I need everyone in the movie industry to listen up and repeat the following pact: "I solemnly swear to never make a film told through the lens of social media ever again. Never will I sit my main character in front of a screen, digesting the rest of the storyline through open internet tabs, Instagram feeds and MacBook files. I will only include digital elements if it effectively serves the plot."
Agreed? Great, because Chris Pratt's new AI sci-fi thriller Mercy is the latest victim of this heinous crime. With a 101 minute runtime, Pratt spends 90 of those sitting in the same chair, wrongly accused of a murder he didn't commit. Instead of being given a defense lawyer like a normal society would, he has to face off against an AI-generated judge in a 'mercy' courtroom (who conveniently looks exactly like Rebecca Ferguson).
If he can't prove his innocence past a certain percentage, he'll be fried on the spot. Override the algorithm sufficiently, and he'll walk free. Cue an entire movie of sifting through ring cam footage, facetiming witnesses and finding crucial evidence on his daughter's private Finsta account.
After about 15 minutes of this, the gimmick wears off pretty quickly. Pratt himself is clearly loving it (possibly due to the ease of his character also being called Chris) but unsurprisingly, this doesn't translate offscreen. Mercy is mundane in its own unique way, but there are few surprises – it'll hit you over the head with its ambivalent AI messaging.
Mercy refuses to call AI a hero or a villain, and that's a missed opportunity
"Maybe humans and AI both make mistakes" is a line of dialogue in Mercy that I've only slightly paraphrased, and it sums up the movie's moral vagueness in one nifty sentence. Sure, we've just spent an hour and 40 minutes watching an AI-generated court judge nearly kill Chris over a wrongful conviction, but we all make mistakes, right?
This was Amazon MGM Studios' chance to lay down the AI line by deciding what side of the industry argument they're on. Instead, they've chosen to sit on the fence, and that transforms any vim and vigor Mercy did have into pure monotony. If we're not using storytelling to send home a powerful message, especially about something so ever-changing, then what's the point?
Of course, the point is to make a bit of money at the box office by seeming to touch on a topical subject. It's the same way that a social media influencer might look like they're supporting a social campaign, but are actually doing the surface-level bare minimum to help it. Mercy could have been an industry-changing heavyweight piece of art, but no – let's play around with some CGI graphics instead.
For a big-budget studio, these graphics feel incredibly cheap. This is where the most obvious connection to Prime Video's take on War of the Worlds, starring Ice Cube, comes into play. Both have the same function and aesthetic look – almost as if Amazon is ashamed that is uninspired slop is all it's got to offer.
Rebecca Ferguson is our AI judge. (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)
Almost no movie (perhaps with the exception of 2023 thriller Missing) can use tech, screens and social media as its sole method of storytelling to its advantage – the concept is as lame as lame comes. But our AI-fashioned Rebecca Ferguson is the jewel in our crown of criminal offenses.
Even as a non-human entity, Ferguson shines. She's far from a voice of reason, but seeing the cracks in her generated facade is easily the most satisfying payoff in this otherwise faltering farce. She's also the only source of continuity when Mercy decides to finally let Chris out of his chair for an unhinged 15-minute duration, abandoning all of its narrative mechanics without warning.
You get where I'm coming from here. ChatGPT could probably have written a much stronger script and overarching plot, while watching any other takes on AI or the digital world would be a more shrewd use of your time. Our best case scenario is hoping Mercy is popular enough to finance more Guardians of the Galaxy or Star-Lord content, and then never speak of it again.
The HP Pavilion x360 14 is a compact 2-in-1 laptop that aims to offer both performance and versatility in a single package.
True to most of HP’s lineup, the Pavilion x360 14 has a smart and understated appearance. The light grey colorway and sleek contours imbue it with elegance, while its 14-inch size helps with portability.
However, this latter aspect is undermined somewhat by its relatively thick and heavy construction, so it’s not the best laptop for frequent travelers who want a device with as minimal a footprint as possible.
The upshot of this weight, though, is that it adds some reassuring solidity. Both the base and the display enclosure of the Pavilion x360 14 have very little give, while the materials used all over the unit feel premium. The hinge for the lid is also sturdy, if a little clunky in action when you're pushing the screen beyond 90 degrees, as I often do whenever I use a 2-in-1 laptop.
Despite its small size, there are a good number of ports on the Pavilion x360 14. Along with two USB-A and one USB-C port, there’s also an HDMI port, a microSD slot, and a combo audio jack, all of which I welcome. What’s more, they’re conveniently located.
The general performance of the Pavilion x360 14 is pretty good. It can handle light productivity and stream 4K content with ease. However, it can suffer from micro-stutters when moving quickly from task to task. Also, gaming performance is average-to-poor, owing to the absence of a dedicated GPU. Of course, this isn't a gaming laptop, so you shouldn't really expect impressive game performance.
(Image credit: Future)
I noticed that even under moderate loads, a fair amount of heat radiates from the left side of the Pavilion x360 14, as well as the top keyboard rows. Thankfully, temperatures aren’t alarmingly high. The fans generate some noise, but remain pleasingly quiet relative to many other laptops under stress.
The display is pleasingly sharp and vibrant, and although reflections are prominent at times, I usually found the maximum brightness setting could mitigate their presence to an acceptable degree.
Despite the small size of the Pavilion x360 14, its keyboard has a pleasingly spacious layout, which, combined with the snappiness of the keys themselves, makes it satisfying to type on. However, there was no backlighting in my particular review unit – a grave omission given how hard it was to make out the lettering most of the time.
The touchpad is usable, if a little small, and has a smooth surface. It’s also quite solid, although I did notice a slight rattle when tapping and clicking, which can hamper feel and feedback.
The touchscreen on the Pavilion x360 14 is responsive and accurate, however, those keen on illustration might be disappointed with the small – but still noticeable – levels of friction, which can lead to slightly rough swipes, whether a stylus or a finger is used.
The battery life of the Pavilion x360 14 is quite good. It lasted over 11 hours when I ran our movie playback test, which is similar to some of its more expensive rivals. However, it pales in comparison to the highest performing laptops on this front, which can endure twice as long in some cases.
All things considered, though, the Pavilion x360 14 is a strong option in the 2-in-1 sector, thanks to its decent everyday performance and impressive design. It’s a shame that it’s not as portable as other convertible models, and there may be better value alternatives depending on what you require from a laptop, but at the very least the Pavilion x360 14 deserves a place on your shortlist.
HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Price & Availability
(Image credit: Future)
Starts from £699 (about $920 / AU$1,400)
Available now
Expensive compared to some rivals
The HP Pavilion x360 14 is available now and starts from £699 (about $920 / AU$1,400). For that, you get an Intel Core i3, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage. However, we have seen it on sale for half this price from HP’s own website, which obviously makes it much better value.
The unit I review here is the top-spec model and costs around £1,000. It features an Intel Core i7, 16GB of RAM, and 512GB of storage (although you can upgrade to a 1TB drive instead). Again, we’ve seen a hefty discount on this variant, but its usual price is quite dear.
If you don't need a truly convertible laptop, but still want a touchscreen, the Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i is a fine alternative. It’s decidedly more expensive, but it’s a truly premium machine, featuring an OLED display and a pleasingly portable design.
However, if your heart is set on a 2-in-1 but you want a more budget-friendly option, the Acer Chromebook Spin 312 is worth considering. Thanks to its compact form factor, great display, and usable touchscreen, it’s one of the best Chromebooks currently around.
The Pavilion x360 14 looks smart, with its pristine light gray finish, rounded edges, and flat surfaces. All these aspects reflect HP’s desire to emulate the best MacBook designs.
Despite initial impressions, though, the Pavilion x360 14 is actually less slender and light than you might expect. Not only does this heft hamper portability, it’s doubly disappointing to see in a convertible laptop, since you’ll likely be picking it up and flipping it upside down frequently to use the touchscreen. The best 2-in-1 laptop options are all lighter than this.
On the plus side, the weight does contribute to the overall sturdiness of the HP Pavilion x360 14, as there’s virtually no flex to any of its panels. The materials employed seem quite premium as well, more akin to metal than plastic.
Also, the lid hinge is stable enough to prevent the display from wobbling under most circumstances. It operates smoothly, too, although I found it took a bit more effort to adjust the display angle compared to other laptops I’ve used.
More irksome, however, was the fact that once it’s reclined beyond 90 degrees, the rear of the base lifts clean off the underlying surface. This is a design choice some other laptops employ, but it’s not one I’m fond of. It always felt awkward adjusting the display to this point, and results in less stability when using the keyboard.
(Image credit: Future)
Speaking of which, my review unit had no backlighting for the keyboard. I always lament this omission in any laptop, but it’s especially disappointing in the case of the Pavilion x360 14. The characters are dark and contrast marginally with the finish of the keys themselves, making them hard to see in many instances; at certain angles, they were totally invisible.
Even though the Pavilion x360 14 is a small laptop, it has an admirable selection of interfaces. There are two USB-A ports and one USB-C, the latter of which supports both Power Delivery and DisplayPort 1.4 standards.
Additionally, there’s an HDMI port, a combo audio jack, and a microSD card reader. It’s a small shame the latter isn’t fit for standard SD cards, but I can forgive this omission given the form factor of the Pavilion x360 14.
The ports are spread quite evenly across both sides, which improves convenience. They’re also ordered in a logical way: for instance, the power connector is furthest away from the user, while the microSD reader and combo audio jack are closest.
Design: 4/ 5
HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Performance
(Image credit: Future)
Reasonable everyday performance
Heat and noise even under moderate loads
Responsive but uninspiring touchscreen
HP Pavilion x360 14 benchmarks:
3DMark Night Raid 13,367; Fire Strike: 3,646; Steel Nomad: 139 GeekBench 6.5 Single-core: 2,535; Multi-core: 7,729 CrossMark Overall: 1,480; Productivity: 1,517; Creativity: 1,528; Responsiveness: 1,247; HandBrake - 4K to 1080p average FPS: 30.27
The general performance of the Pavilion x360 14 is reasonable, if not spectacular. It can handle light productivity and entertainment tasks well, even streaming 4K content without disruption.
However, despite my review unit having an Intel Core i7 installed, it wasn’t as swift as I was expecting. When switching between browser tabs or loading new web pages, it frequently stuttered. These stutters were momentary, so were minor infractions in the main, but they added up to become more disruptive when I tried to accomplish multiple (but not especially demanding) tasks in quick succession.
Being the top spec model, my review unit also had Intel Iris Xe Graphics. In theory, this offers improved performance over Intel UHD Graphics, but it’s still integrated to the CPU. This means that the Pavilion x360 14 is only capable of very light gaming. I managed to run Cyberpunk 2077 on Medium graphics, but it wasn’t a smooth experience, in terms of frame rate and visual fidelity.
A noticeable amount of heat emanated from the left vent of the Pavilion x360 14, as well as from the top keyboard rows and the section above. This was the case even when I conducted moderate workloads. Thankfully, the temperatures were never uncomfortable or concerning. Fan noise accompanied such moments, but it was pleasingly quiet relative to some other laptops under load.
(Image credit: Future)
The 1080p resolution of the Pavilion x360 14 provides plenty of sharpness, which is doubtless helped by the compact 14-inch display. Colors also appear vibrant. It can be quite reflective at times, but thankfully there’s enough brightness to keep them from being distracting.
The touchscreen functions well, responding to inputs made by either a finger or a stylus quickly and accurately. However, the surface isn’t the smoothest, so more intricate usage, such as drawing or handwriting, can result in a dragging sensation. The effect isn’t as egregious as it is on some other touchscreens, but if you’re after one of the best touchscreen laptops, the Pavilion x360 14 might not cut it.
If you’ll mainly be typing, though, you’ll be pleased with the keyboard on the HP Pavilion x360 14. The keys are comfortably spaced despite the compact layout, and there’s a surprising amount of travel to presses, which makes them satisfying to use. They’re still snappy enough to type quickly, though.
The touchpad is less impressive. It operates well enough, but the small size and numb-feeling taps and clicks – in part due to the slight rattle I noticed – result in a less tactile experience.
Performance: 4 / 5
HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Battery Life
(Image credit: Future)
Respectable by 2-in-1 standards
Some longer-lasting rivals
Quick to recharge
The Pavilion x360 14 has a decent battery life. It lasted about 11 hours in our movie playback test, which is close to the same score achieved by the Acer Chromebook Spin 312.
However, it can’t beat the Microsoft Surface Pro 11, another fantastic 2-in-1 laptop, which managed over 14 and a half hours. Also, more conventional laptops can last longer, sometimes up to 20 hours or more. The Pavilion x360 14 is quick to charge, though. It took about two hours to fully replenish.
Battery Life: 4 / 5
Should I buy the HP Pavilion x360 14?
HP Pavilion x360 14 Scorecard
Notes
Rating
Value
The HP Pavilion x360 14 has a reasonable starting price, although prices rise steeply with higher-spec models. We’ve seen big discounts on it recently, though.
3.5 / 5
Design
The HP Pavilion x360 14 looks smart and is well made, but it’s heavier and bulkier than you might expect. My unit was crying out for keyboard backlighting, too.
4 / 5
Performance
Not blistering, but still efficient for workaday use. The 1080p display looks crisp, while the keyboard and touchscreen are effective.
4 / 5
Battery life
Decent for a convertible laptop, although some rivals can beat it. It’s quick to recharge, though.
4 / 5
Total Score
The HP Pavilion x360 14 is a premium-feeling machine with a compact form, but one that's less portable and maneuverable than you might expect. There are also some better-value rivals, but it still offers enough to deserve consideration.
4 / 5
Buy the HP Pavilion x360 14 if...
You’ll be doing a lot of typing The keyboard is a joy to use, thanks to the comfortable and snappy keys.
You want a premium build Not only does it look smart, the Pavilion x360 14 is solidly constructed, and the materials employed feel more upmarket than your usual flimsy plastics.
Don't buy it if...
You’ll be conducting demanding workloads Since it lacks integrated graphics, more strenuous tasks, such as gaming, are a struggle for the Pavilion x360 14.
You want the best usability Despite its small size, its thickness and weight hamper tablet-style use, as well as portability.
HP Pavilion x360 14 review: Also Consider
Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i It might not be convertible, but the Yoga Slim 9i still has a touchscreen. What’s more, if you want the ultimate in portability, you can’t do much better. It’s a far more premium option than the Pavilion x360 14, but we found that its build quality and performance lived up to its commanding price tag. Shame there’s no audio jack, though.
Acer Chromebook Spin 312 If you’re on a tighter budget and can forgo the Windows operating system, the Acer Chromebook Spin 312 is a strong choice. It has a great display, keyboard, and touchscreen, all of which make it one of the best budget laptop picks. Its performance is also respectable – although it won’t handle heavy multitasking with the composure of more powerful machines.
I tested the HP Pavilion x360 14 for a few days, during which time I used it for multiple tasks, including productivity, streaming, and gaming.
I also ran our series of benchmark tests for laptops, which are designed to assess every facet of performance. I also tested the battery life by running a movie on a continuous loop.
I have plenty of experience both using and reviewing laptops. I have covered many models, ranging in their form factors, use cases, and price points.
I feel as though I'm going mad when I say there was once a time when Ryan Murphy TV shows were fresh, bold and innovative. Nip/Tuck was a scathing satirical putdown of cosmetic surgery culture in the early 2000s, Glee – while completely unhinged – dominated the television zeitgeist in a way no other show was daring to, and the first three seasons of American Horror Story were bona fide masterpieces.
Unsurprisingly, Murphy's track history likely means that streamers like Hulu and Disney are all but happy to throw money his way and wait for the next big thing to materialize... except, this isn't really happening anymore. While shows like 9-1-1 are getting more grandiose by the minute (Angela Bassett in space? Really), others including American Sports Story and Grotesquerie fell off the radar and were quickly cancelled.
Then All's Fair became the 0% Rotten Tomatoes stinker that took the internet by storm, guaranteeing a second season purely by fully leaning into its own stupidity. I really didn't think Murphy could top his own dreadfulness, but new FX series The Beauty easily clears any flop he's ever previously produced.
Why? Because at least All's Fair knew how terrible it was. At least Grotesquerie didn't pretend to be a success story. The Beauty is masquerading as something much more significant than it actually is, without contributing anything to the cultural zeitgeist aside from making sure you have the safest sex possible.
The Beauty on FX is The Substance-turned-STD, and everything about it is wrong
I know that you won't want to watch this series based on the above trailer, but let me set the scene for you anyway. Two FBI agents (played by Evan Peters and Rebecca Hall) travel across Europe to unravel the mysterious death of a group of supermodels. None of them appear to know each other, but all have the same symptoms – a virus, burning alive from the inside and spontaneously exploding upon death.
This either sounds like the recipe for absurd hilarity or insightful social commentary, but The Beauty is neither. After you've finished being baffled by Bella Hadid's out-of-place cameo, you're left feeling nothing aside from wondering how the series was green lit in the first place. We had The Substance last year, so we hardly need its knockoff little sister.
It doesn't take long for The Beauty to hit you over the head with its intended messaging of "what will people risk in order to be beautiful?". You could argue that a plethora of shows and movies have mulled over this age-old question already, ironically beginning with Nip/Tuck itself. Truthfully, we know what people would risk to be attractive (everything), and the critical analysis ends there.
Murphy is clearly churning out old ideas here, and there's nothing of merit or value contained within any single scene. The decision to make the killer virus a sexually transmitted disease (STD) is morally ambiguous, particularly when you consider Murphy's deft handling of the AIDS crisis in Pose. Is this meant to be an ironic nod to real-life history? Is it merely intended to shock whoever is watching? Condom sales might increase after this, but not much else will.
Go girl, give us nothing
I can't even remember their character names they are that forgettable. (Image credit: FX)
But let's put the gory gimmicks and missed narrative opportunities to one side. What else do we have left? Peters and Hall are secretly lovers, but don't have an ounce of chemistry between them. This makes flogging an already dead horse even trickier, because there's almost no incentive to watch. Murphy has already told us how our exploding supermodels die thanks to the mutant sex virus, so where's the payoff?
There's also the gauche notion that "fat is bad" that plays through the center of the story, and that's neither fitting for 2026 nor is it an original thought. 20 years ago, Murphy could have been lauded as daring by tackling body image head-on, but now it's just uncomfortable to watch slim actors in fat suits. Again, there's nothing of value to making this a worthwhile endeavor.
So we're left with a mis-matched, tone-deaf, mundane splatter of madness on our screens, and I'd rather have been blasted straight in the face with the VFX department's guts like an Italian horror movie from the 80s. Perhaps that way, I'd have felt something.
During the international press tour, I saw star Ashton Kutcher talk about The Beauty as if nobody has dared to make television like this before. I have to wonder if he's actually ever watched TV before now, and that's before I consider that his ex-wife Demi Moore examined this same topic in an infinitely more successful way.
Our only two wins are the brash pop soundtrack and a cameo role from the icon that is Isabella Rossellini. I don't know what Murphy has got on her to get this appearance, but God is she so much better than this. We all are.
In 2025, open earbuds became the trendy new kind of headphone to buy, and the market was dominated by sports loop-style buds. By the end of the year, though, cuff- or hook-style open-ears had dethroned them, and the Huawei FreeClip 2 are some of the big new buds to use this form factor.
My favorite open-ears of last year were the Huawei FreeArc, so I was hopeful that this new option would deliver something special – perhaps even enough to dethrone the big names on this particular block, like the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds or Shokz OpenDots One. However you might as well call these the FreeClicarus, because the company has flown too close to the sun.
The selling point of the FreeClip 2 is this: they’re some of the lightest, thinnest and therefore most comfortable clippy ear-cuff type earbuds to date. This is clear from the size of the charging case, which is the smallest I’ve ever seen in such buds, but also from the design and build of the buds themselves.
However even with the ‘heaviest’ cuff-style buds, I’ve never had a problem with weight, and in the FreeClip 2, the reverse was true. Buds like this rely on gravity to lock them firmly around your ear, and if they’re light, they just won’t sit right. I found the buds didn’t naturally sit properly, so needed some adjustment every time I used them, and were far too easy to knock off if they received a bump or swipe. They never fell out during exercise, but they did when I was pulling up my hood, putting on a bike helmet or bringing my noggin too close to my neck.
There are other aspects of the bud that are poorly designed. The touch controls are too finickety, requiring a precision and soft touch that I defy anyone to have at any point, let alone when they’re running or walking. And like all Huawei hearables, the companion smartphone app requires so many hoops to jump through, you’ll feel like an elephant at a circus (on Android, at least – on iOS or HarmonyOS, the process is simple). And, perhaps most damning of all, the audio quality just isn't very good.
You might now be wondering why I gave a modestly positive score to the FreeClip 2, and that's for two reasons. Firstly, it's because these issues aren't terrible. Secondly, it's for two really handy perks that the buds offer which alternatives don't.
Firstly, as I've already said, they're lovely and lightweight, and they were more comfortable to wear for runs or walks than alternatives. Secondly, the maximum volume is really high, fixing a common open earbuds issue – hearing your music properly. Despite their issues, the dearer-than-they-should-be pricing and being a let-own compared to the FreeArc, I can see these being a reliable buy for certain users.
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Specifications
Component
Value
Water resistant
IP57
Battery life
9 hours (earbuds), 38 hours (total)
Bluetooth type
Bluetooth 6.0
Weight
5.1g / Charging case: 37.8g
Driver
10.8mm
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Price and availability
(Image credit: Future)
Released on January 21, 2026
Priced at £179.99 (roughly $240, AU$350)
Premium price for clip-style buds
The Huawei FreeClip 2 were announced in December 2025, and put on sale on January 21, 2026 (today, at the time of writing). Just in time for your New Year Resolution to run more – unless you live in the US or Australia, where the things don’t sell.
At £179 (roughly $240, AU$350), the FreeClip are fairly premium cuff-style buds. They match the highly-rated Shokz OpenDots One, though undercut the $299 / £299 / AU$449 Bose Ultra Open Ears. Most earbuds with this form factor I’ve tested have been cheaper, though, with some great options at half the price that we’ll explore near the bottom of this review.
For some Huawei-shaped context, the original FreeClip were released two years prior for about the same price. If you want any open earbuds regardless of the form, the Huawei FreeArc came out in early 2025 for about half the price, and they’re the best sports-loop-style open earbuds I’ve tested to date.
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Design
(Image credit: Future)
Incredibly light case, comfortable buds
Too flexible and light to fit properly
IP57 protection
When I first took the Huawei FreeClip 2 out of the box, I thought Huawei had left them in the wash too long and they’d shrunk. The case is absolutely tiny. I’m talking about 5 x 5 x 2.5cm, smaller than any other charging case I’ve ever seen, and at 37.8g I don’t recall testing any lighter either. Lovely for popping the case in my pocket.
Like most clip-style open earbuds, the left and right buds are interchangeable, so you can pop them in your ears or the case either way around. But the process of putting them in the case is quite confusing, with an arrangement that seems… illogical. You can see what I mean in the pictures; it’s different to any other cuff buds I’ve tested, and I constantly put them in wrong and only noticed when the lid wouldn’t close properly. I found this quite annoying, but it’s the price to pay for a small case.
Onto the buds themselves: a spherical bud (or Acoustic Ball, according to Huawei), counterweight (Comfort Bean, apparently), and the connector loop (Airy C-bridge Design), all in a 5.1g package. The loop is quite elasticky, so there’s a lot of flex between the components, but I never noticed any ill effects when the buds were in my ears.
(Image credit: Future)
I noticed something with the bud – sorry, the Acoustic Ball – that I’ve not heard on other clipping buds. Sometimes when I put them in my ear, the audio wouldn’t be at full power, and I’d have to readjust them before they sounded right. Usually this kind of bud just falls into place, and I wasn’t used to this kind of micromanagement. It was also easier than I’m used to, to knock them out of place – they had a solid fit when exercising, but I kept hitting them out of my ear with bike helmet straps, hoods and hats. I think the frail design and light weight have resulted in some fit reliability problems.
There are touch controls on the buds: stroke the counterweight – I mean, Comfort Bean – for changing the volume, double-tap any part of the buds to play or pause, tripe to skip. The tapping was generally okay, even though my touch wasn’t always picked up, but I really struggled with the swiping – it’s really hard to intuitively reach the right spot behind your ear to find the trigger, and in my experience it was rarely picked up correctly anyway.
You can pick up the Huawei FreeClip 2 in three colors: blue, black or white. They’re rated to IP57, so they have limited protection against dust and can be immersed in shallow water for a limited time.
Design score: 3.5/5
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Features
(Image credit: Future)
Fantastic listening test
Battery life is 8 hours, 32 hours with case
Fewer other features than some rivals
A recurring problem with Huawei earbuds is that their app situation is, I'm sorry to have to say it, a bit of a nightmare for Android users (an app-solute nightmare?) and that’s no different for the FreeClip 2. Own an iPhone? You’re in the clear – the companion app can be pinched straight from the App Store.
On my Android phone I had to go into a web browser, download and then install an APK for the Huawei AppGallery and use that to install the Huawei Audio Connect app (I then, for good measure, deleted AppGallery). That’s quite a lot of admin just to turn off touch controls.
It might not be worth it. The app lets you pick between four presets (and lets you create your own with a 10-band equalizer), and lets you toggle a few features like touch control, wear detection and head control (you can shake your head to reject an incoming call). Okay, there’s a ‘Find-My’ feature for lost buds or case and drop detection, two useful features. The app also has an Experimental Features menu which, for now, just has a toggle for adaptive volume – since this is labelled as under development, it didn’t feel fair to evaluate it for this review.
(Image credit: Future)
I will say, wearer detection is rarely present on open earbuds, and even more rarely is it fully functional. One thing I noticed over my testing process is that on the FreeClip 2, it works very well. Sometimes, it’s the small things!
The battery life is a little longer than the rivals, with the earbuds lasting 9 hours before you need to pop them back in the case. The case, despite its short stature, offers a decent amount of mileage too: 39 hours in total. It’s not class-leading, but it’s still very good.
The FreeClips support Bluetooth 6.0, a figure I don’t always see in buds like these, and I never had any connection issues; they were fast to pair every time I used them. They can also pair with multiple devices simultaneously so you can use them with both your phone and, say, a running watch.
Features score: 4/5
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Sound performance
(Image credit: Future)
Single 10.8mm driver
Music sounds lifeless
Lovely, high max volume
Each Huawei FreeClip 2 earpiece has a 10.8mm driver, just like its predecessor – it seems that the improvements in this sequel are in the design department, not the audio sector. That’s a shame because while we didn’t receive the original model, I saw some negative responses to its audio quality, and I’m going to level (I think) those same complaints at the new model.
Music, frankly, sounds flat and lifeless, condensing different instruments into one musical line instead of a sonic spread and then, oddly elevating mid tones higher above treble and bass. It sounds like the guitarist forgot to plug their axe in, the singer is struggling to remember the lyrics, the bassist is pushing through carpal tunnel syndrome.
In The Roosevelts & James Mason’s This Is Life, the rhythmic acoustic guitar seems to take dominance of the mix over the bass and vocals (drums? Not here, officer). The same happened in ABBA’s Waterloo: the acoustic stings in the verse stood above everything else, but strangely when the instrument returned in the chorus it was barely audible. I listened to a recording of the fourth movement of Antonin Dvorak’s New World Symphony, and the brass overshadowed the entire instrumentation – even in the segments they’re barely present.
In short, I wasn’t wowed by the Huawei FreeClip 2’s sonic prowess – it’s not the worst I’ve ever tested, but it is for the price. However, the buds do one spec better than any other model I’ve reviewed, and it’s a department that’s crucial for open earbuds: volume.
Too many times, these open-fit headphones don’t go loud enough, and they’re hard to hear due to the background noise you’re not meant to be isolated from. The FreeClip 2, however, go really loud, and for this reason alone I’d still recommend them to some fitness users who’ve struggled with other options.
If the buds support any features like Dolby Audio or aptX, or codecs like LDAC or AAC, it isn't mentioned on Huawei's website or app.
Sound performance score: 3/5
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: Value
(Image credit: Future)
Given the glut of cuff-style open earbuds at sub-$100 (or £, AU$ equivalent) prices, you can expect a premium product if you’re going to pay a premium price like this. I’m sorry to say that I don’t think the FreeClip 2 quite deserve to be called that, though; the feature set, fit and sound quality aren’t significantly better than the budget options on the market.
I think Huawei missed a trick by pricing these buds as they did. You can pay less and get just as much, or pay the same amount and get more from rivals.
Value score: 3/5
Huawei FreeClip 2 review: scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
These are priced like premium buds but perform like budget ones.
3/5
Design
The teeny tiny build feels good, although it brings problems. At least the case is small.
3.5/5
Features
It may be a little light in the feature department, but what it has works well. It's a shame about the app situation though.
4/5
Sound
They sound a little flat and lifeless, but the high max volume makes them a suitable pick for certain users.
3/5
Huawei FreeClip 2: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy them if...
You need something loud Listening in a noisy environment? The volume you can reach makes these better than others on the market.
You want a small charging case The tiny carry case for the Huawei FreeClip 2 is easily pocketable and won't weigh you down like some of the alternatives.
You find them as a gift with another gadget They cost more than they should, but as a purchase gift with a Huawei tablet or phone, they'd be alright.
Don't buy them if...
You're an audiophile It should go without saying, but it's doubly true of the Huawei. Don't buy these if you want a detailed sonic experience.
You're a cyclist or hat-wearer Because of its build, headwear could really affect the FreeClip. Not for helmet-wearers or those who like a hat.
Also consider
Component
Huawei FreeClip 2
Shokz OpenDots One
Bose Ultra Open Earbuds
Water resistant
IP58
IP54
IPX4
Battery life
9 hours (earbuds), 39 hours (total)
10 hours (earbuds), 40 hours (total)
7.5 hours (earbuds), 27 hours (total)
Bluetooth type
Bluetooth 6.0
Bluetooth 5.4
Bluetooth 5.3
Weight
5.1g / Charging case: 37.8g
5.6g / Charging case: 52g
6g / Charging case: 43g
Driver
10.8mm
2x 11.8mm
12mm
Shokz OpenDots One
Shokz' debut options are a solid fit, sound great and come in a charging case that's small, though not Huawei small. They match the FreeClip 2 in price, though are slightly older so have seen some reductions.
These top-price options have fantastic audio, even if they look a little more robotic than most alternatives. If you've got money to burn, Bose is ready.
I listened to the Huawei FreeClip 2 for just over two weeks before writing this review. In that time I used it paired to my Android smartphone.
I used the FreeClip daily during that time. I worked out at the gym, went on runs and cycled, and also used it when not exercising at home and on walks around my neighborhood. I listened on Spotify and Tidal, watched on streaming services and played several games with them.
These are the latest in a busy line of earbuds I've tested at TechRadar, including plenty of open-ear options and various gadgets from Huawei.
The HP Pavilion 16 is aimed at those looking for a capable everyday machine for a reasonable price.
It’s clear that HP has paid attention to the aesthetics of the Pavilion 16. Not only does the Sky Blue colorway add more interest than the monochromatic tones typical of mid-range laptops, but the materials employed look premium as well.
Its elegance is further emphasized by its sheer slenderness; I don’t recall having seen a thinner 16-inch laptop, making it one of the best laptop designs around. While this aspect helps with portability, the deceptively hefty weight doesn’t.
I can’t complain about the build quality of the Pavilion 16, though. There’s little flex to any part of it, despite its aforementioned lean form, while the parts that are plastic are pleasing to the touch. This is especially true of the keys, which have a slight texture for added tactility.
There are some useful ports on the Pavilion 16, including two USB-A, two USB-C (which support both Power Delivery and DisplayPort standards), and an HDMI port. However, most are loaded on the right-hand side, and the two USB-C ports are placed closest to the user, which can be inconvenient as the power cable has to be plugged into one of them.
(Image credit: Future)
The Pavilion 16 handles general tasks rather well, from light productivity to 4K video streaming. However, since it lacks a dedicated GPU, graphics-heavy workloads are handled with less aplomb. Some light gaming is still possible, but you’ll have to dial back the settings and settle for unremarkable frame rates and visuals.
Fan noise is noticeable, even when the Pavilion 16 is running at a moderate intensity, but I would still describe it as being within acceptable bounds. Nearly all of the heat is confined to the very rear of the underside, which I also appreciated.
The 1200p WUGXA display is sufficient for this size of laptop, providing a clear and sharp image. Color reproduction and brightness levels are also commendable, although reflections can be a little too prominent at times.
If you’ll be doing a lot of typing, the Pavilion 16 is likely to meet your needs. The wide spacing of the keys, coupled with their deep travel and dampening, makes them satisfying to use. And if you’ll be dealing with lots of numbers in your work, you’ll be pleased with the inclusion of a numpad, too.
However, the touchpad is less impressive. It’s quite small for this size of laptop, yet at the same time manages to intrude while typing; I would often trigger cursor movement with my thumb palm. In the main, though, it’s still sufficient enough for everyday use.
An area where the Pavilion 16 excels is battery life. It lasted over 20 hours in our movie playback test, and charging times are very fast as well. On this front, it beats most of its similarly-priced rivals.
When you combine this aspect with its other plus points, the Pavilion 16 adds up to an enticing proposition, given its reasonable starting price. There are certainly other great laptops at this end of the market, some of which may have the edge in terms of performance, but the Pavilion 16 remains one to consider if you’re after a mid-range, workaday machine.
HP Pavilion 16 review: Price & Availability
(Image credit: Future)
Starts from $459 / £569 (about AU$700)
Available now in various configurations
Reasonable price point
The HP Pavilion 16 starts from $459 / £569 (about AU$700) and is available now. Models with different Intel and AMD processors are available, as are models with touchscreens. RAM configurations also vary from 8GB to 16GB.
This is a reasonable price for a large laptop of this spec. For a similar price, you could also get the Acer Aspire Go 15. I was impressed with its performance when I reviewed it, which is perhaps marginally better than that of Pavilion 16. However, its display is less impressive than the Pavilion 16’s.
If you’re looking for another budget alternative, the HP OmniBook 5 14-inch (2025) could be one to look out for. It features a cutting-edge and vibrant OLED display, and impressively long battery life.
Value: 4 / 5
HP Pavilion 16 review: Specs
HP Pavilion 16 review configuration
Price
£569 (about $745 / AU$1,140)
CPU
Intel Core Ultra 5 125U (3.6GHz, 12 cores)
GPU
Intel Graphics (integrated)
RAM
16GB LPDDR5
Storage
512GB PCIe 5.0 NVMe M.2 SSD
Display
16-inch (1920 x 1200), 16:10, IPS, micro-edge, anti-glare
The Pavilion 16 cuts an elegant figure, thanks to its minimalist design that’s free from fuss and unsightly bulges. The Sky Blue colorway also helps to distinguish it from many others in this sector, endowing the unit with enough interest while maintaining a professional appearance.
More impressive is just how slender the Pavilion 16 is. For a 16-inch laptop, it’s remarkably thin, which certainly helps with transportation. Its weight, on the other hand, is more of a hindrance, since it’s heavier than I expected it to be.
The plastics used in the Pavilion 16 feel premium, especially that of the keys, which are finished with a subtle texture that offers a pleasing amount of traction. They’re also secured firmly in place, without a hint of looseness.
(Image credit: Future)
This same level of solidity applies to the overall construction of the Pavilion 16, too. There’s remarkably little flex to the chassis or the lid, despite how thin both are. What’s more, the hinge holds the display in place with impressively little wobble, no matter the angle, while being very easy to adjust at the same time.
There are two USB-A and two USB-C ports on the Pavilion 16, as well as an HDMI port – an increasingly rare sight on modern laptops. There’s no SD card reader, though, which is a small shame.
A bigger point of contention is the placement of the ports. All but two are on the right, which might prove inconvenient for some. And while I was glad to see the USB-A ports split across both sides, the two USB-C ports are both on the right.
What’s more, they’re located in front of all other ports, nearly mid-way along the chassis, which can cause issues when connecting the USB-C power adapter. Personally, I always prefer the power port to be the furthest away, in order to prevent the power cable from trailing over others or being obstructed by things you may have next to your laptop.
Design: 4.5/ 5
HP Pavilion 16 review: Performance
(Image credit: Future)
Reasonable everyday performance
Not ideal for gamers or creative pros
Tactile keyboard
HP Pavilion 16 benchmarks
Geekbench 6 (Single Core): 2,166; (Multi Core): 9,496 Cinebench R23 (Multi Core): 7,730 Cinebench R24 (Single Core): 94 (Multi Core): 411 Crossmark Overall: 1,433 3DMark Night Raid: 18,673; Fire Strike: 4,717; Steel Nomad: 352; Solar Bay: 6,519; Solar Bay Unlimited: 6,993; Solar Bay Extreme: 737; Solar Bay Extreme Unlimited: 734 BlackMagicDisk Read: 2,639MB/s; Write: 2,494MB/s Total War: Warhammer III: Mirrors of Madness (1080p, Low): 22.7fps
The everyday performance of the Pavilion 16 is commendable. It handles light productivity, browsing, and entertainment tasks well, which is what one would expect from this grade of laptop. More impressively, it can stream ultra-HD video without issue.
Such content is enhanced by the large display, which is allowed to make full use of its space thanks to the thin bezel. There’s enough brightness and vibrancy to make the viewing experience an enjoyable one, and while reflections can reveal themselves at points, for the most part the Pavilion 16 does an admirable job of keeping them at bay.
Even when performing moderately intense workloads, the fans in the Pavilion 16 were audible. However, the noise never rose above a muted whir, so I didn’t find them disruptive. Most of the heat was confined to the rear underside, with commonly-touched surfaces remaining cool.
Since it has no dedicated GPU, the Pavilion 16 isn’t the best choice for gamers or creative types. Cyberpunk 2077 was just about playable on Medium settings, but even here I experienced some stuttering and the occasional slowdown. Naturally, it wasn’t very pleasant to look at, either. You'd be better off checking out our list of the best gaming laptops instead.
(Image credit: Future)
Thanks to the wide chassis, the keyboard fits comfortably in the Pavilion 16, even with its number pad. However, while the keys have plenty of space between them, they don’t seem as large as those on other laptops. I had to adapt my typing accordingly, but as the size difference is that great, this didn’t take long.
Better is the considerable amount of travel and dampening they have, especially by laptop standards. This makes them more tactile and engaging to use.
Despite its relatively small size, the touchpad got in the way as I typed. The palm of my right thumb frequently triggered cursor movement; thankfully, no clicks or taps registered, which would’ve been much more disruptive.
Its small size also means navigation isn’t as expansive as it could’ve been. What’s more, it lacks the smoothness of some of the best in class, and I felt a slight rattle whenever I tapped or clicked, which made such actions feel awkward. Having said all this, I’ve certainly experienced more frustrating laptop touchpads, and it’s perfectly usable in the main.
Performance: 3.5 / 5
HP Pavilion 16 review: Battery Life
(Image credit: Future)
Lasts long
Beats many rivals
Quick to charge, too
The battery life of the Pavilion 16 is very impressive. It lasted a mighty 20 hours and 15 minutes during our movie playback test, a score that bests many of its rivals by a large margin. The Acer Aspire Go 15, for example, only managed close to 12 hours.
Equally as impressive is just how quickly the Pavilion 16 can fully recharge, taking about 90 minutes.
Battery Life: 5 / 5
Should I buy the HP Pavilion 16?
HP Pavilion 16 Scorecard
Attributes
Notes
Rating
Value
The HP Pavilion 16 offers a lot for the money, but it stands alongside some equally-capable rivals.
4 / 5
Design
The HP Pavilion 16 is remarkably thin for its size, while the looks and build quality are admirable at this price point.
4.5 / 5
Performance
For general tasking, the HP Pavilion 16 suffices. The display and keyboard are great, but gaming and creative applications suffer from the absence of dedicated graphics.
3.5 / 5
Battery Life
The HP Pavilion 16 can outlast many of its rivals by a long way, and it’s quick to recharge, too.
5 / 5
Total
The HP Pavilion 16 represents good value considering what it offers, but you’ll have to settle for poor graphical performance.
4 / 5
Buy the HP Pavilion 16 if...
You’ll be doing a lot of typing The tactile keyboard is a cut above many others at this price point, owing to its deep travel and comfortable layout.
You want all-day battery life Its impressive score in our battery test means the HP Pavilion 16 should last you a full day or more unplugged.
Don't buy it if...
You want to game or create Since it doesn’t have a dedicated GPU, the Pavilion 16 can only handle very light gaming and creative tasks.
You want the best touchpad The touchpad on the HP Pavilion 16 is quite small for a 16-inch laptop, and it’s not the smoothest operator. It can also get in the way when typing.
HP Pavilion 16 review: Also Consider
Acer Aspire Go 15 The starting price of theAcer Aspire Go 15 is much lower than that of the Pavilion 16, but you’d be wise to ignore this base model, since its spec is frankly unfit for modern use. The model that most closely matches the Pavilion 16 is also similarly priced. But while it performs well, its display is far less impressive, so I wouldn’t recommend the Aspire Go to those wanting the best visual experience.
HP OmniBook 5 14-inch (2025) Another HP laptop, the OmniBook 5 is a little more expensive than the Pavilion 16, but it features an OLED display, which impressed us with its vibrancy. Its light build and enjoyable keyboard and touchpad were further highlights. Build quality and top-tier performance are somewhat lacking, but the OmniBook 5 is a solid offering all the same.
I tested the HP Pavilion 16 for a couple of days. I used it for a variety of tasks, from productivity and browsing to streaming video and gaming.
I also ran our series of benchmark tests, designed to comprehensively assess every aspect of a laptop's performance. This included a battery life test, where I ran a movie on a continuous loop until the HP Pavilion 16 shut down.
I am an experienced laptop reviewer, having tested a large number across a broad range of price points, form factors, and specifications.
The Polar Loop is, on the surface, what a lot of folks want. It’s a lifestyle-friendly wearable like the popular Whoop MG, but one that doesn’t come with a mandatory monthly subscription.
It’s screen-free, with a lightweight body and fabric strap for maxed-out comfort. Polar has kept the Loop simple, offering a limited set of features rather than trying to cram in lots of extras. It tracks your sleep, your steps and has a crack at recognising and logging activity sessions — runs, walks and so on. This part is patchy, but the Polar Loop was never going to be that big a hit as a one of the best fitness tracker with the hardcore exerciser crowd anyway.
The Polar Loop’s issues are largely software-based. You have to get on with the Polar app to make the Loop fun to use, and its interface and presentation of data could really do with a rethink. This is planned for the future, but for now, this isn’t quite the Whoop-killer you may be hoping for. It’s shown up on that front by the cheaper Amazfit Helio Strap.
As is, what you get is a decent screen less tracker, but one that may be better later into its lifespan – after a software update, at least.
Polar Loop: Specifications
Component
Polar Loop
Price
$199 / £149.50 / AU$299
Dimensions
42 x 27 x 9mm
Weight
29g with band
Case/bezel
Stainless steel/Plastic
Display
N/A
GPS
N/A
Battery life
Up to 8 days
Connection
Bluetooth
Water resistant
Yes, 3ATM
Polar Loop: Price and Availability
(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
$199 in the US
£149.50 in the UK
AU$299 in Australia
The Polar Loop launched in early September 2025 as a subscription-free alternative to the Whoop band. This is a little over a year since the launch of the Polar 360, a business-oriented wellness wearable that’s ultimately pretty similar to this consumer version. It costs $199 in the US, £149.50 in the UK and AU$299 in Australia.
While there are no explicit ongoing costs, there is a totally optional subscription called Polar Fitness Program, which works out an adaptive training plan for you. This costs 9.99 Euro a month after a free trial. This is far better value than the Whoop, which doesn’t sell you the device at all – just an expensive subscription. But for a fitness tracker that doesn’t actually do a lot, it’s still quite highly-priced.
Value score: 3.5/5
Polar Loop: Design
(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
Screenless
Steel accents
Comfortable stretchy bands
The Polar Loop is similar enough to the Whoop band that Whoop has sued Polar claiming the company nicked its design. However, what this really boils down to is a couple of conventions already seen across the screenless wearables landscape.
Polar uses a fabric strap that weaves, buckle-like, over the wearable’s main unit. It covers where the screen would be in a normal watch. The Loop uses a velcro-style fastener and is clearly designed to look like a lifestyle wearable over a hardcore fitness gadget. While much of the core brick is plastic, the top and outer parts are brushed bronze-shade steel. It’s there to provide a touch of class.
These screen-free wearables are intended to be the kind of gadget you set and forget, at least until the battery runs out. The Polar Loop weighs 29g, strap included, light enough not to pick up any real momentum as you swing your arms unlike a watch like the Apple Watch Ultra, which weighs close to 60g. But you are still gong to see those familiar skin indents when you occasionally take the watch off, pressing its contours into your wrist.
Is it comfy? Sure, these slightly stretchy fabric bands are ace for comfort. But I’ve found the Amazfit Helio Band slightly easier to forget I’m wearing, no doubt because it’s even lighter: just 20g.
The Polar Loop has no buttons and no LED status indicator. You can’t interact with it if you try. There’s not even a vibration motor: it’s about as stripped-back as Polar could make it. Water resistance is rated at WR30, which in other wearables is often seen as not enough for safe swimming, while Polar says the Loop is fine for “bathing and swimming” under the ISO22810 standard, just not diving or snorkelling.
Design score: 4/5
Polar Loop: Features
(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
No subscription
Very little interaction
Precision Prime heart rate sensor from 2018
One of the core appeals of the Polar Loop is, of course, that there is no mandatory subscription. There is a paid part of the app, though.
It’s called Polar Fitness Program, which costs around $11 a month (9.99 Euro). This launched in April 2025, provides tailored workout plans. It would work much better when paired with Polar’s more conventional fitness watches, like the Polar Grit X2, than a Loop.
The Polar Loop’s own feature set is very stripped-back. You can’t, for example, make the watch broadcast its heart rate data to be used by another device. There’s no altimeter, so counting of steps climbed is not recorded. You cannot use the Polar Loop as an alarm as there’s no vibration motor. When the Polar Loop is running low on battery you’ll simply get an incessant reminder to charge on your phone. You know the funny bit? Polar actually released a tracker called the Loop 2 in 2015 that did have vibration, and a half-hidden screen made up of 85 LEDs.
Neither that band nor the Polar Loop records blood oxygenation data either, despite the heart rate array making use of green, red and orange LEDs. Polar calls this its Precision Prime array, and it has been around for absolutely ages. A similar design was found in 2018’s Polar Vantage V. That’s a lifetime ago in tech terms, but the basics still work well.
Features score: 2.5/5
Polar Loop: Performance
(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
8 days of battery life
Some activity tracking errors
HR data testing similar to Garmin Elevate V5 sensor
Despite the lack of a screen, Polar says the Loop lasts eight days, which is actually a bit less than some of its watches with displays. This is basically on the money. You can expect it to last around a week. With no GPS or screen, there should be little variation in how long it lasts based on your activity level.
Like any wearable, the Polar Loop is heavily reliant on its heart rate sensor for any data beyond your steps. This wearable has a pretty good one, despite using older hardware. While this is not a replacement for a full-on runner’s watch due to its lack of GPS, its HR data during runs is pretty similar to that of a Garmin Forerunner 970 (one of the best Garmin watches) and its Elevate V5 sensor, wore concurrently during most of my testing.
The Polar Loop doesn’t tend to mess up the start of workouts, or show unexpected major HR spikes during the work day when you do little more than potter about. There was one unexpected spike during a tracked run, but in general the results are solid here.
By default, the Polar Loop will record basic stats 24/7, and then automatically log any slightly extended stretches it believes you’re exercising. Go for a 12-minute walk? You can expect to see that pop up in the Polar app. It’s not entirely flawless, though; during one run, the Loop only clocked half of the hour-and-change workout, seemingly stopping during a brief break, only to fail to register the second half. The durations of some sessions are off too, although you can always take a more active approach to tracking: in the Polar phone app, you can manually start a tracked session, select the Loop, and use it as the source for HR data.
That aside, the Polar Loop has a good stab at recording your daily steps. And it of course tracks sleep, too, estimating your time spent in the light, deep and REM sleep zones, and records interruptions. The Polar Loop is more sensitive to these than another wearable’s full-on wakeful moments detection, so you may well see your sleep records peppered with these tiny interruption blips.
The lead stats Polar wants you to focus on are sleep duration, sleep solidity and regeneration — basically how much that sleep is getting your body back where it needs to be. However, there’s also an ANS Charge (autonomous nervous system charge) section in which you can check out breathing rate and heart rate variability.
All the basic data is here, and it’s sound enough. The Polar Loop’s biggest issue is the phone app isn’t really all that enjoyable to use, may look dated to some and doesn’t really direct the user that well as to what they should focus on.
The app’s home screen is Diary, which acts like a feed of your day, showing recent auto-tracked exercises, your step count and so on, in semi-chronological order. This is not as effective as the software in Amazfit’s rival Helio Strap app, which is more intuitive and has a handy traffic light-style system to alert you to any stats that may be out of the ordinary.
Screen-free wearables are massively reliant on their apps for the overall quality of experience. And Polar’s could do with some work. It’s just not that inviting a space to hang out in. Polar does plan to fully revamp the app in future, but right now we can only work with that we have.
Performance score: 3.5/5
Polar Loop: Scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
The lack of a forced subscription is good but this is not the most aggressively priced tracker around.
3.5/5
Design
It’s comfortable, it looks decent and has some higher-grade steel elements, plus you get a choice of colours.
4/5
Features
A watch like this doesn’t need scads of features, but it does miss out on a few elements that could be handy.
2.5/5
Performance
Heart rate accuracy is decent but you may not want to rely on auto exercise recognition for accurate session logging.
3/5
Polar Loop: Should I buy?
Buy it if...
You like its style
An important factor here is how the Loop doesn’t look like a fitness watch, with a two-tone fabric outer strap with steel accents.
You want a subscription-free experience
While you can pay for a training plan subscription, there’s no mandatory subscription with a Polar Loop.
You want pure passive tracking
With no screen, and even no vibrate or buttons, this is a zero-interaction wearable for those who want no wrist distractions.
Don’t buy it if…
You are expecting big health insights
At the time of review the Loop doesn’t present its data in the most cogent way, and also has fairly basic hardware.
You want better software before buying
While Polar has plans to overhaul its software and interface, we don’t know when that will happen at the time of review.
Also consider
Whoop MG
The screen-free band that made this category sing, but requires a pricey subscription.
Ever since I first played it on the PS5 a few years ago, I’ve been certain Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade is a gaming masterpiece – the inarguable best way to play the role-playing game (RPG) classic that is Final Fantasy VII. But now that it’s coming to the Nintendo Switch 2, is the game still as excellent?
TL;DR, yes, but I’m left feeling like the Switch 2 edition is only the second best way to play the best way to play Final Fantasy VII.
I’m not the only person who loves Final Fantasy VII Remake. Former TechRadar Computing Hardware expert Jackie Thomas gave it five stars out of five back when it released on the PS4 almost six years ago, and the story, music, and general beauty of the game haven’t changed with this port.
But as you’d expect, going from a home console to a handheld hybrid, some technical downgrades are to be expected – with both texture quality, framerate, and fidelity dips noticeable, though playing in Docked mode does give it a noticeable visual bump.
(Image credit: Square Enix)
That said, are you playing on the Switch 2 for graphical superiority? If you are you might want to rethink your console choice, as the true beauty of the Nintendo hybrid is its ability to game on the go, and for an tens-of-hours-long RPG – that’ll hold your attention between 30 and 90 hours based on whether you want to focus on the story, complete a few side quests along the way, or seriously devour every piece of additional content across both the main campaign and bonus Intermission downloadable content (DLC) episode – is essential for more time-strapped gamers.
Finding time to play all of that at home can be tough, especially if you share your TV. Taking Final Fantasy 7 Remake on the go as part of your morning commute, on trips if you travel regularly, or simply enjoying it in portable mode on the couch while someone else uses the main screen in your home entertainment setup makes finding the time much more manageable – meaning you can actually start enjoying the games you buy, and not just stare at them in your ever-growing digital library.
If this convenience is what you crave, you’ll love Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade on the Nintendo Switch 2. For everyone else, this game is still required reading, but you’d be better served by its PlayStation 5 edition (provided you have access to the console).
(Image credit: Square Enix)
Final Fantasy 7 Remake is part one of Square Enix’s recreation of the 1997 RPG, Final Fantasy 7. While it is, in some ways, simply a third of a game, the care and attention put into every inch of this title doesn’t leave you feeling shortchanged.
As I mentioned in the intro you can easily spend close to 90 hours playing Remake if you sink your teeth into every challenge the game has to offer, including finishing every side mission, earning the high score in every minigame, completing the game on Hard mode (which requires a whole replay), and besting the greatest foes in Shinra’s virtual battle zone.
I can say, as someone who has done exactly this, you won’t regret the time you spend in Midgar, but even if you simply focus on the main quest-focused story (including the Intermission story featuring Yuffie), then you’ll still be savouring Final Fantasy VII for around 30 to 40 hours.
Even if you’ve played the 1997 version, there’s plenty to enjoy here too.
The Remake expands on the story in a way that better fleshes out each character, the relationships between the key players, and (if I’m honest) makes the experience much more engaging rather than what could at times feel like a slog.
There are a few new twists and turns to discover as well, but every single one feels like a worthy addition to the mythos and the core story FFVII is telling – rather than fluff that would detract from its message.
Combat ready!
(Image credit: Square Enix)
The gameplay has had a tune-up, too.
I enjoy turn-based battling, but Final Fantasy VII’s approach to combat is undeniably more active and approachable to a wider audience. At the same time, I appreciate the “Classic” difficulty mode the game introduces, which helps to return some of the accessibility offered by turn-based combat if you want it.
If playing regularly, you must actively attack and block with your character to charge ATB so you can perform more powerful skills and spells. In Classic mode, the characters all fight and guard automatically, letting you simply focus on which enemy to target and when you want to use those more powerful moves.
It’s not a substitute for the slower pace of turn-based fights, but feels closer to it if you require a slightly calmer pace.
(Image credit: Square Enix)
In any case, with this more active approach to combat comes complexity where lots can be happening at once – especially in bigger fights that have Cloud, Tifa, and Barrett slashing, punching, and firing away at a small army of Shinra guards and bots returning fire – but the Switch 2 did its best to keep things flowing smoothly.
There’s no in-system way to track framerate, but the gameplay did seem to hold steady at 30 frames per second (fps) as Square has promised. If you’re used to higher rates, you’ll notice some frameyness to the game in handheld mode, but honestly, it doesn’t detract from the experience – especially since this isn’t a game like a shooter where 60fps-afforded precision is essential.
There are also a few noticeable texture and model downgrades compared to the PlayStation version, which are even more apparent if, like me, you’re used to the PS5 rendition rather than the PS4 edition of Remake. When you dock your Switch 2, however, things do start to look a lot better, and even in handheld mode, there is an undeniable beauty to Final Fantasy VII Remake that persists even if the overall quality has taken a hit.
Again, as I mentioned in my intro, it’s also not like you’re choosing the Switch 2 for its graphical fidelity. Quality is the price we pay for handheld convenience, and I’ll hold firm to the fact that this port does look great, even if not quite as great as the PlayStation edition. It just comes down to what you value more.
(Image credit: Square Enix)
The only other point I’ll make on the Switch 2 vs PlayStation comparisons is cost.
At launch, the Switch 2 Final Fantasy 7 Remake Intergrade will cost you $39.99 / £39.99 / AU$69.95. It’s a reasonable price of entry in my mind, but you should note that a twin pack of Remake and its part 2 Rebirth on PS5 will set you back $59.99 / £59.99 / AU$159.95 (it’s not such a great deal based in Australia at full-price, though I’ve seen it on sale for much less in each of these regions meaning it’s a better deal than these numbers make it look).
Two games for effectively the price of one-and-a-half (or even for the price of one if you get the twin pack with a discount) is clearly a good deal. So if you have access to both consoles, and won’t appreciate the convenience of handheld mode, or would appreciate the better value proposition, then you might want to consider your options for how to experience Final Fantasy VII.
(Image credit: Square Enix)
Should you play Final Fantasy 7 Remake Intergrade on the Switch 2?
Play it if…
You want to experience one of the greatest RPGs ever made again FFVII is beloved for a reason, and the remake is simply the best way to experience the story in 2026.
You care about portable gaming The game runs really well on the Switch 2 in handheld mode. Sure, it isn’t graphically perfect, but that’s not what the Switch 2 is for.
You like games with lots of content You can easily spend over 50 hours playing this title if you devote yourself to its bonus content and DLC in addition to its main story, you might even stretch to closer to 90 hours if you want to complete hard mode too. So if you like long games this is a solid pick up.
Don’t play it if…
You have a PS5 The Nintendo Switch 2 version is good, but for the most cost-effective and best quality way to experience FFVII on console, you should play the PS5 version if you can.
You want high quality and performance This title still looks beautiful on the Switch 2, but it does look more framey and overall looks lower quality than non-handheld versions.
You want turn-based action The appeal of classic RPGs is turn-based combat, and while this remake maintains elements of that style of gameplay it’s a very different experience.
(Image credit: Square Enix)
Accessibility
Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade has several difficulty controls to help with accessibility.
There’s Classic mode if you’d prefer a simpler battle system, but also the ability to always have max HP, a full ATB gauge, and constantly deal max damage (among other effects) that can make the game more approachable.
Beyond this, there are subtitles for all cutscenes, and there isn’t a built-in colorblind mode, which can unfortunately make a couple of fights and minigames a little tougher if you are colorblind.
How I reviewed Final Fantasy VII Remake on Nintendo Switch 2
I’ve already put over 80-hours into Final Fantasy VII Remake and its DLC episode on my PS5 – as I mentioned in my review, I enjoyed it so much I went out of my way to get every trophy – so I already knew my thoughts on its mechanics and its story before booting this title up, and had a great point of reference for the Switch 2 version.
The focus of this review was to test how well the Nintendo Switch 2 can handle the game I love. To test this, I played the title over many, many hours in both docked and handheld mode, made sure to explore both the main story, side quests, and minigames, and made notes about its technical capabilities.
What would you do if you worked a mundane finance job with middling pay in the city's banking district, only to find that when you arrived at the office, you were taken hostage by a terrifying team of armed strangers? Unluckily for Zara (Sophie Turner), that's exactly her Monday morning in the new Prime Video drama, Steal.
With the stakes immediately sky high, the six-part series is a far cry from other January streaming choices like Harlan Coben's Run Away and Agatha Christie's Seven Dials. It's an original story, and it certainly feels fresh to watch. We've not had a money-led TV show in quite a while (and certainly not framed through workplace monotony), and oddly, the thing we always avoid talking about is going to become the subject of watercooler gossip.
Why? Because Steal puts the pedal to the metal from the moment you press play on episode 1. The premiere episode is an incredibly strong start to a new series, with our heart in our mouths as Zara and her team are held at gunpoint while our strangers fleece the trading company out of millions of pounds, which come directly from the everyday person's pension.
It's a dramatic way to start the day, but the basics of this could genuinely happen to any of us at any given time, making our thriller binge hit a little too close to home. But when we find out that Zara is more involved than meets the eye (without spoilers), the risk-factor flatlines.
Steal starts and ends with a financial implosion, but the middle is a drab sinking fund
In an ideal world, Steal would have been four episodes rather than six. Given that miniseries tend to be capped at six episodes (especially on a global streaming service), I'm not too surprised by the show's structure, but by the time we reach the middle of the tale, we're treading water.
There's only so many times that Zara can tell others that she's in trouble before it gets old, feeling as though her strife is something we've seen a million times before. Rather than being riddled with B-plots, Steal is focused on its main storyline at all times, and that leaves little wriggle room for creative exploration.
Sure, the heist becomes a literal matter of life-or-death, but sometimes you need a palette cleanser to offset a pill that's truly tricky to swallow. Four episodes would have cut the chaff to get straight to the final climax, with little time for characters to wait around feeling sorry for themselves, even though the painful mess is all their fault.
As I've touched on, episode 1 is a lesson in how to open a show to any aspiring writer. The tension ticks along nicely, with Sophie Turner delivering arguably the best performance of her career to date – and certainly one of the most vulnerable.
Everything we learn about Zara during this build-up cannot be trusted, and that's a seductive risk for us to play with. How much can we trust her, and how much can we trust her perspective of the heist? There are certainly no clean hands here, that's for sure.
Motherland and Line of Duty fans rejoice – Anna Maxwell Martin is Steal's secret weapon
She's not one of the gun-toters, don't worry. (Image credit: Prime Video)
As much as I thoroughly enjoyed Turner's performance, I wouldn't say that she's the breakout star of the show. That accolade is reserved for Anna Maxwell Martin, who has about two scenes across the entire six episodes.
She's a straight-talking MI5 enigma who meets with Zara on the sly to try and tease highly sought-after information out of her. Blunt and overtly threatening in her tone, Maxwell Martin turns in exactly how I'd imagine Julia from Motherland would be if she was a copper.
Unintentionally humorous, could potentially kill you, and more than anything, is completely over the drama that she's been sucked into.
All-in-all, it's a really solid outing from Steal. I really hope that Amazon can keep up this quality of content, even if it's messy overall – I'd much rather TV took risks like this that didn't land rather than play it one-note and totally safe.
Frankly, Steal is worth watching for its first episode alone, but the season finale isn't too far behind in terms of satisfaction levels. If you've ever wished that you chose a high-flying financial career over whatever it is you do in real-life, this will reverse that pipe dream in the blink of an eye.
Nutribullet has cemented itself as a trusted name in the kitchen appliance space, with its blenders and juicers among the best in the market. The Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender offers this same quality in a more lightweight package, allowing for on-the-go blending.
The Nutribullet Flex is an upgraded version of the Nutribullet Portable Blender, adding a few welcome new features, including increased capacity and clear charge indicators. As such, it comes in slightly more than its predecessor, while still being affordable at under $100.
(Image credit: Future)
Considering the quality of this personal blender, it offers excellent value for money for those seeking a convenient, portable blender that produces optimal results with cold beverages and smoothies. Its lightweight design means you can easily disassemble the appliance and take it with you to work, the gym, or on vacation, while its rechargeability means you won’t be searching high and low for a plug socket.
Each of its four charges allows for approximately eight blend cycles (each lasts 30 seconds), meaning you can quickly mix your food and transport it with ease, using the convenient carry loop attached to its lid. If you’re looking for a personal blender that prioritises convenience, speed, and cold beverages, this is an excellent choice.
(Image credit: Future)
However, this blender lacks versatility and can struggle with some ingredients or recipes, so you’re best to stick to cold drinks and smoothies with this one. Its portability is always negatively impacted by its volume, which could restrict where you can use it, and the lack of storage for its sharp blades.
Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender: price and availability
$69.99 / £59.99 / AU$99.95 at Nutribullet
Available at third-party retailers, such as Amazon, Decathlon, and Target
Priced at $69.99 / £59.99 / AU$99.95, the Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender offers great quality for an affordable price. And, what’s more, we regularly see discounts on this appliance at Nutribullet and third-party retailers.
While it doesn’t offer as much versatility as many of the best blenders on the market, if you’re looking for a portable blender for cold drinks and smoothies, without breaking the $100 mark, this is a great choice.
For those who want to keep under the $50 mark, however, the Nutribullet Magic Bullet Portable Blender ($39.99 / £39.99 / A$79.95) offers a solid alternative. If you don’t mind splashing out a bit more for a more powerful, convenient on-the-go blender, we highly recommend the Nutribullet Flip ($99.99, roughly £80 / AU$150), especially if you intend to make a lot of frozen or icy beverages.
Value score: 4.5/5
Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender: specifications
Review model
NBPB09220_250721
Accessories
USB-C charging cable (500mm / 19.7in)
Smart control
No
Rated power
100W
Capacity
590ml cup (400ml max)
Time range
Each blending cycle lasts 30 seconds
Dimensions
3.3in (D) x 11.4in (H) x 3.3in (W) / 83mm (D) x 290mm (H) x 83mm (W)
Weight
Approx. 1.9lbs / 850g
Dishwasher safe
Yes, top rack
Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender: design
Rechargeable, with plug-in option
Tight seals prevent leaks
Carry loop on sip lid for on-the-go drinks
No storage for blade block
Out of the box, the Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender comes with a motor base, a 590ml cup, a sip lid featuring a carry loop for on-the-go use, and a blade block. While our model came in black, Nutribullet offers several colour options, including green and grey.
The blender is straightforward to assemble and takes up minimal space, making it ideal for smaller kitchens or communal work/living spaces. Disassembling the appliance also requires minimal effort; its parts are fairly compact, so they easily fit into an average-sized backpack or gym bag. Our only concern is a lack of storage for the blade block, which is sharp. Including a small hub for this could make the appliance safer to transport.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
This portable blender’s 590ml cup offers enough space to make a single smoothie or drink for one, though it's worth noting that the 'max' line on ours was at 400ml, meaning, in reality, that’s the capacity you have to work with. The accompanying sip lid screws snuggly onto the cup, preventing any leakages, while its secure carry loop allows you to carry your finished drink in hand as soon as your blending is complete.
The blade block fits tightly onto the bottom of the cup and is locked into the motor base with a satisfying click. Again, we had no issues with leakages throughout our testing. The motor base has a minimalistic LED display, featuring a large power button. This simply requires one press to turn on. When turned on, a clockwise light ring appears around the button, confirming it's ready to be operated. Below this button are four LED lights, indicating the amount of charge the blender currently has.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
The Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender is rechargeable, meaning it largely works wirelessly. A USB-C cable for charging is included, which plugs into a discrete port at the back of the motor base. However, no adapter is included. While you can use the appliance plugged in, it must have at least one charge (one white light) for this to work, and operating the blender plugged in pauses charging during the blend cycle. In addition, the provided cable is only 50cm long, restricting where you can place the appliance.
We found it took approximately 50 minutes for one light (charge) to appear, and the blender offered approximately eight 30-second blending cycles per charge. This does, however, seem to be variable and can depend on what you’re blending and if you’re overheating the appliance.
This blender’s lightweight design makes it fairly easy to transport, but you may want to consider where you use it. Nutribullet products are typically quite loud, and while the Flex Portable Blender is a bit quieter (depending on its use), we found it averaged a decibel reading of 82, roughly equivalent to the volume of traffic. So, while you can take it to work or the gym, your colleagues and peers may not appreciate it.
Design score: 4.5/5
Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender: performance
Best suited to beverages
Blends smoothies consistently well
Struggles with certain solid ingredients
30-second blend cycle may not be enough
We began our testing of the Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender with Nutribullet’s own Banana Kale smoothie recipe. Due to the size of the appliance, we had to half the recipe to ensure it fit the cup. This blender comes with a small leaflet instructing you on how to build a smoothie optimally, in other words, the order to add the ingredients. It’s a lifesaver for those new to smoothie making, and blenders, too, for that matter.
After adding the ingredients and securing the cup, we pressed the power button, which triggered a 30-second blend cycle – which you can stop at any time by pressing the button again. The results were impressive: the consistency was thick and creamy, but smooth. There were no lumps of unblended fruit or veg in the cup or under the blades.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Next, we used one of the recipes Nutribullet recommends for this appliance. Following the included QR code takes you to the Nutribullet app, which allows you to input your appliance type and dietary requirements and suggests recipes based on your needs. The app itself is a bit of a pain; it signed us out every time we closed it, and wouldn’t let us sign in again without creating a new account. The recipes, too, were limited to fewer than 10, primarily smoothies and lattes.
We tried the Strawberry Banana Smoothie, composed of almond milk, ice, chia seeds, half a banana, strawberries, and vanilla extract. We again built the smoothie as suggested, but found that – despite being recommended for the Portable Blender – the ingredients exceeded the max line. This is potentially because they’re for the non-Flex version of this device, but this isn’t specified in the app (nor is Flex specifically a choice when choosing your device). As a result, we had to remove a large amount of ice for the blender to function safely.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Future)
The results, again, were excellent. However, we did find a small lump of unblended banana in the final product, and some of our chia seeds had stuck to the side of the cup in a clump. Overall, this didn’t affect the final product and, again, there was no unblended residue stuck under the blades.
As part of our standard control testing for blenders, we don’t simply test smoothies, however. Nutribullet describes the Flex Portable as being for “on-the-go lifestyles,” and while that suggests it's primarily for beverages, it doesn’t specify it’s only for smoothies and cold drinks.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Future)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Future)
We tested Nutribullet’s hummus recipe, again halving the ingredients. While the bottom portion of the ingredients blended fairly well after one cycle, the top remained untouched. The blender struggled considerably with the thickness of the hummus, slowing it to a standstill at one point, despite our attempts to loosen the mixture. Similarly, the appliance struggled with ice.
We wanted to use our ice control tests to check the chopping abilities of the blade. Again, the bottom portion was chopped, but the top remained untouched.
(Image credit: Future)
Surprisingly, what did work well was mayonnaise, another of our controls. This recipe applies more to a standard blender, as it requires adding oil while the device is on. We, instead, stopped the blender short of its cycle to add more before blending further each time. The result was actually nice, well-blended mayonnaise.
While the Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender is capable of mixing some non-beverage recipes, it’s not recommended. This isn’t necessarily a big drawback for this product, which is likely aimed at those making beverages on-the-go rather than quick mayo for your lunchtime sandwich.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
What is worth noting is its struggle with more solid, thicker ingredients and its lack of versatility. If you are in the market for a portable blender that focuses on making cold drinks and does that well, but doesn’t offer the capabilities of competitor products, this is an excellent choice.
Performance score: 4.5/5
Should you buy the Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender?
Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender score card
Attribute
Notes
Score
Value
This blender offers great value for an affordable price, even if it doesn't offer a lot of versatility.
4.5/5
Design
This appliance's lightweight design and carry loop make it easy to take your drinks on the go, but we wish there was a storage hub for its blade and it wasn't as loud.
4.5/5
Performance
This blender excels when making smoothies and cold drinks, but isn't necessarily suited to other recipes.
4.5/5
Buy it if
You want to make cold beverages on the go
The Nutribullet Flex Portable Blender is lightweight and has fairly compact parts, so it should easily fit in your work or gym bag, making it convenient to transport day-to-day. What’s more, thanks to the carry loop on its sip lid, you can make your drink, detach the cup from the base, and immediately take it to-go.
You want a high quality, affordable blender
Nutribullet is a top-of-the-range brand, and this blender offers the quality you would expect – without an eye-watering price tag. If you want a quality portable blender for under $100, this is a great choice.
It's for personal use
This appliance has enough capacity for one drink or smoothie at a time. So, it’s an ideal size for those looking for a portable blender for solo use.
Don't buy it if
You want versatility
As we’ve said above, this blender is great at making cold beverages, but lacks versatility when it comes to other recipes. If you want a blender with more options, it’s worth considering an alternative.
You want to use it in quieter environments
At an average of 82 decibels, this portable blender is quieter than some Nutribullet products we’ve tested, but still pretty loud. As such, it may not be as suited to quieter environments, like the workplace.
First launched in 2020, it’s fair to say that the Blink Mini has seen a fair few improvements over the last five years. Initially just a compact, bog-standard 1080p security camera, it was upgraded in 2024 with colour night vision and outdoor functionality as the Blink Mini 2 before receiving its current make-over as a 2K camera (2,560 x 1,440 pixels) in September 2025.
Available in black or white, it can be bought either individually or as a two-pack. We tested the two-pack version in white which currently retails on Amazon for the very reasonable price of £69.99 (about $100 / AU$140). Alternatively, you can buy it as a single unit in both colours for £39.99 (about $50 / AU$80). Whereas many of Blink’s products are battery-operated, making them particularly flexible for installation, the Blink Mini must be plugged into the mains.
However, because it doesn’t require a battery it does mean the camera is exceptionally small, around 2 x 2 inches / 5 x 5cm for the camera itself and standing around 3 inches / 8cm tall including the base. It’s also very lightweight so it’s easy to move from one part of the house to another if, say, you want to monitor a particular area of your property while you’re away on holiday.
As with most security cameras these days, installation requires downloading the camera’s app onto your smartphone and adding the device using the QR code on the back of the product. Alternatively, you can type in the serial code into your phone instead. Unlike more advanced models, the Blink Mini only works on the 2.4GHz Wi-Fi network (it's not compatible with the 5GHz frequency). However, this wasn’t a major issue.
(Image credit: Future)
You can use the Blink Mini 2K+ camera on its own via the app, or as part of a much larger network with other Blink devices, including video doorbells and indoor/outdoor security cameras. Not only does the Blink Mini 2K+ come with its own built-in siren, it can also be used as an indoor chime for the Blink video doorbell which, somewhat annoyingly, doesn’t have its own plug-in chime accessory.
In addition, the device automatically connects to Amazon Alexa so you can view footage via the Alexa app/TVs equipped with Fire TV or get notifications sent to Alexa-compatible devices, such as Amazon Echo smart speakers.
As with many home security devices, full functionality, such as the ability to filter motion alerts by person or vehicle (known as Blink Smart Detection) does require a subscription. However, the good news is that Blink’s subscriptions are half the price of Ring’s subscription costs, starting at £2.50 per month (compared to £4.99 per month for Ring).
Blink Mini 2K+: subscription options
Blink Basic Plan. Cost: £2.50 (about $3.50 / AU$5) per month or £24.99 (about $35 / AU$50) year. Covers: one camera. Features: cloud storage (30 days), person/vehicle detection (Blink Smart Detection), and video editing between devices (Blink Moments).
Blink Plus Plan. Cost: £8 (about $10 / AU$16) per month or £80 (about $100 / AU$160) year. Covers: Unlimited cameras at one location. Features: All Basic features plus 10% off Blink devices and extended warranty.
Local storage (no subscription). Cost: free. Requires: Sync Module 2 (£34.99 - about $50 / AU$70) and a USB flash drive. Features: saves clips locally. Note: Blink Smart Detection/Blink Moments is not available with this option.
Blink Mini 2K+: price and availability
How much does it cost? $49 /£39.99 / AU$89 each (£70 for two), $US49 ($89 for two), AU$69 ($130 for two)
When is it available? Available since September 2025
Where is it available? UK / US / Australia
US company Blink has earned a reputation for its reasonably priced home security devices, and the Mini 2K+ is certainly no exception. Whereas most cameras will set you back around $130 / £100 / $200 each, you can actually buy a two pack of Blink Mini 2K+ cameras for less than that price.
It’s certainly a pretty good deal, but as ever with consumer electronics these days, nothing is ever that simple. Sure, if you just want the basic features, such as motion alerts and two-way audio communication, then that is all you have to pay. But if you want the full functionality that the camera offers, including Blink Smart Detection and 30 days of recordings stored in the cloud, you will have to commit to a monthly subscription plan.
Alternatively, if you only need the subscription to store video clips, then you can always invest in the Blink Sync Module 2, which allows you to record and store up to 256GB of video clips on a connected USB flash drive. However, this will cost another £39.99 (about $50 / AU$80), plus the cost of the USB flash drive.
Finally, with an IP65 water resistance rating, the Blink Mini2K+ can be used outdoors, but only if you buy the 4m Blink Weather Resistant Power Adaptor, costing another £9 (about $12 / AU$20). Like the cameras, this is available in either white or black.
Value score: 4.5/5
Blink Mini 2K+: design
Extremely compact design
Built-in spotlight
Mains-powered only
The first thing you notice about the Blink Mini 2K+ is just how small it really is. Standing just an inch tall on a stand that can be positioned to virtually any angle, it certainly lives up to its 'mini' moniker.
(Image credit: Future)
Two colours are available – white or black (we tested the white) – and despite its bargain-basement price tag the Mini 2K+ feels like a classy, well-built security device. At the rear is a USB-C socket while provided with the camera is a 6.5ft / 2m USB-A to USB-C lead and a plug. Alternatively, it’s possible to buy a 13ft / 4m length of weather-resistant cable with power adaptor for outdoor use.
Once the Blink app is downloaded you can simply add the camera to your set up using the QR code on the back of the device where you’ll also find the speaker. This provides voice instructions during set up and can also be used as a chime for any connected Blink video doorbells.
(Image credit: Future)
Turn the camera around and in the centre there’s the 2K lens (2,560 x 1,440 pixels) while underneath is the built-in microphone. Also on board is a blue light that comes on during recording and at the top of the camera you’ll find the built-in spotlight for providing coloured images at night. Like the blue recording light, this can be switched on and off via the app, or set to come on automatically when the camera senses motion.
Blink Mini 2K+: performance
2K resolution
Clear two-way audio
Decent color night vision
When it comes to performance, the Blink Mini 2K+ certainly offers a big improvement over its 1080p predecessor (at the time of writing this original model is available on Amazon so cheaply) Where you really notice the difference is when using the 4x digital pinch-to-zoom feature on your smartphone. With the 1080p camera, images soon become pixilated as you zoom in. However, with this latest 2K model you can home right in and see the detail in, say, a face or an item of clothing.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Another massive improvement is in night vision. Whereas the previous model only offered traditional IR (infrared) recording in black and white, this model boasts a surprisingly powerful built-in spotlight for color recording. During my tests, the spotlight illuminated the hallway when coming home on during the evening, producing vivid colored images on recorded footage. Audio, too, has been improved with two-way talk now filtering out background noise, such as traffic, so you can hear voices more clearly.
Users with a Blink video doorbell can set multiple Blink Mini 2K+ cameras as a chime so if someone presses the doorbell you can hear it in several rooms if you so choose. That’s particularly handy as Blink’s video doorbell doesn’t come with its own plug-in door chime, unlike models from other companies such as Ring.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Future)
Finally, you can also link the Blink Mini 2K+ to Amazon Alexa to receive announcements such as ‘Motion detected at the office’ via your Echo speakers or display the video feed on your Echo Show. However, as Blink is now owned by Amazon, the device doesn’t work with rival platforms such as Google Home or Apple Home.
Performance score: 4.5/5
Should you buy the Blink Mini 2K+?
Blink Mini 2K+ score card
Attribute
Notes
Score
Value
Offering excellent value for money, you can buy two of these mini security cameras for the price of one from another brand such as fellow Amazon stablemate, Ring.
4.5/5
Design
Despite being very small, standing just a few centimetres tall, the Blink Mini 2K+ feels well-built and can be mounted just about anywhere indoors (even outdoors with a weather-resistant power adaptor).
4.5/5
Performance
Boasting 2K video resolution, the Blink Mini 2K+ also offers improved night vision over its predecessor thanks to the inclusion of a strong spotlight.
4.5/5
Average rating
The Blink Mini 2K+ is a great choice if you’re looking for a small and flexible security camera but don’t have much of a budget. The only slight fly in the ointment is you have to pay a small monthly subscription for full functionality.
4.5/5
Blink Mini 2K+: also consider
Blink Mini 2K+
Ring Outdoor Cam Pro
Eufy 4K S330 Security Camera
Subscription price
From £2.50 a month
From £4.99 a month
None
Resolution
2K (2,560 x 1,440 pixels)
4K (3,840 x 2,160 pixels)
4K (3,840 x 2,160 pixels)
Field of view
138 degrees diagonal
140 degrees horizontal
360-degree view (pan and tilt)
Network connection
Wi-Fi (2.4GHz)
Wi-Fi (2.4GHz/5GHz)
Wi-Fi/4G
Audio
Two-way audio
Two-way audio
Two-way audio
Power
Mains (USB-C)
Mains
Battery
Hardware price
£39
£179
£189 (with solar panel)
If you're not quite sure whether the Blink Mini 2K+ is the best home security camera for you, here are two other options to consider:
Ring Outdoor Cam Pro
The Outdoor Cam Pro represents a leap into high-resolution surveillance for Ring. However, the high levels of performance come at a fairly hefty price, especially when you factor in the subscription plan.
An extremely innovative battery and solar-powered camera, the Eufy can be used with the supplied 4G SIM card to capture recordings, making it ideal for those who live in areas with poor Wi-Fi / broadband.
At £39.99 (or £70 for two), this is the most affordable way to get high-quality 2K surveillance.
You want a flexible solution
The compact design and pivot stand mean you can easily move it from room to room.
You own a Blink video doorbell
The Blink Mini 2K+ can serve as an indoor chime for the Blink video doorbell.
Don't buy it if
You want a wire-free home
The Blink Mini 2K+ needs to be connected to the mains at all times via the USB-C to USB-A cable provided.
You want advanced features for free
Unfortunately, you will have to pay a monthly fee if you want Blink Smart Detection (which distinguishes between vehicles and people) and Blink Moments (which edits footage together from multiple Blink cameras shot at the same time).
How I tested the Blink Mini 2K+ security camera
I used a pair of cameras in several rooms of the house for three weeks
I set them up myself using the QR code provided on the back of each model
I linked them to other devices including a Blink video doorbell and several Amazon Echo smart speakers
Testing the two cameras over the Christmas/New Year period gave me the ideal opportunity to see how they responded to visitors coming to the house. Throughout this time one of the cameras was focused on my hallway facing the front door with the spotlight set to come on whenever motion was detected. It also served as a chime for my Blink video doorbell, which I could hear throughout the house.
he other camera was moved between several rooms, including the kitchen and downstairs as well as upstairs rooms we use as offices. However, the cameras weren’t used outside as the units provided didn’t come with the necessary waterproof power adaptor.
