Connect with us

Technologies

Apple AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3: The Biggest Differences

Active noise cancellation is the biggest benefit you’ll get from buying the AirPods Pro 2 over the AirPods 3.

If you’re trying to decide between Apple’s AirPods 3 and its AirPods Pro 2, the biggest questions are whether you want active noise cancellation in a noise-isolating design or open earbuds that don’t require you to jam silicone ear tips into your ears. Yes, there’s a price difference — the AirPods Pro 2 sell for about $200 online while the AirPods 3 cost about $150. But with only about $50 separating the two AirPods models, it’s probably more important to focus on those key differences rather than dwelling too much on their price. 

Apple has bridged the gap between its Pro and regular AirPods by upgrading the AirPods 3’s design — it now looks more like the Pro’s design minus the silicone ear tips — and giving it the same IPX4 splash-proof water resistance rating. Additionally, the AirPods 3, like the AirPods Pro and Pro 2, also have Apple’s spatial audio with head-tracking feature.

Read more: Best Wireless Earbuds for 2023

But there are still certain benefits you can only get on the $249 AirPods Pro 2, the biggest being active noise cancellation and transparency mode. Multiple ear tip sizes, the ability to swipe up and down to control music volume and ultra wideband support are also exclusive to the Pro 2. But noise cancellation will likely make the biggest impact in everyday use, and it’s the most important factor to consider.

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3

AirPods Pro 2 AirPods 3
Price (USD) $249 $169 (Lightning case)
Price (UK) ÂŁ249 ÂŁ179 (Lightning case)
Price (AU) AU$399 AU$279 (Lightning case)
Weight (earbuds) 0.19 ounce 0.15 ounce
Audio features Active noise cancellation, Adaptive transparency, spatial audio with dynamic head tracking Spatial audio with dynamic head tracking
Audio technology Adaptive EQ, custom high-excursion Apple driver, custom high dynamic range amplifier, vent system for pressure equalization Adaptive EQ, custom high-excursion Apple driver, custom high dynamic range amplifier
Durability IPX4 sweat and water resistant IPX4 sweat and water resistant
Charging MagSafe or Lightning MagSafe or Lightning (extra $10 for MagSafe case)
Multiple ear tips Yes No
Chip H2 chip, U1 chip in charging case H1 chip
Battery life (earbuds) 6 hours of listening time 6 hours of listening time
Battery life (case) 30 hours of listening time 30 hours of listening time
Microphones Dual beamforming microphones; inward-facing microphone Dual beamforming microphones; inward-facing microphone
Sensors Skin detect sensor, motion detecting accelerometer, speech detecting accelerometer, touch control Skin detect sensor, motion detecting accelerometer, speech detecting accelerometer, Force sensor
Controls Hey Siri, touch controls Hey Siri, Force sensor

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3: Design and case

The AirPods Pro 2 pictured with their case The AirPods Pro 2 pictured with their case

The AirPods Pro 2.

David Carnoy/CNET

The biggest difference in terms of design is that the $169 AirPods don’t have interchangeable silicone tips like the AirPods Pro 2, which include four sizes to choose from. The AirPods 3 are also lighter than the AirPods Pro 2 at 0.15 ounce (4.3 grams) versus 0.19 ounce (5.3 grams). 

The AirPods 3 and new AirPods Pro share some similarities when it comes to design, although it’s very easy to tell them apart. The AirPods Pro 2’s stems, for example, are noticeably shorter than those on the AirPods 3. But both models are sweat and water resistant, which could make them more appealing than the $129 regular AirPods for those who want to wear them during exercise. 

AirPods 3rd Generation AirPods 3rd Generation

The third-generation AirPods.

David Carnoy/CNET

The case for the AirPods 3 sort of looks like a cross between the case for the standard AirPods and that of the AirPods Pro. It’s much shorter and wider than the entry-level AirPods case, but it’s not as wide as the holster for the AirPods Pro. You can also charge the case for the AirPods 3 or the AirPods Pro via Apple’s wireless MagSafe charger, or by plugging it in with a Lightning cable. But you’ll have to pay an extra $10 to get the MagSafe wireless charging case bundled with the AirPods 3. The MagSafe-compatible case for the AirPods Pro 2 also has a lanyard loop, unlike the AirPods 3’s case. 

The second-generation AirPods Pro’s case also has another capability: ultra wideband support. That essentially means the case has a built-in AirTag for easier location tracking.

airpodspro2-00-00-16-15-still010 airpodspro2-00-00-16-15-still010
Watch this: AirPods Pro 2 Review: Hard to Beat for Apple Users

10:21

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3: Audio 

AirPods Pro 2 being held by the stem AirPods Pro 2 being held by the stem

The AirPods Pro 2 have active noise cancellation and transparency mode.

David Carnoy/CNET

You’ll still have to splurge on Apple’s top-of-the-line earbuds to get active noise cancellation and transparency mode. Since the second-generation AirPods Pro have Apple’s new H2 chip, they can cancel up to twice as much noise as the previous AirPods Pro, according to Apple’s claims. Transparency Mode has also gotten an upgrade on the second-generation model. The new chip can reduce loud noises from your surroundings when in Transparency Mode, which should make sounds like a passing vehicle seem less jarring.

That new H2 chip also brings improved audio to the AirPods Pro 2, further distinguishing them from the AirPods 3. As my colleague David Carnoy wrote in his review, the H2’s computational power helps the AirPods Pro process a broader range of frequencies.

You’ll also get swipe controls for managing volume levels on the AirPods Pro 2. The AirPods 3 just have Apple’s force sensors, which you can press to skip ahead, pause music or answer calls. 

But both the AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods 3 have dynamic spatial audio and adaptive EQ. The former is essentially virtual surround sound, while the latter adjusts the sound to your ears.

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3: Battery life

The AirPods 3 on a MagSafe charger The AirPods 3 on a MagSafe charger

The AirPods 3 (pictured) and AirPods Pro 2 offer similar battery life.

David Carnoy/CNET

Battery life is similar for both models, although there are some slight differences. Both earbuds should provide up to 6 hours of listening time, according to Apple’s claims. But you’ll get 5.5 hours of battery life when using spatial audio and head tracking on the AirPods Pro 2, while the AirPods 3 offer slightly shorter 5-hour battery life with that surround sound feature enabled. Apple also claims the AirPods Pro 2 provides 4.5 hours of talk time, while the AirPods 3 offer up to 4 hours. 

The case for both earbuds should provide up to 30 hours of listening time, says Apple. But when it comes to talk time, you can expect to get 24 hours from the AirPods Pro 2’s case and 20 hours from the AirPods 3’s case. Five minutes in each case is expected to replenish around one hour of listening time or roughly 1 hour of talk time.

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods 3: How to choose

The AirPods Pro 2 are for those who want active noise cancellation, better audio and a more customizable fit. You’ll also get some other perks, like the ability to track them down more easily should they get lost, thanks to the U1 chip. The AirPods 3 are a more suitable choice if you don’t care about noise cancellation and prefer earbuds with an open design (and yes, they cost about $50 less, so they do offer some appeal to those on tighter budgets). At the same time, the AirPods 3 still have more to offer than the AirPods 2, which lack features like water resistance, adaptive EQ and spatial audio with head-tracking.

airpods-pro-2-green-background-2 airpods-pro-2-green-background-2

David Carnoy/CNET

Battery Life Rated up to 6 hoursNoise Canceling Yes (ANC)Multipoint NoHeadphone Type Wireless earbudsWater-Resistant Yes (IPX4 — splash-proof)

The new AirPods Pro (2nd generation) are powered by Apple’s new H2 chip, which delivers more processing power while being more energy efficient, according to Apple. The new chip, combined with new low-distortion drivers, allows for improved sound that offers better clarity and depth. The noise canceling is also improved — Apple says the new AirPods have “double” the noise canceling of the original AirPods Pro. Additionally, the new AirPods add an extra hour of battery life, up from five to six hours with noise canceling on. Plus, a speaker in the case that emits a sound that helps locate your buds via Find My should they decide to hide from you.

Note that while Apple has discontinued the , they’ll remain on sale  until supplies are exhausted. However, most people should get this newer model if they can afford it. The AirPods Pro 2 continue to see small discounts, dipping to as low as $223 during Amazon’ Early Access Prime event in October.

Read our Apple AirPods Pro 2 review.

Apple AirPods 3rd gen on concrete Apple AirPods 3rd gen on concrete

David Carnoy/CNET

Battery Life Rated up to 6 hoursNoise Canceling NoMultipoint NoHeadphone Type Wireless earbudsWater-Resistant Yes (IPX4 — splash-proof)

Take one look at the new design of the third-gen AirPods, and the first thing you’ll probably think is: “Those look like the AirPods Pro without ear tips.” You wouldn’t be wrong. While they’re more fraternal than identical twins, the AirPods 3 are shaped like the AirPods Pro, with the same shorter stems and same pinch controls as those of the Pro. Aside from the design change, which should fit most ears better than the AirPods 2nd Generation (though not very small ears), the biggest change is to the sound quality: It’s much improved. Also, battery life is better, and the AirPods 3 are officially water-resistant.

Read our Apple AirPods 3 review.

More headphone recommendations

Technologies

Kremlin Confirms Putin Transmitted Iran’s War Resolution Plan to Trump

The Kremlin says Putin relayed Iran’s proposal for ending the war to Trump, while Trump announced a Russian diesel supply deal that drew sharp criticism from Zelenskyy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin communicated Tehran’s perspective on a potential conclusion to the conflict in Iran to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Russian state media reports on Saturday.

This disclosure follows Trump’s Friday statement that Russia will provide diesel to global markets amid soaring energy prices driven by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Putin conveyed the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” per a Google translation.

Additional Russian media accounts indicate Putin spoke with Trump by phone after meeting Pezeshkian on the margins of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax did not detail the specifics of how Iran envisions the war — which erupted on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — reaching an end.

The White House did not immediately respond to Verum’s emailed request to confirm the reported conversation between Putin and Trump.

Russia supply deal

Trump announced Friday that Russia will deliver more than 4 million tons of diesel to the global market under an arrangement he said he agreed with Putin during a phone call.

Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately after, Trump posted on Truth Social. Moscow will then provide another 3 million tons of diesel contingent on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump added.

The Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel through April 2027 under a general license issued Friday.

Iran has intensified attacks on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, with vessels coming under fire almost daily as Tehran attempts to choke off a rebound in crude exports.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard official stated Wednesday that Iran will block all “illicit routes” through Hormuz, according to the Fars News Agency, an outlet considered close to the Guard.

The surge in tanker attacks coincides with crude oil exports from the Middle East rebounding in September to prewar levels, largely because the U.S. military escorted ships through Hormuz along Oman’s coast.

An interim agreement signed in June between the U.S. and Iran to pause hostilities to allow for negotiations quickly collapsed.

‘Gifts to Putin’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately denounced Trump’s diesel deal with Putin. Ukraine’s leader warned that easing sanctions without a commitment from Russia to de-escalate the war will only prolong it.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace or any benefit to the civilized world,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post. “Russia will ‘repay’ the diesel with further terror and perfidy. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

Diesel prices have surged worldwide as Ukraine has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports to global markets. Iran and its Houthi allies have also attacked refineries in the Middle East, further constraining fuel supplies.

Trump faces mounting political pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of the November midterm elections. Republicans confront competitive races in conservative strongholds like Iowa, where farmers feel the pinch of high diesel prices.

Continue Reading

Technologies

AI is Changing How Lawyers Work — and Putting the Billable Hour Under Pressure

AI is reshaping the legal industry by reducing the time needed for routine tasks, challenging the traditional billable hour model, and changing how lawyers learn and practice.

Artificial intelligence is now used by almost 90% of legal professionals in the U.K. and Ireland, and it’s putting one of the profession’s oldest conventions — the billable hour — under the microscope. That’s according to legal software company Clio’s U.K. & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026.

It found that among firms using AI, almost 80% said they can handle more work without increasing resources, while over 70% said it cut costs by absorbing administrative work once done by support staff.

As a result, AI is challenging some of the assumptions on which the legal profession was built, forcing firms to reevaluate how their lawyers spend their time, how they charge for it and how new lawyers learn the ropes. You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 secondsNick Rowles-DaviesLexolent Some of the U.K.’s biggest firms are already putting this into practice.

A&O Shearman has worked with legal AI company Harvey to develop artificial intelligence agents for tasks, including reviewing loan agreements and analyzing regulatory filings, which it says can complete in minutes work that previously took several hours. Slaughter and May, meanwhile, has rolled out Harvey across all practice areas this year, including for regulatory research and document analysis.

Billable hour pressure The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but when AI significantly reduces the time lawyers spend sifting through and drafting documents, the economics are no longer so straightforward. “You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 seconds,” Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of legal finance fund Lexolent, based in London and Dubai, told CNBC.

About one in five firms that have widely adopted AI report difficulty meeting billable-hour targets, according to Clio’s report. Globally, senior legal leaders expect the share of work charged by the hour to fall from 72% to 44% over the next two to three years, according to a Deloitte survey.

Routine work is the most exposed, Rowles-Davies said. “If you’ve got standard documents and you’re just putting in detail, then clearly that’s an automatic process.” But complex legal work still requires human judgment, he added, particularly when interpreting AI output and determining the right strategy for a client.

Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting betterJoshua LenonClio

AI and workloads

Whether AI efficiencies ultimately make lawyers’ working lives better may depend on what firms do with the time they get back. Clio’s report found that 51% of legal professionals work evenings, but only 32% want to, while 22% work weekends compared with 11% who would choose to.

Joshua Lenon, Clio’s New York-based lawyer-in-residence, believes some lawyers are already seeing the benefits. “Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting better,” Lenon told CNBC, as AI becomes more commonplace.

“People are really looking at these tools and saying, ‘This is making work better.’”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump’s diesel agreement with Putin accused of contradicting Russia sanctions law

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

President Donald Trump’s Friday announcement that Russia will supply diesel fuel to the global market marked an apparent pivot from recent efforts to pressure Moscow to end the Ukraine war by targeting Russian energy exports.

Trump claimed the move, unveiled with less than a month left in an affordability-focused midterm election, would swiftly bring down record-high diesel prices.

But commentators and critics were quick to highlight contradictions between the new policy and prior efforts by the U.S. to clamp down on Russian oil sales.

Those efforts most recently included the enactment of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, empowering Trump to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, among other restrictions. Trump signed the bill into law just three weeks ago.

“Congress just passed a law giving Trump the power to impose new tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil & gas,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said on X after Trump’s Friday announcement.

“Can America tariff America?” he quipped.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, accused Trump’s latest move of being “directly contrary to Congress’s intent in our bipartisan sanctions bill.”

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, in an X post said that the relaxation of Russian diesel restrictions “pretty much proves the point that the Graham Russia Bill was not going to force the Trump Administration to increase economic pressure on Moscow.”

Some of the criticism crossed party lines.

“Through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, we gave the president significant authorities and leverage against China and Russia to bring Putin’s war to an end with a negotiated settlement,” Rep.

Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in an X post. “Unfortunately, while I understand the desire to bring down diesel prices, I am concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin’s war machine—emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days,” McCaul said.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s questions about the diesel agreement with Russia.

Less than a year earlier, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on multiple Russian oil companies in response to what it called “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

Trump also had previously slammed NATO allies for continuing to buy Russian oil. In a September 2025 Truth Social post, he wrote, “the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Later that month, Trump again harangued world leaders for doing business with Russia.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “They can’t be doing what they’re doing. They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.”

Trump announced the diesel deal in a Truth Social post Friday afternoon after what he described as a “highly successful discussion” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Under the agreement, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, then another 500,000 tons in November, followed by 1 million tons “immediately thereafter” and 3 million more depending on refinery conditions, Trump wrote.

The Treasury Department soon after said that Trump directed the Office of Foreign Assets Control to immediately issue a “temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market.” OFAC specified that the sanctioned transactions will be authorized for about six months, until April 7.

Russia seemed to celebrate the move. “Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” an X account associated with Putin’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev said in response to the announcement.

But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose military has started targeting Russian oil refineries, said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

“Any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness,” Zelenskyy said. “Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

“We count on America’s fair support for our defense of life, for our defense of people in Ukraine – and on the United States having a correspondingly strong conversation with Russia,” he said.

“A strong one, not a weak one,” he added.

Trump thanked Putin later Friday afternoon for enabling “massive amounts of oil” to come to the U.S.

“We need oil for the world, and this is diesel, which is what we need, so we’re very happy to get it,” Trump told reporters before heading to Syracuse, New York.

The Trump administration has previously eased some Russian energy sanctions temporarily, though more narrowly than Friday’s announcement.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to stabilize markets after the start of the Iran war, the Trump administration issued limited, 30-day waivers allowing countries to buy sanctioned Russian oil that was already in transit.

But some interpreted the latest move as a more significant step.

“It looks like Trump cut a deal with the devil,” Jeremy Siegel, professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” Friday afternoon.

“It’s not a permanent solution at all. It’s sort of a short-term Band Aid,” Siegel said. “And cutting back on or eliminating sanctions on Russia for the invasion in Ukraine, I think, is a very unfortunate consequence.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media