# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staley High School Talon, Volume 14, Issue 2, December 2021, Kansas City, Mo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talon is a student-produced magazine created and published by the journalism students of Staley High School in Kansas City, Missouri. Volume 14, Issue 2, December 2021. Editors-In-Chief are Hannah Moore and Cassie Ford. Managing editors are Brianne Tremper and Charlie Warner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Staley News, Staley High SchoolFollowthis publisher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staley High School Talon, Volume 14, Issue 4, April 2022, Kansas City, Mo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talon is a student-produced magazine created and published by the journalism students of Staley High School in Kansas City, Mo. Volume 14, Issue 4, April 2022. Editors-In-Chief are Cassie Ford, Charlie Warner & Hannah Moore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Staley News, Staley High SchoolFollowthis publisher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staley High School Talon, Volume 14, Issue 3, February 2022, Kansas City, Mo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talon is a student-produced magazine created and published by the journalism students of Staley High School in Kansas City, Missouri. Volume 14, Issue 3, February 2022. Editors-In-Chief are Cassie Ford, Charlie Warner & Hannah Moore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Staley News, Staley High SchoolFollowthis publisher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staley High School Talon, Volume 14, Issue 3, February 2022, Kansas City, Mo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talon is a student-produced magazine created and published by the journalism students of Staley High School in Kansas City, Missouri. Volume 14, Issue 3, February 2022. Editors-In-Chief are Cassie Ford, Charlie Warner & Hannah Moore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Staley High School Talon, Volume 14, Issue 5, May 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talon is a student-produced magazine created and published by the journalism students of Staley High School in Kansas City, Mo. Volume 14, Issue 4, April 2022. Editors-In-Chief are Charlie Warner & Hannah Moore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Greatest Chess Players of All-Time — The Sporting Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been many amazing Chess Grandmasters. Read our list of the greatest chess players of all time. From holding onto the World Champion title for an absurd amount of time to winning equal positions over and over again, these are the most talented people to ever play the game of chess.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the NFL is the ultimate team sport, the focus on quarterbacks continues to grow and grow. In this year's Super Bowl, the attention given to the quarterbacks is well deserved. Patrick Mahomes and Jalen Hurts represent the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles perfectly and should make for an exciting game.

It isn't a surprise that Mahomes and Hurts are two of the leading candidates for the NFL's MVP honors and have the best odds for Super Bowl MVP as well.

Mahomes has been a transcendent talent at the position since taking over as a starter in 2018 when he led the Chiefs to a 12-4 record while leading the league with 50 touchdown passes. While he didn't improve either of those marks the following year, Mahomes led Kansas City to a Super Bowl championship instead.

The road to the Super Bowl hasn't been as overwhelmingly positive for Hurts. He started out as Carson Wentz's backup in 2020 and had an 8-7 record with just 16 touchdowns to nine interceptions in 2021. This year was his breakout, leading the team to a 14-1 record in his 15 starts with 3,700 yards passing and 22 touchdowns through the air combined with 760 yards on the ground and 13 rushing touchdowns.

The two star quarterbacks have also had to deal with recent injury concerns with Hurts hurting his shoulder late in the season and Mahomes dealing with a high ankle sprain since the divisional round of the playoffs.

As we kick off the start of Super Bowl week, a lot of focus will be on the quarterbacks. We decided to take a deep dive into Pro Football Focus' grades for each and see how they compared this season. Their grade cards are in, how did they do? (Note: PFF grades are on a 100-point scale.)

Overall Grades

Mahomes - 91.5 grade, 3rd overall quarterback
Hurts - 84.8 grade, 5th overall quarterback

Mahomes - 89.2 passing grade
Hurts - 80.6 passing grade

Mahomes - 84.7 run grade
Hurts - 84.4 run grade

Starting out, it is surprising that Mahomes has the lead in all three categories, especially in the rushing department as Hurts outrushed him by 350 yards and nine touchdowns. In overall grade, the six-point differential between the two is the same as the difference between Hurts and Trevor Lawrence, the 12th-ranked quarterback according to PFF.

Use of Play Action

With Play Action
Mahomes - 94.2
Hurts - 81.2

Without Play Action
Mahomes - 85.1
Hurts - 81.8

The biggest surprise is that Hurts is better without play action as that is rare in the league. Mahomes, on the other hand, is graded significantly higher with play action despite the Chiefs being in the lower half of rushing yards per game.

Types of Throws

It is impressive to see how good both quarterbacks are at throwing medium and deep passes according to PFF's grades. Mahomes is at an elite level on deep balls while Hurts is better in the intermediate. Some of that intermediate success can be attributed to Philadelphia's A.J. Brown (powerful over the middle) and DeVonta Smith (technician as a route runner).

Role of Pressure

While Mahomes and Hurts were two of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, even the best are much better when they are not blitzed. While it is risky and can't be done regularly, blitzing is a vital way to impact them. Mahomes was graded 20 points higher when kept clean while Hurts' grade when pressured was quite low (52.4) especially compared to when he had a clean pocket (91.6).

Reviewing the Grades

While it is not surprising that Mahomes graded out better than Hurts overall, it is interesting that there was only one main area - intermediate passing - where Hurts graded out better. Even when we look at their highest-graded games this season, Mahomes' 91.4 against Jacksonville in Week 10 tops Hurts' 85.4 against Pittsburgh in Week 8.

PFF is just one way to evaluate quarterbacks but looking at their grades, Mahomes graduated the 2022 NFL season summa cum laude. Hurts will look to take the Lombardi Trophy, away from the leader of the class, as the ultimate end-of-the-year award.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analytics prove that Jalen Hurts vs. Patrick Mahomes is closer than people think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the NFL is the ultimate team sport, the focus on quarterbacks continues to grow and grow. In this year's Super Bowl, the attention given to the quarterbacks is well deserved. Patrick Mahomes and Jalen Hurts represent the Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles perfectly and should make for an exciting game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
McDonald's vs. Burger King Taste Test | FOOD FEUDS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 100 Best Pens, As Tested by Strategist Editors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 100 best pens as tested by the writers and editors of the Strategist. They tested felt-tip, gel, rollerball, ballpoint, and fountain pens, including ones from Pilot, Baron Fig, Montblanc, Ohto, Prismacolor, Aurora, and more.

# data[].attributes.headline
Face Off: Creating Video Game Characters

# data[].attributes.subject
Face Off: Creating Video Game Characters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no such thing as the perfect running shoe. When it comes to running, all sorts of things come into play - your biomechanics, your weight, the surface you run on and the shape of your feet, meaning no one shoe will suit every kind of runner.

One of the things we've noticed over the decades of producing shoe reviews at RW is the way our network of runners express themselves when they're filing their feedback on the shoes they've tested. Quite often, they don't talk about the things the shoe does but instead focus on the things it doesn't do. As in: it doesn't pinch, it doesn't feel heavy, it doesn't make their feet sweat - and so on. This shows that, for many runners, the aim in choosing footwear is simply to find shoes that stay out of your way, don't intrude upon your run and just allow you to get on with it. The more experienced you become, the more you may look for a specific required characteristic within a shoe - which is why we give each model such a thorough inspection - but it's worth remembering that, at a basic level, comfort is key.
How to choose your perfect running shoe
Each shoe on the list below was chosen due to its high overall performance scores, but we also looked at three important categories that should help you find the best model for you:

Weight: Lighter shoes typically have less cushioning, which can make them feel faster. That said, if you're going long distances, the extra cushioning of a heavier shoe might be a better option.

Drop: A shoe's drop is the difference between the heel and forefoot measurements, or in simple terms, how much your toes drop below your heel. A higher drop can lead to more heel striking. Most shoes have a drop between 8 and 12 millimetres, some shoes have less than 6mm and a few minimalist designs have zero drop.

Cushioning: Cushioning provides impact absorption. In the lab, we looked at cushioning measurements in the heel and forefoot, to give you an idea of the overall cushioning in each shore.

How we choose the best running shoes for 2020

The sweat test: We receive multiple pairs of each shoe from the manufacturers. These go to more than 200 runners of varying abilities and preferences. Each spends a month running in their shoes over multiple sessions, before filling in a detailed questionnaire.

The lab test: Under the direction of veteran biomechanist Dr Martyn Shorten, mechanical tests - see below - are conducted on each shoe at the RW Shoe Lab in Portland, Oregon, US. When the detailed wear-test and lab-test results are in, we distil the information from both sources into the reviews you see here.

Cushioning: A machine called an impact tester measures how soft or firm each shoe is underfoot. An 8kg weight is repeatedly dropped onto the heel and forefoot of a men's size 8 shoe from a height of two inches. The lab gauges the force of impact and how much the midsole compresses.

Flexibility: Flexibility indicates how smoothly a shoe will move with the foot from heelstrike to toe-off. We measure this by securing a shoe's forefoot to a machine that bends it 45 degrees - about the same as the foot flexes on the run - 60 times in 20 seconds. The force required to achieve this indicates how pliable the shoe is.

Height and weight: We weigh men's (size 8) and women's (size 5) models. We also measure 'stack height': the outsole foam rubber, midsole foam and insole. We use a digital contact sensor to determine the shoe's 'heel drop' - the difference in height from heel to forefoot.

What are the best running shoes for 2020?

The wait is over, here are the shoes that made it onto our list, and the ones we're looking forward to seeing later in the year:

1.Hoka One One Mach 3

Won: Highly Commended 2020
View more images
Price: £130

Weight: 245g (M), 204g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 5mm

Part of Hoka's Fly (performance-shoe) range, along with the Cavu and Elevon, this is an extremely light model that nevertheless offers the cushioning of a much heavier shoe. Updates from the previous version are on the minor side, with the midsole tuning being slightly tweaked to give a softer feel in the heel and a firmer platform from which to push off in the forefoot. The upper has been updated to a seamless bootie construction for a better midfoot wrap and the jacquard mesh has been made more breathable- handy if you're putting the hammer down during a fast race (precisely the sort of situation the Mach was made for). However, this isn't just a shoe for speed demons; slower, heavier runners found the Mach 3 to be perfect for their own quicker runs and shorter races, thanks to the wide platform and pleasing feeling of bounce. Note: it's best togo up half a size because the fit is noticeably snug.
Read full review Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
2. New Balance 1080v10

Won: Best in test 2020

View more images
Price: £135

Weight: 280g (M), 238g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

The 1080 is New Balance's flagship cushioned shoe (and the one used by the RW Pace Team at the London Marathon each year). Version 10 is a continuation of a superb run of form and is all the more impressive because NB has not played it safe, instead providing significant updates. There's more of their supremely bouncy FreshFoam midsole foam; the medial side has been built up slightly to give a kind of soft medial post for fatigue-based over pronation; a more aggressive rocker gives better transition and helps pop your foot off the ground a bit quicker; the heel section is sculpted to give a more secure fit without the need for extra materials on the heel counter; and, finally, the outsole grooves have been played with a little and NB says the new configuration gives better flex. Our testers loved all of it, raving about the plush feel, bounce and responsiveness. Veteran club runners and speedsters might find the ride a little squishy, but as an everyday training shoe for everyone else, the 1080 is leading the way.
Read full review Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
3. Salomon Sonic 3 Balance

Won: Best new shoe 2020

Price: £152

Weight: 252g (M), 215g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

Continuing its recent success in bringing its trail quality to the road, Salomon's Sonic 3 Balance is an extremely competent and well-performing road-running shoe. The main design feature of note is that two types of cushioning foam have been used (one for shock absorption, one for propulsion). That said, this isn't the overly plush shoe you might think at first glance; it feels comfortable, yet firm and impressively responsive. This reassuring ride may give you some idea where the 'Balance' part of the name comes in, as testers felt the shoe offered performance without compromising comfort. Salomon may claim it's the 'Geometric DecouplingAxis' (a full-length heel-to-toe outsole groove aimed at improving the speed of foot transition) that makes the ride so balanced, but testers were more impressed with the roomy toe box and breathable upper, as well as the abundant amount of grip the Sonic 3 offered, even on water-soaked roads and light trails.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
4. Asics Gel Contend 5

Won: Best value 2020

Price: £55

Weight: 291g (M), 230g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 10mm

Proof that you don't need a second mortgage to find a decent pair of running shoes. The Contend 5 may not boast any tech to cause World Athletics headaches, but the shoe's unwavering performance means that without seeing the price tag you'd be hard pressed to peg it as a budget shoe. Our testers praised the comfortable fit and breathable mesh in the
upper, and found the midsole offers decent cushioning and support, combined with perfectly acceptable responsiveness for an all-round pleasant ride. The outsole grip
was also felt to perform well on a surprising variety of surfaces for a road shoe. The standout feature, though, is that all this can be delivered for the low price. 'Probably the best-value shoe I have ever worn,' said one tester, while another was 'shocked (in a good way) at the price'. Long-term durability may prove to be an issue, but these are a brilliant choice for new runners, or those who won't be doing huge mileage and don't want a serious dent in their bank account.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
5. Under Armour Machina

Price: £140

Weight: 295g (M), 241g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

If this is a sign of things to come, then Under Armour seems to be getting to grips with the running market. This reminds us of a chunkier Saucony Kinvara. It's responsive, quick, very cushioned (it contains 20 per cent more Hovr, UA's proprietary foam, than any other of the brand's shoes) and has a light propulsion plate underneath the midsole that contains carbon. The shoe is plush, but testers found it hit the sweet spot between comfort and response. That said, new runners might find the firmer feel in the forefoot a little off-putting if they are looking for the reassurance of full-length cushioning. As with most UA shoes, the Machina comes with a chip that records metrics - distance, pace, cadence, ground contact time - and relays them to the MapMyRun app. For now, you'll need to run with your phone to make the most of this, but later this year there will be compatible updates for smart-watch support and you'll be able to get real-time coaching cues direct to your watch, too.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
6. Asics Gel Kayano 26
See more images
Price: £155

Weight: 315g (M), 261g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 10mm

It seems the Kayano one of the most venerable models in the Asics stable, is not drifting off quietly into the night just yet. After a few versions best described as 'meh', number 26 proved a hit with our testers and just missed out on an award. It's a support model aimed at mild to moderate overpronators. The old-school medial post is not too obtrusive, offering gentle guidance to prevent the foot rolling inwards too much - and biomechanically efficient runners found it a help when fatigue set in on longer runs. The heel cushioning has been beefed up, something that was noticed and appreciated, especially by heel strikers, who felt they could just get on with their run without worrying too much about foot placement. The improved grip also came in for praise, performing well in the wet as well as unscheduled forays onto muddy grass. Neutral runners and mild overpronators alike will make excellent use of this for all but the fastest sessions.
Read full review Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
7. Hoka One One Arahi 4
View more images
Price: £120

Weight: 273g (M), 228g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 5mm

Among the testers who received this shoe were several brand sceptics who had never tried Hoka but assumed, from the built-up look of the midsole foam, that they would either be spongy, or heavy, or both. They found the experience of running in them an eye-opener, as this is an extremely responsive shoe with plenty of zip for picking up the pace on tempo
and interval runs. The Arahi is the stability model in Hoka's three-strong performance range; there are no medial posts, but the midsole foam is blended into a firmer composite on the inside to provide overpronation support. Hoka has increased the firmness with version 4 for better protection, as well as stripping down the upper to reduce weight and give better breathability. Overall, the shoe performed solidly, scoring decently across most metrics but the sizing was rather baffling: we had testers commenting that it was variously too small, too big or just right - so try before you buy.

Read full review
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
8. New Balance Fuelcell Echo

Price: £100

Weight: 286g (M), 235g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 6mm

When New Balance launched the Fuelcell series, it claimed to have designed a range of shoes that would make every runner faster. The Fuelcell Echo is the brand's crossover running shoe, mixing 'Fuelcell technology with fashion', but it was well received by our testers. It has a decent amount of NB's light, responsive Fuelcell foam for just about every different kind of run. One tester wrote, 'Very stable at speed, super-light on my feet, with lots of spring off my toes; it really does feel like I'm running faster.' The knitted upper has a sock-like feel that provides a snug fit. It rises quite high on the ankle, so it's worth wearing a higher sock to avoid any rubbing. All our testers were impressed with the traction of the ribbed rubber outsole, even on wet winter roads. It's worth noting that those who used them for marathon training experienced discomfort on long runs. Best suited for runners looking for an affordable all-rounder that will take them round anything from a 5K to a half marathon.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
9. On Cloudflash

Price: £160

Weight: 211g (M), 211g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 5mm

On is positioning the Cloudflash (a unisex shoe) as its 'fastest On ever, designed for pure speed'. It has all the hallmarks of the racing flat: low heel-to-toe drop, light weight and minimal cushioning. And, most importantly, it feels super-fast on the feet - one tester compared it to 'running on air'. The slick white-and-neon looks also got some admiring glances, although if you're a fan of keeping your shoes box fresh, you'll struggle with these, as they seem to draw dirt and dust. Like a Formula One car, it is stripped down to the bare essentials - the one-piece upper is made from a super-thin mesh. The trade-off, however, is that the shoes lack a little comfort and protection underfoot. One tester experienced some pain under their big toe at the end of a half marathon in the shoes. Ultimately, if you're already a fan of the On range and are looking for a featherweight flyer for 5Ks, the Cloudflash ticks all the boxes.However, we recommend you steer clear of dusty trails.
Buy now - unisex
10. Asics Glideride

Price: £145

Weight: 305g (M), 290g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 5mm

Think of the GlideRide as the MetaRide's smaller brother; it's got a softer curve on the sole, more cushioning and it's lighter, making it more suited to the everyday runner. Asics introduced it with the claim it would allow runners to run further, easier and longer, thanks to the GlideSole technology that propels the foot forward and, according to research conducted at Loughborough University, reduces energy loss. On the run, the rocking motion of this curved outsole takes some getting used to - testers found it odd at first but adapted after a few runs. While the shoe performs well on flat roads, throw in any undulation or uneven terrain and the rocker becomes a slight hindrance, causing some feelings of instability. Multiple testers reported pinching at the toes and recommended runners go up half a size. While the technology is exciting, they're best suited for runners who heel strike and are looking for a road shoe to push them forward on anything from a 10K to a marathon.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
11. Brooks Levitate 3

Price: £140

Weight: 329g (M), 292g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

The overall reaction to this neutral road shoe by our testers is that it is another comfortable, responsive offering from Brooks, with good lateral stability and plenty of spring (one runner noted the biggest bonus was 'bounce back from the shoe cushioning'). This is a result, in part, of the use of DNA AMP (Brooks's premium cushioning foam) in the midsole. The shoe's traction came in for high praise, even in slippery wintry conditions. The sock-like fit from the new upper was also a hit, offering excellent comfort while still wrapping the foot, though one tester found this close fit became less comfortable on long runs, especially around the heel. This may have something to do with the pull tab at the rear; it makes it easier to get the shoes on, but it also means there is a seam at the back of the heel collar. Mesh zones in the knit are designed to add breathability and did their job well. The toebox is not the widest, and while the mesh in the upper is flexible, we recommend you try before you buy.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
12. Saucony Guide 13

Price: £120

Weight: 289g (M), 264g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

For those looking for some extra support from their running shoes, the Saucony Guide has been performing the job with ease for many years and this latest version is no different (incidentally, if your last Guide was the Guide ISO 2 and you're wondering where number 3 is - this is it. Saucony has dropped the ISO fit upper from its range and this model is the 13th iteration in all; hence the reversion to old labelling). The guidance is on the moderate rather than the aggressive side (it's essentially a piece of lightweight TPU embedded in
the instep of the midsole), so while overpronators felt supported, several neutral runners were able to wear theGuide without really noticing the stability feature. Cushioning is superb, not just in the midsole but also in the plumped-up tongue and heel collar
- giving a luxuriant feel from the moment you pull the shoe on. Overall, this is a premium-feel workhorse for reliable comfort and a consistent ride on long training runs.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
13. 361 Sensation 4

Price: £120

Weight: 292g (M) 235g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

Touted as a mild stability shoe, the Sensation 4 feels firmer than some other stability models on the market, proof that the Chinese brand doesn't believe support necessarily means soft and slow. This firmness led a few people to note that it took a few miles to grow accustomed to the shoes, but once they'd eased into their stride, they found that it almost compelled them to get moving. Aside from a mild medial post, the heel counter has been made plusher for greater comfort, and the vamp (the bit between the laces and the toe box) has been made roomier for the same reasons. The fit was, however, considered on the narrow side by some and this was mainly down to 361's Morphit sleeve, which wraps around the midfoot. Others, however, loved the reassurance and snugness of feel in such a key area - so what you think will come down to how much room for movement you like inside a shoe. A reliable stability shoe for those who prefer a firmer ride.

14. Altra Solstice
View more images
Price: £95

Weight: 196g (M), 153g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 0mm

Apart from the brand's signature wide and flat toe box, which is designed to allow for proper toe-splay and, in particular, to keep the big toe in a straight, more stable position throughout the run, the most notable aspect of this shoe is the extremely low weight. There can be no doubt that it's designed as a shoe for shorter, faster runs: the midsole is on the 'barely there' side of minimal and there's very little pop or energy return. The zero drop (no height difference between the heel and toe, which is the case with all Altra shoes) also comes into its own here, because light, fast runners will love the exceptional responsiveness and ground feel. The only downsides were that the laces had a tendency to loosen or come undone unless you really paid attention to your knotting, and the excellent breathability of the porous upper came at the price of low water protection. Perfect for track work and runs up to 5K. It will perform best in dry conditions.
Read full review Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
15. Brooks Ravenna 10

Price: £110

Weight: 267g (M), 235g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 10mm

The Ravenna 10 continues the tradition of blurring the lines between a neutral and stability shoe - offering support where needed by overpronators or when form begins to deteriorate through fatigue, but not interfering too much with a more neutral footstrike. It does so with the newGuideRails system - external inserts on top of the midsole in the heel/arch area - which aims to work with the natural motion of a runner's gait instead of controlling it, by buffering excessive movement in the ankle and heel. Other updates are more of Brooks' BioMoGo DNA foam in the forefoot to create a springy feel underfoot, and a new internal bootie to provide a snug but not-too-tight fit. These tweaks worked - testers raved about the comfort and fit and found the Ravenna to be roomier in the toebox without feeling too loose. They also praised the cushioning and stability. Overall, a superb everyday option for mild overpronators, perfect for gliding through the miles on the road.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
16. On Cloudflow

Price: £130

Weight: 235g (M), 235g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 6mm

This second version of the Swiss brand's light, neutral road shoe gets almost everything right. The midsole, featuring 18 'pods', On's proprietary Helion foam and a curved heel unit for a smoother transition, offered an excellent balance of cushioning and responsiveness. It also provided good traction, even in wet conditions. Tweaks to the breathable mesh upper, with strategically positioned overlays and a new lacing configuration, mean tall testers, regardless of gait pattern or foot size, found a fit that felt comfortable and secure - a big plus in a shoe that's designed for fast running. The only minor issue was the laces, which are thinner than traditional ones - one tester found them too long, while another found the material 'slippery' and tricky to tie and untie. The pods also collected a lot of mud and grit when testers went off road. But, in general, the shoe impressed, converting runners who were new to the brand. It is worth a serious look for faster sessions or racing.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
17. Asics MetaRide
View more images
Price: £225

Weight: 306g (M) 249g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 0mm

This was Asics's flagship launch for 2019, and the result of much R&D. It has been put in the same bracket as the Hoka Carbon X or the Nike Vaporfly Next% - but while it propels your foot off the floor quicker than your average shoe that's as far as the comparison goes. The other two are lightweight speedsters to be used by the masses for shorter races whereas Asics intend this to be a shoe for heel strikers of all abilities to keep on going while minimising the stress of a long run.

Read full review
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
18. Brooks Transcend 6

Price: £140

Weight: 323g (M) 289g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 10mm

Brooks say they 'went all in on the Transcend' by pairing their 'softest cushioning with holistic GuideRails support to keep your body headed where it wants to go for as long as you want.' That's fairly big talk but the shoes deliver - rated as excellent pretty much across the board by RW's testers, who were universal in praising the comfort, cushioning and stability features. There were some minor gripes on fit and weight but the feedback was overwhelmingly in agreement that this is a go-to shoe if you're looking for added stability and extreme comfort over long miles.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
19. Saucony Type A9

Price: £100

Weight: 170g (Men's and women's)

Heel/toe drop: 4mm

The Type A9 is Saucony's out-and-and racing flat. It builds on the considerable success of the Type A8, keeping all that is good about the shoe, with a few extra touches. In an era when most companies are adding foam - or even carbon fibre plates - to their footwear, the Type A9 remains refreshingly stripped-back. The big pluses here are the weight (a mere 170g), the responsiveness and the simplicity. It's a shoe designed with only one thing in mind: speed.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
20. Brooks Adrenaline GTS 20

Price: £120

Weight: 300.5g (M), 266.5g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 12mm

Last year, Brooks made big changes to their Adrenaline shoe, which has been the brand's staple stability for 20 years. Gone was the medial post that had been present since 2003, replaced by less aggressive guide rails that run around the outside of the upper. The idea here - if you run efficiently, you won't encounter them but if your foot rolls inwards or outwards, they come into play to guide your foot back into a neutral position. In theory, this should work for everyone but some severe overpronators found they didn't get the support they needed. Elsewhere, the midsole foam was changed to give a stiffer, bouncier ride (our lab rated it as one of the best on test for energy return) and more durability. With the GTS 20, most of the changes are in the guide rail, which now wraps the length of the shoe on the lateral side, offering a little more support under the forefoot. Some runners said they felt the GTS 20 was slightly less cushioned, but this could be down to it being lighter than the GTS 19.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
21. Saucony Liberty ISO 2

Price: £140

Weight: 287g (M), 252g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 4mm

Saucony brought the second iteration of their Liberty support shoe to market saying, "for those looking to achieve their personal goals, the Liberty ISO 2 lets you boldly chase after them. This running shoe sports a light and springy feel with a touch of stealth stability to keep you comfortable as the miles rack up." Liberty ISO fans will be pleased to hear the second version of the shoe is pretty similar to the original. The full-length Everun cushioning is still the prominent feature of the shoe, with a few added tweaks for stability and comfort. The upper is now made from the brand's 'ISOKNIT' rather than mesh - it's stretchy and designed to replace the more rigid external support frame. The outsole now has lengthwise grooves to improve stability, but they are also designed to make the shoe more flexible.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
22. On Cloudstratus

Price: £150

Weight: 305g men's and women's

Heel/toe drop: 8mm

On brands the Cloudstratus, "the performance shoe with maximum cushioning" and they weren't wrong. All of our testers commented on the smooth ride and the decent amount of cushioning, without the wedge of foam we have come to expect in modern running shoes. Weighing in at 305g, they're pretty heavy and probably won't become your go-to for speedwork. That said, this didn't seem to be too much of a problem on the run and if anything, the extra weight made the shoe fell more supportive.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
23. Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2

Won: Best Update 2019

Price: £159.95

Weight: 220g (M), 193g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 10mm

If our review of the zoom Pegasus 36 laments the lack of innovation from such a vanguard brand, we can hardly make the same criticism here.The Turbo 2 is a wonderful shoe. It sits somewhere between a high-mileage neutral shoe and an out-and-out racer. Faster runners will love this for their longer excursions, and appreciate the responsiveness and glove-like fit. Those who are slower of pace, meanwhile, will thrill to the sense of speed while still feeling confident they'll make the distance without pinging a hamstring or grinding their knee cartilage into dust.In terms of updates, about 14g of weight has been dropped, the tongue and heel collar have been made less spongy (which makes lacing up to a secure fit easier) and the midfoot wrap has been re-engineered for a better fit. The unpopular go-faster stripe that ran down the toe box has also been dropped. These judicious changes have added to the user experience, improving what was already a fantastic shoe.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
24. Nike Zoom Air Pegasus 36

Price: £104.95

Weight: 280g (M), 264g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 10mm

One of the problems with protecting a legacy is that over time you become risk averse, which can affect your product. Such is the case here with the fabled Pegasus, now well into its fourth decade. Once the world's best mass-appeal running shoe, this still performs well enough but has lost much of its air of confidence and plays it safe. It's very similar to version 35, although the tongue has been shortened to reduce irritation, a tiny amount of weight has been dropped and the aesthetics have been changed to bring the shoe into line with the rest of the current range, which comes in variations on an electric-green colourway. Testers found it a decent but uninspiring ride; it was sluggish on runs of tempo pace or faster, and the mesh, while highly breathable, allowed water in easily and was slow to dry. For the price, this is still well worth considering if you're someone who incorporates running into a wider fitness regime, but for dedicated runners there are better options.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
25. Hoka One One Carbon X

Price: £160

Weight: 241g (M), 204g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 5mm

The shoe was launched to some fanfare in California in May, when Hoka athlete Jim Walmsley donned a pair to break the 50-mile world record. It's a model that represents a major shift for the brand, which has made its name with highly cushioned 'maximal' shoes. In 2018, Hoka released a 'Fly' range of stripped-down shoes (the Cavu, Elevon and Mach) and it's now taken things further with the Carbon X. This is the brand's version of the Nike Vaporfyl 4%, inasmuch as it's light, slim and fast and has a carbon-fibre plate running the length of the midsole, to provide a stiff ride and energy return to help push your foot off the ground more quickly. This, along with the enhanced curved 'metarocker' shape, the blown rubber outsole (for lower weight), a racy 5mm drop and a light upper all combined to impress our testers enough to make it a contender for an award. The only thing that stopped it was that the curved outsole made more than one runner uneasy on fast downhills.
Read full review Read more - Carbon X vs Nike Next% Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
26. Under Armour HOVR Guardian

Price: £115

Weight: 340g (M), 278g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 8mm

People who will like this shoe: severe overpronators for whom maximum protection is the No 1 priority. People who won't like it: everyone else. That might sound like we're trashing the Guardian, but we're not; we were just taken aback by the reappearance of a model we thought had died out: the motion-control shoe. This is a heavy, stiff shoe, with an old-fashioned medial post that does an excellent job of stopping your foot rolling inwards, but it's lacking the subtleties present in most of today's running shoes. The market has moved on so much in terms of cushioning, weight and approach to stability that it will feel to many, as one tester commented, 'like an anachronism'. But it was the only shoe on test with smart tech: a sensor in the shoe pairs with the UnderArmour MapMyRun app to give you training data, and that was a pleasure to use. Some runners (typically heavier ones or beginners) require or prefer such a robust model; for them, the Guardian will be ideal.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
27. New Balance FuelCell Rebel

Price: £120

Weight: 207g (M), 175g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 6mm

Although this is a racing shoe designed for a wide range of runners, it's not for everyone. New Balance conceived this sleek speedster as a couple of steps up from a track spike; it wanted to provide the same snug fit, responsiveness, low weight and pop off the forefoot, while still providing enough lateral stability and cushioning to be accessible to most runners. It has largely succeeded. The forefoot contains a chunk of the brand's super-bouncy Fuelcell foam, which is surrounded by a lighter, firmer foam. Our testers loved the responsiveness, firm feel and push-off, and the knitted upper moved superbly when the foot flexed. However, the low weight has meant some compromises- runners noted a lack of support in the midfoot, especially at speed. Also, the outline of the shoe is too narrow for all but the slimmest of feet. This is a well-conceived product - a racing shoe that's not elitist - so here's hopingNew Balance makes a few important tweaks for the next version.
Buy now - men's
28. On Cloudswift

Price: £135

Weight: 290g (M), 240g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 7mm

This is almost a very good shoe. It's a neutral-cushioned model featuring not just the brand's trademark impact-absorbing cloud pods underfoot, but also a new type of midsole foam called Helion, which, On claims, provides greater durability without adding weight, and more rebound without sacrificing cushioning. It certainly achieves that, but only under certain conditions. As part of the testing we gave a pair to an ultrarunner, who put a couple of hundred miles into them over a week or two and reported no degradation in the shoe or level of bounce. The energy return and responsiveness came in for universal praise, with runners feeling that they were able to go faster with less effort- but only on smooth roads. As soon as the shoe was taken onto even slightly gritty surfaces, eg canal towpaths, the ride felt flat and soggy, which is not what you want for the price. If you run solely in urban environments, it's a good half-marathon shoe; otherwise, wait for future iterations.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
29. Brooks Glycerin 17

Price: £140

Weight: 300g (M), 261g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 10mm

If you're familiar with the Glycerin, there's little new here. But if you've not come across it before, the reason it's one of the most popular shoes in the Brooks range, despite being at the upper end of the price bracket, can be summed up in one word: comfort. With successive iterations, Brooks has tinkered with the upper, the outsole groove patterns, the lacing, the internal sockliner and more to ensure that during a run the Glycerin feels as slipper-like as possible. Version 17 has its DNA Loft cushioning midsole material, which is the plushest in its stable. The launch-campaign shoe was all about the 'pillowy' feeling and we'd agree; the only problem is we think Brooks has slightly overdone it. Injury-prone runners who value the softest experience possible will adore the way your foot sinks into your shoe and how it, in turn, sinks into the ground, but others may find the lack of snap, relatively high weight and slightly smushy ride an indulgence too far. An ideal easy- or recovery-run shoe.
Buy n0w - men's Buy now - women's
30. Hoka One One Clifton 6

Price: £120

Weight: 255g (M), 209g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 5mm

Hoka likes to say the Clifton was the shoe that propelled the brand into mainstream running consciousness when it launched in 2014: we agree. Its combination of speed, light cushioning, lateral stability and comfort appealed to more than just maximal-shoe devotees. Further iterations have not let the model down, but with number 6, Hoka has done something that was long overdue: it's made the cushioning a little firmer. This makes it so much better for picking up the pace, and transforms it from an exceptionally comfortable long-run shoe to one that is adaptable enough for all but the fastest runs. A bevelled heel speeds up the transition from heel to midfoot, and the wide last gives a feeling of pleasing lateral stability without having a slowing effect. If you can't afford to have different shoes for different sessions and are looking for the best bang for your buck in one pair, this is enough of a multitasker to be a strong contender for your cash.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
31. Brooks Ghost 12

Price: £120

Weight: 295g (M), 264g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 12mm

While it was unlucky not to make it into the final shake-up for an award in this guide, the Ghost 12 is still highly recommended. The only change to the previous version is to the upper, which is now 3D-printed for a better fit. That means there is no glue, seams or stitching, all of which cuts down slightly on weight and also reduces the chances of friction. Otherwise, as with its predecessor, it's a premium-grade neutral-cushioned shoe that offers high responsiveness and incredible softness and comfort. This confident consistency is to be applauded - after all, there's no point in change for the sake of it - but it's also the reason why the Ghost didn't get top marks. One tester remarked that towards the top end of its range, all the Brooks shoes are starting to feel the same: super-plush but, at the same time, slightly homogenous - an assessment we have to agree with. That said, this is a fantastic model for most types of run and any races longer than 10K.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
32. New Balance 880 v9

Price: £120

Weight: 306g (M), 252g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 10mm

If you wore version eight of this shoe and liked it, then rejoice: the 880 has barely been touched at all. The only structural change that has been made is a more open mesh for improved breathability. The aesthetics have been refreshed, too, but apart from that, New Balance has wisely left well alone and allowed a popular neutral shoe to go back out to bat for a second innings without interfering with it. Testers loved the wide flare on the front half of the shoe, which gives a feeling of sturdiness and stability (it was particularly appreciated by heavier runners) as well as a moderate level of cushioning that hits that sweet spot between supplying protection and retaining its firmness. In essence, the 880 V9 encapsulates what NewBalance is best known for: steady, reliable, high-mileage shoes that
will see you through many a long training run, and races of half-marathon distance and upwards. As always, New Balance come up small, so go half a size bigger.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
33. Hoka One One Rincon

Won: Best Debut 2019

Price: £105

Weight: 218g (M), 179g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 5mm

Judging by the gushing feedback we received, Hoka has smashed it not just out of the park with this shoe, but cleared the whole district, too. It's intended as a speedy performance shoe, similar in style to its other new offering, the Carbon X but it's substantially cheaper (by £55) and we could barely tell the two apart in terms of performance. The weight figures above might fool you into thinking it's for lean club runners only, but far from it. The wide, flattish outline of the shoe and 5mm heel drop make it stable enough for slower runners without putting off speedier types, and there's still plenty of Hoka cushioning in there to provide excellent shock absorption. The flat tongue not only helps keep the weight down but also means you can secure a decent fit with the laces without having to yank them tight. Judging by the breadth of sessions performed in this shoe, it's not just for faster runs; we tried it on everything from track to marathon-training long runs and found it has something for everyone.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
34. Sketchers GoRun 7

Price: £117

Weight: 221g (M), 173g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 4mm

Traditionally, the GoRun shoe has been designed as an everyday-training model, but we think the 7 is made for more than plodding. The relatively low 19mm height at the heel and the overall 4mm offset give a low-slung feel. This, plus the knitted upper, the close fit around the top of the foot and the heel, and the addition of a new midsole foam called Hyperburst meant it came into its own on middle-distance runs performed at 7/10 effort or higher. In addition, the lacing system is great for providing a secure fit that flexes just enough with your foot without working loose. So there's plenty to like about the shoe, but a few details need to be worked on. Some testers felt the weave on the upper was a little abrasive unless they wore thicker socks; the fit across the toes is disproportionately wide compared with the snugness elsewhere and breathability is below average. All in all, a fast shoe - suitable for anything up to a half marathon - that's still a little rough around the edges.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
35. Altra Torin 4.0 Plush

Price: £130

Weight: 268g (M), 240g (W)

Heel/Toe Drop: 0mm

Altra is a niche brand with a growing reputation. It only makes zero-drop shoes (with no height differential between the heel and forefoot) that are foot shaped (the outsoles have the outline of a foot and the toe section is flattish rather than rounded). It may sound unusual, but devotees, such as RW sub-three marathoner Rick Pearson, are evangelical about them. Whereas many Altra shoes are relatively stripped down, the Torin 4.0 Plush is a maximal shoe with a 28mm-high wodge of cushioning between your foot and the floor. Slower, heavier runners raved about the impact protection and shock absorption, while others complained that it had a kind of local-anaesthetic effect, where they were unable to feel much of what was going on below the ankle. One area for improvement is in the forefoot, where a lack of spring and an overly soft feel meant runners had to work hard to power up hills. If feeling as little of the road as possible is a priority, these are worth a look.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
36. Nike ZoomX Vaporfly NEXT%

Price: £250

Weight: 187g (men's size 8)

Heel/toe drop: 8mm (M)

The fastest shoe money can buy? Well, that depends on you and how much money you have (and you'll need some) but this is the latest incarnation of Nike's breaking 2 shoe and it's already got some impressive results under its belt, most note worthy of course being Kipchoge's win in London.

Highlights are more ZoomX under forefront, off-centre laces to relieve pressure on the foot and more rubber underfoot.

Buy now - unisex
37. Nike Joyride

Price: £159.95

In August, Nike unveiled their newest innovation - the Joyride Run Flyknit, a highly cushioned running shoe specifically designed to keep legs fresh on recovery runs. The shoe sees Nike unveil some new innovation too - cushioning with the help of thousands of TPE beads. Designed for recovery runs and beginners alike, with a completely different feel to the soft foam of other Nike shoes on the market, the beads do offer a springy, responsive, comfortable ride, that Barton says lasted for more than 400 miles on test. Unlike Nike's latest range of fast running shoes, you won't have to worry about the Joyride not lasting a training cycle, but they are best suited for shorter runs.

Read full review Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
38. Hoka One One Bondi 6

Price: £124.99

Weight: 289g (M), 215g (W)

Heel/toe drop: 10mm, (M) 8mm (W)

This was the most cushioned shoe on test (in forefoot and heel), scoring 98/100 for softness, but was also the most inflexible (along with the Hoka Arahi 3), scoring 1/100 on how easily it bent. Testers loved the fit and versatility (it's good as a door-to-trail model), but said it was too spongy on landing and too rigid through toe-off.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
39. Nike Zoom Fly 3

Price: £139.95

With a much more affordable price point, and the same carbon fibre plate as the Next%, we're a big fan of the Zoom Fly 3 for speedy road miles. The react midsole is cushioned and responsive, and the arch band helps take the pressure off your instep as you clock up the miles. Designed to be a shoe you can train and race in (unlike the Next%) the rubber on the forefoot and heel gives this shoe a level of durability. Finally, the transparent upper contours to your foot comfortably, giving these shoes a fast feel and finish.
Buy now - men's Buy now - women's
40. Brooks Glycerin 17

Price: £140

Weight: 300.5g

Heel/toe drop: 10mm

The Glycerin 17 has a simple remit; comfort, plain and simple. This neutral trainer is the plushest pair Brooks has to offer right now, and has delighted many a runner who just want a shoe that feels indulgent on their foot. While this does make it one of the heavier shoes out there, the Glycerin is also one of the softest when it comes to cushioning rating and this will please many.

Buy now - men's
Buy now - women's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Ben Hobson, Jane McGuire and Kerry McCarthy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best running shoes 2020: the best men's and women's running trainers, tested in the lab and on the road

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no such thing as the perfect running shoe. When it comes to running, all sorts of things come into play - your biomechanics, your weight, the surface you run on and the shape of your feet, meaning no one shoe will suit every kind of runner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image credit: Tom's Guide)

A Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 confrontation should be one of the most eagerly anticipated phone face-offs of the year. After all, Samsung and Apple rule the smartphone world, and the winner of this showdown can often lay claim to the title of best phone overall.

The Galaxy S22 certainly makes an impressive case now that we've fully reviewed Samsung's phone. Besides a brighter display and a new chipset, the latest Galaxy S mode boasts much improved cameras, particularly the telephoto lens. That's a key improvement, as a dedicated telephoto lens is something the iPhone 13 simply doesn't have.

But the list of features missing from the iPhone 13 is a pretty short one. This phone features the best performing mobile silicon that we've tested, along with some pretty impressive cameras in its own right. Plus, Apple paid special attention to battery life for the entire iPhone 13 lineup, and this model reaps the benefits.

If you want to see how the ultimate Samsung and Apple flagships compare, be sure to check out our Galaxy S22 Ultra vs. iPhone 13 Pro Max face-off. But the Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 comparison looks at the two phones most smartphone shoppers are likely to buy. And it turns out to be a very tight contest.

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 specs

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 price and availability

There's not much separating the Galaxy S22 from the iPhone 13, at least when it comes to the starting price for both devices. You'll pay $799 for either the Galaxy S22 or iPhone 13. And now that Apple has recognized that 64GB is too stinting for storage on a flagship phone, you'll get 128GB of storage no matter which base model you get.

It's when you start adding storage that things get interesting. A 256GB iPhone 13 costs $899 while the 512GB model increases the price to $1,099. The 256GB Galaxy S22 only costs an additional $50 over the base model price, so you can upgrade your storage for less with Samsung. Of course, there's no 512GB Galaxy S22 model, so if you need to max out capacity, Apple's your only choice.

The best iPhone 13 deals can help you lower the cost of Apple's flagship phone. The same can be said of Samsung devices and the best Galaxy S22 deals.
Winner: Samsung Galaxy S22
Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 design

The Galaxy S22 looks a lot like the Galaxy S21, right down to the Contour Cut display that allows the phone's rear camera array to blend into the side of the device. Then again, the iPhone 13 adopted the iPhone 12's look, so it's not like you can ding Samsung for lack of originality.

Samsung is making much of the sustainability of this year's model, as the new Galaxy phones incorporate ocean-bound recycled plastics in the materials used to make the phone. Even with the plastics, the Galaxy S22 uses a primarily glass back, one of the big changes from the Galaxy S21.

The Gorilla Glass Victus that Samsung uses on the S22's front and back adds some durability, though at least one independent test claims the S22 is less durable than the S21 because of the move away from plastic. The iPhone 13, in contrast, has won raves for its durability, though you'll still want to get one of the best iPhone 13 cases for added protection, just as you'd need one of the best Galaxy S22 cases.

Samsung gives you four color options - Phantom Black, Phantom White, Green and Pink Gold. That's one fewer than the iPhone 13's available colors, where you choose between black, white, blue, pink and red.

Despite each phone offering a display that's bigger than 6 inches, both the Galaxy S22 and iPhone 13 are surprisingly compact - easy to operate with one hand. Some may prefer the slightly rounded edges of the Galaxy S22 to the flat edges of the iPhone 13, but any Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 design preference really boils down to personal taste.

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 display

The Galaxy S22's 6.2-inch display offers slightly more space than the iPhone 13's 6.1-inch screen, and of course, there's no notch on Samsung's phone - only a punch-hole cutout in the top center of the panel. But that's not the story here. Rather, Samsung has increased brightness on all its Galaxy S22 models, including the entry-level version.

For the Galaxy S22, that means a maximum brightness of 1,300 nits. When we turned on HDR, we got a reading of 1,152 nits, though in SDR, we measured peak brightness at 672 nits with our light meter. The iPhone 13's peak brightness came in at 795 nits. You're not going to struggle to see either phone when you're outside in bright sunlight.

Both phones capture the same 110% of the sRGB color spectrum, though that Galaxy S22 reading came with the phone's display set to natural mode. Still, when streaming the Ms. Marvel trailer on YouTube side-by-side on both phones, the red in the Marvel logo looked a little richer on the Galaxy S22's screen, and Kamala Khan's uniform seemed to pop more. That could come down to a difference in color accuracy - the Galaxy S22's Delta-E rating of 0.25 is just ahead of the iPhone 13's 0.26 score. (Numbers closer to zero are better.)

The Galaxy S22 has one other advantage over the iPhone 13, with an adaptive refresh rate that adjusts depending on your on-screen activity. Scroll through a web page, and the S22's refresh rate scales up to 120Hz; stare at a static photo. and the refresh rate drops to 48Hz. The iPhone 13 is stuck at 60Hz as Apple reserves adaptive refresh rates for the displays on its iPhone Pro models.

Winner: Samsung Galaxy S22

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 cameras

The iPhone 13 models quickly claimed a spot among the best camera phones, and when you look at the hardware improvements Apple's introduced, it's easy to see why. The iPhone 13 benefits from a main sensor that's larger than what the iPhone 12 used; as a result, the sensor lets in more light.

The iPhone 13 continues to use 12MP cameras for both its wide and ultrawide lenses. The Galaxy S22 bumped up its main sensor to 50MP while the ultrawide angle camera has a wider field of view than previous Samsung models. More significantly, the Galaxy S22 now features a 3x optical zoom instead of the 3x hybrid zoom supported by the Galaxy S21. As the iPhone 13 lacks a telephoto lens, the Galaxy S22 enjoys a big advantage when it comes to cameras.

The iPhone tries mightily to keep up with the Galaxy S22 by using a digital zoom to capture this shot of the Oakland skyline. But if you look closely at the shot, you can see some distortion and noise creeping into the image. The S22's photos remains pretty sharp at 3x, to the point where you can still read the lettering on the Tribune Tower.

When comparing shots taken with comparable lenses, though, things are a bit more evenly matched. Either the Galaxy S22 or iPhone 13 photo of this frog statue would be more than acceptable, though to my eye, the Galaxy S22 pumps up the colors a little too much. Not only does the iPhone 13 image look more natural, you can detect richer tones of green on the frog and brighter purple flowers among the ice plants.

The fruit stand proved a trickier shot, since the fruit is covered by a canopy and the background is a bright sunny day that threatens to wash out the rest of the scene. The iPhone is game, but you can see it has a hard time with all that light in the background. Things get a little fuzzy starting at the watermelon, and the cars parked behind the fruit stand look a little washed-out. Everything's vibrant and in focus in the Galaxy S22 photo. The cars in the background really stand out, too, providing a nice contrast for the fruit.

Samsung really focused on improving photos when light is less than optimal, and I think you can see that in this shot of a fried chicken sandwich taken indoors. What light there is glistens off the sandwich roll in the Galaxy S22 photo. The iPhone photo, while acceptable, feels duller with the overall tone of the image a bit darker than the S22's effort.

Testing out night mode, I'm torn as to which does the better job. I like that the black bear doesn't fade into the background of the Galaxy 22 photo, but there's a little bit of a halo of light emanating from behind the center of the bench, as the Galaxy S22 tries to account for the ambient lighting. The iPhone 13 shot doesn't reveal that, making better use of the shadows to call out the colors it does capture.

Once again, I prefer the Galaxy S22 photo shot with the camera's ultrawide angle lens. It's a brighter shot than what the iPhone 13 produced, at least when it comes to the blue tone of the sky. The Galaxy S22 gets the color reproduction a little bit more true-to-life here.

I think the iPhone 13 takes a dramatically better portrait shot than the Galaxy S22 - puzzling since Samsung claims that its new phone relies on an AI Stereo Depth Map feature to better separate subject from background. To be fair, that's not the issue here, as my daughter stands out from the orange tree behind her. Instead, I don't care for the skin tone on the S22, especially compared to the iPhone 13's warmer take. By adding more color to her face, the iPhone 13 also calls out the blue of her eyes, something that gets lost in the Galaxy S22 shot.

There are video features as well that I haven't really explored, such as the Galaxy S22's Auto Frame capability for tracking up to 10 people in any one shot. The iPhone 13 has an impressive feature of its own in Cinematic mode, where it can shift focus on the fly during video capture.

Winner: Samsung Galaxy S22

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 performance

Even with a new Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 chipset powering the Galaxy S22 - at least for phones released in the U.S. and outside of Europe - Samsung's flagship doesn't put up much of a fight against the iPhone 13 and its A15 Bionic chip. In benchmark tests and everyday tasks, the Galaxy S22 improves upon other Android phones, but it simply can't match the iPhone 13.

As for benchmarks, the iPhone's single- and multicore scores on Geekbench 5 are 1,684 and 4,129 respectively. The Galaxy S22 turned in scores of 1,204 and 3,348 on those same tests. Things are more evenly matched on the graphics front, where the Galaxy S22's 60 frames per second result on 3DMark's Wild Life Unlimited test outpaced the 56 fps result turned in by the iPhone 13.

But our real-world test, in which we use Adobe Premiere Rush to transcode a 4K video, continues to be a showcase for the iPhone 13's A15 Bionic chip. Apple's phone handled the video in just under 26 seconds. That's almost half the time it took the Galaxy S22 (47 seconds).

Both phones feature extensive 5G support, though the Galaxy S22 features a more recent modem. There's a Snapdragon X65 modem in the Galaxy S22, compared to the X60 modem in the iPhone 13 - the former is capable of faster speeds and better power efficiency.

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 battery life and charging

Battery life figured to be a tough comparison for the Galaxy S22, which actually shrunk its battery from the 4,090 mAH power pack in the Galaxy S21; the new phones uses a 3,700 mAh battery. Meanwhile, Apple went the opposite route, boosting the size of the batteries in every iPhone 13 model. Apple doesn't disclose battery sizes, but teardowns suggest the iPhone 13 has a 3,095 mAh battery.

Now that we've tested both phones, we can see the impact of two phone makers going in different directions with battery size. The iPhone 13 lasted 10 hours and 33 minutes on our battery test, in which we set the brightness level of the phone's screen to 150 nits and then have it surf the web over 5G until it runs out of power. The iPhone 13's time is not only better than average for a smartphone, it's a 2-hour improvement over the iPhone 12 on this test.

The Galaxy S22 didn't fare as well. It failed to last 8 hours; only by turning off its adaptive refresh rate did we manage to get the Galaxy S22 to eke out an 8-hour, 2-minute time on our battery test.

Samsung regains a little ground with charging speeds. The Galaxy S22 supports 25W charging, compared to the 20W charging the iPhone 13 is capable of. That means you'll be able to top off your Samsung phone faster. After 30 minutes of charging, we got a drained Galaxy S22 to 60%; the iPhone 13 only reached 51% in that time.

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 software and special features

Both phone run the latest versions of their respective operating systems - Android 12 for the Galaxy S22 and iOS 15 for the iPhone 13. The version of One UI 4.1 that ships on the Galaxy S22 does a particularly good job of introducing Android 12's customization features, but iOS 15 has some welcome changes of its own, such as the ability to watch videos with other people on FaceTime calls via SharePlay and improvements to the Maps and Messages apps.

Apple previously enjoyed a big edge over Samsung with the amount of support if offered to its smartphones. iPhones that came out nearly seven years ago are still able to run iOS 15, for example. (More typically, iPhone users can expect five years of software support.) With the Galaxy S22, though, Samsung now promises four years of software updates plus an additional year of security support. That's still not as generous as Apple's policy, but it's the best among Android phone makers.

We like the fact that the Galaxy S22 includes an under-display fingerprint sensor - that it's very responsive also helps. The iPhone 13 lacks that feature, though it's less of an oversight now that iOS 15.4 has come along with a feature that lets p eople wearing face masks unlock their iPhones with Face ID.

Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 verdict

The iPhone 13 edges ahead of the Galaxy S22 in our flagship face-off, riding its faster chipset and superior battery life to victory. The two phones are fairly evenly matched on design and cameras, while the Galaxy S22 sports the better display. But it's hard to overlook how well the iPhone 13 performs and how long it lasts on a charge.

That's not to say the Galaxy S22 isn't one of the best Android phones. You can really see the improvements Samsung made to the S22's cameras, and the increased software support really makes this smartphone a better value than before. Even storage upgrades aren't that expensive, which we appreciate.

But Apple has put together a winning combination of hardware and software with the iPhone 13. The flagship phone looks good, takes excellent photos, and outperforms every other device on the market. There's not much else you can ask for from a phone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13: Which flagship phone wins?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Image credit: Tom's Guide) A Samsung Galaxy S22 vs. iPhone 13 confrontation should be one of the most eagerly anticipated phone face-offs of the year. After all, Samsung and Apple rule the smartphone world, and the winner of this showdown can often lay claim to the title of best phone overall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost two years after their launch, the PS5 vs Xbox Series X battle remains a fierce one. In our reviews we were suitably impressed with both games consoles and remain so, with the two machines gaining more features and games as the latest generation gathers pace. But if you can only choose one, you'll want to find out which one is best for you.

As such, Tom's Guide has compared the two consoles head-to-head, and without spoiling the results, it's a very close contest between two high-quality consoles. Read on to discover how each system fares in our PS5 vs. Xbox Series X faceoff.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Specs

Swipe to scroll horizontally

While the specs are handy to know, they only tell part of the story when it comes to performance. As such, this section isn't scored. However, we can say that the Xbox Series X has more powerful hardware, in terms of both GPU and SSD. Check out the performance section to see how this hardware performs in action.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Price

Both the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X cost $500 apiece. Since the two systems are very similar, this category would seem to be a tie at first glance. However, the standard PS5 and Xbox Series X are not the only variants available. There's also the $400 PS5 Digital Edition and the $300 Xbox Series S.

The PS5 and the PS5 Digital Edition are identical, save for a 4K Blu-ray physical disc drive in the former. The latter has no disc drive, as the name suggests. On the other hand, the Xbox Series S has significantly different hardware from the Xbox Series X: a less-powerful GPU, a smaller SSD, less RAM and so forth.

Today's best Microsoft Xbox Series X deals

(opens in new tab)

(opens in new tab)

(You can see a more comprehensive breakdown in our Xbox Series X vs. Xbox Series S article.)

As such, both consoles have cheaper variants, and both the PS5 Digital Edition and the Xbox Series S have legitimate applications: the former for digital diehards, the latter for casual players or secondary setups. Still, since the Xbox Series S is a somewhat different system, and not just a console variation, it's hard to pick a definitive winner. Both full-fledged systems cost the same amount of money; that's the most important thing at the moment.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Games

The PS5 and Xbox Series X have fundamentally different approaches to game libraries. The Xbox Series X assumes you'll pick up the same games you left off on the Xbox One, and will want optimized performance across the board for all favorites. The PS5, on the other hand, has a bevy of exclusive titles that launched alongside its new console - although most of them are also available on the PS4, to be fair. (Our PS5 vs. Xbox Series X exclusive games piece offers a deeper look at this topic.)

At present, it's hard to deny that the PS5 has the more exciting game selection. Just in terms of first-party titles, the PS5 launched with Spider-Man: Miles Morales, Demon's Souls, Sackboy: A Big Adventure and the surprisingly delightful Astro's Playroom.

And over the past two years, we've seen the arrival of Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, Returnal, Gran Turismo 7, Horizon Forbidden West and the mighty God of War: Ragnarok. All of those show off the power of the PS5, with Horizon Forbidden West really putting on a next-generration graphics showcase.

Compare and contrast with the Xbox Series X, which didn't have any exclusive titles at launch. Instead, Microsoft released a list of 30 "optimized for Xbox Series X/S (opens in new tab)" titles, including fan favorites like Gears 5, Ori and the Will of the Wisps and Forza Horizon 4. While the Xbox Series X optimizations are indeed impressive, not all of these games are brand new, and they're all available on Xbox One, PC or both.

A handful of semi-exclusive Xbox Series X titles, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5 all showed off what the system is capable of, though. The Xbox has the scope to shine this year with Starfield expected to arrive before too long, Redfall set for a May 2 release, and more Xbox-only games coming in 2023.

Beyond that, both consoles are well-stocked with third-party titles, like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Borderlands 3, Fortnite, Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War and so forth. They both got Cyberpunk 2077, Madden 21 and Destiny 2 later on, and third-party parity is likely to continue well into this year and beyond. Both systems also have excellent backwards compatibility features, although that gets its own section further down.

It's also worth mentioning Xbox Game Pass Ultimate, to which Sony doesn't currently have a perfect answer. This $15-per-month subscription service lets you download more than 100 games across a variety of genres, and play them on Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S, Xbox One, PC and even Android.

Sony, meanwhile, has the PlayStation Plus Premium tier, which offers hundreds of games to download and/or stream from the PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5 and PSP platforms. The functionality is not nearly as refined as Game Pass, but the raw game library is bigger, so take it for what it's worth.

Of course, both systems will also have some interesting games coming down the line. But restricting ourselves to what we can play and review right now, the PS5 has the stronger lineup.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Performance

Comparing PS5 and Xbox Series X performance is difficult at present, as Tom's Guide does not have the specialized equipment required to measure resolution and frame rate in great depth.

Bearing that in mind, I compared two games qualitatively across both systems: Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition. The former is a huge open-world title, where it's easy to measure load times as you fast travel from one distant point of the map to another. The latter is a fast, frenetic action game, where any drop in framerate is immediately noticeable.

First: Sony's ambitious claims about the PS5's load times aren't exaggerated, as far as I can tell. Assassin's Creed Valhalla went from the main menu into the game in less than a minute; fast travel took less than 10 seconds from point to point. However, while the Xbox Series X took longer to load the game initially (almost a minute), fast travel time was exactly the same.

Gameplay-wise, if you handed me an ambiguous controller and put either the PS5 or Xbox Series X version of Assassin's Creed Valhalla on a screen in front of me, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Both systems ran the game at 4K at 60 frames per second (although I understand that the 4K is probably upscaled in both cases), and neither one seemed to have any major difference in animation fluidity, lighting, etc. Texture pop-in seemed a little more noticeable on the Xbox Series X, although that may have just been the area I was in.

Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition told a similar story, although this time, I was able to discern some slight differences in the lighting. While both the PS5 and Xbox Series X offer ray tracing, the Xbox Series X's ray tracing in this game was a little richer, offering greater contrasts between light and shadow, particularly in the game's early, eerie red-and-purple landscapes. ( Digital Foundry found the same thing, with some stats to back it up.) The Xbox Series X also seemed a little bit smoother when I turned on the 120 fps performance mode, although again, I'd be hard-pressed to tell the two titles apart if I didn't know which one was in front of me.

Evaluating performance with these two games is difficult, however, because they were both designed with PS4 and Xbox One in mind rather than PS5 and Xbox Series X exclusively. While I can also talk about how impressive games like Spider-Man: Miles Morales and Gears 5 looked, they're not possible to compare directly.

For now, I can say that the two consoles both perform extremely well, although the PS5 has slightly shorter loading times.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Design

For the most part, whether you like a console's design comes down to personal preference. But my personal preference is that I cannot stand how the PS5 looks. Not only is the system comically large; it's also a pain to switch from vertical to horizontal configuration, and the standard version sports an ugly, asymmetrical design.

The front panel is prone to fingerprints; the "power" and "disc eject" buttons are indistinguishable. It's rare that I recommend you hold off on a console purchase simply to wait for the prettier redesign, but you should very strongly consider doing that with the PS5.

The Xbox Series X, on the other hand, is still pretty bulky, but manages its space much better. Rather than looking like an oversized router, the Xbox Series X is a sleek black box that looks, at least in its vertical form, kind of like a small tower PC (or a tiny refrigerator). It has a clearly defined power button, as well as a pairing button to make wireless connections painless.

The only big advantage the PS5 has over the Xbox Series X is the presence of a USB-C port - which is a big deal, especially as more accessories get USB-C adapters. But even if the Xbox Series X design is much more conservative, it's also much more sensible overall.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Controller

Another area in which the Xbox Series X plays it safe, to its credit, is in its controller. The Xbox Series X controller is nearly identical to the Xbox One model, save for textured grips and shoulder buttons, an improved D-pad and a new "share" button in the center.

It's a smart upgrade for one of the best controllers ever made. Still, the fact that it runs on AA batteries instead of a built-in rechargeable unit feels positively archaic, and also pasts a lot of cost onto the end-user, whether they choose to buy AAs or rechargeable packs.

The PS5 DualSense, on the other hand, is a big departure from the DualShock 4, with a two-tone color scheme and much bigger grips. It also adds a variety of new features: extremely sensitive haptics and a built-in mic among them. The haptic feedback is impressive, mimicking the feel of objects rolling around in a box, or putting up realistic resistance when you push a trigger. However, the DualSense still has a ton of wasted space (particularly in the touchpad), and the haptics have the potential to take you out of the game as much as they immerse you in it.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Backwards compatibility

Both the PS5 and the Xbox Series X have excellent backwards compatibility features, but there's no denying that the Xbox reaches further back into Microsoft's library. Not only is the Xbox Series X compatible with just about every Xbox One game; it's also compatible with many Xbox 360 and original Xbox games. While it doesn't include every stab Microsoft's ever taken at backwards-compatible games (the Xbox 360 still plays many original Xbox games that the Series X can't), it's an impressive effort with zero friction.

The PS5 can play just about every PS4 game on the market, but compatibility doesn't go back any further than that, unless you count its PlayStation Now streaming service for PS3 games. Still, it's not quite the same as playing games you already own directly on a console.

PS5 vs Xbox Series X: Cloud gaming

Cloud gaming isn't a huge issue for either the PS5 or the Xbox Series X, since you can simply download games and play them natively on either platform. But as cloud gaming grows over the next few years, it's good to know where each company stands at the outset of this console generation.

The PS5 has the PlayStation Plus revamp, which lets you stream a variety of PS3 titles, as well as some PS4 titles, to PlayStation consoles and PCs. It costs $10 per month for a tier that includes streaming capabilities.

The Xbox Game Pass Ultimate, as discussed above, costs $15 per month, and lets you stream games to Android, iOS, non-gaming PCs and even Xbox consoles.

While the PlayStation Plus revamp has some potential, Xbox Cloud Gaming is currently a much more refined and functional service.

PS5 vs Xbox Series X: Verdict

Swipe to scroll horizontally

While both consoles are off to a strong start and show significant room for improvement, the Xbox Series X seems like a slightly better investment for the moment. With more powerful hardware, a better design, a more comprehensive game subscription service and a delightful controller, the Xbox Series X has the early lead in the next generation of consoles.

Still, the PS5 has some virtues that the Xbox Series X does not. There's a full-featured digital console, a more inventive controller, a faster SSD and - this is not to be understated - a better selection of exclusive games. Plus, the PS5 also offers access to next-gen virtual reality tech via the PS VR2 headset accessory. Currently, Microsoft does not have an equivalent VR product of its own for Xbox users.

From having used both consoles extensively over the last few years, my gut feeling is that they have more similarities than differences, and whichever one you get should be more than sufficient to power your gaming for the next few years. Of course, you could always just build a gaming PC - but that's a different story.

PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Buy now or wait?

Now that both consoles have been out for more than two years, we'd say they are now well-worth buying. While you won't find many discounts on the PS5 or Xbox Series X, they do have a solid range of games and accessories to use with them,

And we are now reaching a point where new games aren't set to be cross-generation, meaning getting an Xbox Seres X or PS5, or indeed both, now makes a lot of sense for gaming fans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Which console wins?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost two years after their launch, the PS5 vs Xbox Series X battle remains a fierce one. In our reviews we were suitably impressed with both games consoles and remain so, with the two machines gaining more features and games as the latest generation gathers pace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Lenten season requires you to suspend your disbelief. Not sure about a skinny 33-something dude turning down a loaf of bread after fasting in the wilderness for 40 days? It's Lent, baby! Get over it! Planning to give up sugar for six weeks? Sure, okay-Lent! A little shaky on hand-washing practices at your parish's weekly fish fry? Shove it, man-it's Lent, and anything's possible!

But to a lapsed Protestant like myself, nothing feels quite so Lenten as the annual parade of the fast fish sandwiches. I'm referring to the two-month-ish period during which nearly every major fast food chain rolls out its limited-time fried fish sandwich, complete with a dollop of Catholic-friendly tartar sauce. It's a glorious occasion, but also one that demands a certain faith in the impossible. First of all, fish products shouldn't have right angles, and there's no way any of that "Alaskan pollock" is actually wild-caught. And yet for as long as I can remember, I've continued my flirtation with the fast food world's most dubious offerings.

Last month, when I was lucky enough to be one of the first to try the new Popeyes Cajun Flounder Sandwich, I realized that many of you also enjoy your annual voyage on the batter-dipped, fishy seas. So I set out to try every fish sandwich on today's fast food market over the course of 10 days or so. A feast of the seven fishes, if you will. (Quick note: Chick-fil-A's fish sandwich isn't coming back this year, and we only included national-or mostly national-chains in our ranking.) Below, you'll find the sandwiches ranked in order from best to worst, with a whole lot of fishy speculation in between.
Note: As of March 12, 2021, this ranking has been updated to include the Culver's Northwoods Walleye Sandwich at the strong urging of Associate Editor Aimee Levitt's mother.
1. Culver's North Atlantic Cod Fillet Sandwich

After publishing the Popeyes Cajun Flounder review a few weeks back, I heard from several commenters who insisted that Culver's positively owned the fast fish sandwich market. Culver's does everything else right, so I moseyed over to one of a few Chicago franchises to see for myself. Readers, you're absolutely correct: you simply cannot beat this thing. According to the chain's website, the sandwich is "hand cut, hand battered and cooked to order." It's also topped with a tangy tartar sauce featuring olives, capers, and sweet relish, and there's a little Wisconsin cheddar in there as a treat. Out of all of the fish fillets I tried, this guy was the thickest by far, measuring a whopping two inches at the fillet's thickest point. (I measured each sandwich by hand for posterity/science.) Where other fast fish patties edge into fish stick territory, the Culver's cod fillet is tender, flaky, and downright buttery in a way that reminded me of the crispy batter you'd see at a bona fide fish fry. And the Lord said... it was good.

2. Captain D's Giant Fish Sandwich

This one may be a bit tricky to find because Captain D's exists solely in the south and certain parts of the Midwest. But, hey-it's Lent, brother! We're preparing for miracles! We got mini Cadbury eggs! The snow is melting, revealing mounds of dog shit! This is a time of chaos, and Captain D's tastes just like sweet, sweet anarchy. Captain D's has been on the forefront of the cutting-edge fast seafood market for as long as I've been alive, but the chain's Giant Fish Sandwich actually only debuted in 2019.

This sandwich is unlike other sandwiches simply because it contains not one, but two pieces of battered-dipped fish (see above). Other fast food chains offer fish fillets or fish patties, but Captain D's said "to hell with it" and just slapped two pieces of fish in a toasted bun. It tastes awesome, because Captain D's batter-dipped fish pieces are... awesome. Like, they're transcendently good. They're generously coated in the kind of vaguely religious batter you'll find at Culver's, offering bite after bite of chunky, flaky fish. The only issue: you can't eat this sandwich while driving. This is a two-hander, because there are two pieces of fish in there. To eat this thing, you have to maintain equal pressure on both sides of the bun. If you squeeze one side of the sandwich too hard, you're gonna send at least one piece of fish shooting out of the other side. Next thing you know, you've put a nearby nun's eye out and you've got to suffer through three weeks of self-flagellation.

3. Popeyes Cajun Flounder Sandwich

You can read my full review of this sandwich here. If you'd rather not, I'll sum it up for you: tasty sandwich. Very, very good sandwich. The Popeyes contender did have a slightly thinner flounder patty than I was expecting, and the pickle action here is flimsy at best. Still, the buttery bun, spicy seasoning, and white, flaky flounder had me praying to the patron saint of Louisiana. 10/10 would fish again.

4. Arby's King's Hawaiian Fish Deluxe Sandwich

You'll see two Arby's contenders on this list: the King's Hawaiian Deluxe, which is new, and the chain's standard Crispy Fish Sandwich. While the Crispy Fish is a pretty standard pick (more info on that below), the King's Hawaiian Deluxe is served on a fluffy King's Hawaiian bun. Those things are my kryptonite. The bun pairs fabulously with the crispy Alaskan pollock, which is generously breaded and big, sticking out of the bun for several inches on each side. I'm fine with that, because the fish is good enough to stand on its own without bun support. The only thing that knocked this sandwich down a few slots: it's kind of sloppy. The sandwich is packing a slice of cheese, two slices of tomato, a big ol' dollop of tartar sauce on both buns, and an ungodly amount of shredded lettuce. Overall, the extra fixings create a bit of a wet sandwich.

5. Culver's Northwoods Walleye Sandwich

After we published the original Fast Fish Power Ranking on March 3, we heard from Associate Editor Aimee Levitt's mother about a glaring omission: the Culver's Northwoods Walleye Sandwich. Aghast, I hopped in my slime-colored Honda Fit and cruised back to Culver's to give it a try. Culver's advertises the Northwoods Walleye as "mild and tender," with each fillet hand-battered and cooked to order, then topped with tartar sauce and shredded lettuce and served on a buttery roll. I'm a sucker for a buttery roll, but I found the walleye sandwich to be way less flavorful than the cod sandwich. If you're a newcomer to the realm of fast fish (come in, the water's fine!), the walleye might be a milder, more approachable option. But ultimately, I think the cod fillet is much thicker, crispier, and all-around tastier.

6. Dairy Queen Wild Alaskan Fish Sandwich

I'm always pleasantly surprised when I swing by a DQ for something other than a blizzard. It's never top of mind, but every time I visit I'm reminded that the Queen has a serious knack for fries and dishes out some of the best chicken tenders on the fast food market. While others may balk at the idea of eating seafood peddled by dairy royalty, I'm glad I stopped by at the behest of a Takeout commenter. The Wild Alaskan Fish Sandwich offers a crunchy exterior, a flaky Alaskan Pollock fillet, and one of the tangier tartar sauces I've encountered during this fish quest. This sandwich didn't crack my top five, mostly because the breadcrumb presence was a little overwhelming. But I'd probably eat it again, and it certainly packed more flavor than Burger King and Wendy's combined. But ultimately, the best part was the lore surrounding the sandwich, which you can find on the DQ website:

"Imagine this: You wake up at the crack of dawn, grab your fishing pole and tackle box from the shed, and head to your favorite fishing hole. You spend the morning absorbing the peaceful tranquility of your surroundings as the sun floats up over the tree line. You cast and reel, cast and reel, cast and reel, but get no bites. That's okay, though. Fishing really isn't about catching fish for you. It's about reconnecting with nature and reconnecting with yourself."

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

7. White Castle Panko Breaded Fish Slider

I've got a soft spot for White Castle, because the sliders remind me of school lunch hamburgers. Like, they're certainly not the best burger you'll get on the fast food circuit, but they taste pretty good and are also orderly. White Castle's Panko Breaded Fish Slider is no exception. The sliders are teeny little guys, served in the chain's signature slider boxes with a slice of American cheese and crispy panko breading. This is a no-fuss sandwich, but the breading is solid, the cheese is a nice touch, and the thing's just so dang cute. From here on out, I'll refer to this sandwich as My Little Baby Boy.

8. Long John Silver's Classic Battered Alaskan Pollock Sandwich

Picture this: you're an extraterrestrial and you've just landed on Earth. You're strolling through CVS looking for a little alien snack, and you hear someone talking about fish. You've never seen a fish, but it sounds cool and floppy. You go across the street to a Long John Silver's and order a fish sandwich. The sandwich arrives. Inside the bun, you see something breaded and perfectly diamond-shaped. You point to it, asking: "Fish?" The cashier nods solemnly. Your understanding of fish is ruined forever, and you go back to your home planet with a haunted look in your eyes.

This is all to say: I'm not really a fan of Long John Silver's. Like I mentioned, the chain's fillets are perfectly diamond-shaped, which is a weird choice in itself. I also find this sandwich to be pretty lackluster-too many pickles, not enough tartar sauce, and verging too far into fish stick territory for my taste.

9. McDonald's Filet-O-Fish

Speaking of fish sticks: Takeout editor-in-chief Marnie Shure posited that Filet-O-Fish devotees love the sandwich because it reminds them of fish sticks. I actually had my first-ever Filet-O-Fish in preparation for this article, and I wasn't impressed-until I realized that the sandwich wasn't the problem. My expectations were the problem. I still don't love the Filet-O-Fish, but I think it's better to think of the sandwich as a big, flat fish stick inside two pieces of bread. That being said: I get the nostalgia factor, but this sandwich just makes it really hard for me to suspend my disbelief in how much you all love it. (This is a good time to point out that the link on the McDonald's website inviting you to " Learn what kind of fish is in Filet-O-Fish! " is, poetically, broken.) But damn, I do love McDonald's buns.

10. Arby's Crispy Fish Sandwich

Like I mentioned above, Arby's recently upgraded its fish sandwich offerings. The Crispy Fish Sandwich has been around for a while and, like the Hawaiian Deluxe, serves up a very generous slab of fish. Unfortunately, this one's also just a bit wet for my liking. Sea shanties aside, the sandwich also looks a bit silly to me-almost like a little man wearing a little wide-brimmed hat. How am I supposed to eat that?

11. Burger King Big Fish

The Big Fish is... a sandwich. While the bun is nice and buttery, the patty is only about half an inch thick by my measurements, and there's way, way too much lettuce. The Big Fish also doesn't have much crunch, so you're forced to reckon with the generic meat inside the patty. Is it fish? Is it chicken? Is it chicken of the sea? Or fish of the land? Either way, it's a bit of a mess.

12. Wendy's Crispy Panko Fish Sandwich

Wendy's really leans into the whole Meat With Right Angles thing, which makes me uneasy during the best of times. While the brand did switch from cod to "wild Alaskan pollock" from a certified sustainable fishery, this sandwich still was just not good. The Crispy Panko Fish wasn't especially crispy; it also wasn't especially fishy. Honestly, it didn't taste like much of anything, forcing me to manually spread the tartar sauce out WITH MY TONGUE in an attempt to salvage a smidge of flavor. Overall, the Wendy's contender was pretty interchangeable with The Big Fish from BK. BK's better-than-average bun set it apart in the end, leaving Wendy's alone at the back of the pack (or school?). Bland, bland, bland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Takeout's official Fast Food Fish Sandwich Power Ranking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Lenten season requires you to suspend your disbelief. Not sure about a skinny 33-something dude turning down a loaf of bread after fasting in the wilderness for 40 days? It's Lent, baby! Get over it! Planning to give up sugar for six weeks? Sure, okay-Lent!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are some pens in the virtual pen cup that are tried-and-true or that just get overlooked at the office supply stores. The are so ubiquitous that they are forgotten, invisible or completely ignored. The PaperMate Flair is one of them. I decided it was time to bring them back into the open. Partially because I kept seeing them in new colors and because one of my favorite people, Mike Rohde of Sketchnotes fame, is a big fan.

I discovered that the PaperMate Flair has been steadily releasing new color options as well as making the UF (the ultra extra fine) more readily available as well as the more commonly recognizable medium tip edition. The UF is identitfiable by the silver plastic body compared to the medium tip which has a unified cap and body color. Overall, the PaperMate Flair pens are lightweight with a metal clip and the classic two-heart embossed logo mark on the clip. The look of the pen is a slim, cigar shape with blunt ends that is so classic a design as to be universally familiar.

I purchased the Paper Mate Flair UF 8-Color Set

which came is a plastic sleeve and included a standard array of colors as well as a set of Paper Mate Flair UF 6-Color Limited Edition Candy Pop Set

. I removed the Candy Pop set from the packaging and immediately forgot the name of the set and the colors so please ignore my writing sample names, I was totally guessing.

First thing to note is that the "Candy Pop" colors aren't the least bit candy bright hence my inability to remember that they were supposed to be candy-inspired. The original color range are far brighter. In fact, the "Candy Pop" colors aren't even as interesting as the coveted color tones of the Marvy LePens so I wouldn't waste the money on them. The original 8-color range in both the medium and UF are far more vivid.

The medium tip PaperMate Flair pens are traditional felt tip pens and are prone to wearing down quickly but are reasonably priced. The UF tips are the pointed tips that are more prone to getting bent from pressure like the Sharpie Pen, Sakura Pigma Micron and other micro-tipped "felt-tipped" pens.

Tested on the Papier Tigre blank A6 notebook.

On the reverse of the paper, no showthrough.

And since I mentioned the Sharpie pen, I thought I'd include a comparison of the PaperMate Flair UF ($11.82) and the Sharpie Pen "art pen" set. ($17.07). The Sharpie Pen set comes in a hard plastic case that can be folded into an easel stand if you are so inclined (pun intended). What have they done to the Sharpie Pen to make it the "art pen" rather than the standard "pen"? I have no idea. Even going to the official Sharpie web site does not include the new pen packaging or any clarification though they list the "art pen" and show the original "pen" so Sharpie may be rebranding the capped "pen" as the "art pen" overall. Regardless, the tip looks the same in the fine-tipped version to the Sharpie Pen we are all familiar with.

Overall, the plastic carrying case is quite durable and if that's something you like, its a plus in the Sharpie column. The plastic case that the PaperMate pens come in is pretty flimsy and will probably split and degrade in a couple of months of regular use.

When compared to the PaperMate Flair UF, the Sharpie Pen tip actually looks slightly more bulbous though the housing seems a bit more solid and able to withstand the rigors of day-to-day use.

When compared side-by-side, the first six colors are fairly comparable in both sets. The black, blue, red, orange, green and pink are all pretty much similar. The PaperMate Flair green is a bit darker, as is the red and pink but overall the colors are comparable. The color sets diverge with the last two colors, however. With the PaperMater Flair set, the last two colors are purple and turquoise. With the Sharpie Art Pen set, the last two colors are brown and yellow. For highlights and coloring the yellow is a nice addition but its probably too light for legibility purposes.

While I prefer the color mix in the the PaperMate Flair set, the make-or-break point for many will be the water solubility and/or the price point. The PaperMate Flair set is $5 less expensive on Amazon while the Sharpie set is pretty much waterproof.

DISCLAIMER: The items in this review include affiliate links. The Well-Appointed Desk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon. Please see the About page for more details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pen Review: PaperMate Flair UF (vs. Sharpie Art Pen)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are some pens in the virtual pen cup that are tried-and-true or that just get overlooked at the office supply stores. The are so ubiquitous that they are forgotten, invisible or completely ignored. The PaperMate Flair is one of them. I decided it was time to bring them back into the open.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brickman judges all the teams' creations in the 3D artwork challenge | LEGO Masters Australia 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
*Updated 2018

When speaking of autonomous cars (also called self-driving cars) today, you can't help but bring up major companies like Google or , who are forging ahead in the industry (not to mention that is trying to, as well); The two are in the forefront of creating self-driving cars, yet the race to achieve this technological milestone is shared by many other . With all this competition, it looks as if the end result is inevitable - but are these self-driving cars all that good?

Here are three arguments for why we should continue to pursue autonomous cars, and three arguments for why it's not such a great idea.
The root of most accidents
Every ninety minutes, a pedestrian is killed by a car in the US. Whether it be texting and driving, DUI, road rage or any other distraction one may face while driving, it is safe to say that the main contributor to car accidents is the human driver himself. Self-driving cars remove human error, by giving cars the ability to be aware of surroundings and simultaneously plan the rest of a drive through GPS units and sensors. By creating a system that never gets distracted, falls asleep or speeds on the road, we can assume that there will be much fewer accidents than the current 6.3 million a year in the USA alone.
Time saving
Ask Gail Devers - who won Olympic Gold in 1992 by .01 seconds - how important time is. Or, talk to a parent who may be juggling work deadlines and childcare, and you know about their awareness of the ticking clock; it's safe to say that time is a pretty big deal, and it's important to milk each moment for all they are worth. Autonomous cars allow us to use long drives - which previously required our undivided attention - to our benefit. You can take advantage of a trip by making up sleep, attending emails, shopping online - the possibilities are endless.
$$$$$$$$
Autonomous cars can actually help you save cash. A decline in accidents will lead to a substantial drop in insurance premiums, and far fewer vehicles will need expensive repairs. Additionally, transportation and shipping will become cheaper due to fuel efficiency and no longer needing to pay driver salaries.

Self-driving cars will also see a large reduction in the cost of gasoline. These cars are programmed to drive in the most efficient way possible - meaning, they are more fuel-efficient by requiring less gas usage. With this new technology, many companies are even shifting towards electric autonomous vehicles, almost totally eliminating the need for gas altogether.

Against self driving-cars
Hacking
Being completely reliant on technology is not always a good thing. We hear about hacking on a near-daily basis from the news, whether it be phones, websites, companies, or classified information that is compromised. Autonomous cars are no exception. Charlie Miller, a leader in the field of protecting against said , says: "Cars are already insecure, and you're adding a bunch of sensors and computers that are controlling them...If a bad guy gets control of that, it's going to be even worse."

This problem doesn't only affect cars that have personnel minding them. There are plans in the works for total, autonomous public transportation (cabs and buses). If these are hacked, the potential threat can be huge - impacting many individuals at once.
Affects other industries
Autonomous cars may significantly alter a wide range of industries. In the long term, attaining a driver's license may no longer be required, which will eliminate the need for Driver's Ed courses or programs. Additionally, cab drivers, bus drivers, and truck drivers may become superfluous - perhaps all driving-related jobs in general. Due to the projection of a decrease in accidents, auto repair shops and insurance companies will also feel the negative impact.

Ultimately, these autonomous cars will lead to a decline in or even collapse of many industries, estimated at affecting over jobs that are directly related to driving (not including the ripple effect).
Ethical dilemmas
A mother and her newborn son are in an autonomous vehicle, traveling down a main road. Suddenly, a child runs into the road ahead, directly in the car's path. There are 2 options: The car either swerves to the side of the road into a barrier (killing the passengers but leaving the child unharmed); or, it stay on its current path, where it will kill the child and leave the passengers unharmed. What will/should the car do? The answer to this ethical question is important, because it could shape the way self-driving cars are accepted in society. show that people prefer that these cars follow utilitarian ethics, but when asked what ethics their personal cars should follow, respondents' answers change to "protect passengers at all costs."

As of now, there are no laws regulating the ways in which these cars should act, and the decision is in the hands of manufacturers. In fact, Uber recently shut down their self-driving truck program, following company controversy and a tragic accident that left a pedestrian dead. From this arises another question: Will the car manufacturer be held accountable in an event of a moral dilemma?

Bottom Line: Autonomous cars will likely help simplify our lives and even save us some cash. Yet, their coming may precede the fall of certain industries and pose tough moral questions that we may not know how to answer. How do you think self-driving cars will impact you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 2018 When speaking of autonomous cars (also called self-driving cars) today, you can't help but bring up major companies like Google or Tesla, who are forging ahead in the industry (not to mention that Uber is trying to, as well); The two are in the forefront of creating self-driving cars, yet the race to [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jaclyn Hill x Morphe Volume 2 Eyeshadow Palette Review | Cosmopolitan UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Testing 5 of the Best New Hair Curlers In 5 Days | ghd, Amika, Glamoriser, VO5, Babyliss