strap is even on your wrist.

You want quick daily dose health stats

The Amazfit app does a good job of highlighting unusual health stats, with a colour highlight system.

Don't buy it if...

You want a wearable for run tracking

This band doesn’t have GPS (or a screen, obviously) so is not ideal for more hardcore run training.

If luxury style is a priority

A fabric strap and plastic housing are great for low weight, but there are no luxe touches here.

You want a direct Whoop replacer

The stats the Amazfit Helio Band are much more classic lifestyle fitness tracker fodder instead of Whoop’s hyper-detailed recovery focus.

Also consider

Whoop MG

The most premium version of the original screenless wellness wearable.

Read our full Whoop MG review

Polar Loop

A little more money, but a more premium stainless steel design.

Read our full Polar Loop reviewView Deal

First reviewed: January 2026

I tested the GTBox T1 – and while the designers did something different with this mini PC, I’m debating whether it was a good idea

10:15 am |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets | Tags: PC | Comments: Off

GTBox T1: 30-second review

Since Intel stopped its NUC platform, and by its definition guidance, we’ve seen a significant number of mini PC designs that have stepped outside the norms of shape and size in mini systems.

GTBox makes a mix of conventional designs and more out-there options, and the T1 is distinctively different. This NUC-sized motherboard is vertically mounted in a cylindrical speaker case measuring 115mm in diameter and 165mm high.

Because of that ergonomic choice, there is no front or back, only a single I/O section where all the ports and the power button are located. That’s a bit of a crunch, and due to this, there is only one USB4 and LAN port, but there are HDMI and DisplayPort video outs.

Inside the cylindrical speaker case is a punchy AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS processor, Zen 4 architecture from the 2023 Hawk Point series. In this context, it's combined with 32GB of DDR5 memory and a 1TB Gen 4 NVMe SSD.

This makes the T1 a powerful small system eclipsed only by Ryzen AI platforms, and the pre-release pricing is extremely competitive.

However, the downside to this design is that there is no access to the memory or storage, and you are specifically told that opening up the T1 to do this is ‘irreversible’.

If you are happy with those limitations, then the T1 might be a good choice, but the lack of flexibility precludes it from being one of the best mini PCs I've tested. Maybe with the T2, or whatever, GTBox can work out a way to put the mainboard on sliding rails to make memory and storage upgrades (or replacements) possible.

GTBox T1: Price and availability

How much does it cost? From $700
When is it out? Available now
Where can you get it? Direct from GTBox

At the time of review, there is only a single SKU of the GTBox T1 available from the official GTBox site.

That model comes with 32GB of DDR5 and 1TB of storage. The cost is $699.99 for US customers with shipping included. GTBox doesn’t quote specific prices in other currencies, but they will ship to the UK, EU and Switzerland.

One oddity I noticed is that before you add this system to the cart, it tells you that “Free standard shipping on orders over $99” and “Free shipping and tax included in Europe and the United States.”

When you add it, it says that if you spend another $100, you can get free shipping.

I hope that’s a mistake. In both the UK and the EU, there are rules about real price discounts, where you can’t say you’ve made a reduction if you never sold it at the pre-discount price. GTBox has this machine reduced from $799.99 to $699.99, and I suspect it had that from the start.

Looking at competitor systems using the same platform, the candidates include the Bosgame M4 and the Acemagic W1.

The Boxgame M4 has had some hardware changes since I reviewed it, but you can still find the original M4, which uses the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS and costs $559 for the 32GB+1TB SKU, via Amazon.com.

And, the Acemagic W1 is $549, but there is no stock of the memory and storage options. However, Acemagic will sell you the barebones model for only $280.

All of these systems, when in stock, are cheaper than the GTBox T1, and all of them also have the ability to be internally upgraded with extra RAM and storage.

On that basis, the T1 doesn’t look like an especially hot deal.

Value: 3 / 5

GTBox T1 mini PC — (Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

GTBox T1: Specs

Item	Spec
CPU:	AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS ( 8C/16T, 3.8GHz up to 4.9GHz)
GPU:	AMD Radeon 780M, 12 cores, up to 2.6 GHz
NPU:	AMD Ryzen AI 16 TOPS (38 TOPS total)
RAM:	32GB DDR5-4800 (16GB x 2) not expandable
Storage:	1TB M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 4
Expansion:	N/A
Ports:	1x USB4, 3x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, 1x USB 2.0, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x 3.5mm Audio
Networking:	1x 2,5GbE Realtek RTL8125, WiFi 6E, Bluetooth 5.2
OS:	Windows 11 Pro (pre-installed)
Base Power:	35W-54W
PSU:	19V 6.32A 120W
Dimensions:	115 x 115 x 165 mm

GTBox T1: Design

Speakerific
Limited ports
Zero internal access

There is something about the mesh covering that speakers use that is lovely to touch, with a distinctly fabric feel. As this system is a computer-in-a-speaker, with a slate blue colour scheme, it looks great perched on the edge of a desk.

That’s where this system was designed to sit, since it doesn’t have any VESA mounting options, and you wouldn’t be able to hear the sounds it generates if it were out of sight.

On top is a circular depression with an LED light that can be set to pulse through various RGB colours via the BIOS. That there isn’t a software component to set this is disappointing, as repeatedly going into the BIOS to make changes seems excessively complicated.

But where this system entirely leaves behind the current world of mini PCs is that it only has one place where ports are accessible, and there is no access whatsoever to the internal system.

All the ports are on a single I/O shield, and that includes five USB ports, one USB4, three USB 3.2 Gen 2 and one USB 2.0. There are both HDMI and DisplayPort, and if you use the USB4 port for video, it allows triple displays to be operated from this one computer.

There is also a 3.5mm audio jack, a single 2.5GbE LAN port, the power inlet and a power button. But there is no security slot to stop anyone from walking off with the T1.

With things so tight in this area, maybe the top might have been utilised for a second USB4 port, but that wasn’t something the designers embraced.

Having more ports is always better, but what really confronts the reality of this system is the lack of internal access. With no approved way in, should you want more memory (if it's even socketed) or to replace the storage, there are no options. That limitation is problematic for a business customer as it reduces the flexibility of this design considerably.

What you do get is a system with an inherently fairly loud speaker, but you can’t really use this for conferencing, since there is no corresponding microphone.

Design: 2.5 / 5

GTBox T1: Hardware

AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS
One USB4 port
Unused PCIe lanes

Many mini PC builders are turning to AMD, largely due to the affordability of its components and the generous number of PCIe lanes, which allow for an array of high-speed ports. The Ryzen 7 8745HS is a Hawk Point processor that, to my knowledge, was originally released in June of 2023.

This chip boasts eight cores with hyperthreading, enabling it to handle sixteen concurrent threads. It offers a slightly improved power profile over the Ryzen 7 8745H, resulting in modestly higher clock speeds.

While there are several advantages to this processor, but also one notable drawback. That caveat is the age of the 780M GPU, which has now been superseded by the 890M and also the new 8060S integrated GPUs. It’s not Intel UHD Graphics bad, but there are faster options that aren’t discrete video cards.

On the upside, it utilises Zen4 architecture, matching the performance of the previous generation's 7745HX. Additionally, it supports DDR4, DDR5, and the latest LPDDR5x memory standards. Its most significant advantage for mini PC applications lies in the twenty PCIe 4.0 lanes provided by AMD, which facilitate multiple ports and significant expansion capabilities.

The capacity of these lanes has enabled the implementation of USB 4 and Oculink on some systems, but here there is only one USB4 port and no Oculink. However, the M.2 SSD slot does at least get PCIe 4.0 lanes, even if you can’t get inside to use an SSD of this spec in that slot.

With only one USB4 port, no Oculink and a single M.2 Gen 4 slot, this machine has PCIe lanes that sit entirely idle and contribute nothing to the overall experience.

Therefore, this system is something of a contradiction, as it has a decent processor and DDR5 memory technology with dual modules, providing ample bandwidth and enhancing GPU performance.

But, there are also at least eight PCIe lanes doing nothing, no way to exploit the PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot, and no expansion path other than using a single USB4 external drive or the LAN.

Features: 3.5 / 5

GTBox T1: Performance

Mini PC		GTBox T1	Bosgame M4
CPU		AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS	AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS
Cores/Threads		8C 16T	8C 16T
RAM		32GB DDR5 (2x16GB)	32GB DDR5 (2x16GB)
Storage		1TB GTP3000-1TB	1TB NVMe Kingston OM8PGP41024N
Graphics		Radeon 780M	Radeon 780M
3DMark	WildLife	19813	17746
	FireStrike	7726	7448
	TimeSpy	3194	3126
	Steel Nom Lt.	2765	2559
CineBench24	Single	103	104
	Multi	903	909
	Ratio	8.8	8.71
GeekBench 6	Single	2587	2609
	Multi	12380	12840
	OpenCL	30593	26664
	Vulkan	25443	31667
CrystalDisk	Read MB/s	3431	4087
	Write MB/s	2258	3142
PCMark 10	Office	7458	6992
WEI		8.2	8.2

As a counterpoint to the T1, I chose the excellent Bosgame M4. But if you go to the Bosgame website now and select the M4, it shows as discontinued for the M4 Neo and the M4 Plus. However, it is still possible to get the original M4 from other outlets.

The reason I went with the M4 was that it uses the same CPU, GPU, and memory as the T1, giving some indication of whether the T1 is a good version of this platform.

And, looking at the first part of this benchmark collection, all the signs are good, as it edges the M4 in the GPU tests and matches it in most of the processing metrics.

But where it all goes slightly awry is when we get to the CrystalDisk benchmark and discover that the best performance the GTP3000-1TB can achieve is below the 4,000Mb/s threshold that PCIe 3.0 M.2 NVMe drives can almost reach.

This is a guess, since I can’t identify the maker and spec of the GTP3000-1TB, but given the number, I’m inclined to believe that this is a Gen 3 drive, which, as this system has a Gen 4 slot, is a depressing conclusion. If it is a Gen 4 drive, then it's one of the slowest I’ve ever seen. What makes this even worse is that because you can’t get inside the T1, this drive can’t be replaced with something quicker or larger.

The phrase grasping defeat from the jaws of victory seems suitable for the T1, since it had all the pieces it needed to be a winner, and then blew it with an apparent cost-cutting exercise.

Overall, aside from the storage, this machine performs well and is perfect for a power user, or rather one who doesn’t need more than 32GB of RAM or 1TB of quick storage.

Performance: 4 / 5

GTBox T1: Final verdict

There are two elephants in the GTBox T1 room, and the first of those is a design where you explicitly can’t get inside the system to do any form of upgrades. There are plenty of appliances where that sort of limitation is considered normal, but the PC isn’t one of them.

And, given the upgrade paths that other mini PCs provide, that’s a significant problem.

I’d had less of an issue with this if GTBox had at least made some sort of effort to make the M.2 slot accessible, but the owner is told not to open the T1 under any circumstances.

The other elephantine problem is the asking price, which seems about $150 more than it should be with this specification. It may be that, with this unique speaker styling, GTBox assumed a price premium was in order, but nothing about this design justifies it.

With memory and storage going up in price, the cost of the T1 might suddenly become something of a bargain, but based on other machines using the same platform, it's way too high, and there are Ryzen AI systems that aren’t much more than this cost.

But, if we put our purchasing blinkers on and ignore the lack of flexibility and the price, this is a decent mini PC with a great hardware platform (ignoring the SSD) that delivers a good user experience.

However, business IT buyers don’t tend to wear those blinkers much these days, and they’d reject this due to the cost and the lack of internal access.

Should I buy a GTBox T1?

Value	Expensive for the spec	3/5
Design	Zero internal access and limited ports	2.5/5
Features	Powerful CPU and USB4, but unused PCIe lanes	3.5/5
Performance	Decent performance on CPU and GPU	4/5
Overalls	Interesting take, but it lacks flexibility	3.5/5

Buy it if...

If you want a power-user NUC

The T1 has an excellent Zen4 system at its heart, which is perfect for those who want more power, and the DDR5 memory used in it makes the most of that CPU and GPU combination. However, the lack of any memory or storage upgrades needs to be considered for its role.View Deal

You hate upgrades
Not everyone sees buying hardware as the start of a path to enhancement. If you have no intention of ever putting more memory or storage into your systems, then the T1 might be perfect for you. Though this also means that should anything go wrong with the SSD, then this system is junk.View Deal

Don't buy it if...

If you need a flexible mini PC
The lack of internal access and the inclusion of only one USB4 port make this mini PC highly inflexible, since you can’t upgrade either memory or storage, and what you can connect externally is limited by only having one high-performance port.View Deal

You want ultimate performance
This is a value-led mini PC, so it's not going to be as powerful as machines loaded with the fastest processors - for top performance, check out mini PCs using the AMD Ryzen AI platforms like the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, with 16 cores and 32 threads.View Deal

Also consider

Bosgame M4
Built around the same platform as the T1, the Bosgame M4 is a more traditional NUC design.
While it doesn’t have a metal case, the M4 ticks every other box for a successful NUC design. The asking price is low, the performance is good, and it’s a highly flexible system that can perform many tasks. Little to dislike here.

Check out my Bosgame M4 review View Deal

Mercy review: Chris Pratt’s new AI sci-fi thriller is so haphazard, you’ll wonder if ChatGPT could do a better job of writing it

8:00 pm | January 21, 2026

Author: admin | Category: Computers Entertainment Gadgets Streaming | Tags: AI | Comments: Off

I need everyone in the movie industry to listen up and repeat the following pact: "I solemnly swear to never make a film told through the lens of social media ever again. Never will I sit my main character in front of a screen, digesting the rest of the storyline through open internet tabs, Instagram feeds and MacBook files. I will only include digital elements if it effectively serves the plot."

Agreed? Great, because Chris Pratt's new AI sci-fi thriller Mercy is the latest victim of this heinous crime. With a 101 minute runtime, Pratt spends 90 of those sitting in the same chair, wrongly accused of a murder he didn't commit. Instead of being given a defense lawyer like a normal society would, he has to face off against an AI-generated judge in a 'mercy' courtroom (who conveniently looks exactly like Rebecca Ferguson).

If he can't prove his innocence past a certain percentage, he'll be fried on the spot. Override the algorithm sufficiently, and he'll walk free. Cue an entire movie of sifting through ring cam footage, facetiming witnesses and finding crucial evidence on his daughter's private Finsta account.

After about 15 minutes of this, the gimmick wears off pretty quickly. Pratt himself is clearly loving it (possibly due to the ease of his character also being called Chris) but unsurprisingly, this doesn't translate offscreen. Mercy is mundane in its own unique way, but there are few surprises – it'll hit you over the head with its ambivalent AI messaging.

Mercy refuses to call AI a hero or a villain, and that's a missed opportunity

"Maybe humans and AI both make mistakes" is a line of dialogue in Mercy that I've only slightly paraphrased, and it sums up the movie's moral vagueness in one nifty sentence. Sure, we've just spent an hour and 40 minutes watching an AI-generated court judge nearly kill Chris over a wrongful conviction, but we all make mistakes, right?

This was Amazon MGM Studios' chance to lay down the AI line by deciding what side of the industry argument they're on. Instead, they've chosen to sit on the fence, and that transforms any vim and vigor Mercy did have into pure monotony. If we're not using storytelling to send home a powerful message, especially about something so ever-changing, then what's the point?

Of course, the point is to make a bit of money at the box office by seeming to touch on a topical subject. It's the same way that a social media influencer might look like they're supporting a social campaign, but are actually doing the surface-level bare minimum to help it. Mercy could have been an industry-changing heavyweight piece of art, but no – let's play around with some CGI graphics instead.

For a big-budget studio, these graphics feel incredibly cheap. This is where the most obvious connection to Prime Video's take on War of the Worlds, starring Ice Cube, comes into play. Both have the same function and aesthetic look – almost as if Amazon is ashamed that is uninspired slop is all it's got to offer.

@techradar
♬ original sound - TechRadar

Rebecca Ferguson is our one and only savior

Rebecca Ferguson as an AI judge — Rebecca Ferguson is our AI judge. (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)

Almost no movie (perhaps with the exception of 2023 thriller Missing) can use tech, screens and social media as its sole method of storytelling to its advantage – the concept is as lame as lame comes. But our AI-fashioned Rebecca Ferguson is the jewel in our crown of criminal offenses.

Even as a non-human entity, Ferguson shines. She's far from a voice of reason, but seeing the cracks in her generated facade is easily the most satisfying payoff in this otherwise faltering farce. She's also the only source of continuity when Mercy decides to finally let Chris out of his chair for an unhinged 15-minute duration, abandoning all of its narrative mechanics without warning.

You get where I'm coming from here. ChatGPT could probably have written a much stronger script and overarching plot, while watching any other takes on AI or the digital world would be a more shrewd use of your time. Our best case scenario is hoping Mercy is popular enough to finance more Guardians of the Galaxy or Star-Lord content, and then never speak of it again.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

This HP 2-in-1 laptop I tested might not be a powerhouse, but it’s well made and capable enough for everyday tasks

7:51 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Laptops Windows Laptops | Tags: Acer Chromebook Spin, Battery Life, FPS | Comments: Off

HP Pavilion x360 14: Two-minute review

The HP Pavilion x360 14 is a compact 2-in-1 laptop that aims to offer both performance and versatility in a single package.

True to most of HP’s lineup, the Pavilion x360 14 has a smart and understated appearance. The light grey colorway and sleek contours imbue it with elegance, while its 14-inch size helps with portability.

However, this latter aspect is undermined somewhat by its relatively thick and heavy construction, so it’s not the best laptop for frequent travelers who want a device with as minimal a footprint as possible.

The upshot of this weight, though, is that it adds some reassuring solidity. Both the base and the display enclosure of the Pavilion x360 14 have very little give, while the materials used all over the unit feel premium. The hinge for the lid is also sturdy, if a little clunky in action when you're pushing the screen beyond 90 degrees, as I often do whenever I use a 2-in-1 laptop.

Despite its small size, there are a good number of ports on the Pavilion x360 14. Along with two USB-A and one USB-C port, there’s also an HDMI port, a microSD slot, and a combo audio jack, all of which I welcome. What’s more, they’re conveniently located.

The general performance of the Pavilion x360 14 is pretty good. It can handle light productivity and stream 4K content with ease. However, it can suffer from micro-stutters when moving quickly from task to task. Also, gaming performance is average-to-poor, owing to the absence of a dedicated GPU. Of course, this isn't a gaming laptop, so you shouldn't really expect impressive game performance.

Rear three-quarter view of HP Pavilion x360 14 open on desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

I noticed that even under moderate loads, a fair amount of heat radiates from the left side of the Pavilion x360 14, as well as the top keyboard rows. Thankfully, temperatures aren’t alarmingly high. The fans generate some noise, but remain pleasingly quiet relative to many other laptops under stress.

The display is pleasingly sharp and vibrant, and although reflections are prominent at times, I usually found the maximum brightness setting could mitigate their presence to an acceptable degree.

Despite the small size of the Pavilion x360 14, its keyboard has a pleasingly spacious layout, which, combined with the snappiness of the keys themselves, makes it satisfying to type on. However, there was no backlighting in my particular review unit – a grave omission given how hard it was to make out the lettering most of the time.

The touchpad is usable, if a little small, and has a smooth surface. It’s also quite solid, although I did notice a slight rattle when tapping and clicking, which can hamper feel and feedback.

The touchscreen on the Pavilion x360 14 is responsive and accurate, however, those keen on illustration might be disappointed with the small – but still noticeable – levels of friction, which can lead to slightly rough swipes, whether a stylus or a finger is used.

The battery life of the Pavilion x360 14 is quite good. It lasted over 11 hours when I ran our movie playback test, which is similar to some of its more expensive rivals. However, it pales in comparison to the highest performing laptops on this front, which can endure twice as long in some cases.

All things considered, though, the Pavilion x360 14 is a strong option in the 2-in-1 sector, thanks to its decent everyday performance and impressive design. It’s a shame that it’s not as portable as other convertible models, and there may be better value alternatives depending on what you require from a laptop, but at the very least the Pavilion x360 14 deserves a place on your shortlist.

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Price & Availability

Close-up of right-hand ports on HP Pavilion x360 14, with desk and pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Starts from £699 (about $920 / AU$1,400)
Available now
Expensive compared to some rivals

The HP Pavilion x360 14 is available now and starts from £699 (about $920 / AU$1,400). For that, you get an Intel Core i3, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage. However, we have seen it on sale for half this price from HP’s own website, which obviously makes it much better value.

The unit I review here is the top-spec model and costs around £1,000. It features an Intel Core i7, 16GB of RAM, and 512GB of storage (although you can upgrade to a 1TB drive instead). Again, we’ve seen a hefty discount on this variant, but its usual price is quite dear.

If you don't need a truly convertible laptop, but still want a touchscreen, the Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i is a fine alternative. It’s decidedly more expensive, but it’s a truly premium machine, featuring an OLED display and a pleasingly portable design.

However, if your heart is set on a 2-in-1 but you want a more budget-friendly option, the Acer Chromebook Spin 312 is worth considering. Thanks to its compact form factor, great display, and usable touchscreen, it’s one of the best Chromebooks currently around.

Value: 3.5 / 5

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Specs

HP Pavilion x360 14 Specs
	Base configuration	Review configuration
Price	£699 (about $920 / AU$1,400)	£1,000 (about $1,300 / AU$2,000)
CPU	Intel Core i3 1315U (1.2GHz, 6 cores)	Intel Core i7 1355U (1.7GHz, 10 cores)
GPU	Intel UHD Graphics (integrated)	Intel Iris Xe Graphics (integrated)
RAM	8GB DDR4	16GB DDR4
Storage	256GB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD	512GB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD
Display	14-inch FHD (1920 x 1080), IPS, Touch screen	14-inch FHD (1920 x 1080), IPS, Touch screen
Ports and Connectivity	1x USB-C (Power Delivery, DisplayPort 1.4), 2x USB-A, 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x combo audio; Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.3	1x USB-C (Power Delivery, DisplayPort 1.4), 2x USB-A, 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x combo audio; Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.3
Battery	43Wh	43Wh
Dimensions	12.7 x 8.3 x 0.8in (322 x 210 x 20mm)	12.7 x 8.3 x 0.8in (322 x 210 x 20mm)
Weight	3.3lbs / 1.51kg	3.3lbs / 1.51kg

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Design

Three-quarter view of HP Pavilion x360 14 open on desk, flipped upside down in touchscreen mode, with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Heavier and bulkier than expected
Solid construction
Impressive port selection

The Pavilion x360 14 looks smart, with its pristine light gray finish, rounded edges, and flat surfaces. All these aspects reflect HP’s desire to emulate the best MacBook designs.

Despite initial impressions, though, the Pavilion x360 14 is actually less slender and light than you might expect. Not only does this heft hamper portability, it’s doubly disappointing to see in a convertible laptop, since you’ll likely be picking it up and flipping it upside down frequently to use the touchscreen. The best 2-in-1 laptop options are all lighter than this.

On the plus side, the weight does contribute to the overall sturdiness of the HP Pavilion x360 14, as there’s virtually no flex to any of its panels. The materials employed seem quite premium as well, more akin to metal than plastic.

Also, the lid hinge is stable enough to prevent the display from wobbling under most circumstances. It operates smoothly, too, although I found it took a bit more effort to adjust the display angle compared to other laptops I’ve used.

More irksome, however, was the fact that once it’s reclined beyond 90 degrees, the rear of the base lifts clean off the underlying surface. This is a design choice some other laptops employ, but it’s not one I’m fond of. It always felt awkward adjusting the display to this point, and results in less stability when using the keyboard.

Close-up of webcam on HP Pavilion x360 14, with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Speaking of which, my review unit had no backlighting for the keyboard. I always lament this omission in any laptop, but it’s especially disappointing in the case of the Pavilion x360 14. The characters are dark and contrast marginally with the finish of the keys themselves, making them hard to see in many instances; at certain angles, they were totally invisible.

Even though the Pavilion x360 14 is a small laptop, it has an admirable selection of interfaces. There are two USB-A ports and one USB-C, the latter of which supports both Power Delivery and DisplayPort 1.4 standards.

Additionally, there’s an HDMI port, a combo audio jack, and a microSD card reader. It’s a small shame the latter isn’t fit for standard SD cards, but I can forgive this omission given the form factor of the Pavilion x360 14.

The ports are spread quite evenly across both sides, which improves convenience. They’re also ordered in a logical way: for instance, the power connector is furthest away from the user, while the microSD reader and combo audio jack are closest.

Design: 4 / 5

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Performance

Close-up of keyboard on HP Pavilion x360 14, with desk and pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Reasonable everyday performance
Heat and noise even under moderate loads
Responsive but uninspiring touchscreen

HP Pavilion x360 14 benchmarks:

3DMark Night Raid 13,367; Fire Strike: 3,646; Steel Nomad: 139
GeekBench 6.5 Single-core: 2,535; Multi-core: 7,729
CrossMark Overall: 1,480; Productivity: 1,517; Creativity: 1,528; Responsiveness: 1,247;
HandBrake - 4K to 1080p average FPS: 30.27

The general performance of the Pavilion x360 14 is reasonable, if not spectacular. It can handle light productivity and entertainment tasks well, even streaming 4K content without disruption.

However, despite my review unit having an Intel Core i7 installed, it wasn’t as swift as I was expecting. When switching between browser tabs or loading new web pages, it frequently stuttered. These stutters were momentary, so were minor infractions in the main, but they added up to become more disruptive when I tried to accomplish multiple (but not especially demanding) tasks in quick succession.

Being the top spec model, my review unit also had Intel Iris Xe Graphics. In theory, this offers improved performance over Intel UHD Graphics, but it’s still integrated to the CPU. This means that the Pavilion x360 14 is only capable of very light gaming. I managed to run Cyberpunk 2077 on Medium graphics, but it wasn’t a smooth experience, in terms of frame rate and visual fidelity.

A noticeable amount of heat emanated from the left vent of the Pavilion x360 14, as well as from the top keyboard rows and the section above. This was the case even when I conducted moderate workloads. Thankfully, the temperatures were never uncomfortable or concerning. Fan noise accompanied such moments, but it was pleasingly quiet relative to some other laptops under load.

Close-up of touchpad on HP Pavilion x360 14 — (Image credit: Future)

The 1080p resolution of the Pavilion x360 14 provides plenty of sharpness, which is doubtless helped by the compact 14-inch display. Colors also appear vibrant. It can be quite reflective at times, but thankfully there’s enough brightness to keep them from being distracting.

The touchscreen functions well, responding to inputs made by either a finger or a stylus quickly and accurately. However, the surface isn’t the smoothest, so more intricate usage, such as drawing or handwriting, can result in a dragging sensation. The effect isn’t as egregious as it is on some other touchscreens, but if you’re after one of the best touchscreen laptops, the Pavilion x360 14 might not cut it.

If you’ll mainly be typing, though, you’ll be pleased with the keyboard on the HP Pavilion x360 14. The keys are comfortably spaced despite the compact layout, and there’s a surprising amount of travel to presses, which makes them satisfying to use. They’re still snappy enough to type quickly, though.

The touchpad is less impressive. It operates well enough, but the small size and numb-feeling taps and clicks – in part due to the slight rattle I noticed – result in a less tactile experience.

Performance: 4 / 5

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Battery Life

Close-up of left-side ports on HP Pavilion x360 14, with desk and pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Respectable by 2-in-1 standards
Some longer-lasting rivals
Quick to recharge

The Pavilion x360 14 has a decent battery life. It lasted about 11 hours in our movie playback test, which is close to the same score achieved by the Acer Chromebook Spin 312.

However, it can’t beat the Microsoft Surface Pro 11, another fantastic 2-in-1 laptop, which managed over 14 and a half hours. Also, more conventional laptops can last longer, sometimes up to 20 hours or more. The Pavilion x360 14 is quick to charge, though. It took about two hours to fully replenish.

Battery Life: 4 / 5

Should I buy the HP Pavilion x360 14?

HP Pavilion x360 14 Scorecard
	Notes	Rating
Value	The HP Pavilion x360 14 has a reasonable starting price, although prices rise steeply with higher-spec models. We’ve seen big discounts on it recently, though.	3.5 / 5
Design	The HP Pavilion x360 14 looks smart and is well made, but it’s heavier and bulkier than you might expect. My unit was crying out for keyboard backlighting, too.	4 / 5
Performance	Not blistering, but still efficient for workaday use. The 1080p display looks crisp, while the keyboard and touchscreen are effective.	4 / 5
Battery life	Decent for a convertible laptop, although some rivals can beat it. It’s quick to recharge, though.	4 / 5
Total Score	The HP Pavilion x360 14 is a premium-feeling machine with a compact form, but one that's less portable and maneuverable than you might expect. There are also some better-value rivals, but it still offers enough to deserve consideration.	4 / 5

Buy the HP Pavilion x360 14 if...

You’ll be doing a lot of typing
The keyboard is a joy to use, thanks to the comfortable and snappy keys.

You want a premium build
Not only does it look smart, the Pavilion x360 14 is solidly constructed, and the materials employed feel more upmarket than your usual flimsy plastics.

Don't buy it if...

You’ll be conducting demanding workloads
Since it lacks integrated graphics, more strenuous tasks, such as gaming, are a struggle for the Pavilion x360 14.

You want the best usability
Despite its small size, its thickness and weight hamper tablet-style use, as well as portability.

HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Also Consider

Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i
It might not be convertible, but the Yoga Slim 9i still has a touchscreen. What’s more, if you want the ultimate in portability, you can’t do much better. It’s a far more premium option than the Pavilion x360 14, but we found that its build quality and performance lived up to its commanding price tag. Shame there’s no audio jack, though.

Read our full Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i review.View Deal

Acer Chromebook Spin 312
If you’re on a tighter budget and can forgo the Windows operating system, the Acer Chromebook Spin 312 is a strong choice. It has a great display, keyboard, and touchscreen, all of which make it one of the best budget laptop picks. Its performance is also respectable – although it won’t handle heavy multitasking with the composure of more powerful machines.

Read our full Acer Chromebook Spin 312 review.

How I tested the HP Pavilion x360 14

Tested for a few days
Used for a variety of tasks
Laptop testing experience

I tested the HP Pavilion x360 14 for a few days, during which time I used it for multiple tasks, including productivity, streaming, and gaming.

I also ran our series of benchmark tests for laptops, which are designed to assess every facet of performance. I also tested the battery life by running a movie on a continuous loop.

I have plenty of experience both using and reviewing laptops. I have covered many models, ranging in their form factors, use cases, and price points.

First reviewed: November 2025
Read more about how we test

The Beauty review: amazingly, All’s Fair is no longer the worst Ryan Murphy FX show of all time — and at least it knew it was dreadful

7:00 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Disney Plus Gadgets Hulu Streaming | Comments: Off

I feel as though I'm going mad when I say there was once a time when Ryan Murphy TV shows were fresh, bold and innovative. Nip/Tuck was a scathing satirical putdown of cosmetic surgery culture in the early 2000s, Glee – while completely unhinged – dominated the television zeitgeist in a way no other show was daring to, and the first three seasons of American Horror Story were bona fide masterpieces.

Unsurprisingly, Murphy's track history likely means that streamers like Hulu and Disney are all but happy to throw money his way and wait for the next big thing to materialize... except, this isn't really happening anymore. While shows like 9-1-1 are getting more grandiose by the minute (Angela Bassett in space? Really), others including American Sports Story and Grotesquerie fell off the radar and were quickly cancelled.

Then All's Fair became the 0% Rotten Tomatoes stinker that took the internet by storm, guaranteeing a second season purely by fully leaning into its own stupidity. I really didn't think Murphy could top his own dreadfulness, but new FX series The Beauty easily clears any flop he's ever previously produced.

Why? Because at least All's Fair knew how terrible it was. At least Grotesquerie didn't pretend to be a success story. The Beauty is masquerading as something much more significant than it actually is, without contributing anything to the cultural zeitgeist aside from making sure you have the safest sex possible.

The Beauty on FX is The Substance-turned-STD, and everything about it is wrong

I know that you won't want to watch this series based on the above trailer, but let me set the scene for you anyway. Two FBI agents (played by Evan Peters and Rebecca Hall) travel across Europe to unravel the mysterious death of a group of supermodels. None of them appear to know each other, but all have the same symptoms – a virus, burning alive from the inside and spontaneously exploding upon death.

This either sounds like the recipe for absurd hilarity or insightful social commentary, but The Beauty is neither. After you've finished being baffled by Bella Hadid's out-of-place cameo, you're left feeling nothing aside from wondering how the series was green lit in the first place. We had The Substance last year, so we hardly need its knockoff little sister.

It doesn't take long for The Beauty to hit you over the head with its intended messaging of "what will people risk in order to be beautiful?". You could argue that a plethora of shows and movies have mulled over this age-old question already, ironically beginning with Nip/Tuck itself. Truthfully, we know what people would risk to be attractive (everything), and the critical analysis ends there.

Murphy is clearly churning out old ideas here, and there's nothing of merit or value contained within any single scene. The decision to make the killer virus a sexually transmitted disease (STD) is morally ambiguous, particularly when you consider Murphy's deft handling of the AIDS crisis in Pose. Is this meant to be an ironic nod to real-life history? Is it merely intended to shock whoever is watching? Condom sales might increase after this, but not much else will.

Go girl, give us nothing

Evan Peters and Rebecca Hall hold up FBI IDs to a man's face — I can't even remember their character names they are that forgettable. (Image credit: FX)

But let's put the gory gimmicks and missed narrative opportunities to one side. What else do we have left? Peters and Hall are secretly lovers, but don't have an ounce of chemistry between them. This makes flogging an already dead horse even trickier, because there's almost no incentive to watch. Murphy has already told us how our exploding supermodels die thanks to the mutant sex virus, so where's the payoff?

There's also the gauche notion that "fat is bad" that plays through the center of the story, and that's neither fitting for 2026 nor is it an original thought. 20 years ago, Murphy could have been lauded as daring by tackling body image head-on, but now it's just uncomfortable to watch slim actors in fat suits. Again, there's nothing of value to making this a worthwhile endeavor.

So we're left with a mis-matched, tone-deaf, mundane splatter of madness on our screens, and I'd rather have been blasted straight in the face with the VFX department's guts like an Italian horror movie from the 80s. Perhaps that way, I'd have felt something.

During the international press tour, I saw star Ashton Kutcher talk about The Beauty as if nobody has dared to make television like this before. I have to wonder if he's actually ever watched TV before now, and that's before I consider that his ex-wife Demi Moore examined this same topic in an infinitely more successful way.

Our only two wins are the brash pop soundtrack and a cameo role from the icon that is Isabella Rossellini. I don't know what Murphy has got on her to get this appearance, but God is she so much better than this. We all are.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

My favorite open earbuds brand just released a new Clip model — but sadly, they’re a let-down

6:00 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Audio Computers Earbuds & Airpods Gadgets Headphones | Comments: Off

Huawei FreeClip 2: Two minute review

In 2025, open earbuds became the trendy new kind of headphone to buy, and the market was dominated by sports loop-style buds. By the end of the year, though, cuff- or hook-style open-ears had dethroned them, and the Huawei FreeClip 2 are some of the big new buds to use this form factor.

My favorite open-ears of last year were the Huawei FreeArc, so I was hopeful that this new option would deliver something special – perhaps even enough to dethrone the big names on this particular block, like the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds or Shokz OpenDots One. However you might as well call these the FreeClicarus, because the company has flown too close to the sun.

The selling point of the FreeClip 2 is this: they’re some of the lightest, thinnest and therefore most comfortable clippy ear-cuff type earbuds to date. This is clear from the size of the charging case, which is the smallest I’ve ever seen in such buds, but also from the design and build of the buds themselves.

However even with the ‘heaviest’ cuff-style buds, I’ve never had a problem with weight, and in the FreeClip 2, the reverse was true. Buds like this rely on gravity to lock them firmly around your ear, and if they’re light, they just won’t sit right. I found the buds didn’t naturally sit properly, so needed some adjustment every time I used them, and were far too easy to knock off if they received a bump or swipe. They never fell out during exercise, but they did when I was pulling up my hood, putting on a bike helmet or bringing my noggin too close to my neck.

There are other aspects of the bud that are poorly designed. The touch controls are too finickety, requiring a precision and soft touch that I defy anyone to have at any point, let alone when they’re running or walking. And like all Huawei hearables, the companion smartphone app requires so many hoops to jump through, you’ll feel like an elephant at a circus (on Android, at least – on iOS or HarmonyOS, the process is simple). And, perhaps most damning of all, the audio quality just isn't very good.

You might now be wondering why I gave a modestly positive score to the FreeClip 2, and that's for two reasons. Firstly, it's because these issues aren't terrible. Secondly, it's for two really handy perks that the buds offer which alternatives don't.

Firstly, as I've already said, they're lovely and lightweight, and they were more comfortable to wear for runs or walks than alternatives. Secondly, the maximum volume is really high, fixing a common open earbuds issue – hearing your music properly. Despite their issues, the dearer-than-they-should-be pricing and being a let-own compared to the FreeArc, I can see these being a reliable buy for certain users.

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Specifications

Component	Value
Water resistant	IP57
Battery life	9 hours (earbuds), 38 hours (total)
Bluetooth type	Bluetooth 6.0
Weight	5.1g / Charging case: 37.8g
Driver	10.8mm

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Price and availability

The Huawei FreeClip 2 case, closed in a man's hand. — (Image credit: Future)

Released on January 21, 2026
Priced at £179.99 (roughly $240, AU$350)
Premium price for clip-style buds

The Huawei FreeClip 2 were announced in December 2025, and put on sale on January 21, 2026 (today, at the time of writing). Just in time for your New Year Resolution to run more – unless you live in the US or Australia, where the things don’t sell.

At £179 (roughly $240, AU$350), the FreeClip are fairly premium cuff-style buds. They match the highly-rated Shokz OpenDots One, though undercut the $299 / £299 / AU$449 Bose Ultra Open Ears. Most earbuds with this form factor I’ve tested have been cheaper, though, with some great options at half the price that we’ll explore near the bottom of this review.

For some Huawei-shaped context, the original FreeClip were released two years prior for about the same price. If you want any open earbuds regardless of the form, the Huawei FreeArc came out in early 2025 for about half the price, and they’re the best sports-loop-style open earbuds I’ve tested to date.

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Design

The Huawei FreeClip 2 on a man's ear. — (Image credit: Future)

Incredibly light case, comfortable buds
Too flexible and light to fit properly
IP57 protection

When I first took the Huawei FreeClip 2 out of the box, I thought Huawei had left them in the wash too long and they’d shrunk. The case is absolutely tiny. I’m talking about 5 x 5 x 2.5cm, smaller than any other charging case I’ve ever seen, and at 37.8g I don’t recall testing any lighter either. Lovely for popping the case in my pocket.

Like most clip-style open earbuds, the left and right buds are interchangeable, so you can pop them in your ears or the case either way around. But the process of putting them in the case is quite confusing, with an arrangement that seems… illogical. You can see what I mean in the pictures; it’s different to any other cuff buds I’ve tested, and I constantly put them in wrong and only noticed when the lid wouldn’t close properly. I found this quite annoying, but it’s the price to pay for a small case.

Onto the buds themselves: a spherical bud (or Acoustic Ball, according to Huawei), counterweight (Comfort Bean, apparently), and the connector loop (Airy C-bridge Design), all in a 5.1g package. The loop is quite elasticky, so there’s a lot of flex between the components, but I never noticed any ill effects when the buds were in my ears.

The Huawei FreeClip 2 placed wrongly in their case. — (Image credit: Future)

I noticed something with the bud – sorry, the Acoustic Ball – that I’ve not heard on other clipping buds. Sometimes when I put them in my ear, the audio wouldn’t be at full power, and I’d have to readjust them before they sounded right. Usually this kind of bud just falls into place, and I wasn’t used to this kind of micromanagement. It was also easier than I’m used to, to knock them out of place – they had a solid fit when exercising, but I kept hitting them out of my ear with bike helmet straps, hoods and hats. I think the frail design and light weight have resulted in some fit reliability problems.

There are touch controls on the buds: stroke the counterweight – I mean, Comfort Bean – for changing the volume, double-tap any part of the buds to play or pause, tripe to skip. The tapping was generally okay, even though my touch wasn’t always picked up, but I really struggled with the swiping – it’s really hard to intuitively reach the right spot behind your ear to find the trigger, and in my experience it was rarely picked up correctly anyway.

You can pick up the Huawei FreeClip 2 in three colors: blue, black or white. They’re rated to IP57, so they have limited protection against dust and can be immersed in shallow water for a limited time.

Design score: 3.5/5

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Features

The Huawei FreeClip 2, with one bud between two fingers and the other with the case on a shelf behind. — (Image credit: Future)

Fantastic listening test
Battery life is 8 hours, 32 hours with case
Fewer other features than some rivals

A recurring problem with Huawei earbuds is that their app situation is, I'm sorry to have to say it, a bit of a nightmare for Android users (an app-solute nightmare?) and that’s no different for the FreeClip 2. Own an iPhone? You’re in the clear – the companion app can be pinched straight from the App Store.

On my Android phone I had to go into a web browser, download and then install an APK for the Huawei AppGallery and use that to install the Huawei Audio Connect app (I then, for good measure, deleted AppGallery). That’s quite a lot of admin just to turn off touch controls.

It might not be worth it. The app lets you pick between four presets (and lets you create your own with a 10-band equalizer), and lets you toggle a few features like touch control, wear detection and head control (you can shake your head to reject an incoming call). Okay, there’s a ‘Find-My’ feature for lost buds or case and drop detection, two useful features. The app also has an Experimental Features menu which, for now, just has a toggle for adaptive volume – since this is labelled as under development, it didn’t feel fair to evaluate it for this review.

The Huawei FreeClip 2 in a man's hand, being stretched. — (Image credit: Future)

I will say, wearer detection is rarely present on open earbuds, and even more rarely is it fully functional. One thing I noticed over my testing process is that on the FreeClip 2, it works very well. Sometimes, it’s the small things!

The battery life is a little longer than the rivals, with the earbuds lasting 9 hours before you need to pop them back in the case. The case, despite its short stature, offers a decent amount of mileage too: 39 hours in total. It’s not class-leading, but it’s still very good.

The FreeClips support Bluetooth 6.0, a figure I don’t always see in buds like these, and I never had any connection issues; they were fast to pair every time I used them. They can also pair with multiple devices simultaneously so you can use them with both your phone and, say, a running watch.

Features score: 4/5

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Sound performance

The Huawei FreeClip 2 in the case, next to a zipper lighter. — (Image credit: Future)

Single 10.8mm driver
Music sounds lifeless
Lovely, high max volume

Each Huawei FreeClip 2 earpiece has a 10.8mm driver, just like its predecessor – it seems that the improvements in this sequel are in the design department, not the audio sector. That’s a shame because while we didn’t receive the original model, I saw some negative responses to its audio quality, and I’m going to level (I think) those same complaints at the new model.

Music, frankly, sounds flat and lifeless, condensing different instruments into one musical line instead of a sonic spread and then, oddly elevating mid tones higher above treble and bass. It sounds like the guitarist forgot to plug their axe in, the singer is struggling to remember the lyrics, the bassist is pushing through carpal tunnel syndrome.

In The Roosevelts & James Mason’s This Is Life, the rhythmic acoustic guitar seems to take dominance of the mix over the bass and vocals (drums? Not here, officer). The same happened in ABBA’s Waterloo: the acoustic stings in the verse stood above everything else, but strangely when the instrument returned in the chorus it was barely audible. I listened to a recording of the fourth movement of Antonin Dvorak’s New World Symphony, and the brass overshadowed the entire instrumentation – even in the segments they’re barely present.

In short, I wasn’t wowed by the Huawei FreeClip 2’s sonic prowess – it’s not the worst I’ve ever tested, but it is for the price. However, the buds do one spec better than any other model I’ve reviewed, and it’s a department that’s crucial for open earbuds: volume.

Too many times, these open-fit headphones don’t go loud enough, and they’re hard to hear due to the background noise you’re not meant to be isolated from. The FreeClip 2, however, go really loud, and for this reason alone I’d still recommend them to some fitness users who’ve struggled with other options.

If the buds support any features like Dolby Audio or aptX, or codecs like LDAC or AAC, it isn't mentioned on Huawei's website or app.

Sound performance score: 3/5

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Value

The Huawei FreeClip 2 buds on a ledge. — (Image credit: Future)

Given the glut of cuff-style open earbuds at sub-$100 (or £, AU$ equivalent) prices, you can expect a premium product if you’re going to pay a premium price like this. I’m sorry to say that I don’t think the FreeClip 2 quite deserve to be called that, though; the feature set, fit and sound quality aren’t significantly better than the budget options on the market.

I think Huawei missed a trick by pricing these buds as they did. You can pay less and get just as much, or pay the same amount and get more from rivals.

Value score: 3/5

Huawei FreeClip 2 review: scorecard

Category	Comment	Score
Value	These are priced like premium buds but perform like budget ones.	3/5
Design	The teeny tiny build feels good, although it brings problems. At least the case is small.	3.5/5
Features	It may be a little light in the feature department, but what it has works well. It's a shame about the app situation though.	4/5
Sound	They sound a little flat and lifeless, but the high max volume makes them a suitable pick for certain users.	3/5

Huawei FreeClip 2: Should I buy?

The Huawei FreeClip 2 buds in a case, leaning on a zippo lighter. — (Image credit: Future)

Buy them if...

You need something loud
Listening in a noisy environment? The volume you can reach makes these better than others on the market.

You want a small charging case
The tiny carry case for the Huawei FreeClip 2 is easily pocketable and won't weigh you down like some of the alternatives.

You find them as a gift with another gadget
They cost more than they should, but as a purchase gift with a Huawei tablet or phone, they'd be alright.

Don't buy them if...

You're an audiophile
It should go without saying, but it's doubly true of the Huawei. Don't buy these if you want a detailed sonic experience.

You're a cyclist or hat-wearer
Because of its build, headwear could really affect the FreeClip. Not for helmet-wearers or those who like a hat.

Also consider

Component	Huawei FreeClip 2	Shokz OpenDots One	Bose Ultra Open Earbuds
Water resistant	IP58	IP54	IPX4
Battery life	9 hours (earbuds), 39 hours (total)	10 hours (earbuds), 40 hours (total)	7.5 hours (earbuds), 27 hours (total)
Bluetooth type	Bluetooth 6.0	Bluetooth 5.4	Bluetooth 5.3
Weight	5.1g / Charging case: 37.8g	5.6g / Charging case: 52g	6g / Charging case: 43g
Driver	10.8mm	2x 11.8mm	12mm

Shokz OpenDots One

Shokz' debut options are a solid fit, sound great and come in a charging case that's small, though not Huawei small. They match the FreeClip 2 in price, though are slightly older so have seen some reductions.

Read our full Shokz OpenDots One review

Bose Ultra Open Earbuds

These top-price options have fantastic audio, even if they look a little more robotic than most alternatives. If you've got money to burn, Bose is ready.

Read our full Bose Ultra Open Earbuds review

How I tested

I listened to the Huawei FreeClip 2 for just over two weeks before writing this review. In that time I used it paired to my Android smartphone.

I used the FreeClip daily during that time. I worked out at the gym, went on runs and cycled, and also used it when not exercising at home and on walks around my neighborhood. I listened on Spotify and Tidal, watched on streaming services and played several games with them.

These are the latest in a busy line of earbuds I've tested at TechRadar, including plenty of open-ear options and various gadgets from Huawei.

HP Pavilion 16: Two-minute review

The HP Pavilion 16 is aimed at those looking for a capable everyday machine for a reasonable price.

It’s clear that HP has paid attention to the aesthetics of the Pavilion 16. Not only does the Sky Blue colorway add more interest than the monochromatic tones typical of mid-range laptops, but the materials employed look premium as well.

Its elegance is further emphasized by its sheer slenderness; I don’t recall having seen a thinner 16-inch laptop, making it one of the best laptop designs around. While this aspect helps with portability, the deceptively hefty weight doesn’t.

I can’t complain about the build quality of the Pavilion 16, though. There’s little flex to any part of it, despite its aforementioned lean form, while the parts that are plastic are pleasing to the touch. This is especially true of the keys, which have a slight texture for added tactility.

There are some useful ports on the Pavilion 16, including two USB-A, two USB-C (which support both Power Delivery and DisplayPort standards), and an HDMI port. However, most are loaded on the right-hand side, and the two USB-C ports are placed closest to the user, which can be inconvenient as the power cable has to be plugged into one of them.

Three-quarter view of HP Pavilion 16 open on desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

The Pavilion 16 handles general tasks rather well, from light productivity to 4K video streaming. However, since it lacks a dedicated GPU, graphics-heavy workloads are handled with less aplomb. Some light gaming is still possible, but you’ll have to dial back the settings and settle for unremarkable frame rates and visuals.

Fan noise is noticeable, even when the Pavilion 16 is running at a moderate intensity, but I would still describe it as being within acceptable bounds. Nearly all of the heat is confined to the very rear of the underside, which I also appreciated.

The 1200p WUGXA display is sufficient for this size of laptop, providing a clear and sharp image. Color reproduction and brightness levels are also commendable, although reflections can be a little too prominent at times.

If you’ll be doing a lot of typing, the Pavilion 16 is likely to meet your needs. The wide spacing of the keys, coupled with their deep travel and dampening, makes them satisfying to use. And if you’ll be dealing with lots of numbers in your work, you’ll be pleased with the inclusion of a numpad, too.

However, the touchpad is less impressive. It’s quite small for this size of laptop, yet at the same time manages to intrude while typing; I would often trigger cursor movement with my thumb palm. In the main, though, it’s still sufficient enough for everyday use.

An area where the Pavilion 16 excels is battery life. It lasted over 20 hours in our movie playback test, and charging times are very fast as well. On this front, it beats most of its similarly-priced rivals.

When you combine this aspect with its other plus points, the Pavilion 16 adds up to an enticing proposition, given its reasonable starting price. There are certainly other great laptops at this end of the market, some of which may have the edge in terms of performance, but the Pavilion 16 remains one to consider if you’re after a mid-range, workaday machine.

HP Pavilion 16 review: Price & Availability

Close-up of webcam on HP Pavilion 16, with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Starts from $459 / £569 (about AU$700)
Available now in various configurations
Reasonable price point

The HP Pavilion 16 starts from $459 / £569 (about AU$700) and is available now. Models with different Intel and AMD processors are available, as are models with touchscreens. RAM configurations also vary from 8GB to 16GB.

This is a reasonable price for a large laptop of this spec. For a similar price, you could also get the Acer Aspire Go 15. I was impressed with its performance when I reviewed it, which is perhaps marginally better than that of Pavilion 16. However, its display is less impressive than the Pavilion 16’s.

If you’re looking for another budget alternative, the HP OmniBook 5 14-inch (2025) could be one to look out for. It features a cutting-edge and vibrant OLED display, and impressively long battery life.

Value: 4 / 5

HP Pavilion 16 review: Specs

HP Pavilion 16 review configuration
Price	£569 (about $745 / AU$1,140)
CPU	Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (3.6GHz, 12 cores)
GPU	Intel Graphics (integrated)
RAM	16GB LPDDR5
Storage	512GB PCIe 5.0 NVMe M.2 SSD
Display	16-inch (1920 x 1200), 16:10, IPS, micro-edge, anti-glare
Ports and Connectivity	2x USB-A, 2x USB-C (Power Delivery, DisplayPort 1.4a), 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x 3.5mm combo audio; Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.3
Battery	59Wh
Dimensions	14 x 10 x 0.7in (358 x 255 x 18mm)
Weight	3.9lbs / 1.77kg

HP Pavilion 16 review: Design

Close-up of keyboard on HP Pavilion 16, on desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Exceptionally thin
Premium feel
Mixed connectivity options

The Pavilion 16 cuts an elegant figure, thanks to its minimalist design that’s free from fuss and unsightly bulges. The Sky Blue colorway also helps to distinguish it from many others in this sector, endowing the unit with enough interest while maintaining a professional appearance.

More impressive is just how slender the Pavilion 16 is. For a 16-inch laptop, it’s remarkably thin, which certainly helps with transportation. Its weight, on the other hand, is more of a hindrance, since it’s heavier than I expected it to be.

The plastics used in the Pavilion 16 feel premium, especially that of the keys, which are finished with a subtle texture that offers a pleasing amount of traction. They’re also secured firmly in place, without a hint of looseness.

Close-up of touchpad on HP Pavilion 16, on a desk — (Image credit: Future)

This same level of solidity applies to the overall construction of the Pavilion 16, too. There’s remarkably little flex to the chassis or the lid, despite how thin both are. What’s more, the hinge holds the display in place with impressively little wobble, no matter the angle, while being very easy to adjust at the same time.

There are two USB-A and two USB-C ports on the Pavilion 16, as well as an HDMI port – an increasingly rare sight on modern laptops. There’s no SD card reader, though, which is a small shame.

A bigger point of contention is the placement of the ports. All but two are on the right, which might prove inconvenient for some. And while I was glad to see the USB-A ports split across both sides, the two USB-C ports are both on the right.

What’s more, they’re located in front of all other ports, nearly mid-way along the chassis, which can cause issues when connecting the USB-C power adapter. Personally, I always prefer the power port to be the furthest away, in order to prevent the power cable from trailing over others or being obstructed by things you may have next to your laptop.

Design: 4.5 / 5

HP Pavilion 16 review: Performance

Close-up of left-side ports on HP Pavilion 16, on desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Reasonable everyday performance
Not ideal for gamers or creative pros
Tactile keyboard

HP Pavilion 16 benchmarks

Geekbench 6 (Single Core): 2,166; (Multi Core): 9,496
Cinebench R23 (Multi Core): 7,730
Cinebench R24 (Single Core): 94 (Multi Core): 411
Crossmark Overall: 1,433
3DMark Night Raid: 18,673; Fire Strike: 4,717; Steel Nomad: 352; Solar Bay: 6,519; Solar Bay Unlimited: 6,993; Solar Bay Extreme: 737; Solar Bay Extreme Unlimited: 734
BlackMagicDisk Read: 2,639MB/s; Write: 2,494MB/s
Total War: Warhammer III: Mirrors of Madness (1080p, Low): 22.7fps

The everyday performance of the Pavilion 16 is commendable. It handles light productivity, browsing, and entertainment tasks well, which is what one would expect from this grade of laptop. More impressively, it can stream ultra-HD video without issue.

Such content is enhanced by the large display, which is allowed to make full use of its space thanks to the thin bezel. There’s enough brightness and vibrancy to make the viewing experience an enjoyable one, and while reflections can reveal themselves at points, for the most part the Pavilion 16 does an admirable job of keeping them at bay.

Even when performing moderately intense workloads, the fans in the Pavilion 16 were audible. However, the noise never rose above a muted whir, so I didn’t find them disruptive. Most of the heat was confined to the rear underside, with commonly-touched surfaces remaining cool.

Since it has no dedicated GPU, the Pavilion 16 isn’t the best choice for gamers or creative types. Cyberpunk 2077 was just about playable on Medium settings, but even here I experienced some stuttering and the occasional slowdown. Naturally, it wasn’t very pleasant to look at, either. You'd be better off checking out our list of the best gaming laptops instead.

Close-up of right-side ports on HP Pavilion 16, on desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Thanks to the wide chassis, the keyboard fits comfortably in the Pavilion 16, even with its number pad. However, while the keys have plenty of space between them, they don’t seem as large as those on other laptops. I had to adapt my typing accordingly, but as the size difference is that great, this didn’t take long.

Better is the considerable amount of travel and dampening they have, especially by laptop standards. This makes them more tactile and engaging to use.

Despite its relatively small size, the touchpad got in the way as I typed. The palm of my right thumb frequently triggered cursor movement; thankfully, no clicks or taps registered, which would’ve been much more disruptive.

Its small size also means navigation isn’t as expansive as it could’ve been. What’s more, it lacks the smoothness of some of the best in class, and I felt a slight rattle whenever I tapped or clicked, which made such actions feel awkward. Having said all this, I’ve certainly experienced more frustrating laptop touchpads, and it’s perfectly usable in the main.

Performance: 3.5 / 5

HP Pavilion 16 review: Battery Life

Three-quarter rear view of HP Pavilion 16, open on a desk with pink wall in background — (Image credit: Future)

Lasts long
Beats many rivals
Quick to charge, too

The battery life of the Pavilion 16 is very impressive. It lasted a mighty 20 hours and 15 minutes during our movie playback test, a score that bests many of its rivals by a large margin. The Acer Aspire Go 15, for example, only managed close to 12 hours.

Equally as impressive is just how quickly the Pavilion 16 can fully recharge, taking about 90 minutes.

Battery Life: 5 / 5

Should I buy the HP Pavilion 16?

HP Pavilion 16 Scorecard
Attributes	Notes	Rating
Value	The HP Pavilion 16 offers a lot for the money, but it stands alongside some equally-capable rivals.	4 / 5
Design	The HP Pavilion 16 is remarkably thin for its size, while the looks and build quality are admirable at this price point.	4.5 / 5
Performance	For general tasking, the HP Pavilion 16 suffices. The display and keyboard are great, but gaming and creative applications suffer from the absence of dedicated graphics.	3.5 / 5
Battery Life	The HP Pavilion 16 can outlast many of its rivals by a long way, and it’s quick to recharge, too.	5 / 5
Total	The HP Pavilion 16 represents good value considering what it offers, but you’ll have to settle for poor graphical performance.	4 / 5

Buy the HP Pavilion 16 if...

You’ll be doing a lot of typing
The tactile keyboard is a cut above many others at this price point, owing to its deep travel and comfortable layout.

You want all-day battery life
Its impressive score in our battery test means the HP Pavilion 16 should last you a full day or more unplugged.

Don't buy it if...

You want to game or create
Since it doesn’t have a dedicated GPU, the Pavilion 16 can only handle very light gaming and creative tasks.

You want the best touchpad
The touchpad on the HP Pavilion 16 is quite small for a 16-inch laptop, and it’s not the smoothest operator. It can also get in the way when typing.

HP Pavilion 16 review: Also Consider

Acer Aspire Go 15
The starting price of the Acer Aspire Go 15 is much lower than that of the Pavilion 16, but you’d be wise to ignore this base model, since its spec is frankly unfit for modern use. The model that most closely matches the Pavilion 16 is also similarly priced. But while it performs well, its display is far less impressive, so I wouldn’t recommend the Aspire Go to those wanting the best visual experience.

Read our full Acer Aspire Go 15 review.

HP OmniBook 5 14-inch (2025)
Another HP laptop, the OmniBook 5 is a little more expensive than the Pavilion 16, but it features an OLED display, which impressed us with its vibrancy. Its light build and enjoyable keyboard and touchpad were further highlights. Build quality and top-tier performance are somewhat lacking, but the OmniBook 5 is a solid offering all the same.

Read our full HP OmniBook 5 14-inch (2025) review.

How I tested the HP Pavilion 16

Tested for a few days
Used for multiple purposes and benchmarked
Experienced laptop reviewer

I tested the HP Pavilion 16 for a couple of days. I used it for a variety of tasks, from productivity and browsing to streaming video and gaming.

I also ran our series of benchmark tests, designed to comprehensively assess every aspect of a laptop's performance. This included a battery life test, where I ran a movie on a continuous loop until the HP Pavilion 16 shut down.

I am an experienced laptop reviewer, having tested a large number across a broad range of price points, form factors, and specifications.

Polar Loop: One minute review

The Polar Loop is, on the surface, what a lot of folks want. It’s a lifestyle-friendly wearable like the popular Whoop MG, but one that doesn’t come with a mandatory monthly subscription.

It’s screen-free, with a lightweight body and fabric strap for maxed-out comfort. Polar has kept the Loop simple, offering a limited set of features rather than trying to cram in lots of extras. It tracks your sleep, your steps and has a crack at recognising and logging activity sessions — runs, walks and so on. This part is patchy, but the Polar Loop was never going to be that big a hit as a one of the best fitness tracker with the hardcore exerciser crowd anyway.

The Polar Loop’s issues are largely software-based. You have to get on with the Polar app to make the Loop fun to use, and its interface and presentation of data could really do with a rethink. This is planned for the future, but for now, this isn’t quite the Whoop-killer you may be hoping for. It’s shown up on that front by the cheaper Amazfit Helio Strap.

As is, what you get is a decent screen less tracker, but one that may be better later into its lifespan – after a software update, at least.

Polar Loop: Specifications

Component	Polar Loop
Price	$199 / £149.50 / AU$299
Dimensions	42 x 27 x 9mm
Weight	29g with band
Case/bezel	Stainless steel/Plastic
Display	N/A
GPS	N/A
Battery life	Up to 8 days
Connection	Bluetooth
Water resistant	Yes, 3ATM

Polar Loop: Price and Availability

$199 in the US
£149.50 in the UK
AU$299 in Australia

The Polar Loop launched in early September 2025 as a subscription-free alternative to the Whoop band. This is a little over a year since the launch of the Polar 360, a business-oriented wellness wearable that’s ultimately pretty similar to this consumer version. It costs $199 in the US, £149.50 in the UK and AU$299 in Australia.

While there are no explicit ongoing costs, there is a totally optional subscription called Polar Fitness Program, which works out an adaptive training plan for you. This costs 9.99 Euro a month after a free trial. This is far better value than the Whoop, which doesn’t sell you the device at all – just an expensive subscription. But for a fitness tracker that doesn’t actually do a lot, it’s still quite highly-priced.

Value score: 3.5/5

Polar Loop: Design

Screenless
Steel accents
Comfortable stretchy bands

The Polar Loop is similar enough to the Whoop band that Whoop has sued Polar claiming the company nicked its design. However, what this really boils down to is a couple of conventions already seen across the screenless wearables landscape.

Polar uses a fabric strap that weaves, buckle-like, over the wearable’s main unit. It covers where the screen would be in a normal watch. The Loop uses a velcro-style fastener and is clearly designed to look like a lifestyle wearable over a hardcore fitness gadget. While much of the core brick is plastic, the top and outer parts are brushed bronze-shade steel. It’s there to provide a touch of class.

These screen-free wearables are intended to be the kind of gadget you set and forget, at least until the battery runs out. The Polar Loop weighs 29g, strap included, light enough not to pick up any real momentum as you swing your arms unlike a watch like the Apple Watch Ultra, which weighs close to 60g. But you are still gong to see those familiar skin indents when you occasionally take the watch off, pressing its contours into your wrist.

Is it comfy? Sure, these slightly stretchy fabric bands are ace for comfort. But I’ve found the Amazfit Helio Band slightly easier to forget I’m wearing, no doubt because it’s even lighter: just 20g.

The Polar Loop has no buttons and no LED status indicator. You can’t interact with it if you try. There’s not even a vibration motor: it’s about as stripped-back as Polar could make it. Water resistance is rated at WR30, which in other wearables is often seen as not enough for safe swimming, while Polar says the Loop is fine for “bathing and swimming” under the ISO22810 standard, just not diving or snorkelling.

Design score: 4/5

Polar Loop: Features

No subscription
Very little interaction
Precision Prime heart rate sensor from 2018

One of the core appeals of the Polar Loop is, of course, that there is no mandatory subscription. There is a paid part of the app, though.

It’s called Polar Fitness Program, which costs around $11 a month (9.99 Euro). This launched in April 2025, provides tailored workout plans. It would work much better when paired with Polar’s more conventional fitness watches, like the Polar Grit X2, than a Loop.

The Polar Loop’s own feature set is very stripped-back. You can’t, for example, make the watch broadcast its heart rate data to be used by another device. There’s no altimeter, so counting of steps climbed is not recorded. You cannot use the Polar Loop as an alarm as there’s no vibration motor. When the Polar Loop is running low on battery you’ll simply get an incessant reminder to charge on your phone. You know the funny bit? Polar actually released a tracker called the Loop 2 in 2015 that did have vibration, and a half-hidden screen made up of 85 LEDs.

Neither that band nor the Polar Loop records blood oxygenation data either, despite the heart rate array making use of green, red and orange LEDs. Polar calls this its Precision Prime array, and it has been around for absolutely ages. A similar design was found in 2018’s Polar Vantage V. That’s a lifetime ago in tech terms, but the basics still work well.

Features score: 2.5/5

Polar Loop: Performance

8 days of battery life
Some activity tracking errors
HR data testing similar to Garmin Elevate V5 sensor

Despite the lack of a screen, Polar says the Loop lasts eight days, which is actually a bit less than some of its watches with displays. This is basically on the money. You can expect it to last around a week. With no GPS or screen, there should be little variation in how long it lasts based on your activity level.

Like any wearable, the Polar Loop is heavily reliant on its heart rate sensor for any data beyond your steps. This wearable has a pretty good one, despite using older hardware. While this is not a replacement for a full-on runner’s watch due to its lack of GPS, its HR data during runs is pretty similar to that of a Garmin Forerunner 970 (one of the best Garmin watches) and its Elevate V5 sensor, wore concurrently during most of my testing.

The Polar Loop doesn’t tend to mess up the start of workouts, or show unexpected major HR spikes during the work day when you do little more than potter about. There was one unexpected spike during a tracked run, but in general the results are solid here.

By default, the Polar Loop will record basic stats 24/7, and then automatically log any slightly extended stretches it believes you’re exercising. Go for a 12-minute walk? You can expect to see that pop up in the Polar app. It’s not entirely flawless, though; during one run, the Loop only clocked half of the hour-and-change workout, seemingly stopping during a brief break, only to fail to register the second half. The durations of some sessions are off too, although you can always take a more active approach to tracking: in the Polar phone app, you can manually start a tracked session, select the Loop, and use it as the source for HR data.

That aside, the Polar Loop has a good stab at recording your daily steps. And it of course tracks sleep, too, estimating your time spent in the light, deep and REM sleep zones, and records interruptions. The Polar Loop is more sensitive to these than another wearable’s full-on wakeful moments detection, so you may well see your sleep records peppered with these tiny interruption blips.

The lead stats Polar wants you to focus on are sleep duration, sleep solidity and regeneration — basically how much that sleep is getting your body back where it needs to be. However, there’s also an ANS Charge (autonomous nervous system charge) section in which you can check out breathing rate and heart rate variability.

All the basic data is here, and it’s sound enough. The Polar Loop’s biggest issue is the phone app isn’t really all that enjoyable to use, may look dated to some and doesn’t really direct the user that well as to what they should focus on.

The app’s home screen is Diary, which acts like a feed of your day, showing recent auto-tracked exercises, your step count and so on, in semi-chronological order. This is not as effective as the software in Amazfit’s rival Helio Strap app, which is more intuitive and has a handy traffic light-style system to alert you to any stats that may be out of the ordinary.

Screen-free wearables are massively reliant on their apps for the overall quality of experience. And Polar’s could do with some work. It’s just not that inviting a space to hang out in. Polar does plan to fully revamp the app in future, but right now we can only work with that we have.

Performance score: 3.5/5

Polar Loop: Scorecard

Category	Comment	Score
Value	The lack of a forced subscription is good but this is not the most aggressively priced tracker around.	3.5/5
Design	It’s comfortable, it looks decent and has some higher-grade steel elements, plus you get a choice of colours.	4/5
Features	A watch like this doesn’t need scads of features, but it does miss out on a few elements that could be handy.	2.5/5
Performance	Heart rate accuracy is decent but you may not want to rely on auto exercise recognition for accurate session logging.	3/5

Polar Loop: Should I buy?

Buy it if...

You like its style

An important factor here is how the Loop doesn’t look like a fitness watch, with a two-tone fabric outer strap with steel accents.

You want a subscription-free experience

While you can pay for a training plan subscription, there’s no mandatory subscription with a Polar Loop.

You want pure passive tracking

With no screen, and even no vibrate or buttons, this is a zero-interaction wearable for those who want no wrist distractions.

Don’t buy it if…

You are expecting big health insights

At the time of review the Loop doesn’t present its data in the most cogent way, and also has fairly basic hardware.

You want better software before buying

While Polar has plans to overhaul its software and interface, we don’t know when that will happen at the time of review.

Also consider

Whoop MG

The screen-free band that made this category sing, but requires a pricey subscription.

Read our full Whoop MG review

First reviewed: December 2025

« Previous Page — Next Page »