logo
Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Apple Watch Ultra 2 — which should you buy?

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Apple Watch Ultra 2 — which should you buy?

Tom's Guide27-06-2025
So you're looking to upgrade your running watch, and you're trying to decide between the new Garmin Forerunner 970 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2. The Forerunner 970 is Garmin's top-tier Forerunner model, packed with advanced training features, and brand new on the market. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is Apple's endurance smartwatch. To help you decide which is best for you, I've put the two watches head to head below.
Before I jump into the comparison, it's worth stating the obvious — if you're an Android user, this decision is a simple one. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 won't work with anything other than an iPhone, so the best watch for you is the Garmin Forerunner 970, which is compatible with iOS and Android through the Garmin Connect app.
If you'd prefer to read the reviews before deciding, check out the Garmin Forerunner 970 review and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 review on Tom's Guide .
The Garmin Forerunner 970 is the newer of the two watches, and it's more expensive than its predecessor, the Forerunner 965. The Garmin Forerunner 970 costs $749.99 / £629.99, a considerable jump from the Garmin Forerunner 965, which is $599 / £599 and often reduced to under $500.
When considering the price of the Forerunner 970, it's worth factoring in that some of its new features also require the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which is $169.99 / £149.99
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 was released in September 2023. It costs $799/ £849, but is often discounted to closer to $700 in sales. It's a singular model, outfitted with cellular support.
Winner: Apple Watch Ultra 2 — At full price, the Garmin watch is cheaper, but as the Ultra 2 has been around for a lot longer, you're likely to be able to pick it up for less than the cost of the Garmin Forerunner 970 right now.
The Garmin Forerunner 970 is available now, and currently on sale on Amazon for $749. It offers an upgraded design over the Forerunner 965, and our testing found its tracking to be reliable and its training insights to be detailed.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is currently on sale on Amazon for $729. It features a brighter display than the original Ultra and adds support for double-tap features.
The Garmin Forerunner 970 still looks very much like a Garmin — the watch is controlled via five different physical buttons, three on the left, two on the right, with a round 1.4-inch AMOLED screen. You can use the touchscreen to navigate around the watch, but it's automatically disabled in sports modes.
Compared to the older model, the Forerunner 970 is harder wearing — it has a sapphire crystal display, which is more scratch-resistant than the Gorilla glass used on the Forerunner 965 and other Forerunner models.
Other notable design features for the Forerunner 970 include a flashlight — until now that's feature's been reserved for Garmin's more expensive models. It also has Garmin's new Elevate v5 optical heart rate sensor, which is an upgrade on the v4 sensor on the Forerunner 965 and can be used to take ECG measurements. There's also a built-in microphone and speaker, allowing you to answer and make calls from your wrist.
The watch only comes in one size, and is available in three different colors — black, white, and grey/gold.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 looks pretty much identical to its predecessor, the Apple Watch Ultra, which was Apple's first stab at an adventure watch.
The Ultra 2 has a flat 49mm display, a protruding right-side button array, and an orange action button on the left side, which can be programmed as a quick launch for an assigned purpose. It doesn't come in alternative bezel colors, so it's down to your watch strap if you want to add some customization, and its one-size-fits-all approach may continue to deter those with smaller wrists.
The main difference between the Apple Watch Ultra and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 lies beneath the surface. The newer watch has the brand's S9 processor, which Apple claims is 25% more efficient, built on 5.6 billion transistors with 30% faster GPU animations and 4-core neural engines that enable machine learning twice as fast.
It's also worth noting that from a sustainability standpoint, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the better pick. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is made of 95% recycled aluminum, a major improvement from the virgin material used in the first-gen model.
Winner: It's a tie — beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you prefer the rounder bezel of the Garmin or the boxier look of the Apple Watch Ultra 2, both look great on the wrist.
If, like me, you have pretty petite wrists, you'll probably be wishing both came in a different size option; however, I do find the Forerunner 970 is slightly more comfortable, as the round face makes it feel smaller.
Here's where things get interesting. If you're after a watch with a decent battery life, Garmin wins every time; however, the battery life of the Forerunner 970 isn't as impressive as that of some of the other best Garmin watches on the market.
During testing, with the screen set to always-on, the Forerunner 970 lasted four or five days on a charge, running every day. In contrast, the Forerunner 965 would last seven days under the same conditions.
According to Garmin, the Forerunner 970 will last 15 days in smartwatch mode, and up to 26 hours in GPS mode without music, and 14 hours in GPS mode with music. The Garmin Forerunner 965, on the other hand, lasted 23 days in smartwatch mode, 31 hours in GPS mode without music, and 8.5 hours in GPS mode with music.
Despite this step back, Garmin comes out on top when compared to the Apple Watch Ultra 2's battery life. Like a lot of the best Apple Watches, the battery life on the Ultra 2 is one of the main things that would put me off using this watch for a marathon weekend abroad.
The watch gets 36 hours of battery life with normal use. With low power mode, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 gets up to 72 hours of battery, increased from 60 hours offered through the original Ultra.
That said, the Ultra 2 does charge quickly, so if you're the type of person who never forgets to keep your devices topped up, I wouldn't let this put you off. For me, however, I prefer to have a sports watch that I don't need to charge every other day.
Winner: Garmin Forerunner 970 — due to that big, beautiful display, the battery life of the Forerunner 970 is slightly less than other Garmins on the market, but it still beats Apple.
Both of these devices are designed to be worn 24/7, and are packed with features that'll help you train smarter and gain a better understanding of your overall health. Like a lot of the best Garmin watches, the Forerunner 970 will track your activities, sleep, step count, and calorie consumption, but the watch also has Garmin's advanced health features, like Body Battery.
From a fitness perspective, the Forerunner 970 offers all the sports modes and stats you could ever want. It can double as a golf watch and also deliver extensive training load analysis, including heat and altitude acclimation, VO2 max and race time estimates, and a rating of your training readiness based on factors like sleep, stress and recent workouts.
The Forerunner 970 also introduces some new features with a running economy rating, step speed loss measurements, and running tolerance, which estimates the training load you can tolerate safely each week.
That said, to get the running economy and step speed loss measurements, you need to pair the Forerunner 970 with the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which is a significant extra outlay.
The data you can get from your Forerunner 970 is extensive, and there's now an evening report, as well as a morning report telling you the load your training has had on your body. There are also built-in maps for going off-road.
On the other hand, Apple is yet to develop such in-depth training features, but it still does a lot more than just count your steps with its smartwatches. The Apple Watch Ultra has most of the traditional workout modes covered, and its more durable display and water resistance of up to 100 meters mean you could use it for sports like water skiing, windsurfing, and diving. You can also customize all of the data screens in each workout mode.
From a mapping perspective, the Ultra 2 displays current elevation in real time and waypoints in a 3D view based on relative elevation. For hiking workouts, there's a more detailed topographic map that flags points of interest. Nearby trail information appears upon starting a hike, providing insights on the trail length, type, and difficulty. From a safety perspectiv,e the Apple Watch Ultra 2 has crash detection, tracking (using the Find My feature), and a siren.
With the forthcoming watchOS 26 release, you'll be able to use the new Workout Buddy feature, which uses Apple Intelligence, coupled with your training and health data, to provide up-to-the-minute information, stats, and motivation during your workouts.
Both watches have female health tracking, allowing you to monitor your cycle and track your pregnancy. Apple uses skin temperature readings to estimate your ovulation date, and can be connected to the female health tracking app Natural Cycles to be used as birth control. At the time of writing, Garmin can't.
Another big difference between the two watches is how you view your data. Garmin uses the Garmin Connect app, which displays your data in different boxes, starting with your day's activity, followed by a glance at your heart rate, intensity minutes, calories burned, and stress. Click on any of these boxes and you take a deeper dive into your data.
Apple uses the Apple Health app, where you can pin exactly what you want to see to the top, and scroll through your sleep, steps, and activities below. Both are packed with information, and they're pretty intuitive once you're used to using them. For me, though, the user experience with Garmin Connect is slightly better.
Winner: Garmin Foreunner 970 — as a sports watch, the Forerunner 970 has all you could ever need and more. There's no reason why you couldn't train for a race and execute it well with the Apple Watch Ultra 2, but new features like running economy make the Forerunner 970 stand out.
As mentioned above, both of these watches are designed to be worn when you're not exercising, but one of them handles those non-exercise activities a lot better than the other.
I used my Apple Watch to find my phone, connect seamlessly to my AirPods, and reply to texts from my wrist. I've lost count of the number of times I've used Apple Pay on a run, and if you're part of the Apple ecosystem, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 fits in seamlessly. It's like having an iPhone on your wrist.
The Garmin Forerunner 570, on the other hand, just doesn't compare from a smartwatch perspective. It's little things — there's still not a great mix of default watch faces, for example (and third-party watch faces fill me with dread).
When someone messages you or gives you kudos on Apple Watch, the notifications you receive come with a little photo of the person. On Garmin, it's just text — of course, this isn't the be-all and end-all, but the Apple Watch Ultra 2 feels like a better smartwatch.
That said, the Forerunner 970 has a lot of great features. These include the new mic and speaker, which you can use to issue voice commands like "start a timer" or activate your phone's voice assistant. There's music storage, and you can stream from Spotify on your watch, plus there's Garmin Pay on board.
Winner: Apple Watch Ultra 2 — there's no doubt about it, if you're after a smartwatch, the Ultra 2 is the better choice.
So which watch should you buy? The answer depends on what you're hoping to get from the watch. The Forerunner 970 is, without a doubt, one of the best running watches on the market, and one of the best Garmin watches I've ever tested. The bright screen, the flashlight, the mic and speaker, plus the new features, really make it stand out from the crowd. But it's expensive for a Forerunner, and it might make it harder to justify buying.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2, on the other hand, is an extension of your iPhone on your wrist. It's the best running watch Apple makes, and it's a fantastic smartwatch when you're not running. It's also likely to be cheaper than the Garmin, as it's the older watch.
If you're on a budget, and you're not bothered about the flashlight or built-in maps, the Garmin Forerunner 570 is the more affordable option. Other older watches that stand out are the Garmin Epix Pro, which comes in three different sizes, and has a bright, beautiful AMOLED screen.
Whichever you choose, you'll be able to easily get through a marathon training cycle with a fantastic watch on your wrist. If you're serious about training, however, and you can afford it, I'd say the Garmin Forerunner 970 is one of the best running watches on the market right now.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Prime Video Is One of Amazon's Most Underrated Assets
Why Prime Video Is One of Amazon's Most Underrated Assets

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Why Prime Video Is One of Amazon's Most Underrated Assets

Key Points Prime Video is no longer a cost center. Prime Video has more than 200 million viewers. Commerce, content, and ads are converging for Amazon. 10 stocks we like better than Amazon › Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) is best known for its sprawling e-commerce empire, dominant cloud infrastructure business, and its ever-growing Prime membership base. But quietly sitting inside this flywheel is a business with surprising strategic upside: Prime Video. For years, Prime Video was viewed as just another perk -- a nice-to-have feature bundled into the Prime membership. But that's changing. Between a new ad-supported model, a powerful position in connected TV (CTV), and seamless integration into Amazon's broader retail ecosystem, Prime Video is emerging as one of Amazon's most underrated growth engines. Here's why smart investors should start paying closer attention. Prime Video's strategic shift from perks to platform When Amazon first launched Prime Video, it wasn't trying to compete directly with entertainment companies like Netflix or Disney. Instead, it used video content to increase Prime subscriptions, drive loyalty, and reduce churn. The focus was to delight its e-commerce customers, and that strategy worked. Happy customers became more engaged, spending more time and money on the e-commerce platform. But what started as a defensive move has become a strategic pillar. Today, in addition to getting free content as Prime members, customers can also subscribe to third-party channels offered by partners under the Amazon Channel. Besides, Amazon made another pivotal move in January 2024: it began running ads on Prime Video, instantly unlocking a massive audience of over 200 million globally to advertisers. The streaming arm is also increasingly investing in originals, live sports, and localized content across global markets. In other words, Prime Video is quietly building up its ecosystem of services, positioning it well to evolve from a cost-center to a hugely profitable entity of its own. Amazon Ads and Prime Video Amazon Ads is one of the next growth frontiers for Amazon, in which Prime Video is going to play a major role. By rolling out ads across Prime Video by default in key markets, Amazon steps up its monetization efforts of its gigantic Prime subscriber base. Prime members can pay a small monthly fee to go ad-free, but most don't, turning Prime Video into one of the largest ad-supported streaming platforms globally. To put the opportunity size into perspective, Netflix has 300 million subscribers, of which 94 million use the ad-supported service. On the other hand, Disney+ has 126 million global paid subscribers. With more than 200 million viewers, Prime Video is already among the biggest streaming services provided globally. But Prime Video doesn't run an ordinary advertising business. Its ad engine taps into its vast retail data, letting brands target viewers based on actual purchase behavior. A viewer watching an online video might see a relevant sponsored product ad and buy it on Amazon without ever leaving the app. It's a frictionless loop that few competitors can replicate. Owning the connected TV stack Prime Video isn't just a content platform -- it's Amazon's gateway to the living room. And through its connected TV (CTV) footprint, Amazon is building an end-to-end advertising and commerce engine few can match. Amazon Fire TV, now with over 200 million devices sold globally, gives the company direct control over the connected TV hardware and software stack. This integrated approach allows it to collect first-party data, control the user experience, and serve ads more effectively than most CTV players. While traditional media networks are still figuring out how to merge streaming, commerce, and advertising, Amazon already has all three pieces in place. The implications are enormous. Advertisers not only reach an engaged, high-intent audience on Prime Video, but they can also close the loop through Amazon's retail engine. That kind of direct attribution -- seeing a sponsored ad on Fire TV, clicking through, and buying the product on Amazon -- is a marketer's dream. With increasing demand for measurable, performance-based advertising, this positions Amazon as a formidable player in the future of CTV. In other words, Prime Video plays a strategic role in Amazon's expanding ecosystem, in which commerce, content, and advertising converge to form a defensible business model that strengthens both the parts and the whole. Now is the time to take a closer look at Prime Video Investors often think of Amazon in silos: retail, cloud, advertising, logistics, etc. But the company's greatest strength lies in how these pieces connect. Prime Video may have started as a "nice-to-have" feature bundled into Prime, but it's quickly becoming one of Amazon's most powerful strategic assets. By bringing together entertainment, commerce, and advertising into a seamless flywheel, Amazon is building a future where Prime Video not only entertains--but drives growth across the entire business. It's time investors gave this overlooked asset a much closer look. Should you invest $1,000 in Amazon right now? Before you buy stock in Amazon, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Amazon wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Lawrence Nga has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Netflix, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Prime Video Is One of Amazon's Most Underrated Assets was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio

It's not surprising that the Online Safety Act doesn't cover personal data safety
It's not surprising that the Online Safety Act doesn't cover personal data safety

Tom's Guide

time3 hours ago

  • Tom's Guide

It's not surprising that the Online Safety Act doesn't cover personal data safety

On July 25, 2025, the Online Safety Act (OSA) went into effect in the UK, requiring sites hosting adult content and social media platforms to verify users' ages before allowing them to access adult content. With age verification techniques including supplying personal/sensitive information to these sites or platforms (e.g. photo ID, a face scan, credit card information, email address or phone number), many UK residents have turned to using the best VPNs to circumvent the ban. Concerns about the integrity of the third parties employed by sites or platforms have been raised, with many worried that their sensitive personal information will be stored, shared or even used to train AI models. However, many of these concerns have not been addressed by the UK government, with the focus being on the Online Safety Act's enforcement. NordVPN: our top-rated VPN overallFrom our testing, we consider NordVPN to be the best VPN for most people. This is down to its rock-solid security and privacy, excellent speeds and great unblocking performance. Prices start from £2.31 / $2.91 per month for a two-year subscription, which includes an exclusive four months free for Tom's Guide readers. Plus, you can get an Amazon gift card worth up to £50 / $50 if you sign up for NordVPN's Plus or Complete memberships. A 30-day money-back guarantee applies to all subscriptions. While this may be concerning to many UK citizens who do not want their personal information to be shared or stolen, and are worried about the potential ramifications of a data breach or leak of an age verification platform, it's not necessarily surprising that personal data safety hasn't been considered in the OSA. In May 2024, it was revealed that nearly 70% of UK MPs had had their personal information leaked on the dark web, including personal and login information. MP's email addresses were exposed 2,110 times, with some MPs targeted up to 30 times, and over 200 plain-text passwords were also leaked. The most common cause for these information leaks were hacks or breaches of companies that MPs had signed up for using their parliamentary email – including Adobe, Dropbox and LinkedIn. This is incredibly poor cybersecurity practice, as the leaks demonstrate – if the MPs had reused the same login information for any other account, it would be easily accessible. Even MPs who were on committees dedicated to looking after the cybersecurity of the UK had their personal data leaked, which is concerning considering the fact that you would expect them to have much more rigorous and robust data security practices. However, it does make it less surprising that the Online Safety Act does not include any requirements for businesses to ensure that users' personal data is kept secure. It appears as though this simply hasn't been considered. Additionally, with MPs like the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle making inflammatory statements regarding pushback to the act – he posted on X that those who oppose it are "on the side of predators" – it appears that the government is far more concerned with the enforcement of age verification than ensuring that the sensitive information used for this is kept safe. The Online Safety Act does lay out guidelines for the age verification checks themselves, namely that they must be "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair," but this doesn't mention anything about them being secure. By not outlining any guidelines for these age verification checks, it means that sites and platforms do not have to use secure third parties. While many are choosing to – for example, Reddit has employed the use of Persona, which deletes all user information within 7 days, and Spotify has employed the use of Yoti, which deletes user data immediately – this offers little reassurance that this will be the case for most other sites. The only statement regarding personal data safety has been from OFCOM, who shortly addressed data security and privacy concerns in an article on the Online Safety Act and what users need to know about it. OFCOM stated: "Strong age checks can be done effectively, safely, and in a way that protects your privacy. As with everything you do online, you should exercise a degree of caution and judgement when giving over personal information. "Data protection in the UK is regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). We work closely with the ICO and where we have concerns that a provider has not complied with data protection law, we may refer the matter to the ICO. "In the UK people are familiar with having to prove their age in the offline world to buy age-restricted goods like alcohol and tobacco. Age checks to access [mature content] are just the same. It will help stop children from encountering [mature content] online, in the same way that a child should not be able to simply walk into a shop and buy a [NSFW] DVD or magazine." In this statement, the onus is on the end user to make sure their personal data is kept safe, rather than having the Online Safety Act require that the age verification techniques must be secure in the first place. Additionally, providing an ID card to a shop assistant, bouncer or bartender is incredibly different to taking a picture of your ID or scanning your face, especially when there is no guarantee that this information will be deleted. After all, a shop assistant would not take a photocopy of your ID and then hang onto it for an unspecified amount of time afterwards. However, there is some comfort to come from the fact that third-party age verification services will have to follow UK-based data regulations. Under the General Data Protection Regulations in the UK, personal data can only be "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed." Essentially, this means that data should not be retained when it is no longer needed. While this could technically mean that age verification companies delete user data once their age has been verified – for example, Spotify's age verification partner, Yoti, does this – this may not be the case for all age verification services. Additionally, the statement that OFCOM "may" refer companies to the ICO if they have sufficient concerns that an age verification company has not complied with GDPR does not quite feel good enough when people's faces and sensitive information are at risk. Overall, while many companies do appear to be putting secure age verification checks in place, the concerns about personal data raised by the OSA are not unfounded. Hopefully there will be more guidance released regarding the safety and security of UK citizens' personal data in the coming weeks. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.

A brief history of folding phones and why the best is yet to come
A brief history of folding phones and why the best is yet to come

Digital Trends

time4 hours ago

  • Digital Trends

A brief history of folding phones and why the best is yet to come

If you're a fan of the best folding phones like me, you'll know it's been a breakout year for the category. The new Galaxy Z Fold 7 caps a year of multiple releases that have all vied to solve the common complaints with previous folding phones and prove that they can be just as comfortable as a regular phone. Several folding phone makers have released phones to compete in a key metric: thickness, or, namely, the lack of it. The ultra-thin folding phones sub-category has had three competitors this year that aimed to be the world's thinnest folding phone, but only one of them also delivers the smartphone-like experience we've been waiting for. Recommended Videos This is just the seventh year of folding phones, but we've already reached the point where they feel just like a regular smartphone in the pocket. Yet, Apple is still to release the rumored iPhone Fold, and every Android phone maker will also be looking to release its best foldable phone as well. Here's a look at the brief history of folding phones, and why the best is yet to come. 2018 — 2020: The Initial Foldable Era This may be surprising, but the world's first folding phone was by a company most won't have heard of. We need to rewind almost seven years to 2018 for the first commercial folding phone in the form of the Royole Flexpai, which launched in China in October that year. It started at ¥8,999 ($1,250), but as we learnt, it didn't deliver on the true promise of the folding phone. The following year, Samsung launched — and relaunched — the Galaxy Fold, and just four days after its announcement, Huawei took to the stage to unveil the Mate X. One key difference? Rather than two displays, the main display folds around the phone, forming part of its back. The smaller bezels of the Huawei Mate X also hinted at an inevitable trend. The folding phone market features more than just book-style folding phones, and that year also saw the revival of the Motorola Razr on November 13, 2019. Six years later, the Motorola Razr Ultra 2025 is the latest in a long line of Razr flip phones to dominate the flip phone market. A couple of months later, in February 2020, Samsung unveiled the Galaxy Z Flip, and the true flip phone competition began in the US. While book-style folding phones have had considerable competition, the flip phone market has featured several attempts by Android phone makers to launch a flip phone, but with limited success. Despite more than ten brands attempting different flip phones, the market remains an oligopoly dominated by Motorola and Samsung. The book-style market, however, is very different, and the launch of the Galaxy Z Fold 2 in September 2020 saw Samsung adopt a full-screen on the front, a design language that has continued through to the latest iteration. It also featured improved durability with new Ultra-Thin Glass, a larger battery, and triple cameras. Most importantly, it was also the launch vehicle for Samsung DeX, which remains a key part of Samsung's folding phone experience. 2021 — 2023: A Defining Era 2021 and 2022 saw the foldable market explode, as Samsung released the Galaxy Z Fold 3 and Galaxy Z Fold 4, the latter the best Samsung fold until the Galaxy Z Fold 7. Meanwhile, Huawei released the Mate X2 in February 2022 with an inward folding design, similar to other folding phones. Xiaomi launched its first and second-generation Mix Fold folding phones, and Oppo and Vivo launched their first folding phones. 2023 ushered in several changes in the folding phone market that are still prevalent today. Samsung continued its annual release with the Galaxy Z Fold 5 and Z Flip 5 in August, Google launched the first-generation Google Pixel Fold, and Honor began its current focus on thin and light design with the Honor Magic V2. However, all were dwarfed by the OnePlus Open — also known as the Oppo Find N3 — which launched in December to wide acclaim. It was a breakthrough folding phone for that era, bringing a thinner, lighter design and a focus on a great camera and excellent battery life. The OnePlus Open remains a strong folding phone in the US, despite being two years old. It wasn't just the book folding phone market that saw a major change, as the Flip phone market underwent a large shift to the current big-screen era that we're now accustomed to. Ushered in by the Razr 2023 series — which features large front screens and the innovative Razr approach to the front display — even Samsung has had to adopt this trend with the new Galaxy Z Flip 7. 2024 — 2025: The ultra-thin era Last year saw the start of the current ultra-thin era, in which Honor, Oppo, and now Samsung are all competing. A year ago, the Honor Magic V3 became the world's thinnest folding phone at 4.4mm thick when unfolded. It retained that title until the Oppo Find N5 surpassed it in February 2025, measuring 4.2mm thick when unfolded. However, this didn't last, as Honor then launched the Honor Magic V5 a few weeks ago on July 2, 2025, and it measures 4.1mm thick when unfolded. A week later, Samsung cemented its place atop many global smartphone wishlists with the Galaxy Z Fold 7, which doesn't set a record for thickness, but does so for weight at 215 grams, three grams lighter than the Magic V5. Despite not setting a record, a thickness of 4.2mm when unfolded and 8.9mm when folded means it's the first folding phone to be indistinguishable from a regular smartphone. As I covered in our Galaxy Z Fold 7 review, the design has set a new benchmark for how folding phones should feel. The Magic V5 boasts the largest battery in this category and one of the best camera systems. Meanwhile, Google is set to announce its new Pixel 10 Pro Fold later this month. 2026 onwards: the iPhone Fold era? Of course, there's one major smartphone player still to make its foldable phone entrance: Apple. The iPhone Fold is rumored to launch in September next year, potentially enabling folding phones to reach escape velocity. The iPhone, the iPad, and several products since have proved that Apple's participation in a category is necessary for that category to reach its total addressable market (TAM). Samsung has been key to the success of folding phones so far, and devices like the Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Galaxy Z Flip 7 show that the company is still able to innovate. With Apple set to launch, Samsung likely to respond, and most other phone makers are likely to launch new folding phones in the wake of Apple's entrance, it's safe to say that the best is yet to come. In case it wasn't obvious, I can't wait!

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store