Blink Video Doorbell vs. Ring Battery Doorbell: which is best for your front door?
The Blink Video Doorbell just hit the market, and at just $60, it's a frugal option for shoppers interested in bringing smarts to their front door. Featuring a two-year battery life, person detection, and an improved field-of-view, it's a well-rounded device given its low price tag. However, the Ring Battery Doorbell is a perennial favorite — it's not quite as new, but it's loaded with premium features that have made it a common sight on porches across the planet. But is it the best option for your home? Here's a look at the Blink Video Doorbell and the Ring Battery Doorbell to help you decide which to purchase.
Recommended Videos
Design
The Ring Battery Doorbell is built with its iconic black and silver design. The top portion of the rectangular device is black, and it houses the camera unit. The larger lower half is silver, and it's where you'll find the doorbell button with its cool blue glow. It's a great-looking device, and it looks remarkably similar to all the other video doorbells in the Ring lineup. Alternatively, you can pick up a Venetian Bronze model that's a bit darker.
The Blink Video Doorbell is available in black or white models. Both feature a long, rectangular design with a pill-shaped doorbell button. It looks quite nice, though most shoppers will probably prefer the familiar styling of the Ring Battery Doorbell.
Winner: Ring Battery Doorbell
Installation
Installing both of these video doorbells is a breeze. Both are battery-powered and require little more than mounting to complete the install. The Blink Video Doorbell has a bit of an advantage, as it offers two-year battery life. That means you won't have to take it down very often to reinstall its batteries. The Ring product, meanwhile, will likely go for half that time or less. That's not the end of the story, however, as the Blink Video Doorbell also requires a Blink Sync Module to work properly — meaning there's one additional step to worry about. For the Ring Battery Doorbell, you just install the product and link it to your smartphone.
Winner: Tie
Features and specs
Both the Blink Video Doorbell and Ring Battery Doorbell film in 1440 x 1440 resolution. They also get you a generous 150-degree field-of-view, which should easily capture both the faces of tall guests and packages at your doorstep. The Ring Battery Doorbell has an advantage at night, as it offers color night vision compared to Blink's infrared.
Beyond that, both also offer two-way audio, smart notifications, live view, and customizable motion detection settings.
Winner: Ring Video Doorbell
Price and subscriptions
The Ring Battery Doorbell costs $100, while the Blink Video Doorbell is $70 (if you don't need the Sync Module, that drops to $60). The base price for these video doorbells is only the first part of the equation — you'll also want to purchase an ongoing subscription to access their best features. Blink subscription plans start at $3 per month, while Ring plans start at $5 per month. No matter how you cut it, the Ring product is more expensive.
Winner: Blink Video Doorbell
Verdict
Most shoppers will find the Ring Battery Doorbell to be slightly more enticing than the Blink Video Doorbell. Along with a slightly better design, it offers color night vision and a powerful mobile app that lets you easily customize its performance. The Blink Video Doorbell is no slouch, however, and if you're more interested in saving money, it's a smart alternative. Not only is the product cheaper, but you'll save a few bucks every month with its subscription plan.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Digital Trends
34 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
Anker recalls a million power banks over fire risk — here's what to do
Anker is recalling more than a million of its PowerCore 10000 power banks due to a risk of overheating that could lead to fire and burns. The tech company has received 19 reports of fires and explosions linked to the power bank, which contains lithium-ion batteries. Two of the reports relate to minor burn injuries and required medical attention, while a further 11 reports cite property damage totaling more than $60,000, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Recommended Videos Affected units — about 1,158,000 in all — were sold online in the U.S. by Anker, Amazon, Newegg, and Ebay from June 2016 through December 2022 for about $27. Anyone who owns a recalled PowerCore 10000 power bank is urged to stop using it immediately and to take steps to receive a free replacement. What to do If you have Anker's PowerCore 10000 power bank, here's what you need to know: – First, check the model number. Only certain units are affected, specifically those with the model number A1263, which you'll find printed on the bottom of the device. – If you have a faulty unit, you can get a replacement. To receive it, you won't be asked to send the power bank to Anker. Instead, you'll need to submit a photo of the recalled unit that shows the model number, serial number, your name, the date the photo was taken, and the word 'recalled' written on the power bank in permanent marker. Anker has detailed instructions on its website explaining exactly how to apply. – A purchase receipt will be requested but will not be required to participate in the recall. – Whatever you do, don't throw your faulty power bank in the trash. Recalled lithium-ion batteries have to be carefully disposed of as they present a greater risk of fire. Your municipal household hazardous waste (HHW) collection center may accept it — get in touch to find out. Consumers will be required to confirm safe disposal of the power bank before receiving a replacement. If you want to speak to someone at Anker for clarification on anything regarding the recall, you can call toll-free at 800-988-7973 from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. Alternatively, you can send an email to support@
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Podcast: Chime Financial Stock Soars in Nasdaq Debut
Plus: Oracle posts strong quarterly results boosted by the company's artificial-intelligence investments. Biotech company BioNTech acquires CureVac. Adobe raises its full-year outlook after posting higher-than-expected earnings. 🎧 Listen: The WSJ's Ariana Aspuru hosts the Minute Briefing podcast.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Quantum-Safe Payments: Hype, Hope Or Just Headline Insurance?
Quantum investment is growing - when will it impact payments? (Photo by Thomas Niedermueller/Getty ... More Images) When a Europol-backed working group warned in February that banks should 'start their post-quantum migrations now,' it triggered a familiar ripple through boardrooms: Is Q-Day finally close enough to budget for? The Quantum Safe Financial Forum, whose members include the Fed, the ECB, and half a dozen global systemically important banks, framed the threat in stark terms: criminals are already stockpiling today's encrypted payment traffic, betting they can decrypt it tomorrow. Card networks, instant-payment switches, and mobile wallets rely on public-key cryptography: the RSA and elliptic-curve algorithms that every ISO 8583 or ISO 20022 message depends on. A fault-tolerant quantum computer could, in theory, break those keys in hours. Visa's global head of fraud services told PYMNTS that threat actors are 'steal-now-decrypt-later' harvesting card data already, waiting for quantum horsepower to catch up. Central bankers are equally blunt. In a speech titled Technology as a New Frontier for Macro-Prudential Policy, ECB board member Piero Cipollone called quantum risk 'a serious threat to our encryption-based financial system' and urged an early transition. For a decade, the answer to the quantum threat was to wait for NIST. That wait ended on 13 August 2024, when the U.S. standards body finalised its first three post-quantum encryption algorithms: CRYSTALS-Kyber for key exchange and CRYSTALS-Dilithium and SPHINCS+ for digital signatures. NIST urged system administrators to 'begin transitioning as soon as possible.' Those standards are now the reference set for every card scheme, processor, and bank writing 'quantum-safe' into a roadmap. Mastercard, for example, launched a Quantum Security & Communications project in 2021 and says the NIST selections will 'directly inform future network designs.' Card giants are still piloting. Visa has job listings for researchers 'who will directly influence how Visa and the broader payments industry evolve in the age of quantum computing,' hinting at an internal prototype network that swaps RSA for lattice-based keys. Mastercard runs quantum-threat drills inside its Cybersecurity Fusion Centers and has already swapped post-quantum algorithms into some internal message pipes. While U.S. firms talk pilots, China is stringing satellites. In March, the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced the first 12,800-kilometre quantum key-distribution (QKD) link between Beijing and South Africa—an experiment that leapfrogs fibre-based QKD and shows how a global, satellite-borne network might one day shield cross-border payment traffic from interception. The geopolitical implication is clear: if Beijing controls an orbital quantum backbone, it could offer 'unhackable' payment messaging to Belt-and-Road partner banks long before Visa or SWIFT finish their ground-based migrations. The payments stack is layered. Updating SSL/TLS in an API gateway is trivial compared with swapping out hardware security modules (HSMs) that live in PCI-DSS cages. Most production HSMs cannot run Kyber or Dilithium; vendors are still shipping beta firmware. Network-level revamps run into liability rules: if a post-quantum algorithm fails in the wild, who reimburses the retailer? That's why many CISOs treat quantum-safe upgrades as headline insurance—announce a pilot, reassure the board, but keep the RSA fallback until regulators force a cut-over. The Europol forum tried to puncture that complacency: it wants banks to map every cryptographic dependency by end-2025 and publish transition timetables. Sceptics argue fault-tolerant quantum machines are at least a decade away. Yet the harvest now strategy is real. Payments data—PANs, CVVs, CVCs—retain value for at least seven years, the typical validity window of a card. If quantum decryption arrives sooner than expected, terabytes of archived traffic could be replayed against tokenisation systems, revealing plaintext PANs that feed synthetic-identity fraud. Visa's fraud researchers estimate cyber-crime will cost the global economy $10.5 trillion by 2025; post-quantum vulnerabilities could add a multiplier. Small wonder regulators view proactive migration as cheaper than retrospective cleanup. QKD satellites grab headlines because they sound like Star Wars for banking. Yet QKD only solves key exchange, not bulk message encryption, and current satellites handle kilobit-per-second links—fine for diplomatic traffic, useless for VisaNet's 65,000 TPS. Most experts see satellite QKD as a niche overlay that protects the 'seed keys' used to bootstrap terrestrial networks. Still, China's leapfrogging matters. A bank that can route high-value settlement messages via an entanglement-based channel gets an edge in geopolitical trust—especially in regions where 'quantum-proof' becomes a marketing label as powerful as PCI Level 1 was in 2005. Quantum-safe payments sit at the awkward intersection of science and risk. Hype sells satellite demos and billion-dollar quantum-computer SPACs. Hope anchors R&D agendas for Google, IBM and Alibaba. But audit proof, evidence that a network will still work when Shor's algorithm becomes practical, is what regulators, auditors and cyber-insurers increasingly demand. Visa, Mastercard, and China's quantum satellite engineers are converging on the same conclusion: the time for headline insurance pilots is closing. The following compliance cycle will ask not if you have a quantum-safe plan but how far along you are on the three-phase roadmap. For payments executives, the cheapest answer is to start migrating before Q-Day headlines hit the front page—and before stolen 2024 card data meets a 2030-grade quantum decryptor. In other words, the smartest move might be to treat quantum-safe payments less like distant science fiction and more like EMV circa 2000: a heavy lift today, but table stakes tomorrow — because nobody wants their brand on the first un-quantum-proof breach.
