News

Spoilers for My Life With the Walter Boys season 3 ahead.

Based on the way that season 2 was left, I knew that My Life With the Walter Boys season 3 was going to be a wild ride — but I still didn't see that ending coming.

The Netflix drama picks up as George (Marc Blucas) survives his season 2 health emergency and recovers at home, with Jackie (Nikki Rodriguez) and Cole (Noah LaLonde) seemingly on the road to a proper romantic relationship.

But just before season 3 draws to a close, their happy ever after once again comes dramatically crashing down. Cole suddenly breaks up with Jackie after telling her that he loves her, and moves in with friend Dylan (Kolton Stewart).

With Jackie left reeling, she throws all her efforts into getting the local community space up and running. But when that runs into trouble, can she really scrub Cole from her mind?

I know the answer to that as well as you do. Here's the full My Life With the Walter Boys season 3 ending explained, and what it will likely mean for the already confirmed season 4.

As season 3 episode 10 kicks off, Cole is in his full moody boy era. Drag racer Mac (Chad Rook) finds Cole street racing after being tipped off by Dylan, scolding him for taking to the streets rather than being out of the track after Mac hired him.

Mac tells Cole about an upcoming race that has a big cash prize that he'd "easily win," but Cole rejects the offer. As Mac leaves, Dylan admits that he was the one who told him where to find Cole.

In fact, Dylan is so furious with Cole's street racing antics that he takes back "Myrtle," the car Cole has been racing in. As Dylan is technically the owner, Cole has no sway — and Dylan's conditions are that he can only use it for legitimate drag racing.

On top of that, Dylan kicks him out of the house, forcing his move back home. "You can't keep hiding from Jackie forever," he tells Cole.

If Cole moving back home wasn't enough for Jackie to deal with, she soon runs into a huge problem with her community space launch party. While renovations take place, one of the builders is unable to prevent a pipe leak from one of the radiators, causing the first floor to flood so much that it caves in.

At this point, it seems as if the launch party, which is now only a week away, will have to be called off. The builder estimates that it will take between 4-6 weeks to have the leak and its damage fixed, with manpower on the ground incredibly limited.

Jackie is bereft, with the news of Grace's (Ellie O'Brien) parents divorcing only making her feel more guilty. Cole tries to offer to help, but is immediately shut down by Jackie: she's going to make sure the launch party goes ahead, and she'll achieve it by herself.

What Jackie doesn't know is that Cole goes to see her uncle Richard (Alex Quijano) to ask for help. Cole tells Richard that he listened to what he said and broke up with Jackie in order for her to have a better future without him "dragging her down."

Cole explains that he's here to ask for Richard's help fixing the community center, but doesn't take the credit for it when Jackie finds out. Grace leads her into the room full of helpers clearing up, which includes the rest of the Walter family.

Alex (Ashby Gentry) encourages Cole to tell Jackie that he's here, but Cole refuses. He knows that Jackie is getting closer to Eliot (Naveen Paddock), who begins to make his romantic feelings for Jackie much clearer.

At first, Jackie shuts Eliot down, but the more she realizes the lengths he's willing to go to for her — which includes getting a flight from London to join her on her trip to Greece — the more she opens up to him.

We already knew that Will (Johnny Link) was going to be flying the nest, but season 3 confirms that Nathan (Corey Fogelmanis) will be too. He's auditioned to play with a band across Europe and has got the spot, with George and Katherine (Sarah Rafferty) encouraging him to go.

However, he's got reservations. He doesn't want to be yet another Walter kid leaving everyone else behind, especially after how ill George has been. Alex says that it's a no-brainer decision to take the opportunity... everyone wants him to. Skylar (Jaylan Evans) is devastated, but promises to stay in contact.

We also find out that Danny (Connor Stanhope) has been accepted into Carnegie Mellon University, after being rejected from Juilliard. Girlfriend Erin (Alisha Newton) doesn't seem phased by the fact that the pair will need to be long-distance, but it's clearly bothering Danny.

Alex finally has a chance to talk to Kiley (Mya Lowe) at school after the pair kissed. Kiley has been ignoring all of Alex's calls and messages, despite having a school project that they need to complete together.

She finally agrees to talk in private while at school, and the pair agree to put the kiss behind them and move on as if nothing has happened. However, it's clear that both of them have feelings for each other, which is something Cole picks up on when Alex admits to him what happened.

Cole also shares what Richard and Eliot have told him about being with Jackie, revealing that Eliot agrees that Jackie is too good to be with somebody like Cole. Alex tells him to ignore them both and pursue the feelings that are clearly still there.

At the community space launch party (which is 1920s themed), Alex tells Jackie that Cole was behind the drive to get the space fixed after the leak. Jackie tells him that she doesn't want to hear the reason why, but spirals about Cole's intentions as the party continues.

Meanwhile, Kiley spots Alex across the room and chooses to leave, whispering something to Dylan before she goes. She's clearly uncomfortable, but Dylan takes it upon himself to speak to Alex on her behalf. He tells Alex to give Kiley some space for a while, even though the two of them clearly have a lot in common.

Alex ignores this and leaves the party instead to check on how Kiley is. However, Dylan is also with her, shutting the door in his face while Kiley looks sheepishly on.

Cole enters the drag race that Mac recommends and wins a place in the final. While waiting, he tells Katherine and George that he doesn't feel good enough to be Jackie's partner, and doesn't want to show his face at the party because of that.

The pair convinces him that he's more than worth it, and that he should tell Jackie the truth and leave it up to her to make her own decisions. Instead of racing in the final, Cole leaves the track and heads for the party.

We see him driving the empty roads to get back to town, with another car suddenly approaching behind him. The car attempts to bump the back of Cole's car, with Cole swerving in order to avoid the other car's manoeuvres.

When the mysterious car pulls up to the side of Cole's, we see that the driver is the drag racing contestant that Cole left behind in the final. He's clearly annoyed that the race has been cancelled, and is looking to take his revenge. Finally, the two cars clip, flipping Cole's car into a nearby field, where it continues to roll.

At the same time, Jackie and Eliot are on the dance floor at the party, about to lean in for their first kiss... and then the episode comes to an end.

Obviously, the first thing we need to find out in season 4 is whether Cole is hurt. His car is flipped enough times for there to be some serious damage, but it's difficult to tell what that is in the season 3 cliffhanger.

Then, of course, there's the question of whether Jackie actually follows through with her kiss with Eliot. I've got a sneaking suspicion that she'll pull away at the last second... but perhaps that's wishful thinking. It's certainly a moment that her future relationship with Cole could hinge on, if he pulls through.

Kiley will hopefully break up with Dylan and finally see that she should have been with Alex all along, but this isn't something that Dylan is likely to take quietly. Expect more overt tension between him and Alex, put it that way.

What is more difficult to tell is whether we'll see how Will and Nathan get on after they fly the nest, but the remaining Walter kids prepping for university is likely to feature heavily.

IT security has traditionally been about keeping threat actors out and preventing breaches. However, while the volume of software vulnerabilities has gone up and up over the past few years, the biggest risk that many companies face is not about a hacker getting in. Instead, it is how long they can stay inside and how far they can move within that network.

The reason why threat actors can move laterally is how difficult it is to manage identities effectively. Identities and credentials are used all the time to allow access, but they also serve as ways to support provisioning and software deployment processes. Simple software tokens that can make life easier for staff are targeted for the access and permissions that they provide.

Companies are waking up to this threat. Omdia research estimates that spending on identity management will increase at 75 percent of organizations during 2026, compared to 57 percent in 2025. But what issues have to be resolved, and what is the fastest way to get to those resolutions?

Threat actors want to make money. They do this by stealing company data or encrypting files for ransom. They achieve their goals through getting initial access in one place - an endpoint that is missing an update, or through a phishing email and malware download, for instance. After this, they want to move laterally through the network to something valuable.

For defenders, this lateral movement, or attack path, represents an opportunity to deny access or block attacks. Attackers use the same methods that legitimate staff have to access assets: their identities. For many attackers, there is no need to use zero day attacks when they can simply log in and get what they want, or move closer to their goal.

Understanding attack paths can be hard. For defenders looking at the business crown jewels like Intellectual Property or mission-critical applications, attack paths are often visualized as direct routes from an initial access point to those valuable assets. While this is simple to understand, attackers don’t work that way.

They don’t know your internal network topology or the most direct route to what is valuable. Instead, they are sniffing out what they can access.

This is made more complicated because each account will have its own level of access, and different accounts will have more or less permissions. Each asset will have multiple accounts that can access it. The complexity scales up rapidly as networks grow larger.

For organizations with around 1,000 employees, we estimate that they have more than 5 million attack paths. Companies also have to reckon with the number of identities they have in place - an organization with 10,000 identities would have around 22 million potential attack paths to manage.

Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Non-Human Identities will increase this further, from the current ratio from around five identities per employee towards 20 or 40 identities per human employee. This imminent surge of identities will then grow at an expected 20 percent year on year.

That is a lot of numbers. To put this into perspective, looking at how you understand maps and graphs can help. For example, London has 330 stations in its public transport network covering the underground and rail networks, as well as buses and riverboats.

There are millions of different routes that travelers can take to get from any place, from the fastest and obvious journeys through to more circuitous and obscure routes that don’t make sense except in context. Travelers can also shift from one kind of transport network to another where they need to. Understanding all those networks, timetables and options is very hard for someone to hold in their brain all at one.

Using a map can show up the best routes and directions to take, including those paths that are a combination of different networks. From a defense perspective, understanding the most high profile locations in that network and where security is most important can help prevent attacks. Looking at attack paths and permissions, you can see the most important locations within the network based on the level of access that they have.

In the London transport network, this would be the equivalent of security at Piccadilly Circus or King’s Cross St Pancras, as these stations are the busiest. Securing those specific nexus points can prevent an attacker taking more potential routes to something valuable, reducing the risk that attackers can get to mission-critical systems or data. Once you have locked down those central hubs, you can then look for the next major point and secure this one as well.

This process around locking down identities and access permissions removes whole swathes of potential attack paths, rather than looking at each attack path one after another.

There are too many individual paths to manage, so corralling issues and securing those environments as a whole reduces the number of ways that threat actors can move across a network. This forces attackers to make their presence more obvious, leading to them being removed from the network.

Attacks on IT are getting faster. Trying to fix all the gaps that exist is now impossible, and defenders cannot achieve perfect security. We need to live with these imperfections, and manage security as effectively as possible in advance of any issue coming up.

While security teams might be used to defending the direct paths between systems, threat actors look for the other routes that can get them to where they want to go. Instead, we have to manage our networks based on preventing both the most risks and the most impactful risks.

By understanding attack paths and identity risks, we can look at what the highest priority issues are and then secure them. Using identity attack paths, we can understand where the risks exist and what work needs to be done.

We've featured the best firewall software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

The most succinct way to describe the SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni gaming headset is that it feels like a 2026-ified version of its excellent predecessor, the Arctis Nova Pro Wireless — one of my favorite gaming headsets ever.

The Omni is a fantastic wireless gaming headset and offers a whole heap of improvements and enhancements over its older brethren, and in its own right, will tick every box most gamers can think of. Each feature that’s been tweaked or upgraded might not be huge in isolation, but every single one adds up, and it absolutely is greater than the sum of its parts when everything’s considered.

The design and build will be very familiar to anyone who’s used any of the Nova line, as it shares identical design language and aesthetics, while retaining a robust build quality you can have confidence in. The GameHub dongle is also identical in form to the one found on the SteelSeries Arctis Nova Elite and the Nova Pro Wireless, but is boosted to offer an upgraded level of connectivity: you can connect and mix up to four different inputs on the Omni, which is somewhat ludicrous but offers excellent versatility.

The audio quality, microphone, and overall performance of the Omni is spectacular, and can’t really be faulted. I think I might just prefer the bottom-end audio of my Audeze Maxwell 2 over the Omni, but that’s nitpicking as the overall audio experience is fantastic, no matter which platform you're connected to. Being able to change EQ on the fly with the Arctis Companion App is a great boost over the Nova Pro Wireless and an excellent feature of modern Nova headsets.

It’s an excellent headset, no doubt, but its pricing and the fact that Nova Pro Wireless will still be available mean the Omni’s place in the lineup is a little muddy for me. It performs fantastically, offers the full set of gaming headset features you could ask for, but I’m just not totally convinced it’s a great value option right now.

In isolation, however, this is a fantastic multiplatform wireless gaming headset and probably the one to go for if you really want the maximum flexibility and versatility.

• List price: $399.99 / £349.99 / AU$799
• Closely priced to the Nova Pro Wireless, which will inevitably be cheaper
• Way under the Nova Elite, but in direct competition to headsets like the Audeze Maxwell 2

In isolation, the Arctis Nova Pro Omni is pretty well placed price-wise at $399.99 / £349.99. However, its position alongside the rest of the Nova lineup raises an eyebrow.

A large part of this is because of the continued availability of the headset that the Omni feels like it was made to replace: the Nova Pro Wireless. With the latter now readily available for far less than the Omni’s list price, I think — as a fan of both — that the value proposition of the Omni is lessened.

Unless you really really want the four-device connectivity (as opposed to two), and really want the latest and greatest in a SteelSeries headset without going for the much more premium Nova Elite, then I still think the Nova Pro Wireless is going to be a better value purchase for you. Especially if you’re on just one platform.

The Omni is also up against formidable competition outside of its own brethren at this price point. My absolute favorite headset right now, and my top pick ever in terms of pure audio quality, the Audeze Maxwell 2 is in the same price territory and would be my recommendation for someone prioritizing that.

Then there’s also the likes of the Turtle Beach Stealth Pro 2, and the Sony Inzone H9 2 in the $300-ish zone, along with the likes of the Fractal Scape and the Razer BlackShark V3 Pro that come in slightly cheaper and all offer incredible wireless gaming headset experiences with a host of features.

Having said all that, the Omni does do a lot in and of itself to justify its price tag as a high-end, brilliantly flexible and top-performing wireless headset. It will definitely be the best wireless option in this part of the Nova lineup when or if the Nova Pro Wireless ceases to be made, but until then it’s not a slam dunk for me.

SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni

Price

$399.99 / £349.99 / AU$799

Weight

11.95oz / 339g

Drivers

Custom 40 mm Neodymium Magnetic (Hi-Res)

Compatibility

PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X|S, Nintendo Switch 2, Nintendo Switch, PC, Mac, Mobile, Meta Quest 2/3

Connection type

Hi-Res wireless (2.4Ghz via dongle), Wired (audio jack), Bluetooth 5.3 + LE Audio (SBC with MultiPoint support for up to 10 devices; LC3, LC3+ for LE Audio)

Battery life

Up to 60 hours (2 x fully-charged batteries), Infinite Power System

Features

Simultaneous four-source audio via Omni GameHub; certified Hi-Res audio (96kHz/24-bit), ClearCast Pro - Retractable Boom Microphone with onboard AI Noise Rejection, ANC, Arctis Companion App compatibility

Software

SteelSeries GG/Sonar, SteelSeries Arctis Companion App (iOS & Android)

• Class-leading set of features and connectivity options
• Reliable and fantastic build quality and battery solution
• Very much from the Nova line of SteelSeries headsets

Straight out of the box, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the Omni really is a Nova Pro Wireless in disguise, as all the parts are there. That isn’t a criticism, as the Omni is simply another SteelSeries headset cut from the Arctis Nova cloth.

It’s a familiar design to anyone who’s seen or held a Nova headset, but it does have a tangible level of robustness and solidity that instils confidence — I’ve already dropped my unit a few times, but you wouldn’t be able to tell. The ear cushions are incredibly comfortable too, and I’ve been able to wear this headset for full work days without ever fully realising it too.

The GameHub is basically the same as on other Nova headsets that use it, but there are a few more options within the OLED display, and the addition of a texture to the navigation wheel is a welcome touch.

It’s this kind of small design change that’s present in a few areas across the Nova Pro Omni too: the multi-function volume wheel on the left cup has a new texture to it, the ear cushions are thicker and more padded compared to the Nova Pro Wireless, the mic is new and improved, and so on.

On top of intuitive controls, Arctis Companion App integration, boosted connectivity (Bluetooth 5.3 features here), greater battery life, and quicker fast charge, and more, all the Omni’s improvements over the Nova Pro Wireless do stand on their own feet, and, importantly, add up to a wonderfully designed and feature-filled wireless gaming headset that will offer everything even those with three consoles and a PC could ever want.

• Fantastic SteelSeries audio quality out of the box
• Every upgrade feels worthwhile
• Audio quality and overall performance still close to its predecessor

In terms of performance, the audio is the least difficult thing to cast an opinion on: it’s fantastic. Once again, this is from the SteelSeries Arctis Nova line so shares in all the excellent out-of-the-box audio quality the series is known for and does not disappoint in any way.

What’s more, the audio is now Hi-Res certified, and on PC you’ll be getting 96kHz/24bit, which is a sheer, immersive joy to behold in games like Cyberpunk 2077, and even the atmospheric noises in Frostpunk 2 are detailed and clear. But even away from that, on PS5 Pro (Sony’s console can’t take advantage of 96kHz audio), the gaming audio delivered by the Omni is, predictably, a treat.

Sea shanties, explosive ship combat, and swashbuckling sword action in Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced are fantastically vivid and rich; the audio in 007 First Light is even more cinematic and bombastic; and even audio in older online games like my go-to, Tom Clancy’s The Division 2, is elevated excellently, with enemy audio presented accurately, and the action and soundtrack mixed perfectly.

The ability to change EQ presets for individual games and preferences via the Arctis Companion App remains a brilliant feature too, expanding the Omni’s already excellent versatility.

On top of that, being wireless but plugged into a host of different devices as well as Bluetooth on my phone was very handy — in my particular setup. If you do have a multi-device setup and are looking for one headset that can be used on all of them with ease, even if not simultaneously, then this is a quality feature. For others on single-device setups, this is a bit overkill.

Away from games, music and entertainment is superb on the Omni, and using it for work calls - and multiplayer gaming sessions — with its new (compared with the Nova Pro Wireless) omnidirectional ClearCast Pro mic is brilliant. I found the overall quality of the mic to be excellent, though its omnidirectional design did mean a little more background noise escaped to my friends down the line at times, and it’s certainly a big step up over the Nova Pro Wireless’ microphone.

The way the headset feels to use is also a notable step up over the Nova Pro Wireless, and thus feels closer to the Nova Elite too. The wheel on the left ear cup is incredibly pleasing to use, the GameHub that offers more options is intuitive and easy to use, the new ear cushions are thicker and more comfy than the Pro Wireless (but only just), and there’s also improved ANC which I found worked well, as well as a hoist of boosts to Bluetooth (up to 5.3), longer battery life on the batteries and faster quick charge, and a few more to boot.

Each of the improvements over the Nova Pro Wireless do add up to something much greater than each in isolation.

You want something close to the complete, multiplatform wireless headset
If you are looking for one of the most complete wireless multiplatform headset options for the money, then the Omni is hard to beat, especially if you want all the features you could need for a one-and-done set.

You’re overdue for an upgrade to a quality wireless gaming headset
If you simply want or need a high-end wireless gaming headset upgrade in the north-of-$300 territory, then the Omni is an absolutely belting wireless set that you simply must consider.

You’re a multiplatform, single-setup gamer
If you’ve got a multi-device gaming setup and are in need of a high-quality wireless gaming headset that has all the trimmings, plus wonderful audio, then the Omni is a no-brainer.

You can find the Nova Pro Wireless on a great deal
As great as the Omni is, I can’t help but feel the Nova Pro Wireless is still going to offer even better value for money for a vast number of gamers, especially when it’s discounted. If the Nova Pro Wireless is still being made and its price dips or drops because the Omni is out, then the Nova Pro Wireless is going to be incredibly hard to beat value-wise.

You simply don’t need a multi-connectivity and feature-rich gaming headset
At $400 / £350, the Omni is still a sizable investment for a gaming accessory, and a lot of its attraction will lie in its versatility and multi-connectivity for some folks. However, it will still be overkill for many, and for the same amount of money, those on one platform or two who might prioritize sheer audio quality instead, for example, could well be better served by others on the market.

If the SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni might seem overkill in some departments, then check out these two fine offerings as alternatives.

SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni

SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless

Audeze Maxwell 2

Price

$399.99 / £349.99 / AU$799

$379.99 / £329.99 / AU$739

$329 / £339 / AU$569

Weight

11.95oz / 339g

9.5oz / 266g

17.3oz / 490g

Drivers

Custom 40 mm Neodymium Magnetic (Hi-Res)

40mm Neodymium

90mm Planar Magnetic

Compatibility

PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X|S, Nintendo Switch 2, Nintendo Switch, PC, Mac, Mobile, Meta Quest 2/3

PS4, PS4, Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch 2, Nintendo Switch, PC, Mac, Mobile, Meta Quest 2/3

PlayStation or Xbox, Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch 2, PC, Mac, Mobile

Connection type

Hi-Res wireless (2.4Ghz via dongle), Wired (audio jack), Bluetooth 5.3 + LE Audio (SBC with MultiPoint support for up to 10 devices; LC3, LC3+ for LE Audio)

Wireless (2.4Ghz via dongle), Wired (USB-C), Bluetooth 5.3

Wireless (2.4Ghz via dongle), Wired (USB-C & audio jack), Bluetooth 5.3 (Auracast, LE Audio, LC3, LC3plus, LDAC, AAC, SBC, Multipoint)

Battery life

Up to 60 hours (2 x fully-charged batteries), Infinite Power System

Up to 60 hours (2 x fully-charged batteries), Infinite Power System

80+ hours

Features

Simultaneous four-source audio via Omni GameHub; certified Hi-Res audio (96kHz/24-bit), ClearCast Pro Retractable Boom Microphone with onboard AI Noise Rejection, ANC, Arctis Companion App compatibility

Companion App, 40mm Neodymium magnetic drivers, 360-degree spatial audio, retractable ClearCast 2.X mic

SLAM acoustic management technology, detachable hypercardioid mic, beamforming mic with physical and AI reduction, FILTER™ Noise Reduction Technology, embedded Dolby Atmos license (Xbox)

Software

SteelSeries GG/Sonar, SteelSeries Arctis Companion App (iOS & Android)

SteelSeries GG/Sonar (PC)

Audeze App (PC & mobile)

SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless
While it’s still being made and/or in circulation at retailers, the Arctis Nova Pro Wireless is a quality headset even in the face of the Omni’s advancements. With the Pro Wireless’ price likelyto dip now, it’ll likely offer incredible value for money at the expense of a few features while retaining that SteelSeries awesomeness.

For more information, check out our full SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless review

Audeze Maxwell 2
The Omni’s price tag puts it squarely in competition with my favorite gaming headset of the day right now, the Audeze Maxwell 2, and the latter could very well be the option to go for if you want to spend big but prioritize audio quality above all else. I simply haven’t tested a better-sounding gaming headset in all my time reviewing hardware.

For more information, check out our full Audeze Maxwell 2 review and my thoughts on why it should have scored even higher

• Used as a daily driver for a few months
• Tested on PC, PS5, and mobile
• Deployed across a host of games, as well as daily work calls and more

The SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Omni headset has been my sole unit for gaming on PS5 and PC, as well as work tasks and calls, for the best part of three months.

I have used it to play a bunch of 007 First Light, a full review playthrough and subsequent platinum playthrough of Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced, and a whole host of Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 on PS5, and also dived into Cyberpunk 2077, Frostpunk 2, and Crusader Kings 3 on Acer Predator Orion 5000 gaming PC (supplied by Acer) teamed with a productivity monitor and an Acer Predator X32QFS gaming monitor (also supplied by Acer).

For a lot of that game-time testing, the Omni was connected to my PC and PS5 simultaneously on one setup, deploying its multi-connectivity. I was then also able to use it for all my work calls, and listening to music.

During this time, I was able to directly compare the Omni with some other gaming headsets I had to hand, such as the SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless and Nova Elite, as well as the Audeze Maxwell 2 and Maxwell 2 ANC.

First reviewed May-August 2026

Read more about how we test

For years, the UK connectivity debate has focused on fiber availability. Coverage maps, rollout targets, premises passed and investment updates have dominated the conversation.

That focus made sense. The country needed better infrastructure, and there was real pressure on operators, government and the wider market to show progress. Better networks had to be built, and in many places, they have been.

Ofcom’s Spring Connected Nations update shows how far that conversation has moved on. Full fiber broadband is now available to 82% of UK homes, while gigabit-capable broadband reaches 89%. Coverage is not solved everywhere, and regional gaps still matter, but the center of gravity is shifting.

For many mid-market and enterprise organizations, the question is no longer only: can we get fiber? Increasingly, it is: when something goes wrong, who owns the problem?

The market has not always been able to answer that clearly. As connectivity becomes more tightly linked to business-critical operations, that is becoming an expensive weakness.

The infrastructure build-out of the last decade has been a success in many ways. Fiber has reached new places. Wholesale models have grown. Alternative networks have created more choice. Access supply has become more competitive.

But that same progress has also created a more complex operating model. A typical enterprise connectivity arrangement can involve several parties: an access network operator, a wholesale aggregator, a reseller and a managed services provider. Each party may have a role to play, but each also has its own systems, escalation routes, commercial incentives and operational boundaries.

When everything is working, that complexity is easy to ignore. When there is a fault, it quickly becomes the problem.

For a multi-site organization running business-critical applications, a manufacturer managing connected logistics, or a professional services firm with regulated data dependencies, the cost of delay can be significant.

A business’s dependency on connectivity has changed in both character and volume. Organizations are moving quickly to support AI workloads, distributed teams, hybrid cloud environments and more automated operations.

Ofcom’s Connected Nations UK Report 2025 shows that between September 2024 and August 2025, providers reported 616 resilience incidents across fixed and mobile networks. Outages above the reporting thresholds affected 12.7 million customers and caused around 192 million customer hours of lost service.

Ofcom also noted that third-party failures, including street works causing cable breaks and failed backhaul circuits from wholesale providers, made up around 14% of reported incidents.

For enterprise buyers, that is the accountability problem in plain sight. The failure may sit in one part of the chain, but the operational impact is felt by the customer trying to keep sites, systems and services running.

There is a particular pressure point here for mid-market organizations. They are running connectivity that supports business-critical operations, distributed sites and cloud-dependent workloads. But they are typically buying through channels designed for volume, not accountability.

They carry the operational dependency of an enterprise customer without the contract size that historically bought priority escalation, named account management or direct access to the people who own the network.

That gap does not appear in the SLA document. It appears on a Sunday night when something breaks.

A few years ago, a slow SLA response might have caused a few headaches. Today, it can stop production, delay customer service, interrupt access to data or leave a site unable to operate properly. Businesses are built on connectivity.

AI inference at the edge, real-time data processing and cloud-connected operations are not designed for fragmented fault resolution. They do not fit neatly with unclear escalation paths or supplier chains where responsibility moves from one party to another before anyone fixes the issue.

Yet many buying conversations have not caught up. Bandwidth, speed and price still dominate procurement. Headline SLAs are scrutinized, but service assurance, ownership of the underlying infrastructure and escalation clarity are often treated as secondary details.

That mismatch will become more costly as the operating environment becomes more demanding.

Most organizations know the standard questions to ask when they buy connectivity. Is there coverage? What is the cost? What is the headline SLA? What capacity is available? Who else is using the provider? All are important questions, but they do not fully describe the service experience.

The questions that really matter are more practical. When a fault is raised, how many organizations are involved in resolving it? Does the provider own the physical layer the service runs on, or is operational control spread across several parties? What does the escalation route look like at 11pm on a Sunday? Is there one organization accountable for the outcome, or a contractual matrix that has to be navigated before anyone can act?

The market has spent years explaining what infrastructure investment looks like. The next conversation needs to be about what operational accountability looks like.

That does not mean every provider needs to own every asset in every location. The UK connectivity market will always involve partnerships, wholesale relationships and specialist delivery models. But buyers should be much more interested in where responsibility sits when service degrades.

A shorter, clearer operational chain matters. It gives providers better visibility of the network, fewer hand-offs during fault resolution and a stronger ability to act rather than simply escalate. It also gives customers something they increasingly need: confidence that someone is accountable for the service, not just the contract.

The next phase of business connectivity will not be won on availability alone. It will be won by providers that can combine reach with operational control, service assurance and clear ownership.

For buyers, that means looking beyond headline speeds and asking harder questions about accountability. Who sees the fault first? Who has the authority to fix it? Who is responsible for the customer outcome?

Because when connectivity is simply a utility, ambiguity might be tolerated. When it is the foundation for AI, cloud, data and day-to-day operations, ambiguity becomes a business risk.

The fiber rollout has changed what is possible. The next battleground is making sure someone owns the problem when possibility turns into pressure.

We've featured the best business phone service.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Investment in AI continues to accelerate at pace, with global spending projected to reach $2.59 trillion in 2026, a 47% year-on-year increase.

Yet only 28% of AI projects are currently generating a measurable ROI, with many failing to deliver expected business outcomes.

As organizations race to capitalize on AI opportunities, many continue to increase investments without fully understanding how AI will operate within their existing technology environments, particularly their data storage infrastructure.

Without careful planning in this area, businesses risk higher costs, growing technical debt and increased compliance complexity, all of which can undermine the value AI is set to deliver.

The IT industry often talks about AI in terms of performance, computing power and processing speed. But at its heart, AI is a data system.

In recent years, high-performance processing GPUs and NPUs have been getting much of the attention and investment. While compute remains essential, AI data is constantly evolving, expanding and requiring ongoing management throughout its lifecycle.

As organizations move from AI experimentation to deployment at scale, the importance of a robust data infrastructure becomes increasingly clear.

Businesses need the ability to capture, store, access and manage growing volumes of data efficiently at every stage of the AI journey.

To maximize AI ROI, organizations should view storage and data infrastructure as strategic enablers rather than supporting technologies. Long-term AI success depends on ensuring storage infrastructure is aligned with wider technology and business objectives from the start.

Historically, data storage needs were relatively predictable. A ‘set-and-forget’ approach was often sufficient. The AI era demands a fundamentally different mindset for several reasons.

For one, the scale of data associated with AI exceeds anything many organizations have previously encountered. According to IDC, annual global data creation is expected to more than triple over the next five years, reaching 718 zettabytes by 2030, representing a CAGR of 26.9%.

AI workloads also continuously generate additional data through logs, metadata, synthetic outputs, model updates and training datasets. Just as importantly, AI performance is heavily influenced by the quality of the underlying data infrastructure. The ability to access large, well-managed datasets efficiently has a direct impact on business outcomes.

When discussing return on AI investments with the C-suite, technical leaders should connect infrastructure decisions to financial performance. GPUs are typically among the most significant items within AI budgets, and any time spent waiting on storage input/output represents underutilized investment.

Storage architectures that are not designed for AI workloads can constrain performance and reduce overall returns from compute investments.

One example for an AI-optimized architecture approach is tiered storage. Not all data delivers the same value at every stage of the AI lifecycle, nor does it require the same level of performance. Frequently accessed datasets used for active model training and inference may benefit from high-performance storage, while historical data, archived outputs and compliance-related records can be moved to lower-cost capacity tiers.

By aligning storage performance and cost with the value and usage profile of different datasets, organizations can optimize infrastructure spending while maintaining access to the data needed to support AI innovation, governance and future model development.

Organizations that invest in cost-effective scalable, future-ready, AI workload optimized storage and data infrastructure are better positioned to unlock value from AI initiatives, while building a foundation that can support future growth.

Legal and regulatory considerations should also form part of AI planning from the start.

As AI laws are established, organizations must continue to comply with existing data-related obligations, including regulations like UK GDPR and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Any organization with EU customers should also consider EU requirements around data governance, transparency and record-keeping. Retention periods for training datasets and model records can often be longer than anticipated, making long-term storage planning a decisive factor.

Addressing these needs early helps organizations avoid costly remediation efforts later and supports more effective governance as AI deployments scale.

As AI adoption grows and data volumes continue to expand, demand for storage capacity is increasing rapidly. This is creating new supply chain and procurement challenges across the industry.

As a result, organizations can no longer assume that capacity will be readily available whenever it is needed, particularly for large-scale AI projects.

In practice, this means considering forecasting storage requirements alongside GPU and infrastructure investments, exploring longer-term capacity planning arrangements, and incorporating storage needs into AI business cases from the beginning.

A proactive storage strategy is becoming essential for businesses looking to support future AI workloads with confidence, minimize operational risks, and maximize long-term returns from their AI investments.

AI ROI depends not just on the quality of its algorithms and applications, but also on how effectively organizations manage, store and govern their large-scale data estates.

Even a small difference in cost per terabyte can become significant when applied across petabyte- and exabyte-scale environments.

Organizations that integrate forward storage planning into their AI strategy, treat data infrastructure as a strategic asset and prepare early for future capacity requirements will be ideally positioned to realize the full value of their AI investments.

We've reviewed the best business cloud storage.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Three in four European businesses fear a US tech 'kill switch' as much as they fear a ransomware attack
• Less than half have a continuity plan in place that is tested and documented
• Email and cloud file storage are the two services European businesses have sought sovereign alternatives for

Most European businesses use some form of US-based software in their day-to-day operations. But as tensions across the Atlantic mount, almost 75% of European businesses fear the introduction of a US tech ‘kill switch’.

This is according to new data from Proton, which surveyed 1,500 businesses in the UK, France, and Germany. The data also shows that more than half (54.5%) of European businesses would not survive for more than one day if they lost access to US cloud and digital services.

One in four of those surveyed predicted the losses from a single day of downtime could be as much as €100,000, with half predicting losses of more than €50,000.

US President Donald Trump has become increasingly critical of his allies across the Atlantic since returning to the Presidency. He has repeatedly questioned NATO contributions, threatening to withdraw unless Europe upped its spending.

But Trump has also criticized European tech regulations for “robbing American companies and, in turn, the American taxpayer”. He has vowed to investigate the European Union for fining US tech companies for anti-competitive practices and GDPR violations, and has placed numerous tariffs on trade partners.

Many US tech companies poured funding into Trump's presidential campaign, with others making voluntary contributions to curry favor immediately after his inauguration. Many complained of the fines levied against them by EU regulations, and Trump has turned this into a sticking point for negotiations with Europe.

The fear is that Trump could use Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to deem the fines from such regulations to be unfair, and stop US companies from paying them, effectively allowing US companies to violate regulations without repercussions. In return, Europe would flip the ‘kill switch’ and stop US companies from operating in their territory.

"The kill switch is no longer an abstract geopolitical concern but a business continuity crisis. The study captures a clear shift in how European businesses perceive operational risk,” said Raphaël Auphan, Chief Operating Officer at Proton.

“The fact that concern about a government-imposed kill switch is virtually indistinguishable from concern about ransomware tells something significant: geopolitical risk applied to digital dependence is no longer a boardroom abstraction. It is joining the same threat register as criminal attacks, with the same sense of urgency and the same expectation that it could materialise without warning."

The EU has already begun taking steps towards developing European alternatives to the cloud, productivity, and other services that many businesses rely on today. A Tech Sovereignty Package, launched in June this year, seeks to reduce the reliance on US hyperscalers and Chinese tech manufacturing.

While the Proton data shows that a majority of European businesses (67.8%) would switch to a sovereign provider if the kill switch was flipped, the availability of European cloud providers is not quite at the same level as rival US services.

But steps are being taken to address this shortfall. Proton has launched a business continuity solution to help businesses continue operating during outages caused by ransomware attacks, software outages, and even a US tech kill switch.

• AI audio giant Suno has launched a vinyl pressing service
• Yes, it is seemingly just for AI tracks generated on its site
• It's eco-friendly, apparently

Among many audiophiles, vinyl records are considered sacred; I concur, which is why my turntable was the first thing I set up when I recently moved home. But that's clearly not the case for everyone.

For me and, I hope, fellow record-lovers, the draw is that vinyl is an undeniably human way of listening to music. By their sheer nature, records are full of everything and with nothing edited out: there are mistakes and imperfections (just as we all have), but the analog result is warm and familiar… and somehow welcoming.

However, in our 'everything-is-AI' modern world, someone somewhere had the tiring thought, "What if AI came to records too?" and so we have this news.

AI 'music'-making service Suno is now encouraging you to press tracks generated using the site onto records, and to buy them for $45.

That's right, you can now sully a perfectly good bit of PVC plastic with 'songs' made by a computer, bringing a hearty dose of cold inhumanity to this all-so-human format.

Apparently, you can only order one record per creation from your Suno library, which can be up to 46 minutes, so this isn't a way of mass-producing AI slop to vinyl (thankfully). And Suno claims the material used for the records is sourced in an "eco friendly" way — a pretty hilarious assertion given how disastrous for the planet AI is proving itself to be generally. It's like chopping down trees with a pre-owned chainsaw.

To audiophiles (or how about actual human bands, whose markup on a physical music product is far bigger than in streaming?) Suno's move feels destined to anger.

For me, it devalues a beloved format. It pulls apart the big black disc — with all the human, tangible attributes that makes me revere it — and makes it fake. When talking this piece through with my editor, she said, "I think it is a hideous idea that makes me feel unclean".

If there's any possible silver lining, it's that Suno's vinyl offerings might encourage people who use the site to discover the joys of real records; think older, couldn't-be-AI albums (and if that's you, why not check out our list of the best turntables to listen with, and I'll forgive your AI use if you buy something).

Or perhaps this is the last angry gasp of an AI slop machine? Google Trends data shows that interest in Suno is slowly dropping: as of early August, search is 10% down month-on-month, and over three months its interest is slowly dropping too.

Perhaps this could be fueled by the rebellion against AI music, with a growing number of streaming sites keeping it at bay. Deezer is bringing down the hammer hard, and we recently spoke to Qobuz's managing director about its own stance against slop. Even Spotify is belatedly taking some baby steps.

So is this Suno's victory lap against 'real' music, showing it's so prominent that nothing is sacred? Or is this its attempt to catch up, by adopting a format beloved by audiophiles? It's hard to say. All I know is that no AI slop record is getting anywhere near my turntable.

I’ve spent a week with the Garmin Cirqa screenless fitness tracker, wearing it constantly during sleep, exercise and rest to determine how comfortable it is in everyday life, and measuring it against an electrical heart rate monitor and other wearables to determine accuracy.

After all my testing, I can confirm the Whoop and Google Fitbit Air have got serious competition. While some people will still want the AI-powered coaching from Whoop and Google Health, and others will want the screen-based interaction and notification features available on the best smartwatches, most users looking for a simple but high-quality screenless fitness tracker will be just fine getting the Cirqa.

If you’re reading this review wondering how it compares to the likes of the Whoop MG and the Google Fitbit Air, you’ll already know what to expect from the design: a fabric band that stretches over the fitness tracker’s plastic puck to create a solid-color screenless wearable. The idea is that you can use it for working out, sleeping, rest and work, get accurate metrics all day, and not glance at it all the time or be distracted by notifications on your wrist.

Where it differs is in the design specifics. It’s quite a large fitness tracker, sitting more obviously on the wrist compared to its rivals, and thus people with very small wrists might want to try it before they commit. However, I like the design overall, especially the inclusion of an actual button on the side of the device. This button is used to start a workout, signified by a strong vibration, and stop a workout, at which point it vibrates again. You can also use it to turn off its vibrating smart-wake alarm. It’s so much easier than tapping the Whoop’s puck, and provides certainty and security when tracking an activity, so you're not just hoping the device picks it up. It’s the perfect level of minimalist interaction for a tracker like this.

I generally found it accurate over my testing period, apart from a single outlier workout in which the heart rate sensor showed a 10BPM difference compared to my electrical heart rate monitor, the Polar H10 — my accuracy benchmark. The other workouts I recorded were within 1-2bpm of accuracy, and Garmin Connect correctly showed my wake-up times when recording sleep.

I found myself enjoying running more than I have in months by ‘vibe running’: ditching my watch with its pace and heart rate metrics updating me every kilometer and allowing the Cirqa to track in the background, leaving me to focus on my form, the trees, my music and my thoughts. It’s no good for specific training for timed runs, new courses, intervals and the like due to the lack of on-wrist information, but for wellness tracking, it works nicely.

It’s going to be a real boon for cyclists using Garmin’s Edge series of cycling computers. Many of the best Garmin watches double-up on the cycling computer's GPS features, so the Cirqa allows cyclists to add wellness metrics without a more expensive watch.

• $199.99 in the US
• £179.99 in the UK
• AU$299.99 in the AU

The Garmin Cirqa fitness tracker costs $199.99 in the US, £179.99 in the UK and AU$299.99 in Australia. There’s no subscription fee — at least, no mandatory one — but Garmin Coach features are locked behind the Garmin Connect+ paywall in the app, which costs an extra $6.99 / £6.99 / AU$12 per month or $69.99 / £69.99 / AU$120 annually. A bicep band for the Cirqa comes at an added extra too.

You can get along just fine without the subscription, if you don’t want the coaching features. Live heart rate broadcasting was also originally locked behind this paywall, but Garmin rolled that back after an outcry. The free tier of Connect is an excellent training aid, and isn’t as stripped-back as the free tier of the Google Health app you use with the Google Fitbit Air. However, the Cirqa is also twice the price of Fitbit, so this is reflected in the price, and Connect (being Garmin’s app for all its devices) lists some stats you don’t get access to via the Cirqa if you dig a little deeper, leading to some annoying friction moments.

However, for most people, it’s better value than Whoop, which requires an annual subscription starting at £169 / $199 / AU$299 and going up from there. With Whoop, you never actually own either the device or the data you collect, merely rent it. With two years of the cheapest Whoop subscription, you could also buy a cheap Garmin running watch like the Garmin Forerunner 165 as well as a Cirqa and alternate between the two of them for many years.

While serious athletes such as CrossFit and Hyrox enthusiasts will want Whoop’s vast swathes of unique metrics such as the Strain score and AI-powered workout building features, the Cirqa’s subscription-free tier is much more affordable and better value for most, despite the relatively high price of the tracker itself compared to some of Garmin's more feature-rich running watches.

• Value score: 3.5/5

• Choice of four colors
• Screenless form factor
• Tactile button

The Garmin Cirqa is a simple design. A fabric band with four color options — Mauve, French Grey, Captain Blue and Black — wraps around a plastic puck with Garmin’s Elevate V4 heart rate sensor array. The puck is slightly curved to mimic the wrist’s shape, and as previously mentioned, it includes a ridged button on the side to start and stop workouts.

The design is very simple, and the button is the only way to interact with the puck. It’s very comfortable to wear, weighing only 21g, and light enough and comfortable enough that I often forgot I was wearing it during the week. That made wearing it for sleep and exercise a frictionless experience, and the band is soft to the touch.

It’s quite large for a ‘discreet’ band due to the size of Garmin’s Elevate V4 sensor, but not uncomfortable — at least, for my wrists. Those with very thin wrists may struggle, but I was told the more up-to-date Elevate V5 sensor would have made the puck even bigger.

I’ve always been a fan of the Garmin Connect app, and its design is really comprehensive. It can be difficult to navigate at first due to the breadth of information on offer, meaning some stats and features get lost in the mix, but once you’re used to it, it’s easy to access a lot of detail along with community features such as challenges.

• Design score: 4.5/5

• Deliberately hardware feature-light
• Plenty of detailed metrics
• Not as many as a full Garmin watch, or Whoop

There are very few interactive features on the Garmin Cirqa puck; you can start and stop workouts, or stop an alarm, but that’s more or less it. However, the information the Cirqa collects and shows you in the app aren't lacking in detail.

The Garmin Cirqa tracker collects data on sleep stages, heart rate variability (HRV), pulse ox and provides Garmin’s Training Readiness and Body Battery scores. Garmin’s Sleep Coach feature can recommend bedtimes and sleep length, letting you know if you’re in a sleep deficit, and smart wake alarm using the device’s haptic sensors buzzes on your wrist in a light sleep stage to wake you within a pre-prescribed window.

Automatic activity detection means the Cirqa quietly records activities lasting longer than 15 minutes, such as walks, which become more accurate if you amend the detected activities in the Garmin Connect app, including extending or trimming the duration. Alternatively, you can simply press the button to start a timed activity, and again amend in-app.

While you won’t get advanced running features like many Garmin watches, such as cadence, stride length, Hill Score (based on elevation) and so on, you still get generic training information like heart rate, VO2 Max and Training Load, which can help you tell you if you’re under or overtraining. Garmin also carries features like Fitness Age, which uses heart rate and activity data to tell you how well your body performs compared to its actual age. Whoop has a similar feature named Whoop Age — another example of the Cirqa eating Whoop’s lunch here.

You get quite a lot for your money. There's a small value issue, though: it’s not packing quite as many features as the premium Whoop subscriptions, nor a watch like the Garmin Forerunner 165, which gets you all of the above plus dedicated GPS, running and notification features for the same price. But it also comes with a screen, which you might not want. The Cirqa avoids bloat, prioritising the fitness and recovery metrics users want to see and eliminating the interactive features that screenless wearables fans don't want at all.

As well as the Garmin Coach features, AI-powered photograph-based nutrition tracking and AI-generated training insights are also available as part of Garmin’s premium Connect+ tier.

• Features score: 4/5

• Accurate workout metrics, aside from one outlying workout
• Sleep tracking was competent
• Comfy and easy to wear

I tested the Garmin Cirqa for around nine days, performing several workouts compared against a Polar H10 heart rate monitor, tracking my sleep, and draining the battery. If you’re working out three to four times a week and enabling auto-detection for walks and other activities, it lasts a solid week between charges — I topped mine up on day seven of testing.

It recorded my sleep well and correctly identified wake-up times in the middle of the night and in the early hours of the morning. If I slept well or went to bed early, the Cirqa correctly identified this and the numbers matched my energy levels and perceived sleep quality. If I got up in the middle of the night (which I often do several nights out of the week), the Cirqa clocked it. Its sleep stages graph is easy to parse, while Sleep Score and HRV are sortable by the last week, month or year to show trends.

When it comes to measuring workout accuracy, while there’s no GPS to draw from other than piggybacking off my phone, the Cirqa closely matched my Polar H10 heart rate monitor during workouts. There was one instance in which it was an average of 10bpm off during a 40-minute strength session in the gym, but other workouts cleaved very closely to the HRM, within 2-3bpm accuracy (as you can see below). My guess is that if that particular workout was longer, the readings would have evened out.

Like other Garmin devices using the Elevate V4, the Cirqa is generally accurate enough for anyone who doesn’t need elite-level metrics, at which point they’d be using a heart rate monitor or Garmin’s Elevate V5. But even record-breaker Sebastian Sawe was spotted using a Garmin Forerunner 55, which uses a V4, during his sub-two hour London Marathon run.

I can’t overstate how nice the Cirqa is to wear. I found it a better daily driver than the Whoop band, despite its size, largely due to the Whoop’s often-detaching clasp. The tactile button gave me a sense of certainty in my recording, and I didn’t have to open the app to manually start a workout like the Google Fitbit Air if I wanted to be accurate. The haptics are nice and strong too.

• Performance score: 4.5/5

Category

Comment

Score

Value

Sits comfortably between the super-cheap Fitbit Air and the recurring-sub Whoop.

4/5

Design

Thoughtfully designed, albeit a little large for some.

4.5/5

Features

Enough to keep you focused while avoiding unnecessary feature bloat.

4/5

Performance

Accurate and comfortable to wear with great battery life.

4.5/5

You’re an existing Garmin user
Don’t want to wear a chunky Garmin watch constantly, or do you use a Garmin Edge? This is the perfect way to track wellness and fitness discreetly and remain in the Garmin ecosystem.

You’re after holistic metrics
Readiness, recovery, and basic workout stats are enough for most people. This does the job without getting in the way.

You want to own your device
Although the product is great, Whoop’s membership model means the device reverts to an inert hunk of plastic if you stop subscribing. Buying the Cirqa at least means you own your tracker, improving it as a value proposition.

You need a screen
Want updates during your workout? Just get a running watch instead.

You’re on a tight budget
If you’re not invested in the Garmin ecosystem or you’re looking for something cheaper, you might be persuaded by the Fitbit Air or Amazfit Helio Strap.

Money is no object
For those who don’t mind paying annually in perpetuity, Whoop is a more tightly-engineered product from a software standpoint, tracking a wider variety of metrics.

Google Fitbit Air

The screenless Fitbit weighs just 5g and tracks the basics, with an intelligent do-it-all AI chatbot tier.

Read our full Google Fitbit Air review

Amazfit Helio Strap

We called it 'a terrific value, generally very accurate fitness tracker with great battery life and no subscription required'.

Read our full Amazfit Helio Strap review

I tested the Garmin Cirqa for over one week, draining the battery down and wearing it constantly during sleep, work, exercise and rest. I undertook multiple workouts, comparing them to a Polar H10 electrical heart rate monitor for accuracy, and compared its featureset to its peers in the screenless fitness tracker market.

First reviewed: August 2026

A gaming laptop is a good investment if you're headed off to college but still want to play your library of games. For one, a gaming laptop is easily powerful enough to tackle any study duties on the side.

Annoyingly, finding a super-cheap gaming laptop is difficult these days due to RAM and other components being so expensive. Decent deals do exist, however, if you're willing to cast the net out further.

Just below, you can see the five best gaming laptop deals I've spotted this week, which mostly include options from Best Buy's excellent 'back to school sale' that's running right now.

By far and away, the best deal right now (in my opinion) is this Gigabyte Aero X16 for $1,329 (was $1,499) at Best Buy. This is a deal that harkens back to a time when you didn't have to pay extortionate amounts for a laptop with 32GB of RAM - and it's also got a really decent RTX 5070 graphics card to boot.

Another great choice for students is the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14 for $1,599 (was $2,299) at Best Buy. This is a machine that features a really lovely high-end design that's easily portable, as well as a 3K OLED display - which is perfect for both games and content. While pricey, this is a good option if you want a stylish MacBook-style laptop that can still handle all the latest games. You can read more about this deal, and others, just down below.

Graphics card: RTX 5060
Processor: Intel Core i7-13620H
RAM: 16GB
Storage: 1TB

Getting a reasonably priced RTX 5060 gaming laptop is increasingly tricky these days, but there are still options out there for prospective students. This Gigabyte A16, for example, gets you everything you need for decent performance without completely breaking the bank. On board is an RTX 5060, Intel Core i7 chipset, and a spacious 1TB SSD. Annoyingly, you do only get 16GB of RAM, but that's almost to be expected these days... unfortunately.View Deal

Graphics card: RTX 5060
Processor: Intel Core i7-14650HX
RAM: 32GB
Storage: 1TB

Here's a really nice deal on an Asus F16 at Best Buy. The F16 is one of the brand's more affordable options, but it's a great buy for the money considering you get 32GB of RAM, an RTX 5060 graphics card, and a really decent 14th-gen Intel Core i7 chipset. Put these together, and you should get really respectable 1080p gaming performance here.View Deal

Graphics card: RTX 5070
Processor: AMD Ryzen Al 7 350
RAM: 32GB
Storage: 1TB

This Gigabyte Aero X16 is a rare deal. Yes, it's a little pricey, but I can't recall seeing an RTX 5070 gaming laptop with 32GB of RAM for under $1,500 in the past few months. With a Ryzen 7 chipset and 1600p display, this Gigabyte is definitely one of the best value options if you're willing to spend a little more. You'll get great performance right out of the box here - and it should last a few years down the line, too. View Deal

Graphics card: RTX 5060
Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 270
RAM: 16GB
Storage: 1TB

Looking for a lightweight laptop that can still provide excellent gaming performance? The Asus Zephyrus G14 is an outstanding candidate. At 14-inches, it's a little smaller than most gaming laptops, but it features a stunning high-end design and 120Hz OLED display. Even though this configuration only features an RTX 5060 graphics card and 16GB of RAM, it's a very versatile machine that's worth checking out if you want a do-it-all laptop for college.View Deal

Graphics card: RTX 5060
Processor: Intel Core 7-240H
RAM: 32GB
Storage: 1TB

It's always worth keeping an eye on the official Dell Store for deals on Alienware gaming laptops. Right now, my favorite listing is on this Alienware 15, which is the brand's new entry-level model. It's still a premium laptop, however, and this spec features an RTX 5060 graphics card, 32GB of RAM, and a decent Core 7 chipset, so it's certainly not lacking in terms of performance. View Deal