Nearly 7000 people have told us what they think of the technology they own. The tables below show how reliable the brands are and how satisfied the people who own their products are with their purchase. Brands were also rated on value for money.

TVs

TVs are reliable, averaging 95% overall. There wasn’t much difference between the big 4 brands - LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony all had average reliability.

The Warehouse’s Veon brand wasn’t quite up with the big names, but still managed average reliability. If things did go wrong, they were more likely than any other brand to go wrong quickly - 79% of Veon TVs that needed repair or replacement, needed it in the first 6 months. Veon TVs in our survey were more likely to be smaller HD models: more than 60% of them were under 42” and just 18% 4K/UHD.

A similar pattern was seen in satisfaction, with 81 to 83% of big brand owners very satisfied with their TV but just 66% of Veon owners very satisfied. When it comes to bang for buck, Veon displayed the top marks with 81% of owners saying their TV offered excellent value for money. While it might be seen as great value, fewer Veon owners were “very likely” to repurchase the brand (65% vs 85% for the top performer, Samsung).

The number of large TVs, bigger than 55'', being bought doubled between 2013 and 2016 to 15%. Our results showed no difference in reliability between TV sizes.

Just over 21% of TVs bought in 2013 were 4K/UHD models. By 2016, this had grown to 65%. 4K/UHD is becoming the new “norm”, while HD is becoming the new SD. There was no difference in reliability between displays, but 4K/UHD owners were more likely to be very satisfied with their TV.

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Panasonic (810) 96% 83% 75% +/- 1% Panasonic 96 83% 75%
Sony (539) 96% 81% 75% +/- 2% Sony 96 81% 75%
LG (371) 95% 82% 76% +/- 2% LG 95 82% 76%
Samsung (1044) 94% 82% 73% +/- 1% Samsung 94 82% 73%
Other (87) 94% 72% 72% +/- 5% Other 94 72% 72%
Veon (157) 91% 66% 81% +/- 4% Veon 91 66% 81%
Overall (3008) 95% 81% 75% - Overall 95 81% 75%

For more information, see our test of TVs.

Sound bars and home theatre

One brand, Sonos, achieved 100% reliability. Unsurprisingly, it also managed the highest number of “very satisfied” owners of any brand (92%) with the same proportion very likely to buy the brand again.

All other brands achieved average reliability. However, there were some notable differences in owner satisfaction. It takes more than reliability to make an owner very satisfied. A product needs to meet or exceed performance expectations and avoid any ease of use frustrations. After Sonos, Yamaha and Bose products had the most very satisfied owners (82% and 79%), whereas fewer Philips and Panasonic owners were very satisfied (29% and 51%) despite the products having similar reliability. This is also reflected in the likelihood of buying the brand again, with 84% of Yamaha owners very likely but just 53% of Panasonic owners and 42% of Philips owners.

Sound bars and home theatre systems achieved good reliability: 94% did not need repair. Satisfaction wasn’t great though, just 65% of owners said they were very satisfied and 60% said they got excellent value for money. Many members commented about dissatisfaction with connection to their TV and the ease of setup and use.

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Sonos (36) 100% 92% 67% +/- 0% Sonos 100% 92% 67%
Yamaha (73) 97% 82% 68% +/- 4% Yamaha 97% 82% 68%
LG (70) 96% 67% 54% +/- 5% LG 96% 67% 54%
Sony (131) 96% 58% 61% +/- 3% Sony 96% 58% 61%
Onkyo (33) 95% 55% 52% +/- 7% Onkyo 95% 55% 52%
Other (149) 94% 79% 72% +/- 4% Other 94% 79% 72%
Philips (38) 94% 29% 45% +/- 7% Philips 94% 29% 45%
Panasonic (186) 93% 51% 52% +/- 4% Panasonic 93% 51% 52%
Samsung (140) 93% 62% 61% +/- 4% Samsung 93% 62% 61%
Pioneer (36) 92% 69% 67% +/- 9% Pioneer 92% 69% 67%
Bose (96) 91% 79% 53% +/- 6% Bose 91% 79% 53%
Overall (988) 94% 65% 60% - Overall 94% 65% 60%

For more information, see our tests of sounds bars and home theatre systems.

Mobile phones

Roughly 4 in every 5 of the nearly 5000 phones in our survey were either Samsung or Apple models. Huawei, Nokia/Microsoft and Vodafone made up almost half of the other brands.

Only Sony recorded lower-than-average reliability, with 18% of phones needing repair. It was also one of the brands with fewer very satisfied owners (56%). Alcatel, Nokia/Windows and Vodafone were the other brands with owners less likely to be very satisfied.

Of the big two, 85% of Apple owners were very satisfied, beating Samsung (72%). Samsung wins out in value for money though: 61% of Samsung owners thought their phone offered excellent value compared with 50% of Apple owners.

The brands offering the best value are Motorola (81% said “excellent”), LG (75%) and Huawei (71%). In the end, though, 4 in 5 Samsung and Apple owners would buy the brand again (81 and 84%) – significantly more than the next best (Huawei and LG with 68%).

All but 35 of the 1367 phones in the survey bought in 2016 were smart. “Feature phones” aren’t quite dead, but they occupy a tiny niche of the market. Three-quarters of phones were bought outright. Apple iPhones were more likely than other brands to be part of a contract plan.

Between 2013 and 2016, the proportion of large phones in our survey (with screens bigger than 5.5”) doubled to 20%. At the same time, the proportion of smaller phones halved to 9%. There was no difference in reliability between different sizes, but owners of smaller phones were less likely to be very satisfied.

The most reported fault with a phone was battery and charging (a third of all reported faults). This was followed by broken or cracked screens and software problems.

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Microsoft/Nokia (146) 97% 58% 62% +/- 3% Microsoft/Nokia 97% 58% 62%
Doro (33) 97% 64% 64% +/- 6% Doro 97% 64% 64%
Huawei (202) 95% 65% 71% +/- 3% Huawei 95% 65% 71%
Vodafone (170) 95% 54% 66% +/- 3% Vodafone 95% 54% 66%
Motorola (89) 94% 75% 81% +/- 5% Motorola 94% 75% 81%
Other (106) 92% 61% 68% +/- 5% Other 92% 61% 68%
Apple (1721) 92% 85% 50% +/- 1% Apple 92% 85% 50%
Samsung (2093) 92% 72% 61% +/- 1% Samsung 92% 72% 61%
Alcatel (91) 89% 31% 45% +/- 6% Alcatel 89% 31% 45%
LG (104) 89% 77% 75% +/- 6% LG 89% 77% 75%
HTC (45) 87% 62% 62% +/- 10% HTC 87% 62% 62%
Sony (115) 82% 56% 51% +/- 7% Sony 82% 56% 51%
Overall (4915) 92% 74% 58% - Overall 92% 74% 58%

For more information, see our test of mobile phones.

Tablets

In our survey, 4 in every 5 tablets bought in the past 3 years were Apple (50%) or Samsung (31%) models. Microsoft came in a distant third with just 5%.

Apple was the only brand to record above-average reliability. Microsoft, HP and Nextbook were below the 93% category average. If problems arose, HP tablets were most likely to go wrong in the first 6 months (90% of HP tablets that needed repair).

The most common problems were with batteries and charging (31% of faults) and software. Samsung owners reported a disproportionately high number of battery and charging problems.

Overall, three quarters (76%) of tablet owners were very satisfied. Apple owners were most likely to be very satisfied (86%) while HP (33%) and Nextbook (19%) owners were least likely.

Despite the brand’s lower-than-average reliability, 70% of Microsoft tablet owners were very satisfied. However, 10% were dissatisfied – perhaps reflecting those owners who had faulty tablets. Bringing up the rear was Nextbook: a quarter of owners were dissatisfied and more than half (56%) said they wouldn’t purchase the brand again.

Apple led the way with brand loyalty: 84% of owners were very likely to buy again. Samsung was next best at 79% and also offered the most value for money (68% thought it was “excellent”). Of the others, only Microsoft (68%) and Lenovo (63%) recorded more than half of owners very likely to buy the brand again.

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Apple (1435) 96% 86% 62% +/- 1% Apple 96% 86% 62%
Lenovo (54) 96% 57% 76% +/- 5% Lenovo 96% 57% 76%
Samsung (887) 93% 74% 68% +/- 2% Samsung 93% 74% 68%
Asus (64) 90% 52% 55% +/- 7% Asus 91% 52% 55%
Microsoft (144) 85% 70% 53% +/- 6% Microsoft 85% 70% 53%
Other (174) 85% 55% 60% +/- 5% Other 85% 55% 60%
Acer (39) 83% 51% 49% +/- 12% Acer 83% 51% 49%
HP (54) 81% 33% 48% +/- 10% HP 81% 33% 48%
Nextbook (32) 75% 19% 19% +/- 15% Nextbook 75% 19% 19%
Overall 93% 76% 63% - Overall 93% 76% 63%

For more information, see our test of tablets.

Smartwatches and fitness trackers

61% of wearables reported in our survey were Fitbit fitness trackers. Fitbit also recorded the worst reliability, the only brand below average with more than a quarter (27%) of products needing repair or replacement. Its impact is so great, that if you took Fitbit out of the picture, average reliability across the other brands soars from 78 to 86%.

More than half of those Fitbit problems surfaced within the first 6 months of ownership. The most commonly reported problem was “construction” (16% of all Fitbits), followed by “battery and charging” (5%) and “connection” (5%). The poor reliability likely contributed to low owner satisfaction (51% were “very satisfied”), value for money (42% said “excellent”) and intent to repurchase (50% said “very likely”).

The next most popular fitness tracker brand, Garmin, fared better with higher-than-average reliability for a wearable device. Like Fitbit, construction was the main problem reported, but, unlike Fitbit, this type of problem affected just 5% of Garmin products.

Apple was streets ahead in wearables reliability, with just 3% of its products needing repair or replacement. 79% of Apple owners were very satisfied and 83% would buy the brand again. Just 54% thought the product was excellent value for money though.

Of the 1025 fitness trackers reported in our survey, just 17% were bought in 2013 or 2014. It’s even lower for the 255 smartwatches, with just 11% bought in 2013 or 2014. Wearables is a tech category that has exploded in the past couple of years.

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Apple (89) 97% 79% 54% +/- 3% Apple 97% 79% 54%
Samsung (41) 89% 63% 46% +/- 10% Samsung 89% 63% 46%
TomTom (36) 88% 61% 50% +/- 11% TomTom 88% 61% 50%
Garmin (187) 84% 58% 50% +/- 5% Garmin 84% 58% 50%
Other (149) 80% 48% 56% +/- 6% Other 80% 48% 56%
FitBit (778) 73% 51% 42% +/- 3% FitBit 73% 51% 42%
Overall (1280) 78% 54% 46% - Overall 78% 74% 46%

For more information, see our tests of smartwatches and fitness trackers.

Wireless speakers

Half of the wireless speakers in our survey were from Logitech/Ultimate Ears (34%) or Bose (16%). While 72% of responses related to just 6 brands, models from more than 100 brands were purchased.

Wireless speakers are a reliable product, with only 3% needing repair. When they do go wrong, the most likely problems are with connectivity or power and charging. And if they go wrong, the problem is most likely to appear within 6 months of purchase (59% of all wireless speakers).

Bose and Sonos owners were most likely to be very satisfied (91% and 90%) and very likely to purchase the brand again (87% and 90%). Owners of less common wireless speakers, those with fewer than 30 models in our survey, were less likely to be very satisfied (64%), very likely to purchase again (63%) or think they got excellent value for money (62%).

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
JBL (49) 99% 80% 69% +/- 3% JBL 99% 80% 69%
Sony (80) 99% 75% 65% +/- 2% Sony 99% 75% 65%
Logitech/UE (327) 98% 79% 69% +/- 1% Logitech/UE 98% 79% 69%
Marley (36) 98% 72% 67% +/- 4% Marley 98% 72% 67%
Sonos (48) 98% 90% 71% +/- 4% Sonos 98% 90% 71%
Bose (159) 96% 91% 73% +/- 3% Bose 96% 91% 73%
Other (275) 95% 64% 62% +/- 3% Other 95% 64% 62%
Overall (974) 97% 77% 67% - Overall 97% 77% 67%

For more information, see our test of wireless speakers.

Headphones

61% of headphones reported in our survey are over-ear models, 24% were earbuds and the rest were on-ear models. Over-ear models were the most reliable (95% not needing repair), while earbuds had below-average reliability (88%).

70% of headphones in our survey could only be used wired. The connection didn’t make much difference to reliability, all were average.

Overall, 94% of headphones needed no repair. When they did go wrong, most reported faults were a physical break, connectivity problems (including wired or wireless connections), and sound problems.

Headphone type[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden]
On-ear (208) 95% 63% +/- 3% 95% 63%
Over-ear (876) 95% 72% +/- 1% 95% 72%
Earbuds (341) 88% 65% +/-3% 88% 65%
Overall (1425) 94% 69% - 94% 69%

More than half of the headphones in our survey came from Bose, Sony, Sennheiser and Philips.

70% of Bose headphones were over-ear models and 85% had noise-cancelling. Bose headphones had above-average reliability, while their owners were the most satisfied: 92% said they were very satisfied and 91% would buy the brand again.

Sony headphones also had above-average reliability. However, fewer Sony owners were very satisfied (62%). Fewer were also very likely to purchase the brand again (65%).

Sennheiser owners were second to Bose in satisfaction (79% “very satisfied”) and likelihood to purchase the brand again (80% “very likely”).

Philips owners were least likely to be very satisfied (50% “very satisfied”) or buy the brand again (50% “very likely”).

Brand[width=20%] Reliability[width=20%] Very satisfied[width=20%] Excellent value for money[width=20%] Margin of error[width=20%] Brand[sort; desc; hidden] Reliability[sort; desc; hidden] Very satisfied[sort; desc; hidden] Excellent value for money[sort; desc; hidden]
Logitech / UE (40) 100% 65% 63% +/- 0% Logitech / UE (40) 100% 65% 63%
Panasonic (79) 99% 61% 67% +/- 2% Panasonic (79) 99% 61% 67%
Bose (216) 97% 92% 66% +/- 2% Bose (216) 97% 92% 66%
Plantronics (40) 96% 78% 70% +/- 6% Plantronics (40) 96% 78% 70%
Sennheiser(200) 96% 79% 64% +/- 3% Sennheiser(200) 96% 79% 64%
Sony (206) 96% 62% 64% +/- 3% Sony (206) 96% 62% 64%
Philips (156) 94% 50% 58% +/- 4% Philips (156) 94% 50% 58%
Audio Technica (38) 92% 66% 53% +/- 9% Audio Technica (38) 92% 66% 53%
Beats by Dr. Dre (61) 91% 74% 46% +/- 7% Beats by Dr. Dre (61) 91% 74% 46%
Other (306) 88% 61% 60% +/- 4% Other (306) 88% 61% 60%
Skullcandy (49) 77% 63% 61% +/- 12% Skullcandy (49) 77% 63% 61%
Jabra (34) 74% 68% 74% +/- 15% Jabra (34) 74% 68% 74%
Overall (1425) 94% 69% 62% - Overall (1425) 94% 69% 62%

For more information, see our test of headphones.

About our survey

We asked members about products they’d bought new since 1 January, 2013. We wanted to know the brand, the year it was bought and whether it had ever needed repair. We also asked respondents if they were satisfied with their product and whether they thought it offered value for money.

We only analysed brands that got more than 30 responses in a category. For each brand, we calculated our reliability score as the percentage of its products that have never needed repair. We asked about satisfaction and value on a 0 to 10 scale, where a score of eight to 10 reflects “very satisfied”, “very likely to repurchase” or “excellent value”.