Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

Where reviewers disagree

• ±Camera · 3 positive, 2 negative, 1 mixed
  Which sources said this

  • 9to5Google — negative: Says flatly that the phone does not have the best camera, and the review does not treat photography as a reason to buy it.
  • CNET — positive: Says the cameras are consistently great and produce the quality expected from Samsung's most premium phone, with a clear 10x shot, while noting the sensors are unchanged.
  • Android Police — negative: Lists camera doesn't impress as a con: processing and smoothing with haloing and blurring at 5x and 10x, edge enhancement and jaggies from the main camera, and a 5x that jumps to macro and throws off focus.
  • Engadget — positive: The 200 MP main and 50 MP 5x now use f/1.4 and f/2.9 apertures, making the primary shooter noticeably better at night; it matched a Pixel 10 Pro in a dim room, though the sensors themselves are unchanged.
  • Tom's Guide — mixed: Says the Ultra is still way ahead of the iPhone on zoom and much better in low light, but that it fell behind the iPhone 17 Pro Max on macro and sometimes oversaturates colours until detail is lost.
  • The Verge — positive: Calls the wider apertures real, unequivocal improvements rather than AI nonsense, measured a lower ISO than the S25 Ultra at the same 1/120 s shutter, and 1/60 s against 1/30 s on the 5x in very dim light.

• ±Battery life · 2 positive, 1 negative, 2 mixed
  Which sources said this

  • 9to5Google — negative: Calls the unchanged 5,000 mAh cell the most egregious spec Samsung has not fixed, and frankly unacceptable on a device that describes itself as an Ultra.
  • CNET — positive: Says the phone easily goes over a day and a half; a 45-minute endurance test finished at 95% against 92% for the S25 Ultra, and three hours of streaming left 87% against 81%.
  • Android Police — mixed: Reports more than five hours of screen time and 75% charge in 30 minutes, but says that is neither terrible nor outstanding, or much better than previous models.
  • Engadget — positive: Ran 30 h 03 m in its video rundown, about half an hour longer than the S25 Ultra.
  • Tom's Guide — mixed: Measured 16 h 10 m on the 5G web test, nearly two hours longer than the S25 Ultra, but the 5,000 mAh cell is unchanged and the review wants Samsung to adopt silicon-carbon batteries.

• ±Display · 4 positive, 1 negative, 2 mixed
  Which sources said this

  • 9to5Google — mixed: Reports that the viewing angles take a slight hit and the overall resolution feels a bit lower, while the Privacy Display still separates the phone from its rivals.
  • CNET — positive: Calls the Privacy Display the real showstopper of the phone.
  • Android Police — mixed: Calls the Privacy Display excellent and a genuine reason to buy, but documents that Samsung told some press the screen was 10-bit when it is 8-bit with emulation, and reports flicker some people may find nauseating.
  • Engadget — positive: Calls the Privacy Display superb and says it really ought to be a standard feature on all premium phones going forward.
  • Tom's Guide — negative: Measured 1,806 nits HDR and 1,209 nits SDR against 1,860 and 1,231 for the S25 Ultra, lists narrower viewing angles as a con, and says it will retest after Samsung returned higher figures.
  • The Verge — positive: Says the Privacy Display works and is cool as hell, and treats the phone as a return to form for the Ultra line.
  • WIRED — positive: Numbers the Privacy Display among the features it treats as genuinely new and useful on this phone.

• ±Value · 2 positive, 3 negative
  Which sources said this

  • 9to5Google — negative: The price did go up, you just did not notice: the 512 GB tier rose to $1,499 and the 1 TB to $1,799 from $1,419 and $1,659, and the promotions are worse too.
  • CNET — positive: Awards an Editors' Choice at $1,299.99 for the 256 GB model.
  • Engadget — negative: Says the phone remains rather expensive at $1,299.99 while the camera sensors carry over from the previous generation.
  • Tom's Guide — positive: Notes the Ultra remains a steep $1,299.99 but did not take the $100 increase that Samsung applied to the standard Galaxy S26 and S26 Plus.
  • The Verge — negative: Lists still expensive as a con and frames the phone around the $1,300 question.