If you ever get fed up with fastening up your Apple Watch every morning, the Apple Solo Loop is sure to liberate you from frustration. The Apple Solo Loop is as simple as it gets – a plain Apple Watch strap that slips straight onto your wrist – no buttons, buckles or the like to contend with here. And although it’s not quite the perfect strap, it’s still a favorite of mine – here’s why.
Firstly, the absence of any fastening features is a big time saver. Sure, that means this watch is non-adjustable – not ideal if you’re sharing your Apple Watch with another person, for instance, but the ability to just slip it on was a plus for me overall. Simply check out Apple’s size guide on its website and find the fit that works for you. Easy as you like.
I tried out the Size 6 edition and found it to be both snug and secure – just as all the best Apple Watch bands should be. But there were more design aspects that I loved. Firstly, this band is made from liquid silicone rubber – a material that felt comfortable on my skin and smooth to the touch. It’s also both swimproof and sweatproof, making it totally workout-ready.
And there’s more. This band comes in a variety of eye-catching colorways, including Northern Lights (neon green), Periwinkle (a blue-ish purple) and Peony (pink). These colors were added in Spring 2025 – just after I picked up the far less adventurous black variant. I know. I’m still not over it.
But look, I’m going to have to burst the Apple Solo Loop’s bubble for a second. It's pretty prone to picking up loose fibers and dust, which means it may need a bit of a clean every few days – something that won’t bother you with a model like the Apple Nike Sport Loop. On top of that, the closed nature of this band means it’s not the most breathable, so it’s not the best suited for runs or gym sessions.
One more thing – this isn’t the cheapest Apple Watch band on the market, carrying a list price of $49 / £49. Sure, that’s in line with the more affordable first-party options, like the Apple Sport Band, for instance. But it’s worth noting that there are some more budget-friendly third-party options out there, like the Upeak Sport Strap and Yoohoo Adjustable Metal Strap – both of which you can often get for less than £10 in the UK.
So when all’s said and done, I think it’s fair to say that the Apple Solo Loop is a very solid option for anyone seeking out a new Apple Watch band. It’s comfortable, easy to fit and vibrant (if you want it to be), not to mention the fact it's both swim and sweatproof. Sure, it’s not as breathable or dust-resistant as some of its rivals, but in the end, the Solo Loop is still worthy of my recommendation.
(Image credit: Future)
Apple Solo Loop review: price & specs
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Apple Solo Loop?
Buy it if…
You want ultimate simplicity If you don’t want to mess around with fastening up your Apple Watch, I understand – it can be kinda annoying, especially when you’re in a rush. With the Apple Solo Loop, all you have to do is slide the strap over your hand and onto your wrist. That’s really it!
You want to add a splash of color to your wrist Look… I know the black band I picked out isn’t the most vivid, but there are much more exciting options for the Apple Solo Loop, I promise! There’s Peony, Periwinkle, Northern Lights… even Light Blush if you’re into that. So rest assured, there’s plenty of ways to spice things up a bit.
Don't buy it if…
You want the best watch strap for workouts Unlike alternatives such as the Apple Nike Sport Band, there are no holes in the Apple Solo Loop. That means it’s not as breathable – something that’s not ideal if you’re in the midst of a sweat-heavy workout. It’s great for underwater activities though, thanks to its swimproof material, so it just depends what kinda activities you’re getting into.
You want a more dust-resistant option This Apple Watch band is slightly prone to picking up dust and fibers and if that’s something that’ll annoy you, it’s probably best avoided. Instead, I’d suggest checking out the Apple Nike Sport Loop. That model is made from nylon yarn and is much less susceptible to picking up unwanted fluff.
Apple Solo Loop review: also consider
Apple Nike Sport Band The Apple Nike Sport Band is still my go-to whenever I’m wearing the Apple Watch SE. That’s because it has a smooth, breathable design, cool color options and a highly adjustable fit.. On top of that, it’s sweat and water-resistant. I mean, what more could you want? Read our full Apple Nike Sport Band review.
Originally launched in May 2024, the Roborock Qrevo Master is a high-end robotic vacuum and mop that produces an impressive blend of power, intelligence and convenience. Boasting 10,000Pa suction, dual rubber rollers and flexible side brush, the Qrevo Master effectively tackles dust, debris and pet hair on a variety of surfaces, while its dual spinning mops and consistent downward pressure ensure a very decent level of hard floor cleaning and light stain removal.
Navigation is always a key standout feature among Roborock models and this one's no different. The Qrevo Master's LiDAR mapping and AI-powered obstacle avoidance allows the bot to maneuver around furniture and most larger household objects. However, when it comes to small obstacle avoidance there are more efficient models out there that perform better in this regard.
The Qrevo Master's self-maintaining dock, meanwhile, adds an extra layer of convenience, automatically emptying the dustbin, refilling the robot's water tank and washing and drying the two mop pads. For those seeking a premium, low-maintenance floor cleaning solution, the Qrevo Master is an excellent choice, and holds its own against the best robot vacuums on the market, despite not being the very newest model out. Read on for my full Roborock Qrevo Master review.
List price: $1,599 / £1,199 / AU$2,199 (regularly discounted in all territories)
Launched: May 2024
At list price, the Roborock Qrevo Master costs $1,599 in the US (although at time of writing, it was down to $899.99, which is the kind of price you should expect to actually pay for this model). In the UK it's £1,199, but again you should expect not to have to actually pay that – at time of writing it's down to £799.99. In Australia, the list price is AU$2,699 but it's currently discounted to AU$2,199.
Even at those discounted prices, it's still a premium robot vacuum. However, it's far from the most expensive model on the market – most brands' newest flagship models are well into the four figures in the US and UK.
At time of writing the Qrevo Master is still a relatively new model – it launched May 2024. However, the world of robovacs moves fast, and there are now several newer bots in the Roborock range. It occupies a spot somewhere in the middle of the Qrevo lineup, between the basic and budget-friendly Qrevo Q5 Pro+ and the expensive but excellent Qrevo Curv. The latest options to join the lineup are the Saros 10 and Saros 10R, both of which cost far more than the Qrevo Master and introduce some cool (if not wholly essential) new tech.
(Image credit: Future)
While not the best or most advanced robot vacuum in the Roborock lineup, the Qrevo master is still a mighty fine option that delivers on many fronts, not least its excellent navigation and vacuuming skills.
While there are other sterling robot vac manufacturers out there – namely Dreame, Eufy and Narwal – I personally always gravitate to the Roborock brand simply because the Chinese company's products are so reliable and usually ahead of the curve. Where Roborock goes, others follow.
Is the Qrevo Master good value? I'd say it sort of is given that most robot vacs with this level of smarts retail for around the same price. Nevertheless, there are some outstanding cheaper options around if you know where to look. (In the UK, the phenomenal Xiaomi X20+ performs almost as well as the Qrevo Master for around £500 less – it's the best budget robot vacuumI've tested, by some margin).
Value for money score: 3.5 out of 5
Roborock Qrevo Master specs
Roborock Qrevo Master review: design
Slightly basic looking hybrid bot, and a little on the tall side
Dual rubber brush rollers and rotating mop pads
Comprehensive dock, including mop cleaning and drying
I guess I've been spoiled by the clean Scandinavian-style design aesthetics of Roborock's latest premium models, the Saros 10 and 10R, because the Qrevo Master's robot unit looks a bit old fashioned with its large, plastic LiDAR unit and oversized bumpers. At 10.3cm in height, it's also quite tall which means it will have trouble passing under some low-slung furniture.
Roborock's newer (pricier) robots outshine the Qrevo Master in this area – the Saros 10 has a puck that can pop up and down, and the Qrevo Slim and Saros 10R don't have a puck at all. All look significantly slicker and more modern than the Qrevo Master.
I'm not too enamored of the medical white color scheme of my review model – I much prefer the back version that appears in the studio photos in this review.
(Image credit: Future)
Let's tackle this model's navigation system first. Like all the very best robots, the Qrevo Master uses LiDAR and an RGB camera to find its way around a home, and its accuracy is second to none. In fact you can see the results during its very first mapping run in real time on the Roborock app. The RGB camera can also be used to monitor a room by driving the robot around like a remote controlled car.
(Image credit: Future)
However, while the Qrevo Master's large obstacle avoidance (furniture legs, etc) is above par – its Reactive AI software can identify and avoid 62 objects across 20 categories – its obstacle detection isn't as precise as the company's very latest navigation systems. After all, today's technology moves at such a pace that something considered groundbreaking a few months previous is very soon superseded by another that's lightyears ahead.
You do get a very decent tranche of vacuuming tech with this unit, including very effective dual rubber brush rollers with an anti-tangling device and an automatically extendable side brush that pops out in corners of a room. This model boasts 10,000Pa which is short of its higher-end stablemates but still perfectly acceptable for practically all cleaning scenarios, bar perhaps very deep pile carpet.
There are five levels of power to choose from – Quiet, Balanced, Turbo, Max and MAX+. Since the robot's battery is more than up to the task of vacuuming a large space (it has a running time of about 60 minutes in Max mode) , I would always opt for Max or MAX+ because, well, why wouldn't you?
(Image credit: Future)
On the mopping front this model comes with two circular toweling pads and, like many current high-end models, one of the mopping pads can also extend outwards to clean along skirting boards and around furniture legs. Both mops are pushed into the floor while they spin at 200rpm, giving any hard floor a good seeing to. This style mop tends to do a more effective scrubbing job than the static D-shaped pad still found on many robot vacuums – even the high-end models.
The mops themselves are pre-dampened by a small onboard 80ml water tank that is in turn filled in the dock just before going out on a mopping run. You can select up to 30 levels of water flow in the excellent Roborock app.
Of course, one wouldn't want any damp mops running slipshod over one's lovely carpets so the mops on this model lift by a few centimeters whenever the bot is traversing carpets or rugs. Likewise, its vacuum brush rollers also rise up whenever the robot is mopping or returning to base.
Dock design
At 521 x 340 x 487mm, the Qrevo Master's dock is considerably taller than many of its peers and that means it will be harder to position without it being too conspicuous. In fact this dock shares some design aesthetics with the Dreame L40 Ultra I reviewed a while back, including a very similar looking dust bag cover. But thankfully Roborock steered away from giving it any tasteless gold colored details.
(Image credit: Future)
It's not the most unpleasant looking dock I've seen, but compared to the gorgeous mirrored finish Roborock has applied to its Saros range, it certainly could do with a bit of a facelift. Thankfully the black option doesn't look quite as ungainly because, well, it's black and therefore less noticeable in a room filled with wooden furniture.
Like all good contemporary hybrid robot cleaners, the Qrevo Master's dock offers a fully automated maintenance system that empties the contents of the robot's small internal 220ml bin into the dock's larger 2.2-liter dust bag whenever it has finished a vacuum session. Having a robot with a self-emptying feature is an absolute must, especially if you have shedding pets in the home. Without one you will need to continually empty the robot's tiny bin yourself, sometimes halfway through a cleaning session and, believe me, that's no fun.
(Image credit: Future)
Since this model also wet mops hard floors, it comes equipped with a mop cleaning facility that washes both mops with hot water at 60C to break down dirt and bacteria. Aside from emptying the mucky contents of the 3.5-litre dirty water tank, filling the 4-liter fresh water container, and very occasionally removing the entire mopping tray from the dock to rinse and scrub it under tap, there's very little human interjection required with this machine.
Design score: 4 out of 5
Roborock Qrevo Master review: performance
Very good vacuuming and mopping performance
Reliable LiDAR navigation but poor obstacle avoidance
Effective dock with minimal human interaction needed
This robot vacuum does a lot of different things, so to keep everything clear, I've separated this section into a range of different performance elements. I'll start with navigation performance, then move on to obstacle avoidance. Next I'll get into vacuuming and mopping performance and finally I'll cover how well the dock held up during testing.
Navigation performance
Top marks as usual to Roborock for this bot's navigation prowess. From the moment you set it all up – a breeze, it must be said – the bot trundles off without getting lost and quickly maps your entire floor plan in about five minutes. It then returns to its charging station and proceeds to dock as accurately as a spaceship.
(Image credit: Future)
I've since placed the Qrevo Master in our village hall – an extremely demanding 127 square metres of wooden flooring – and the Qrevo Master has never once lost its way or missed a section. Sometimes very large spaces with lots of reflective windows can affect a robot vac's LiDAR navigation performance and this usually manifests itself as a strange anomaly on the app's map interface where the room is mysteriously multiplied in size. This happened on a couple of occasions with the Dreame L40 Ultra. By contrast, the Qrevo Master's complex three-room map hasn't altered at all in three weeks of regular use.
Obstacle avoidance
This is the only test where the Qrevo Master showed its Achilles Heel. For my test I used a collection of small and large dog toys, plus a phone cable. At first the Qrevo Master simply steamrollered even some of the larger toys. Activating the 'Pet' setting in the Reactive Obstacle avoidance menu in the app makes a big difference to Roborock bots' detection skills, but I double-checked and I had indeed already selected this option.
I then ran the test again and, for some bizarre reason, it behaved a little bit better – as if it was going through a learning process. Nevertheless, like the vast majority of bots I've tested, it ran right over the small nylon dog bone and failed to extricate itself. And, while it at first appeared to avoid the charge cable, it soon changed its mind and simply ran over it and then dragged it around the rug.
(Image credit: Future)
It's difficult to tell why this model had such issues with obstacle avoidance, but in its defense, its day-to-day schedules have always gone without a hitch – when it has encountered a stray dog toy, it's simply pushed them to the side when not actively avoiding them. However, I agree that this is not ideal given the cost of the machine in the first place.
Hence, if you have a messy home with small items littering the floor, you'd be better off with the Roborock Qrevo Curv, the newer Roborock Saros 10R or the Dreame L40 Ultra. All three of these bots excel at obstacle avoidance.
Vacuum performance
For my hard floor test I measured 22 grams of oats, uncooked orzo, cornflakes, flour and a crushed cheese cracker. I then set a cleaning zone in the kitchen and commanded the robot to perform two passes using Max power. While some of the debris was scattered by the spinning side brush (a common occurrence with all robot vacs), it generally performed extremely well, collecting 21g when measured on the scales.
Image 1 of 2
Before the vacuuming test... (Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
... and after (Image credit: Future)
Granted, a few remnants of oats remained and some flour was left in the cracks but this was easily fixed by using a standard stick vac to finish the job. While not as successful as, say, the Roborock Saros 10R or Dreame L40, the Qrevo Master still proved to be very adept at hard floor sweeping.
Before (left) and after the vacuuming test on a rug (Image credit: Future)
I then set up a similar medium-pile rug test using the same 22g of ingredients. This test produced excellent results, with 22g back on the scales. However, it had also collected some extra pet hair and dust in the process so I would say pickup was nearer to 21g. That's an excellent result in my opinion. Best of all, I couldn't see any remnants on the rug from head height – and that's about as much as anyone could wish for.
Mopping performance
I'm not a big fan of robot vacs that also mop because I don't believe any of them are capable of replacing a human's ability to deeply wash a hard floor or target a specific area using either an old fashioned mop and bucket or one of those newfangled wet-and-dry cordless mops that are doing the rounds.
For instance, I would never consider going through the rigmarole of sending a robot mop to attend to an accidental spill when I can get the job done in a fraction of the time. However, I can see robot mops being useful at keeping on top of a pre-cleaned floor if programmed to run a series of regular mopping schedules.
(Image credit: Future)
Since this model uses two circular spinning mop pads, I knew before even starting my test that it would be efficient enough for a pass. And sure enough it mopped up all traces of the milk and soy sauce mix I spilled on the floor – in a single sweep no less. It even continued to move over the same spot a number of times, just for good measure. However, like most robot mops I've tested, it did leave a slightly sticky but invisible residue behind after the floor had dried. After the cleaning test, the robot duly returned to its dock to have the mops cleaned and dried using hot air to help keep mold at bay.
(Image credit: Future)
Dock performance
Since I have two Labradors and three cats, my home is always full of hair. In fact, I often find odd strands of Labrador hair in the most surprising places. As a consequence of all this hair, some robot vac docks I've tested have become blocked due to an excessive amount of hair stuffed into the robots' tiny bins.
If the dock's suction isn't powerful enough, chances are a bundle of hair will block the air intake, either where the robot meets with the dock's suction tube or, more than likely, at the end of its travel where the suction tube connects with the dock's dust bag. This kind of anomaly is easily rectifiable but also unnecessarily messy, especially given the fact that you buy a robot vac to do all the graft so you don't have to.
(Image credit: Future)
Well I'm pleased to say that the Qrevo Master's dock suction levels are easily high enough to draw everything out of the robot's bin and into the dock's large 2.2-liter disposable dust bag with no issues whatsoever. (I'd rate it amongst the best robot vacuums for pet hair in this regard.) In fact, the dock's suction was powerful enough to draw a heavy snooker cue tip into the dust bag, and not many robot docks are capable of that level of suction.
(Image credit: Future)
As a postscript, I should add that this robot has been employed full-time in our village hall for several weeks now, and the hall's main floor, its kitchen and toilet area have never looked cleaner. The Qrevo Master vacuums this enormous 127 square metre space three times a week and mops it twice a week. At no time has it ever got stuck in five weeks of regular use. It deftly vacuums the entire hall (even beneath a pile of chairs in one corner), keeps the hall's loos spick and span and stays on top of any kitchen mess. This just goes to prove that robot vacs – and mops – are just as suitable for commercial use as they are for domestic settings.
Performance score: 4.5 out of 5
Roborock Qrevo Master review: app
Highly customizable
Easy to navigate
Extremely comprehensive
I've said it before and I'll say it again – right now there is no better robot vac app for sheer comprehensiveness and ease of use than Roborock's. This app has it all, from scheduling and specific zone tasks, to a myriad of deep customization tweaks. That includes changing the amount of time the bot returns to the dock to have its dustbin emptied, editing the room surface and direction of wooden flooring, adding no-go zones, even adding furniture icons to the map so it looks like something out of the Sims.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Roborock / Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Roborock / Derek Adams)
Another great thing about this app is that you can programme a set of ‘Routines' like ‘vacuum the lounge' or ‘mop the kitchen' and save them all on the home screen for instant access. Roborock's tech bods left no stone unturned when developing this app and the results speak for themselves.
App score: 5 out of 5
Should you buy the Roborock Qrevo Master?
Buy it if...
Your home has a complex layout
The Qrevo Master's navigation is top dollar.
You have pets in the home
This model handled my two dogs' and three cats' hair extremely well.
You need a robot that also mops
The Qrevo Master does a very decent job of mopping, and the comprehensive dock also takes care of various maintenance tasks.
Don't buy it if...
You want the best of the best
Newer Roborock models have more cutting-edge features, including things like retractible navigation pucks for cleaning under low furniture.
You have a cluttered home
The Qrevo Master isn't a master of obstacle avoidance, so you'll want to tidy up before sending this bot out.
You're on a tight budget
There are lower-priced options on the market, albeit with less comprehensive docks.
How I tested the Roborock Qrevo Master
I lived with the Qrevo Master for several weeks to get a real feel for its performance. I also TechRadar's standard robot vacuum tests to assess performance.
The first thing we're looking for is overall suction performance on different floor types. For this, I spilled a selection of loose ingredients on both hard flooring and carpet and observed the results. Did the robot sweep it all up in a single sweep or did it snowplough everything? Did it scatter the ingredients in the process? Did it leave anything behind after a few passes? I then ran similar tests using liquids, to test this hybrid robot's mopping efficiency.
Aside from performance, I also looked at the design of the robot and self-emptying dock, tested the effectiveness of its obstacle avoidance, and considered how quickly it mapped my home's floor plan when first taking it out of the box. I spent time digging into its app to see how extensive and usable it is, and if any improvements could be made.
Belkin BoostCharge 25W Wall Charger with PPS review
Right, strap in everyone, this one’s a real mouthful… the Belkin BoostCharge 25W Wall Charger with PPS is a single port, USB-C charger that will get the vast majority of modern handsets fighting fit in no time.
Of course, this isn’t going to be the best at juicing up one of the latest MacBooks or Chromebooks, for instance, due to its 25W output. But that’s OK. After all, this model is really for those that just want to charge their phone or wireless headphones on the go, say. And that, reader, is a purpose this model serves well.
I tried charging up my Samsung Galaxy S24 FE and it reached 100%, starting from 0% in just under 80 minutes – the kind of speed I’d hope to see from the best Android phone chargers and best iPhone chargers. Of course, this model won’t be able to unlock peak performance on a phone like the Honor Magic 7, which can manage 100W wired charging, but most iPhones and Samsung handsets will be able to fast charge with this Belkin plug.
It’s also worth noting that this charger never got too hot when bringing my phone back to life. That’s thanks to its use of PPS technology, which ensures dynamic power delivery. It's also worth noting that this model only supports 20W charging for iPhone, though you may find that’s plenty for a rapid rejuvenation of power.
Beyond performance, this charger is a bit of a mixed bag, though. Build quality is solid and there’s a nice textured finish to the outer casing, but I still didn’t love this charger’s design. In honesty, it’s a little bit bulky for a 25W charger, especially compared to models like the Anker Nano USB-C 30W or UGreen Nexode Mini 30W.
Also, its prongs slide down, but they’re not fully foldable – something I always like, as it enables me to simply slot the charger into my pocket when out and about, without the fear of being poked in the side.
Pair that with the lack of USB-C cable in the box – at least for the UK variant I tested – and the $19.99 / £17.99 / AU$29.95 feels reasonable rather than cheap. Especially when the models I mentioned above are priced very similarly, but are more compact, attractive and powerful. And, all in all, I can’t help but feel there are better value options available for the money. So, even though the Belkin BoostCharge 25W Wall Charger with PPS is a steady performer, it can’t quite top the best of the best single-port alternatives.
Should I buy the Belkin BoostCharge 25W Wall Charger with PPS?
Buy it if…
You just need a basic phone charger This Belkin charger isn’t the most mighty or multi-talented. It offers 25W and a single USB-C port, which isn’t going to be enough for some. Having said that, you’re gonna get more than enough power to fast-charge some of the best Samsung phones and best iPhones, so if you don’t need anything fancy, this will still certainly do the trick.
You’ve got a slow USB-A plug and want an upgrade If you’re fed up with slow charging from your old USB-A fitted phone charger, this alternative from Belkin is sure to take things up a notch. It will almost certainly deliver faster charging speeds – ideal for when you need some extra juice on the go. It’s worth noting, though, that this charger doesn’t come with a USB-C cable, so you’ll need to grab your own elsewhere.
Don't buy it if…
You have a more power-hungry handset Some modern smartphones are capable of charging at a far higher wattage than 25W. For example, the OnePlus 13 can charge up to 80W, so you’ll be better off using single port charging on a model like the UGreen Uno 100W if you’re looking to access peak performance.
You want a splash of style This isn’t the most stylish charger out there. Sure, it comes in two colorways, black and white, but still, it has a pretty plain looking aesthetic. Meanwhile, the Anker Nano USB-C 30W comes in more unique colors, has foldable prongs and also a textured exterior.
Belkin BoostCharge 25W Wall Charger with PPS: Also consider
UGreen Nexode Mini 30W The UGreen Nexode Mini 30W is among my favorite single-port phone chargers thanks to its attractive, shiny appearance, compact build and foldable prongs. It has a bit more power than this Belkin charger but is no more expensive. There’s no USB-C cable in the box here either, but if we’re talking all-round value, this is a superior alternative. Read our full UGreen Nexode Mini 30W review.
The Google Pixel 9a is a solid Android phone that punches far above its weight in important ways, even if the new direction for A-series phone design is a letdown. I'll try not to spend this whole review dwelling on how ugly this phone is – the photos speak for themselves – but I was surprised that Google abandoned its excellent Pixel design for this phone.
The Pixel 9a performs as well as the Pixel 9 in almost every way. It takes photos that look nearly as good as the pics I get from my Pixel 9 Pro. It has most of the latest AI features that make the Pixel a compelling choice for Google fans. I just wish it looked like a Pixel.
Don’t get me wrong; I love the color of the Peony review sample that Google sent me. Actually, TechRadar got two samples, and both were pink, so clearly Google likes this color as much as we do. The color is a perfect match with the Peony silicone case that Google supplied, and I kept the phone covered for most of my time testing it.
The Pixel 9a, Pixel 9, and Pixel 9 Pro (left to right) (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Putting the phone in its case was like putting lipstick on a pig. For the Pixel 9a, Google took the sharp, stylish, distinctive design language it used the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro and threw it in the garbage.
This phone is flat and boring. The camera bump is apologetic, rather than the bold statement the bump on the Pixel 9 makes. You would be forgiven for mistaking this phone for a cheap Motorola or Nokia, or an off-brand phone you find in the back of your carrier store.
I don’t get it. The best explanation I can muster is that the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro camera bar is expensive to produce, and the A-series phones are supposed to be a bargain. But Google cut plenty of other corners on this phone that should have offset the cost of a better design.
For instance, the camera sensors are much, much smaller than the sensors on the Pixel 8a. The main sensor is less than half the size, and that’s a massive drop for the most important spec in terms of camera quality. The Pixel 9a still manages to snap great photos, but this downgrade should have saved Google enough money to pay for a fancy new dress.
The Pixel 6a, Pixel 7a, and Pixel 8a (left to right) all look like the other Pixel phones in their series (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
The Pixel 8a also launched with the same 8GB of RAM as the Pixel 8. The Pixel 9a keeps the 8GB of memory, but the Pixel 9 now offers 12GB (and the Pixel 9 Pro packs 16GB!), which makes a difference when it comes to running all of the AI features on the phone.
The Pixel 9a has a larger battery than the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro, even though all three phones have a 6.3-inch display. However, in my time with the Pixel 9a, battery life was good but not extraordinary, and our Future Labs tests show that its battery life is somehow not measurably better with that larger cell inside.
Is the Pixel 9a a letdown? Not at all! Google’s AI features remain the most useful smartphone AI tools you’ll find – I regularly use the AI phone call features to hang up on spammers, wait on hold for me, or record an especially important phone call.
Google Gemini on the Pixel 9a has also gotten much better – and it even improved during my two weeks with the phone, as Google added the ability for Gemini to use the camera and discuss what it sees.
For the price – $499 / £499 / AU$849 – you won’t find a phone that feels so polished and capable. You may find more camera features on a phone like the Samsung Galaxy A56, but you won’t get better photos than you’ll take with the Pixel 9a, especially not macro shots, which is the Pixel 9a’s new specialty.
Trying to beautify the Pixel 9a as best I can (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
You might find snappier performance elsewhere, but the Pixel 9a’s Tensor G4 chip is powerful enough to for Google to guarantee seven years of major Android and security updates, and that’s the best promise you’ll get in this price range. If you need a bargain phone and you don’t want to replace it, like, ever, the Pixel 9a would be the first phone I recommend.
Except for one small thing: the Pixel 8a might be just as good. The Pixel 9a isn’t much faster, and it doesn’t do anything the Pixel 8a can’t do, other than offering the latest Google AI features. If the AI aspect of Google’s phones isn’t enticing, you might be just as satisfied saving even more money and getting the Pixel 8a, especially if it goes on sale again soon.
Actually, if you’re considering the Pixel 9a and you want the best possible bargain, you may want to wait a bit longer. The Pixel 8a went on sale in May of 2024 and the price dropped by $100 for one deal in the US in August. The current global economic uncertainty aside, Google loves to goose sales of its A-series phones with a great deal, so look out for price drops on the Pixel 9a. Or just buy the Pixel 8a – because at least that phone looks like a Pixel.
Google Pixel 9a review: Price and availability
The Pixel 9a in Obsidian, Porcelain, Iris, and Peony (top to bottom) (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Priced at $499 / £499 / AU$849 for 128GB of storage and 8GB of RAM
Available in Peony, Iris, Porcelain and Obsidian
The Pixel 9a is available now for $499 / £499 / AU$849, after a delay caused by a mysterious 'passive component' issue. My review sample did not seem to have any performance problems or build-quality issues, so I guess we’ll never know what held back the Pixel 9a for a few weeks.
The Pixel 9a costs the same as last year’s Pixel 8a did at launch, but this year there's no competing iPhone SE at an even lower price to consider. Apple has effectively vacated the $500 phone market by selling the new iPhone 16e for a laughable $599 / £599 / AU$999.
If you’re looking for a $500 phone, the Pixel 9a is one of your best options, along with the Samsung Galaxy A56. Samsung hasn’t started selling that phone in the US as I write this, but we have reviewed it, and we know it’s coming to the US later this year.
See! A bargain phone can look cool, not clunky (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
You might also consider the Nothing Phone 3a Pro, a quirky Android that costs $459 / £449 / AU$849, though it’s only available in the US through a beta program.
Of all the phones in this price range, the Pixel 9a should get software and security updates for longer than the rest. The Pixel gets a seven-year promise, while Samsung gives you six years, and the rest of the Android world promises three or fewer.
Value score: 5/5
Google Pixel 9a review: Specs
The Pixel 9a hiding behind the Pixel 9 because it knows that it's ugly (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
The Pixel 9a uses the same Google Tensor G4 chipset as the Pixel 9 Pro and the rest of the Pixel 9 family. This is Google’s biggest strength with its bargain phones, because the Tensor contains the magic sauce that lets Google promise seven years of major OS updates for its latest phones (though none of them have actually been around for seven years, yet).
The Tensor G4 isn’t a performance beast, but it’s good enough for the Pixel 9a to get by, albeit with a bit of sluggishness. The initial setup process especially was a slog, as the phone gets bogged down when you try to download a lot of apps and then, you know, use them.
The paltry 8GB of RAM inside became noticeable when I used the AI features, and the Pixel 9a inexplicably doesn't have the new Screenshots app that debuted on the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro. That app gathers all of your screenshots and runs them through the AI so you can ask questions about what it sees; I guess 8GB of RAM is not enough for that level of on-device processing.
I'm very nervous about the next seven years with this phone, if we’re already seeing Google omit features on day one that the rest of the Pixel 9 phones have. I suspect that whatever Android update the Pixel 9a gets in seven years will be only a portion of what the rest of the Pixel phones will receive, but at least security holes should be plugged.
Google Pixel 9a review: Design
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
A major departure from Pixel design
The ugliest Pixel phone ever
Let’s start with a compliment: I like the colors. I like the Peony pink and the lavender Iris hues, and even the Porcelain and Obsidian look premium, not basic. I also like that the cases match perfectly with the phone, giving the handset some needed dimension and texture.
Okay, that’s all the nice I have in me for this phone's design. I’m only being mean to the butt-ugly Pixel 9a because I really liked the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro redesign, and I can’t believe Google didn’t carry the new look down to the bargain basement.
The Pixel 9a is just a flat slab of plastic broken by a round camera bump. It has no personality or character – it looks like somebody punched a Pixel 9 square in the nose and flattened its whole face.
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
The Pixel 9a has the same-size screen as the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro, but the bezels are noticeably thicker. The phone is nicely rounded, like the Pixel 9, but the back is a matte-finish plastic, not shiny glass. Google says 23% of the Pixel 9a is recycled materials, by weight.
To be fair, the Pixel 9a is thinner than the Pixel 9 if you count the camera bump – that bar adds 3mm to the thickness of the latter phone. If you really want a phone that is borin… er, flat, this is a good pick.
Google also says the Pixel 9a is the most durable Pixel A-series phone yet. It can withstand a dunk in up to 1.5m of fresh water for 30 minutes, so feel free to drop it in the toilet and give it a flush, then rinse it in the sink.
Design score: 3/5
Google Pixel 9a review: Display
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Very bright and colorful display
Questionable Adaptive Display settings should be turned off
The Pixel 9a has an excellent screen that's very bright and colorful, continuing Google’s dominance in this aspect of the smartphone world. This would be a great display for a phone at any price, but it’s a standout feature on a bargain phone; you won’t find a better or brighter screen on a phone this cheap.
I was feeling a bit let down by the display for my first few days with the Pixel 9a, but then I turned off the Adaptive Display mode and things got much brighter. For some reason, Adaptive Display was keeping my phone very dark no matter where I used it, but when I took control the experience got exponentially better.
The screen can refresh at up to 120Hz, but frankly I’m not sure the phone can keep up with any content moving that fast. Scrolling through the apps and settings menus felt more stuttery on the Pixel 9a than on the Pixel 9 Pro, and I can only assume that more RAM would pick things up.
The phone has Gorilla Glass 3 on the front, which is durable but not as scratch-resistant as the latest Gorilla Glass Victus materials. I noticed some hairline scratches on the screen after only a week of use, although these weren't distracting. The back of the phone is plastic, not glass, so it should be more durable.
Display score: 4/5
Google Pixel 9a review: Software
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
A polished version of Android, with many updates to come
Doesn’t have all the features of the rest of the Pixel family
The Google Pixel 9a launches with Android 15 on board, and it should get updates through Android 22 in 2032, if humanity survives that long. Google has only been making this seven-year promise for three years, so we can’t be sure what those eventual updates will look like, but Google also regularly drops new features, or brings newer features to older phones, in software updates it calls Pixel Drops.
Google’s version of Android is the most refined you can get, with the fewest extraneous features. Where Android used to be known for its heavy customization options, now you’d have to download a whole new launcher app if you want to organize your app list into folders or tweak the interface behavior. Today’s Android is simpler, and better for it.
You can no longer group apps into folders or even change the order of the app list (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Google also has some of the most useful AI tools on its smartphones; and, where other phone makers have the same features, Google does it better. For instance, Google’s Voice Recorder app is the best at transcribing what it hears into text. It will label individual speakers, and you can simply tap on a word to jump to the moment in the recording when it was spoken. Samsung and other Android phone makers have similar software, but it doesn’t work as well; not even close.
I especially like Google’s AI calling tools. When I get a mysterious phone call, I can have Google’s AI answer and screen the call; spammers always hang up at this point. If I’m on an important call that I need to remember details of, I can have the AI record and later transcribe the call. My caller will be alerted to the fact that they're being recorded, so there’s no privacy concern.
Gemini Live isn't interesting to look at, but it's fun to talk to the machine (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Google’s Gemini Live conversation tool also got a nice boost on the Pixel 9a. Just before this phone launched, Gemini Live went multi-modal, so it can now talk to you conversationally while it looks through your camera. I pointed Gemini at the blank wall beneath my TV and asked for suggestions on how to decorate it. Gemini suggested that I add plants, then we switched the conversation to what plants I could buy that I wouldn’t kill in a month.
Of course, there are plenty of AI slop tools on the Pixel 9a as well. There's the standard image-generating tool that probably shouldn’t exist, for legal and ethical reasons, and it can now create images of human beings, which was forbidden in the past.
I have a big problem with these tools. They're bigoted by nature. If I ask Pixel Studio for an image of ‘a successful person,’ I get five images of young, able-bodied people. The selection may be racially diverse, but it still holds onto so many stereotypes that it should simply not be on a phone.
If I ask Pixel Studio for an image of ‘a Jewish man,’ I get the most stereotypical caricature of Jewish identity: an older man with a full beard and a head covering. If I ask for ‘a Palestinian man,’ it refuses to create anything, which is its own harmful erasure and stereotyping, as if any image of a Palestinian man should be considered potentially harmful.
Image 1 of 3
I asked Pixel Studio for "A Jewish man" and got these three images in a row (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 2 of 3
I asked Pixel Studio for "A Jewish man" and got these three images in a row (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 3 of 3
I asked Pixel Studio for "A Jewish man" and got these three images in a row (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Sorry, this Pixel has no business creating images of people if it resorts to stereotypes. I’m not sure when it became acceptable for a smartphone to reinforce bigotry, but it’s not something I’ll ever be comfortable with. Google should remove this capability from Pixel Studio immediately.
Software score: 2/5
Google Pixel 9a review: Cameras
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Surprisingly good photos that look like Pixel 9 Pro pics
Astonishing macro capabilities that rival my DSLR – seriously
I've been pleasantly surprised by the Pixel 9a’s camera capabilities. This phone continues the A-series tradition of producing photos that look almost identical to the shots you’d get from the Pro-series device, albeit at a much lower resolution.
The Pixel 9a has a 48MP camera, but it uses a pixel binning technique and will only produce images that are 12MP. Even the raw files it produces are 12MP or less.
That’s fine by me! I think 12MP is the perfect size for sharing, whether you send photos to friends or post them to your favorite social app. You won’t be able to zoom in later, and you might miss the fine details, but 12MP is a good compromise for a bargain phone. To be fair, the Pixel 9 has a 50MP camera and that phone also limits its photo output to 12MP.
I was expecting the Pixel 9a cameras to be much less capable, because the sensors have been reduced in size compared to the Pixel 8a, and are much smaller that the sensors you’ll find on the Pixel 9 or Pixel 9 Pro. The Pixel 9a uses a half-inch sensor for the main camera, compared to the three-quarter-inch sensor on the Pixel 9.
That doesn’t sound like much, but that’s the diagonal measurement, and the actual area of the sensor in the Pixel 9a is 57% smaller than that of the sensor the Pixel 9. That means it captures much less light, which affects every other aspect of photography.
There's much bigger sensors under that big Pixel 9 bump (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Thankfully, Google’s AI photography magic has never been more powerful. Photos look great, nearly identical to Pixel 9 Pro photos, until you zoom in close. Then things get muddy, but the Pixel 9a produces images with accurate colors and good lighting. The iPhone 16e might be a little bit better, but it’s also much more expensive, and it lacks some of the Pixel 9a’s great features.
I was blown away by the new macro photography capabilities on the Pixel 9a. I shoot macro photos often with my Nikon D750 and Tamron 100mm macro lens, so I broke out the full-frame camera for a comparison test. The results were truly shocking.
Without a flash, the Pixel 9a totally outperformed my Nikon. I couldn’t hold the camera still enough for the 1/4 second exposure that it required, but the Pixel 9a had no trouble grabbing a sharp shot in the same dim light. Even with a flash attached, my Nikon wasn’t much more sharp than the Pixel 9a. The Pixel even managed to expose a wider swath of the subject than my Nikon at f/16.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
This macro shot was taken with the Pixel 9a
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
This macro shot was taken with a Nikon D750 DSLR with a Tamron 100mm macro lens
Usually, macro photography on smartphones is a gimmick performed with a pathetic 3MP camera, but on the Pixel 9a it’s so good, at full resolution, that it offers a whole reason to consider this phone. If you like shooting macro, you’ve probably never seen a smartphone that can get this close and take photos this sharp.
Camera score: 3/5
Google Pixel 9a review: Camera samples
Image 1 of 5
That is very close up (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 2 of 5
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 3 of 5
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 4 of 5
A Long Exposure photo (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Image 5 of 5
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Google Pixel 9a review: Performance
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
Adequate performance but not what I’d call fast
The AI features always slow things down
The Pixel 9a performs as well as the Pixel 9, for better and for worse. It was able to handle all of my favorite apps and all of Google’s features with little trouble, as long as I wasn’t asking the AI for anything. Except for some hiccups during my initial setup, when the interface ground to a halt while installing numerous apps and backup data, I had no trouble using the Pixel 9a as my primary work phone.
It’s still slow, objectively and subjectively. The menus and interface do not feel as snappy on the Pixel 9a as OneUI does on the Galaxy S25, for instance. It isn’t as smooth and responsive as iOS on any recent iPhone. Some apps take a bit longer to open, and when switching between apps it takes longer for the screen to populate.
I was still able to run all of my necessary apps, take video calls while browsing the web, and play my favorite games, including Call of Duty Mobile – I had to turn the settings down for better performance, but I had fun playing.
The Pixel 9a sends much of its AI computing to the cloud, and this slows down whatever process you're engaged in. Pixel Studio, for instance, generated images much faster on the Pixel 9, and it was even faster on the Pixel 9 Pro. Apparently RAM does make a big difference with these AI features.
Performance score: 3/5
Google Pixel 9 Pro review: Battery
(Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)
The larger battery doesn’t translate to longer life
Charging speeds are also slower, but there’s wireless
One of the big advantages Google highlights with the Pixel 9a is the larger battery – a 5,100mAh cell that's bigger than the batteries in the similarly-sized Pixel 9 or Pixel 9 Pro. I didn’t see any benefit, though.
The phone lasted through a full day of use most of the time, except on days when I did a lot of work with the AI tools and cameras. Even then, battery life was acceptable, if not exceptional.
I’m not sure why this phone isn’t lasting much longer than the Pixel 9, even though its battery is 8.5% larger. Our Future Labs testing concurs. In our battery rundown test the Pixel 9a lasted at most 13 hours and eight minutes, while the Pixel 9 lasted 13 hours and 18 minutes in the same test.
That’s not terrible, but you can find longer-lasting phones in this price range. The Nothing Phone 3a Pro lasted more than an hour longer in Future Labs. The OnePlus 13R is only a bit more expensive, and it’s our battery-life champion, with hours more battery life than the competition.
The Pixel 9a does include wireless charging, which isn’t common on a bargain phone. Nothing Phone and OnePlus omit wireless charging on their budget models, though they do have much faster wired charging than Google offers.
The Pixel 9a can only charge up to 23W, which isn’t very fast. The battery wasn’t even halfway charged after 30 minutes, and it took more than an hour to get to 100% from 1%.
Battery score: 3/5
Should you buy the Google Pixel 9 Pro?
Buy it if...
You want a great bargain camera for close-ups While it lacks zoom, Google’s bargain Pixel has some of the best macro photography capabilities I’ve seen.
You want a solid phone to keep for a very long time The Pixel 9a is durable, and it'll get seven years of Android and security updates. That makes it a keeper if you want a bargain phone that will last.
You want the best AI phone features There’s a lot of AI on this phone, but the best features work with the actual Phone app to help screen calls and record important conversations.
Don't buy it if...
You want a pretty phone that you can show off Get a case for this ugly phone, or put a bag over its head. I don’t know why Google uglified its Pixel like this, but it hurts.
You don’t want to support bigoted AI image generators AI image generator tools that produce only stereotypes reinforce bigotry. This software isn’t acceptable on my smartphone and it needs to go.
Google Pixel 9a review: Also consider
Samsung Galaxy A56 You can’t buy the Galaxy A56 everywhere yet, but we got to review Samsung’s top bargain model, and it won us over with a high-quality build and great performance. Read our full Samsung Galaxy A56 review
Nothing Phone 3a Pro Like the anti-Pixel 9a, this phone is all about the cool design and showing off. The Nothing Phone doesn’t want to hide in a case, it wants to dance and party! Read our full Nothing Phone 3a Pro review
How I tested the Google Pixel 9a
I used the Google Pixel 9a for almost two weeks. I tested the phone on AT&T’s network in the greater New York area, throughout the city and suburbs. I used the Pixel 9a as my primary work phone with all of my work accounts and apps, as well as a personal phone for photos and gaming.
I tested the Pixel 9a with a Pixel Watch 3 and Pixel Buds Pro 2. I connected the phone to my car and tested Android Auto. I connected an Xbox wireless controller for gaming.
I tested the Pixel 9a camera against the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro, as well as the iPhone 16 and Galaxy S25. For macro photo comparisons, I compared against my Nikon D750 camera with a Tamron 100mm macro lens.
Future Labs tests phones using a mix of third-party benchmark software and proprietary, real-world tests. We use Geekbench, CrossMark, JetStream, WebXPRT and Mobile XPRT, and 3DMark for performance testing. We test a phone's performance on tasks using Adobe Premiere Rush. We also measure display color output and brightness.
For battery testing, we have proprietary rundown tests that are the same for every phone, and we determine how long it takes for the battery to run down.
Put $5,400/ £4,150 / AU$8,500 Vertere’s way and in return you get a beautifully constructed DG X turntable, a strange-looking but remarkably capable Groove Runner X tonearm, and a cartridge that’s a lot more serious than the model name ‘Lite Sabre’ might lead you to believe. Although this review is titled 'Vertere DG X' for brevity, I'm reviewing the full package here: Vertere DG X / Groove Runner X / Lite Sabre – and what a package it is.
What’s more, you get a proper power supply and equally capable cables too. You even get a dust-cover. The DG X package is simplicity itself to set up – all the hard work has been done in the factory – so your sonic gratification need not be deferred very long at all.
And gratification is really what the Vertere DG X is dealing in – it'll be the reason it soon features in our pick of the best turntables, at any rate. It might lack the last scintilla of audio bolshiness, and not be quite as willing as some alternative designs to really attack those recordings that are, let’s face it, asking for it. But in every other respect it’s a thrillingly accomplished listen. Where control, balance, tonal fidelity, frequency response, rhythmic expression and all the other stuff that goes into making a rounded and convincing presentation, the DG X barely puts a foot wrong. And it’s engaging and entertaining at the same time – which is by no means a given no matter how much you’re spending on a record player.
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Price & release date
The Vertere DG X / Groove Runner X / Lite Sabre package was released on March 20, 2025, and in the United Kingdom it’s yours for £4150. In the United States it sells for $5400, while in Australia the going rate is AU$8500.
There are two equally important things to bear in mind when considering this asking price. The first is that there are plenty of very capable turntable/tonearm/cartridge combinations available at this sort of money from extremely well-regarded manufacturers. The other is that Vertere itself is now firmly established as an extremely well-regarded manufacturer…
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Features
Microprocessor-controlled belt drive (33.3 and 45rpm)
Tri-point articulated tonearm bearing system
Vertere DC-2 bespoke power supply
Somehow ‘features’ seems too weak a word to describe the lengths Vertere has gone to, and the engineering mania that has been brought to bear, to deliver the DG X / Groover Runner / Lite Sabre package. Still, it’s the word I’ve been given to work with – so here goes…
The DG X turntable has a main bearing housing made of precisely machined brass alloy, with a tungsten carbide thrust ball. Its non-magnetic stainless steel spindle is mirror polished, and it features aluminium alloy plinth interface clamps. The drive system is made up of a machined acetal motor spindle thrust bearing, a machined aluminium alloy pulley along with a resonance control disc of the same material. The platter it turns is also (mostly) of machined aluminium, and Vertere supplies a cork/neoprene/nitrile mat which has, so it claims, a positive effect on the resulting sound. 33.3 or 45rpm speeds are electronically selectable via microprocessor-controlled motor drive – a silicon drive belt does the donkey work.
The Groover Runner tonearm, meanwhile, is 240mm long and an unusual flat shape. It’s made up of two bonded lengths of five-layer polymer – the idea is to minimise the resonance peak inherent in the more common tube arm designs. It’s a tri-point articulated design, and uses three captive silicon nitride balls with a machined non-magnetic bearing point. It’s similar in this way to the far more upmarket Vertere SG 1 turntable’s tonearm assembly. The azimuth setting mechanism and stainless steel counterweight have been updated - there’s now a locking aluminium alloy counterweight screw – and there’s a secondary weight that’s adjustable along much of the length of the tonearm to help with cartridge-matching.
The tonearm beam features a magnetic rest, so the arm doesn’t need to be clipped into place when it’s not active. The lift/lower mechanism is insulated, and is fixed to the non-resonant bearing pillar. The arm is pre-fitted with a new moving-magnet cartridge called Lite Sabre – it might seem a slightly flippant, pun-tastic name at first, until you realise it’s designed to offer a lot of the performance of the company’s considerably pricier Sabre MM cartridge. Naturally it’s optimised in every respect to be the perfect partner to the arm and the turntable it’s wedded to.
Power is supplied by Vertere’s DC-2 ‘Challenger’ 30V DC unit that was, until very recently, a cost option. Some very acceptable stereo RCA connection cables are included in the package too – so as far as the DG X system goes, you have everything you need to get up and running.
Features score: 5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: sound quality
Sky-high detail retrieval
Rhythmically positive and assured
Tightly unified overall presentation
I may as well get this out of the way from the get-go: the Vertere DG X package isn’t a complete all-rounder. It very nearly is, but in one respect this turntable falls fractionally short. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be ideal for your purposes, of course – but nevertheless it’s something you should be aware of.
Basically, the DG X isn’t quite as attacking or driving as it might be. With a fairly assertive recording playing (a chunky reissue of Pere Ubu’s The Modern Dance, for instance) there’s not quite the charge or the onslaught the material demands. It’s not that the DG X is overly polite – it’s prepared to bare its teeth if it absolutely has to. But other price-comparable rivals are more willing to blitz through the recording than this record player is.
And with that out of the way, I’m free to discuss all the very many ways in which the DG X is an admirable, engaging and thoroughly convincing listen. Where to start?
With frequency response, maybe? It’s absolutely even from top to bottom; the DG X delves deep into the lower frequencies and reaches high at the top end, but no area of the frequency range is overstated and no area is underplayed. It’s even-handed and unified, and the overall presentation is brilliantly naturalistic as a result.
Tonally, too, the Vertere is expertly judged. There just doesn’t seem to be any significant input into tonality from the DG X – so when you listen to something warmly analogue like Heart of the Congos by The Congos, ‘warmly analogue’ is what you get, and when you listen to something rather more chilly and austere like Kraftwerk’s Trans Europe Express what you get is chilly an… well, you get the picture. The tonal balance of this record player seems to be dictated by the music it’s playing rather than any idea of what’s ‘correct’, and it’s an impressively balanced listen as a result.
Detail levels, across the board, are sky-high – and the DG X seems to have no problem identifying the most transient episodes in a recording and placing them into context with just the right amount of weighting. Despite its attention to detail, though, it never sounds analytical or dispassionate – it simply has a happy knack for extracting every shred of information in the groove of your record and handing it over in a completely unforced manner.
Rhythms are confidently expressed, thanks to the sort of low-frequency control and authority the Vereter demonstrates, and even the gimpy tempos of Tony Allen’s Lagos No Shaking roll along as if they’re the most natural and simple thing in the world. The attention the DG X pays to harmonic variations is fanatical, and it has the sort of effortless power to put significant distance between the quietest and the most vehement moments of a recording. When the horns really start to blare, the increase in volume and intensity is made absolutely apparent.
And all of this good stuff happens without sacrificing the sort of unity and singularity of presentation for which the vinyl format is routinely prized. There’s a sense of togetherness and of performance to the way the Vertere presents music that’s extremely persuasive – and this is the case even when it’s playing music that never was a performance. Four Tet’s And They All Look Broken Hearted sounds as whole and as singular as any recording by a band playing all together in the studio.
Sound quality score: 4.5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Design
130 x 469 x 384mm (HxWxD including dust cover)
Black, white or red gloss finishes
Adjustable feet
Fundamentally, the DG X looks like a record player, but Vertere has managed to design just a little individuality into it. The company will of course tell you that everything it’s done, it’s done in the name of performance – but the fact that the result is a turntable that’s just slightly individual and even mildly dramatic in the way it looks can’t have disappointed Vertere either.
The main plinth, with its racy little angular cutaways on each of its four sides, is made up of three layers of cast acrylic arranged in a non-resonant sandwich. The filling is clear, and internally illuminated for a little visual pizzazz; the upper and lower sections are available in gloss black or gloss red as well as the gloss white of my review sample.
The substructure is a black-coated zintec steel chassis, and the entire arrangement is supported on three threaded feet that are topped (or, more correctly, bottomed) with resistive felt. They’re adjustable, naturally, so you can be sure your DG X is perfectly level. A spirit gauge is provided so you can make absolutely certain.
On the rear of the plinth, along with an input for the mains adapter, there are a pair of gold-plated RCA output sockets. Like almost every electrical element of this package, they have selectable shielding – choose from ‘signal’, ‘chassis’ or ‘floating’.
The DG X is supplied with a tinted acrylic dust-cover, and as is appropriate in the overall context of this turntable, it is designed to be as resistant to resonance as is possible. With the dust-cover attached to its hinges, the all-in weight of the Vertere is 8.5kg.
Design score: 5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Usability & setup
Pre-fitted and pre-adjusted cartridge
Simple anti-skate adjustment
Both counterweights factory-set
It’s not unheard-of for an upmarket and shamelessly ‘audiophile’ turntable to be simple and straightforward to set up – it’s just quite rare. So it’s nice to be able to add the Vertere DG X package to the list.
As the Lite Sabre arrives connected to the Groove Runner X tonearm, everything that needs to be done has already been done in the factory. Tracking weight adjustment? Vertical tracking angle? Anti-skate, azimuth and counterweight? All taken care of. All you have to do is position the tonearm and plug its cable (which is terminated with what looks very much like a microUSB socket) into the body of the plinth and you’re in business. Well, once you’ve made a connection to an amplifier and to mains power, anyway.
And as far as usability goes, well, this is a record player – there’s next-to-nothing to it. The speed control is on a switch on the top left of the plinth as you look down on it - short presses toggle between 33.3 and 45rpm, and a long press switches the deck either on or off. Put a record on the mat, set it turning at the correct speed, lower the tonearm – and you’re in business.
Usability and setup score: 5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Value
‘Value’ is a slightly tricky consideration where products like this, at this sort of money, are concerned. After all, shouldn’t spending north of £4K on a turntable guarantee impressive build quality, flawless finish and stunning sound quality?
If you’ve read this far then you know all of this is covered by the Vertere DG X – and you also know that if you’re going to take full advantage of what this record player has to offer, you’ll need a similarly expensive system with which to do so.
There’s no disputing this product’s credentials, and by extension the value for money it offers. Ultimately, it’s going to depend on whether or not you enjoy the way the DG X looks, and even more importantly, the way it goes about doing the audio business…
Value score: 4.5 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Vertere DG X?
Buy it if…
You enjoy a full and unequivocal account of your records The DG X package doesn’t scrimp on the details - quite the opposite, in factView Deal
You think this sort of money should by everything you need in a record player From power supply and cables to a pre-fitted and pre-adjusted cartridge, the Vertere is ready to goView Deal
You like a bit of thoughtful design The DG X is just individual enough in its design to count as ‘interesting’View Deal
Don't buy it if…
You want sonic blood and thunder The DG X is talented in very many ways, but it’s not the most attacking listenView Deal
You don’t have particularly steady hands The Groove Runner X tri-point articulated tonearm can feel perilously loose. It isn’t, of course, it just feels it…View Deal
You own lots of 78rpm recordings Plenty of alternative designs can indulge your throwback ways… View Deal
(Image credit: Future)
Vertere DG X review: Also consider
Technics SL-1300G The Technics SL-1300G will set you back $2,999 / £2,799 – but by the time you’ve specified an appropriate cartridge you’ll be rapidly closing in on Vertere DG X money. Sturdy and purposeful in appearance where the Vertere is relatively slender and delicate, the Technics is a potent and unshakably stable listen with plenty going for it where rhythmic expression and detail retrieval is concerned. Read more on the Technics SL-1300GView Deal
Rega Planar 10
…Or you might go to the other visual extreme and consider the Rega Planar 10 – at $5,000 / £4,350 or so without a cartridge it’s a pricier proposition than the Vertere, and that money doesn’t seem to buy you very much stuff at all. But rest assured the Rega is a stunningly complete performer without a significant shortcoming to report on… View Deal
(Image credit: Future)
How I tested the Vertere DG X
How did I test the Vertere DG X / Groove Runner X / Lite Sabre? After setting it up, I connected the turntable to a Naim Uniti Star using the supplied RCA connections. The Naim was then connected to a pair of Bowers & Wilkins 705 S3 Signature loudspeakers (bolted to their bespoke FS-700 S3 stands) using QED XT40i speaker cable.
Then, I spent well over a working week listening to as much music as I could, of many different genres, and of many different qualities of pressing, in an effort to find something the Vertere couldn’t get along with. And if this sounds in any way arduous, I assure you it wasn’t.
If you’re the athletic type or maybe just a regular gym goer, the Anker Soundcore AeroClip could be the perfect set of open earbuds for you. These clip-on buds have the basics down: solid sound, a secure and comfortable fit plus nifty companion app functionality. And although they’re not perfect, their more-than-fair price of $129.99 / £129.99 (about AU$210) makes them an option well worth considering.
Generally, my problem with open-ear headphones and open earbuds is that they don’t offer a proper seal and let in a lot of ambient sound. That means you’ll hear all sorts, from squawking gulls to wailing children. As you can imagine, that can make it difficult to indulge in a high-quality listening experience. But after putting my anti-open-ear bias to one side, I discovered that the Anker Soundcore AeroClip pleasantly surprised me in a number of ways – especially in terms of their audio performance.
From the off, I was met with clean, impressively immersive audio and an airy, ear-filling quality brought out the best in Não Tem Nada Não by Marcos Valle. Similarly, when tuning into Remind Me by Patrice Rushen, I was delighted to hear clear, distortion-free vocals, layered with smooth, tonally accurate bass and controlled percussion. Even at higher volumes, vocals didn’t sound muddied in the overall mix and higher pitched percussion didn’t get tinny either. That sort of performance is exactly what I’d expect from a pair of the best open ear headphones.
Sure, there are no fancy audio codecs, like LDAC, for a more detailed sonic experience, but the AeroClip were still pretty well-rounded, considering some similarly priced rivals struggle to even manage clean, balanced sound.
When listening to wyd? by wev, I encountered a couple of sonic shortcomings, though. First up, the track’s deep bass was a little much for the AeroClip to handle at times. I could almost hear the drivers overextending themselves to manage the tune’s low-end, something you’re not going to experience when using a pair of the best earbuds, for instance. Secondly, I felt that the excitable treble was a little understated, meaning the record’s energy was sapped out slightly.
There wasn’t much I could do about that first point, but help was at hand for my treble trouble. I took to the Soundcore app and created my own custom EQ – one which put a bit more emphasis on high-end frequencies, while also bumping bass and slightly lowering mids. That gave the AeroClip a far more colorful, charismatic sound profile than the balanced, yet sometimes slightly unexciting Soundcore Signature tuning.
On top of custom EQ options, you can also pick from a small selection of presets: Bass, Treble, or Volume Booster (all pretty self-explanatory), or Classical (big dips in the mids, large bumps to bass, sub-bass and treble) and Podcast (essentially the opposite of that). With the right tuning, you’re going to get energetic, yet crisp highs, clean mids and relatively rich bass – just don’t expect these to reach into the depths of sub bass with too much skill.
However, one characteristic of the Soundcore AeroClip that will either make or break your listening experience is their open design. As I mentioned earlier, their lack of a proper seal means that a lot of noise from your surroundings will creep through. Now, if you’re someone that loves a good run and you want to keep an ear out for traffic or people around you, that could be ideal.
But personally, I prefer to focus on my tunes and the lack of external noise nixing really did prevent that at times. Chatter in public, wind and even typing in my office were all very much audible – there’s no ANC or anything to counter that either, something the Edifier LolliClip open ears supply. These Soundcore headphones are also prone to leaking sound to those around you, especially above 50% volume.
(Image credit: Future)
There might not be any ANC, but what features do these open ear headphones offer? Well, if you head into the very slick Soundcore app, you can mess around with the aforementioned EQ options, toggle multi-point or customize touch controls. And the touch controls were really responsive in my experience. You can double tap to pause or triple tap to skip – the absence of a single tap option means you’re unlikely to make accidental, unwanted adjustments too.
What’s here works very nicely, but I would have liked to see a more fleshed out feature-set, in honesty – even just the addition of auto-pausing media when you remove the buds from your ears. Another aspect that could be better is battery life. You get a respectable eight hours of playtime per charge, which I found to be accurate during my testing. But with the charging case, you only get a maximum of 24 hours – not that much compared to the 40 hours from the Honor Earbuds Open, for instance.
Before I put an end to my moaning, I want to point out a couple of slight design shortcomings. Firstly, these are only IPX4 waterproof rating, meaning there’s no guarantee on dustproofing and you’re only getting resistance against sweat and water droplets. A lot of rivals outdo the AeroClip here – the splendid Huawei FreeArc, for example, are IP57 rated, meaning they can survive submersion under a meter of water for 30 minutes.
Secondly, I’d argue that these aren’t the prettiest buds around. I quite like the look of the batteries and buds, but the clips do appear slightly cheap-looking. On the other hand, these are still highly comfortable and secure on-ear, so you’ll never have to worry about them flinging off mid-workout.
Having said all this, I want to end on a real positive note: mic quality. These open ears claim to deliver AI-enabled clear calls. And I found them to be plenty clear – though I’m not so sure how much of that is thanks to AI. During a phone call, I was told that my voice sounded “crisp”, even at lower volumes – something that I also felt when listening back to a voice recording.
So all in all, are the Soundcore AeroClip worth a $129.99 / £129.99 outlay? I’m not 100% sure. If you’re only after an open design, I’d say yes – you get great sound for this headphone type, as well as impressive calling capabilities. But if you want noise cancelling and a more premium design, I’d suggest pursuing a pair of the best wireless earbuds instead, for awesome audio and ANC.
Edifier LolliClip review: specs
(Image credit: Future)
Anker Soundcore AeroClip review: price and availability
$129.99 / £129.99 (about AU$210)
Launched in March 2025
The Anker Soundcore AeroClip released in March 2025, marking the manufacturer’s latest foray into the world of open ear headphones. They launched with a list price of $129.99 / £129.99 (about AU$210) and are available in three colorways: Midnight (black); Rosy Brown (pink and brown) ; and the variant I tested, Champagne Mist (white and gold).
These are very similar in price to the Nothing Ear (open), which launched at the tail-end of 2024. And they’ll set you back far less than a premium option like the wonderful Bose Ultra Open Earbuds, which carry a sizeable list price of $299 / £299 / AU$449.95…woah!
(Image credit: Future)
Should you buy the Anker Soundcore AeroClip?
Buy them if...
You want open ears that still sound up-to-scratch The AeroClip sound surprisingly crisp, offering rich bass, clean mids and controlled treble. You can even use the Soundcore app’s preset and custom EQ options to get the right tuning for you. It’s still worth noting, though, that the open design of these means that they may not produce audio as faithfully as a pair of the best wireless earbuds, such as the Technics EAH-AZ100.
You want earbuds suitable for a workout OK, the waterproofing could be better – more on that below – but still, these earbuds are awesome for workouts. They have a highly comfortable, secure fit, and IPX4 rating, enabling them to discard excess sweat and water droplets. You’ll also be able to hear ambient sounds if you’re in a traffic-heavy area, for instance.
Don't buy them if...
You’re looking for noise cancelling earbuds Like a lot of open-ear models, the Soundcore AeroClip skip on active noise cancellation. If that’s something you’re looking for in an open design, check out the Edifier LolliClip below. But if you’re instead looking for top-tier external noise reduction, you can instead assess the options in our best noise cancelling earbuds guide.
You want ultimate protection against the elements These open ear headphones are only IPX4 waterproof rated, meaning they aren’t dustproof and only resist sweat and water. If you want something a bit more hardy, I’d recommend the IP57-rated Huawei FreeArc below.
Anker Soundcore AeroClip review: also consider
Edifier LolliClip There’s a lot of similarities between Edifier’s LolliClip open-ear headphones and the Soundcore AeroClip. Both go for that jewellery-esque aesthetic, offer high comfort and crucially, supply impressive sound considering their build. The big differentiator is that this Edifier model incorporates adaptive ANC, which is decently effective. You’ll also get better waterproofing and battery life here, but the companion app is less user friendly. Read our full Edifier LolliClip review.
Huawei FreeArc The Huawei FreeArc serve up surprisingly strong sound quality, fantastic protection against the elements and high comfort levels. They’re available for less than £100 (about $130 / AU$200) and at that price, they’re an absolute steal. There’s no ANC and battery life could be better. But still, these are an excellent value pick. Read our full Huawei FreeArc review.
Anker Soundcore AeroClip review: How I tested
(Image credit: Future)
Tested for one week
Used in the office and while out and about
Predominantly tested using Tidal
I put the Anker Soundcore AeroClip to the test over a one week period. I predominantly listened in the office, but also made use of them at home and when out and about. I tinkered with each and every feature, engaged in both casual and critical listening and compared them with the Edifier LolliClip for on-ear comfort.
When listening to music, I tapped into Tidal on my Samsung Galaxy S24 FE. And as per usual, I flicked through the whole TechRadar testing playlist, which includes tracks from a wide range of genres and is optimized for judging sound quality across the frequencies. In addition, I played a bunch of tunes from my personal library.
The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank is a basic power bank with a high capacity and versatile port selection, catering to various charging needs on the go.
It adopts a functional aesthetic, but looks smart enough. The large, shiny screen adds some interest, as does the linear texture of its bottom half, which also provides some useful traction when holding it in the hand.
The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank is quite thick and long, although considering its large capacity, this is to be expected; it still isn’t much bigger than many of the best power banks with the same battery size. It’s reasonably heavy, though, so combined with its dimensions, this isn’t a battery you can easily pocket.
It feels quite solid overall, although the screen doesn’t feel the most durable or premium; and despite its large area, the actual display itself is quite small and sparse, severely underutilizing its allotted space: only the battery percentage is displayed, with no other interface features beyond this, apart from a small green symbol to signify charging, which is helpful.
The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank has four ports, divided into two USB-A outputs, one USB-C combined input and output, and one micro USB input. Three-way simultaneous charging is also possible. Given that the USB-C port outputs the most power (20W compared to 18W for each USB-A port), it’s a shame that the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank only comes with a USB-A-to-C cable, rather than C-to-C.
It took just over 90 minutes for the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank to charge the 4,385mAh battery in my Google Pixel 7a completely via the USB-C port, which is a decent performance. The bank lost about a quarter of its battery life in the process, which should mean you’ll get about 3-4 charges from it, which again is commendable.
The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank has a claimed charging time of eight hours from empty to full, thanks to the 18W input capability. Based on my tests, this figure appears to hold true.
The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank represents good value considering its relatively low price compared to other power banks of this size. However, there are some that perhaps represent better value, such as the JUOVI J2621, which is only slightly more expensive, and despite having the same capacity, it has over double the power.
It also features two USB-C ports, but on the downside, it’s bulkier than the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank. But considering neither is practical for pocket carry, this is somewhat of a moot point, and ultimately means that the JUOVI may be a better alternative in this case.
(Image credit: Future)
VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank review: price & specs
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank?
Buy it if…
You want plenty of capacity It has enough juice for several phone charges, thanks to that 20,000mAh rating.
You need multiple ports The two USB-A ports and one USB-C ports are certainly welcome, and there's even a micro USB port too, although this is input only.
Don't buy it if…
You want the best portability The VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank is still quite bulky, although many batteries this size are. Still, you can't exactly carry it in your pocket.
You need multiple USB-C ports It's a shame there's only one USB-C port on the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank, given this standard is beginning to take over.
VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank review: Also consider
JUOVI J2621 20000mAh 45W Power Bank For not much more than the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank, you could have the JUOVI J2621 instead. This has the same 20,000mAh capacity, but much more power (45W). It also has two USB-C ports rather than one, in addition to two USB-A ports. It’s bulkier than the VRURC 20000mAh 20W Power Bank, though, but neither bank is suitable for pocketing, and are better placed in a bag instead. Read our JUOVI J2621 20000mAh 45W Power Bank review.
If the joy of getting back up to 100% charge isn’t enough for you, then you simply have to check out the UGreen Nexode RG 65W. This cheerful charging robot will get your laptop, phone or tablet back to fighting fit with a smile, thanks to its LED display and accompanying emoticons.
And this charger will get not one, not two, but three devices back to 100% in no time. That’s because it has three ports: two USB-C and one USB-A. You can get up to 65W in single-port mode, 45W and up to 20W (using USB-C Port 2) in duo mode and 45W plus 7.5W in the remaining slots when tri-port charging.
In terms of actual performance, this model does very nicely too. I tried charging my Samsung Galaxy S24 FE alongside the Soundcore Space One Pro and Bose SoundLink Flex Gen 2 speaker. Despite using all three ports, the UGreen Nexode RG 65W ensured my phone – which has a 4,700mAh battery – hit full charge from 0% in just under 80 minutes. That’s the sort of speeds you’d expect to see from some of the best Android phone chargers and best iPhone chargers. Smart temperature monitoring also ensured that this lil’ robot never got too hot either.
This model will display one of three emojis depending on charging status. Closed eyes on standby, smiling when fast charging and a blank expression when trickle charging or achieving a full charge. These are all pretty fun, but not quite as emotive as the faces you get on the UGreen Uno 100W. That said, this more chibi 65W model still has a load more character than most charging plugs.
The charger’s general build quality is strong. It’s pretty weighty, though thanks to GaN technology, you still get a highly compact model. The prongs aren’t foldable – something I typically like from a wall charger – but there are some feet that you can slot the charger into when it's out of use. That’s not only a neat design quirk, but a practical addition if you want to slide the charger into your pocket without getting poked by its prongs.
Given its solid power output and charming display, I’d argue that this model is very well priced too. It has a list price of $49.99 / £34.99 (about AU$80) but can regularly be found on sale for less than $40 / £30. Given the Belkin BoostCharge 3-Port USB-C Wall Charger with PPS 67W is typically $44.99 / £39.99 / AU$89.95 and has no display, that’s an excellent price.
It’s worth noting that the price may vary depending on which color option you get, though. I tested the standard Black variant, but if you want to spice things up, you can grab this model in either Cyan or Purple – the latter is adorned in a small purple bow.
All in all, this is another great, charismatic charger from UGreen that I can recommend to anyone. It may not include a USB-C cable in the box and the emojis aren’t as captivating as the 100W model’s, but the triple port configuration, power output and LED display make it well worth its already modest list price.
(Image credit: Future)
UGreen Nexode RG 65W review: Price & specs
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the UGreen Nexode RG 65W?
Buy it if…
You want a charger with character The standout attraction of the UGreen Nexode RG 65W is its quirky LED display. There are three different emojis that can pop up, depending on charging status. Although they’re not as detailed as the ones from this model’s 100W sibling, there’s still a lot more character here than you’ll find from the vast majority of other chargers.
You need to charge multiple devices at once Thankfully, this charger has three separate ports – two USB-C and one USB-A – meaning you can charge a bunch of devices simultaneously. And there’s plenty enough power to go around if you want to charge, say, your phone alongside a pair of the best wireless earbuds and best headphones.
Don't buy it if…
You want a top-tier laptop charger If you have one of the best MacBooks or best Chromebooks, the 65W power output might not be enough for peak charging performance, especially if you’re juicing up other devices simultaneously. If you want a bit of extra power, I highly recommend the Anker Charger 140W, 4 Port, PD 3.1, which includes a USB-C cable and a display too.
You need a USB-C cable This model doesn’t come with a USB-C cable included, so if you’re still stuck with your old USB-A alternative, you’ll have to purchase one separately. I would argue that’s worth it, but if you want a cheap all-in-one package, the Anker 335 Charger 67W is a very solid pick – more on this below.
UGreen Nexode RG 65W review: also consider
Anker 335 Charger 67W In terms of pure value, the Anker 335 Charger 67W is an awesome charging option. For less than $40 / £40, you’re getting 67W of power, three charging ports, foldable prongs and a USB-C cable – not bad at all! Sure, this isn’t the most compact charger out there and it lacks a display, but if you want a cheaper, yet effective option, this is worth considering. Read our full Anker 335 Charger 67W review.
Panda Security is a Spanish-based company with a strong record of antivirus innovations. From launching daily signature updates in 1998 to introducing behavioral monitoring in 2004 and cloud scanning in 2007, Panda has been involved with a host of technologies we might now take for granted.
The company has several plans for its home users - Panda Dome Essential, Panda Dome Advanced, Panda Dome Complete, and Panda Dome Premium - all building upon each other in terms of features, and each offering a firewall, WiFi protection, online shopping security, a Dark Web Scanner, and at least some VPN.
Higher tiers offer even more tools, including parental control, anti-ransomware, PC optimization, password manager, file encryption and shredding, update manager, and so on. And the best part? All tiers have a 30-day free trial.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Panda Dome Essential
At a reasonable price starting at $34.99 (renewing at $49.99) for a one-year, one-device license, the Essential package goes well beyond the basics of real-time antivirus and URL protection and covers up to 10 Windows, Mac, and Android devices (the price increasing depending on this number).
To complement its real-time antivirus protection with link filtering, Panda Dome Essential adds a simple firewall to block network attacks and even free VPN access. Okay, with no choice of location and 150MB of free data per day, you won't be using it for streaming movies or heavy torrenting, but it's fine for emailing on public Wi-Fi hotspots when you're out and about.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Setup
Panda Dome Essential is downloaded and launched within a few seconds. Once the setup was complete, Dome Essential asked us to register the program by providing our email address. Some may prefer an antivirus program that allows you to stay anonymous, but many competitors do much the same as Panda. And at least we didn’t have to hand out any payment details.
The installation procedure itself was relatively speedy, with no complaints about ‘incompatible’ software or other hassles. In terms of being one of the most antivirus apps around, this seems to be quite true in Panda’s case, as its four core background processes only consumed a minimal 20-50 MB RAM during normal PC use.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Features
To launch a scan, you can simply click the Scan button on the top-left, choose the scan type (Critical Areas, Full, or Custom Scan) and wait for the results. Scans can run concurrently with no impact on the speed of either one of them or the system.
Although the regular scan buttons give you almost no control over how your system is checked, the Scheduled Scan feature is a little smarter. You can select which drives and folders to scan, exclude particular locations, and customize how the scan works in a few ways.
Scan times are average, at least initially. So, for instance, even the fastest Critical Areas scan took four minutes to check our test system. But effective optimization sees this drop over time, and our second scan took barely two minutes. A full scan took a little under 40 minutes the first time, and only 26 minutes the second.
Dome Essential’s firewall does its best to keep life simple, with a basic opening screen that just asks you to choose your current Wi-Fi location between Home, Work, and Public Place - enough for a basic user.
That said, if you know what you’re doing, heading off to Settings > Firewall enables defining its operating rules, and provides expert-level intrusion prevention settings relating to port scans, ping handling, flooding, and more.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
A handy Process Monitor displays all the running processes, highlighting any that are accessing the internet and warning you of potential threats. That’s all very straightforward for beginners, but again, real power is only one or two clicks away.
The full Process Monitor report lists the name of every process, when it was detected and last scanned, where it was downloaded from, how many HTTP connections it has established, and lets you view whatever resources it was trying to access.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
A welcome option is to create a bootable USB rescue drive to help remove malware that the regular package can’t reach. Other nice features include a software whitelisting system to control what runs on your PC, and a virtual keyboard to protect against keyloggers.
There’s also a monitor that raises alerts if you connect to unsecured Wi-Fi networks, and an option to ‘vaccinate’ USB keys to reduce the chance of infection by autorun viruses.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Another great addition is the Dark Web scanner that constantly monitors the dark corners of the internet and notifies you by email if your credentials appear in a new security breach, so you don’t have to worry about periodically performing these checks yourself.
Protection
Panda Dome has earned an AAA award from SE Labs for the period between October and December 2024, as it has shown a Total Accuracy Rating of 99% and not a single false positive - better than Microsoft Defender and Webroot, but not quite at the level of Avast, Kaspersky, or McAfee, all of which had the perfect 100% score.
On the other hand, Panda Free Antivirus had a bit more false flags than recommended in AV-Comparatives’ False Alarm Test for September 2024, with 28 misidentified cases, with only Norton delivering more, and all the other tested platforms having significantly fewer.
Panda Dome Essential is a likable product that is easy to use and includes some genuinely valuable extras, especially for experts, but it still can't quite match the virus-detecting power and accuracy of the market leaders.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Panda Dome Advanced
If Dome Essential isn’t powerful enough for you, opting for the $41.99 (renews at $59.99) Dome Advanced for a one-year one-device plan gets you everything from the lower tier, plus parental controls and additional layers of protection - against ransomware.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Antivirus
Like Essential, Panda Dome Advanced has several scanning options. A Critical Area scan checks the most commonly infected areas of a PC; the Custom scan only inspects the files or folders you specify; and the Full System scan, of course, checks everything.
If that's not enough, you can also set multiple scheduled scans. These start with a Critical Areas, Full System, or Custom scan, but you can also exclude particular folders or file types (handy for speeding up scans.)
Scan times were reasonable during testing. Panda Dome Advanced checked our 50GB of test executables in 39 minutes for the first scan, within the 15–50-minute range we typically see. There's some optimization for subsequent scans, and Panda took 24 minutes for scan #2.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Ransomware
Panda Dome’s anti-ransomware relies on behavior-based detection, file access control, and whitelisting, as well as generates backup copies to recover files in the event of infection.
Among its tools is a data shield that configures the control and whitelists, decoy files used as bait, and shadow copies of files and folders to restore their previous versions in case of data loss, file corruption, or any other issue.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Parental control
Panda Dome Advanced includes Parental Control, but this has barely any features you'd expect from a specialized parental controls application. You can't control app use, there's no way to limit screen time or restrict internet access, and no clever geofencing support. The only option is content filtering.
The platform does at least give you lots of categories. Instead of a single catch-all Adult category, for instance, you can individually block or allow subcategories like 'Lingerie and Swimsuit', 'Nudity', 'Sex,' and 'Sex Education.' Although this works, it's nonetheless extremely basic.
Final verdict Advanced
Panda Dome Advanced has a decent core antivirus engine, detecting and removing malware with ease. And although other big names in the industry might outperform its capabilities, it’s still a solid solution with plenty of basic and advanced features.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Panda Dome Complete
The next step up, Dome Complete, adds system clean-up tools, and a password manager for $53.99 for a one-year one-device license, renewing at $89.99 for each subsequent year of service.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Cleanup: PC Optimization
With PC Cleanup, you can free up space on your PC by removing various files (including trash, temporaries, registry, cookies, browsing history, and the like), you can select which programs you want to run at startup, schedule a cleanup task with specific parameters, or defragment your hard disk.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Password manager
Panda’s password manager does pretty much what any other such product does - managing all of your passwords under a single master key, auto-filling forms, generating strong passwords, and syncing them across all your devices.
It also supports the creation of ‘secure notes’ - encrypted virtual Post-It notes only you can access using your master generic-addon, as well as deleting your browsing history and closing your web pages and services remotely.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
File encryptor
This tool allows you to encrypt any file with a password or an automatically generated key through the right-click menu, transforming data into a sequence of unreadable characters that no one can decipher without the corresponding encryption key.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
File shredder
Finally, this feature facilitates an irreversible and secure shredding process of your confidential or sensitive information to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. It does this by overwriting a file’s contents with random data or zeroes to hide the original content and make it extremely difficult or impossible to recover.
Final verdict Complete
Panda Dome Complete provides a few useful extras anyone might appreciate, including a file encryptor and shredder, a password manager, and PC optimization tools. However, if you don’t need these, then Panda Dome Essential or Advanced might be a better choice.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Panda Dome Premium
Finally, the top-of-the-range Panda Dome Premium gets you unrestricted VPN access to all available server locations, an update manager, and unlimited premium technical support - all that at $56 per year for one-device coverage initially, renewing at $139.99.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Premium VPN
Panda Dome Premium also removes any limitations to its VPN use from the lower-level packages and equips the user with unrestricted VPN for secure browsing, connectable to any location where it has servers, including 60+ countries, for up to 5 devices.
Testing the VPN connection to the recommended server hailed solid download and upload speeds, not much slower than our basic connection, and connecting took only a couple of seconds. Connecting to more distant locations (like Thailand) than our own (in Europe) was only slightly lagging.
(Image credit: Panda Security)
Update Manager
Panda Dome Premium’s Update Manager helps keep your computer up to date to prevent any security breaches. It lets you perform a critical or in-depth scan for any available updates to the operating system or apps installed on your device or even schedule these scans.
For each program detected and included in the list, the product provides the possibility of applying the patch separately or ignoring it. It also includes an option to update all programs at the same time.
Final verdict Premium
Panda Dome Premium is a perfectly rounded antivirus suite that is well worth the price when taking into account the free trial and significant discounts for the first year of its use, particularly if you plan on relying on the VPN, Update Manager, and Dark Web Scanner. However, renewing might be a bit costly if you intend to continue.
We've also highlighted the best antivirus software in this roundup
First unveiled in mid-2024, the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE is Samsung's answer to the Apple Watch SE. At least in theory. It's designed to be a cheap, entry-level smartwatch that offers many of the features you'd expect from a wearable without the loftier prices of the best smartwatches on the market.
Yet, Samsung's attempt to emulate this strategy has left me confused and bewildered, and after a few days with the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE, I'm afraid I simply can't make head or tail of this watch or the purpose that it serves.
I could tell you about the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE's figures and performance statistics. I could tell you that during workout tracking, it performs generally well against my Apple Watch Ultra 2, tracking heart rate, distance, and GPS admirably. I could also tell you that it needs to be charged out of the box for around 90 minutes before you can use it and that even with the always-on display turned off, battery life will offer just 22 hours on a single charge.
(Image credit: Future)
I could tell you that Wear OS, while amply equipped with plenty of health tracking and smartphone connectivity features, performs very poorly, thanks to a rather underpowered chip borrowed from the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4.
I could also tell you that the strap is fairly comfortable, but that the 40mm size, very large bezel, and small display make for a quite disappointing viewing experience.
Really though, the only thing I'm actually going to tell you is that you should buy a Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 instead.
The Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 is only one year older than the FE. Despite this, it sports a more powerful CPU – clocked to 1.4GHz, not 1.18GHz – and more memory that will give you snappier performance, faster app loading, and more longevity from software updates.
While the FE is available as a 40mm model only, the Watch 6 can be found in two different sizes, including a larger 44mm configuration. The display on the Galaxy Watch 6 is larger and brighter, measuring 1.3 inches on the 40mm as opposed to 1.2 inches on the FE.
The Galaxy Watch FE also features the same internal storage and comes with more sensors. Finally, the battery capacity of the Galaxy Watch 6 is considerably larger.
This all makes sense on Samsung's website, where the Galaxy Watch 6 is considerably more expensive than the FE. However, out in the real world, you'll routinely find the Galaxy Watch 6 discounted to the same price or less than the enigma that is the Galaxy Watch FE.
If I may be so bold, I've even seen the Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 discounted to less than the list price of the Galaxy Watch FE in both the UK and the US. Even at its own discounted prices, I've generally seen the FE similarly priced to the Galaxy Watch 6 on numerous occasions.
There's one scenario in which the FE makes more sense, and at the time of writing, I recently saw it half price. If you can get one for literally $100/£100, it's more enticing. However, that puts you squarely in really cheap smartwatch territory, and for that price, I'd recommend the absolutely stunning Amazfit Active 2, which handsomely beats the Galaxy Watch FE in terms of style, performance, features, and battery life. That's why we crowned it one of the best cheap smartwatches money can buy.
As such, while there's more I could say about the Galaxy Watch FE's performance, it's a smartwatch that I find myself unable to recommend to anyone.
At its usual price, it's simply no match for a discounted Galaxy Watch 6 or Galaxy Watch 7. Even with the heftiest discount, it's no match for the more stylish and performant Amazfit Active 2.
If the Galaxy Watch 8 arrives later this year, I'll return to this review and replace all the 6's to 7's to reflect that the Galaxy Watch 7 is now a better proposition than the FE.
Sorry, Samsung, but this one is a swing and a miss.
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: Specifications
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: Price and Availability
(Image credit: Future)
$199 / £199 / AU$399
LTE Version $249 (US only)
Barely cheaper than the much better Galaxy Watch 6
Available now, you can buy the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE at a host of different retailers around the world. Prices start at $199/£199/AU$399, the only exception being the $249 LTE version that gets you cellular connectivity and is only available in the US.
Strangely, the only place you won't find it is Samsung's UK website, which lists the device as no longer available. However, UK fans can get their fix at the likes of Currys, Argos, and, of course, Amazon.
Price-wise, the FE is an extremely strange proposition. Despite being essentially a repackaged Galaxy Watch 4, the FE retails for more than you can buy a distinctly more impressive Galaxy Watch 6. For all the aforementioned reasons, you should probably buy that instead.
The FE is also priced squarely alongside the Apple Watch SE and is vastly more expensive than many of the best cheap smartwatches, notably the Amazfit Active 2 and Nothing's CMF Watch Pro range.
Value score: 1/5
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: Scorecard
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy it if...
It's less than $100 / £100
This is the only price at which this smartwatch makes sense, and even then, I'd consider alternatives.
Don't buy it if...
You want value for money
The FE is generally the same price or more expensive than the much better Galaxy Watch 6
You want a good budget smartwatch
If you're really on a budget, consider the Amazfit Active 2 or a CMF Watch Pro from Nothing.
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: How we tested
I used the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE as my main smartwatch for fitness tracking, sleep tracking, and more. I fully drained the battery to test battery life and tracked multiple workouts against my Apple Watch Ultra 2 to compare accuracy.
Samsung Galaxy Watch FE: Also consider
One of our very favorite cheap smartwatches, the Amazfit Active 2, is cheaper and has better battery life than the Galaxy Watch FE.
