Feed aggregator

A faulty showerhead can ruin your shower experience. Here are the best shower filters to grab today.

The Cosori Iconic has a sleek finish and all the power you need to make your air-fryer favorites.

Polar Loop: One minute review

The Polar Loop is, on the surface, what a lot of folks want. It’s a lifestyle-friendly wearable like the popular Whoop MG, but one that doesn’t come with a mandatory monthly subscription.

It’s screen-free, with a lightweight body and fabric strap for maxed-out comfort. Polar has kept the Loop simple, offering a limited set of features rather than trying to cram in lots of extras. It tracks your sleep, your steps and has a crack at recognising and logging activity sessions — runs, walks and so on. This part is patchy, but the Polar Loop was never going to be that big a hit as a one of the best fitness tracker with the hardcore exerciser crowd anyway.

The Polar Loop’s issues are largely software-based. You have to get on with the Polar app to make the Loop fun to use, and its interface and presentation of data could really do with a rethink. This is planned for the future, but for now, this isn’t quite the Whoop-killer you may be hoping for. It’s shown up on that front by the cheaper Amazfit Helio Strap.

As is, what you get is a decent screen less tracker, but one that may be better later into its lifespan – after a software update, at least.

Polar Loop: Specifications

Component

Polar Loop

Price

$199 / £149.50 / AU$299

Dimensions

42 x 27 x 9mm

Weight

29g with band

Case/bezel

Stainless steel/Plastic

Display

N/A

GPS

N/A

Battery life

Up to 8 days

Connection

Bluetooth

Water resistant

Yes, 3ATM

Polar Loop: Price and Availability

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

• $199 in the US
• £149.50 in the UK
• AU$299 in Australia

The Polar Loop launched in early September 2025 as a subscription-free alternative to the Whoop band. This is a little over a year since the launch of the Polar 360, a business-oriented wellness wearable that’s ultimately pretty similar to this consumer version. It costs $199 in the US, £149.50 in the UK and AU$299 in Australia.

While there are no explicit ongoing costs, there is a totally optional subscription called Polar Fitness Program, which works out an adaptive training plan for you. This costs 9.99 Euro a month after a free trial. This is far better value than the Whoop, which doesn’t sell you the device at all – just an expensive subscription. But for a fitness tracker that doesn’t actually do a lot, it’s still quite highly-priced.

• Value score: 3.5/5

Polar Loop: Design

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

• Screenless
• Steel accents
• Comfortable stretchy bands

The Polar Loop is similar enough to the Whoop band that Whoop has sued Polar claiming the company nicked its design. However, what this really boils down to is a couple of conventions already seen across the screenless wearables landscape.

Polar uses a fabric strap that weaves, buckle-like, over the wearable’s main unit. It covers where the screen would be in a normal watch. The Loop uses a velcro-style fastener and is clearly designed to look like a lifestyle wearable over a hardcore fitness gadget. While much of the core brick is plastic, the top and outer parts are brushed bronze-shade steel. It’s there to provide a touch of class.

These screen-free wearables are intended to be the kind of gadget you set and forget, at least until the battery runs out. The Polar Loop weighs 29g, strap included, light enough not to pick up any real momentum as you swing your arms unlike a watch like the Apple Watch Ultra, which weighs close to 60g. But you are still gong to see those familiar skin indents when you occasionally take the watch off, pressing its contours into your wrist.

Is it comfy? Sure, these slightly stretchy fabric bands are ace for comfort. But I’ve found the Amazfit Helio Band slightly easier to forget I’m wearing, no doubt because it’s even lighter: just 20g.

The Polar Loop has no buttons and no LED status indicator. You can’t interact with it if you try. There’s not even a vibration motor: it’s about as stripped-back as Polar could make it. Water resistance is rated at WR30, which in other wearables is often seen as not enough for safe swimming, while Polar says the Loop is fine for “bathing and swimming” under the ISO22810 standard, just not diving or snorkelling.

• Design score: 4/5

Polar Loop: Features

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

• No subscription
• Very little interaction
• Precision Prime heart rate sensor from 2018

One of the core appeals of the Polar Loop is, of course, that there is no mandatory subscription. There is a paid part of the app, though.

It’s called Polar Fitness Program, which costs around $11 a month (9.99 Euro). This launched in April 2025, provides tailored workout plans. It would work much better when paired with Polar’s more conventional fitness watches, like the Polar Grit X2, than a Loop.

The Polar Loop’s own feature set is very stripped-back. You can’t, for example, make the watch broadcast its heart rate data to be used by another device. There’s no altimeter, so counting of steps climbed is not recorded. You cannot use the Polar Loop as an alarm as there’s no vibration motor. When the Polar Loop is running low on battery you’ll simply get an incessant reminder to charge on your phone. You know the funny bit? Polar actually released a tracker called the Loop 2 in 2015 that did have vibration, and a half-hidden screen made up of 85 LEDs.

Neither that band nor the Polar Loop records blood oxygenation data either, despite the heart rate array making use of green, red and orange LEDs. Polar calls this its Precision Prime array, and it has been around for absolutely ages. A similar design was found in 2018’s Polar Vantage V. That’s a lifetime ago in tech terms, but the basics still work well.

• Features score: 2.5/5

Polar Loop: Performance

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

• 8 days of battery life
• Some activity tracking errors
• HR data testing similar to Garmin Elevate V5 sensor

Despite the lack of a screen, Polar says the Loop lasts eight days, which is actually a bit less than some of its watches with displays. This is basically on the money. You can expect it to last around a week. With no GPS or screen, there should be little variation in how long it lasts based on your activity level.

Like any wearable, the Polar Loop is heavily reliant on its heart rate sensor for any data beyond your steps. This wearable has a pretty good one, despite using older hardware. While this is not a replacement for a full-on runner’s watch due to its lack of GPS, its HR data during runs is pretty similar to that of a Garmin Forerunner 970 (one of the best Garmin watches) and its Elevate V5 sensor, wore concurrently during most of my testing.

The Polar Loop doesn’t tend to mess up the start of workouts, or show unexpected major HR spikes during the work day when you do little more than potter about. There was one unexpected spike during a tracked run, but in general the results are solid here.

By default, the Polar Loop will record basic stats 24/7, and then automatically log any slightly extended stretches it believes you’re exercising. Go for a 12-minute walk? You can expect to see that pop up in the Polar app. It’s not entirely flawless, though; during one run, the Loop only clocked half of the hour-and-change workout, seemingly stopping during a brief break, only to fail to register the second half. The durations of some sessions are off too, although you can always take a more active approach to tracking: in the Polar phone app, you can manually start a tracked session, select the Loop, and use it as the source for HR data.

That aside, the Polar Loop has a good stab at recording your daily steps. And it of course tracks sleep, too, estimating your time spent in the light, deep and REM sleep zones, and records interruptions. The Polar Loop is more sensitive to these than another wearable’s full-on wakeful moments detection, so you may well see your sleep records peppered with these tiny interruption blips.

The lead stats Polar wants you to focus on are sleep duration, sleep solidity and regeneration — basically how much that sleep is getting your body back where it needs to be. However, there’s also an ANS Charge (autonomous nervous system charge) section in which you can check out breathing rate and heart rate variability.

All the basic data is here, and it’s sound enough. The Polar Loop’s biggest issue is the phone app isn’t really all that enjoyable to use, may look dated to some and doesn’t really direct the user that well as to what they should focus on.

The app’s home screen is Diary, which acts like a feed of your day, showing recent auto-tracked exercises, your step count and so on, in semi-chronological order. This is not as effective as the software in Amazfit’s rival Helio Strap app, which is more intuitive and has a handy traffic light-style system to alert you to any stats that may be out of the ordinary.

Screen-free wearables are massively reliant on their apps for the overall quality of experience. And Polar’s could do with some work. It’s just not that inviting a space to hang out in. Polar does plan to fully revamp the app in future, but right now we can only work with that we have.

• Performance score: 3.5/5

Polar Loop: Scorecard

Category

Comment

Score

Value

The lack of a forced subscription is good but this is not the most aggressively priced tracker around.

3.5/5

Design

It’s comfortable, it looks decent and has some higher-grade steel elements, plus you get a choice of colours.

4/5

Features

A watch like this doesn’t need scads of features, but it does miss out on a few elements that could be handy.

2.5/5

Performance

Heart rate accuracy is decent but you may not want to rely on auto exercise recognition for accurate session logging.

3/5

Polar Loop: Should I buy?Buy it if...

You like its style

An important factor here is how the Loop doesn’t look like a fitness watch, with a two-tone fabric outer strap with steel accents.

You want a subscription-free experience

While you can pay for a training plan subscription, there’s no mandatory subscription with a Polar Loop.

You want pure passive tracking

With no screen, and even no vibrate or buttons, this is a zero-interaction wearable for those who want no wrist distractions.

Don’t buy it if…

You are expecting big health insights

At the time of review the Loop doesn’t present its data in the most cogent way, and also has fairly basic hardware.

You want better software before buying

While Polar has plans to overhaul its software and interface, we don’t know when that will happen at the time of review.

Also consider

Whoop MG

The screen-free band that made this category sing, but requires a pricey subscription.

Read our full Whoop MG review

First reviewed: December 2025

We tested the Polar Loop, the subscription-free Whoop alternative.

These tips can help you design a healthy diet and stay on top of your health goals in 2026.

LastPass targeted with phishing campaign pressuring victims into sharing their master passwords.

4K TV sound is awful and I'm tired of TV manufacturers assuming it's OK because we'll buy a soundbar.

These superfoods can support kidney health -- and many are already in your pantry.

An error in its website allowed anyone to view sensitive user data, including names and email addresses.

Your diet may be missing key nutrients. These multivitamins can help fill the nutritional gaps and support everyday health.

Your next microwave might contain parts reused wholesale from older models, thanks to robots.

It's just a concept for now, but the Staria Camper has to be the most luxurious way to venture off the beaten path.

A leaker claims that the next Resident Evil remake will be a fresh version of an underrated spin-off.

Stockpiling bought consumers some time, but Trump's tariffs are pushing up prices across retail now.

Fresh details about Avengers: Doomsday's reportedly action-heavy opening appear to have leaked online.

Ever since I first played it on the PS5 a few years ago, I’ve been certain Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade is a gaming masterpiece – the inarguable best way to play the role-playing game (RPG) classic that is Final Fantasy VII. But now that it’s coming to the Nintendo Switch 2, is the game still as excellent?

TL;DR, yes, but I’m left feeling like the Switch 2 edition is only the second best way to play the best way to play Final Fantasy VII.

I’m not the only person who loves Final Fantasy VII Remake. Former TechRadar Computing Hardware expert Jackie Thomas gave it five stars out of five back when it released on the PS4 almost six years ago, and the story, music, and general beauty of the game haven’t changed with this port.

But as you’d expect, going from a home console to a handheld hybrid, some technical downgrades are to be expected – with both texture quality, framerate, and fidelity dips noticeable, though playing in Docked mode does give it a noticeable visual bump.

(Image credit: Square Enix)

That said, are you playing on the Switch 2 for graphical superiority? If you are you might want to rethink your console choice, as the true beauty of the Nintendo hybrid is its ability to game on the go, and for an tens-of-hours-long RPG – that’ll hold your attention between 30 and 90 hours based on whether you want to focus on the story, complete a few side quests along the way, or seriously devour every piece of additional content across both the main campaign and bonus Intermission downloadable content (DLC) episode – is essential for more time-strapped gamers.

Finding time to play all of that at home can be tough, especially if you share your TV. Taking Final Fantasy 7 Remake on the go as part of your morning commute, on trips if you travel regularly, or simply enjoying it in portable mode on the couch while someone else uses the main screen in your home entertainment setup makes finding the time much more manageable – meaning you can actually start enjoying the games you buy, and not just stare at them in your ever-growing digital library.

If this convenience is what you crave, you’ll love Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade on the Nintendo Switch 2. For everyone else, this game is still required reading, but you’d be better served by its PlayStation 5 edition (provided you have access to the console).

(Image credit: Square Enix)

Final Fantasy 7 Remake is part one of Square Enix’s recreation of the 1997 RPG, Final Fantasy 7. While it is, in some ways, simply a third of a game, the care and attention put into every inch of this title doesn’t leave you feeling shortchanged.

As I mentioned in the intro you can easily spend close to 90 hours playing Remake if you sink your teeth into every challenge the game has to offer, including finishing every side mission, earning the high score in every minigame, completing the game on Hard mode (which requires a whole replay), and besting the greatest foes in Shinra’s virtual battle zone.

I can say, as someone who has done exactly this, you won’t regret the time you spend in Midgar, but even if you simply focus on the main quest-focused story (including the Intermission story featuring Yuffie), then you’ll still be savouring Final Fantasy VII for around 30 to 40 hours.

Even if you’ve played the 1997 version, there’s plenty to enjoy here too.

The Remake expands on the story in a way that better fleshes out each character, the relationships between the key players, and (if I’m honest) makes the experience much more engaging rather than what could at times feel like a slog.

There are a few new twists and turns to discover as well, but every single one feels like a worthy addition to the mythos and the core story FFVII is telling – rather than fluff that would detract from its message.

Combat ready!

(Image credit: Square Enix)

The gameplay has had a tune-up, too.

I enjoy turn-based battling, but Final Fantasy VII’s approach to combat is undeniably more active and approachable to a wider audience. At the same time, I appreciate the “Classic” difficulty mode the game introduces, which helps to return some of the accessibility offered by turn-based combat if you want it.

If playing regularly, you must actively attack and block with your character to charge ATB so you can perform more powerful skills and spells. In Classic mode, the characters all fight and guard automatically, letting you simply focus on which enemy to target and when you want to use those more powerful moves.

It’s not a substitute for the slower pace of turn-based fights, but feels closer to it if you require a slightly calmer pace.

(Image credit: Square Enix)

In any case, with this more active approach to combat comes complexity where lots can be happening at once – especially in bigger fights that have Cloud, Tifa, and Barrett slashing, punching, and firing away at a small army of Shinra guards and bots returning fire – but the Switch 2 did its best to keep things flowing smoothly.

There’s no in-system way to track framerate, but the gameplay did seem to hold steady at 30 frames per second (fps) as Square has promised. If you’re used to higher rates, you’ll notice some frameyness to the game in handheld mode, but honestly, it doesn’t detract from the experience – especially since this isn’t a game like a shooter where 60fps-afforded precision is essential.

There are also a few noticeable texture and model downgrades compared to the PlayStation version, which are even more apparent if, like me, you’re used to the PS5 rendition rather than the PS4 edition of Remake. When you dock your Switch 2, however, things do start to look a lot better, and even in handheld mode, there is an undeniable beauty to Final Fantasy VII Remake that persists even if the overall quality has taken a hit.

Again, as I mentioned in my intro, it’s also not like you’re choosing the Switch 2 for its graphical fidelity. Quality is the price we pay for handheld convenience, and I’ll hold firm to the fact that this port does look great, even if not quite as great as the PlayStation edition. It just comes down to what you value more.

(Image credit: Square Enix)

The only other point I’ll make on the Switch 2 vs PlayStation comparisons is cost.

At launch, the Switch 2 Final Fantasy 7 Remake Intergrade will cost you $39.99 / £39.99 / AU$69.95. It’s a reasonable price of entry in my mind, but you should note that a twin pack of Remake and its part 2 Rebirth on PS5 will set you back $59.99 / £59.99 / AU$159.95 (it’s not such a great deal based in Australia at full-price, though I’ve seen it on sale for much less in each of these regions meaning it’s a better deal than these numbers make it look).

Two games for effectively the price of one-and-a-half (or even for the price of one if you get the twin pack with a discount) is clearly a good deal. So if you have access to both consoles, and won’t appreciate the convenience of handheld mode, or would appreciate the better value proposition, then you might want to consider your options for how to experience Final Fantasy VII.

(Image credit: Square Enix)Should you play Final Fantasy 7 Remake Intergrade on the Switch 2?Play it if…

You want to experience one of the greatest RPGs ever made again
FFVII is beloved for a reason, and the remake is simply the best way to experience the story in 2026.

You care about portable gaming
The game runs really well on the Switch 2 in handheld mode. Sure, it isn’t graphically perfect, but that’s not what the Switch 2 is for.

You like games with lots of content
You can easily spend over 50 hours playing this title if you devote yourself to its bonus content and DLC in addition to its main story, you might even stretch to closer to 90 hours if you want to complete hard mode too. So if you like long games this is a solid pick up.

Don’t play it if…

You have a PS5
The Nintendo Switch 2 version is good, but for the most cost-effective and best quality way to experience FFVII on console, you should play the PS5 version if you can.

You want high quality and performance
This title still looks beautiful on the Switch 2, but it does look more framey and overall looks lower quality than non-handheld versions.

You want turn-based action
The appeal of classic RPGs is turn-based combat, and while this remake maintains elements of that style of gameplay it’s a very different experience.

(Image credit: Square Enix)Accessibility

Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade has several difficulty controls to help with accessibility.

There’s Classic mode if you’d prefer a simpler battle system, but also the ability to always have max HP, a full ATB gauge, and constantly deal max damage (among other effects) that can make the game more approachable.

Beyond this, there are subtitles for all cutscenes, and there isn’t a built-in colorblind mode, which can unfortunately make a couple of fights and minigames a little tougher if you are colorblind.

How I reviewed Final Fantasy VII Remake on Nintendo Switch 2

I’ve already put over 80-hours into Final Fantasy VII Remake and its DLC episode on my PS5 – as I mentioned in my review, I enjoyed it so much I went out of my way to get every trophy – so I already knew my thoughts on its mechanics and its story before booting this title up, and had a great point of reference for the Switch 2 version.

The focus of this review was to test how well the Nintendo Switch 2 can handle the game I love. To test this, I played the title over many, many hours in both docked and handheld mode, made sure to explore both the main story, side quests, and minigames, and made notes about its technical capabilities.

I reviewed this game using a standard Nintendo Switch 2 when in handheld mode, and on a Amazon Fire TV Omni QLED with a Sonos Beam (Gen 2) soundbar, and an 8BitDo Ultimate 2 controller in docked mode.

Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade is incredible, and while the Nintendo Switch 2 version is a step down, I still love it.

The best rice cookers give consistently great results with any grain – and a lot more besides.

President Trump is expected to address affordability at the World Economic Forum today. And, Minnesota officials react after the Justice Department subpoenas them.

(Image credit: Ludovic Marin)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his British counterpart, David Lammy, are raising alarms about Iranian ballistic missiles in Russia that threaten Ukraine.