NEW YORK, NY (AP) – Stocks surged on Wall Street and Treasury yields dropped after government reports revealed that 23,000 unexpected jobs were cut last month.
All major indices posted a second consecutive week of gains. This included several new records. This marks the start of August after several months that were weak.
S&P rose by 47.68, or 0.6% to 7,757.64. This was a record-breaking performance, surpassing the previous high set by Tuesday. This benchmark index is on an unbroken record-breaking run.
Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 151.83 or 0.3% to 54.036.93. This was just short of its record set on Wednesday. The Nasdaq Composite rose by 342.26 or 1.3% to 26,690.62.
The market was largely lifted by the technology stocks with their large market value. These stocks are usually the most important in determining market direction. Nvidia’s stock jumped by 2.3%, while Broadcom surged 1.7%.
Bond market has reacted strongly due to weaker signals on the job market. This can be interpreted as giving the Federal Reserve a little more time to raise interest rates in order to combat inflation.
Prior to the employment update, the yield of the 10-year Treasury dropped to 4.64%. Before recovering, it was down to 4.60%.
Before the release of the report, the yield on two-year Treasury bonds, which is more indicative of Fed expectations on rates, had fallen to 4.20%, from 4.22%. The yield on the two-year Treasury fell to 4.20% from 4.22% before the report’s release.
In a recent research note, Peter Graf, Amova Asset Management Americas’ chief investment officer, said that while the market may welcome the more dovish aspects of the report they should still be cautious about the potential growth of a country where there are fewer workers.
The report shows a less positive picture for the job market. This was one of the more promising areas in the economy, despite rising inflation rates and concerns about consumer spending. The report included revisions to June and May payroll figures that resulted in a total of 103,000 jobs being cut.
The Fed is preparing its next move
Fed interest rates have been held steady despite concerns about a hotter inflation. This is due to the rise in oil price caused by U.S. military action against Iran. Wall Street is expecting at least one interest rate hike by the end the year. However, forecasts are shifting in the coming meeting. CME FedWatch reports that the expectation of a September rate reduction has dropped to just 42% from Thursday’s 55% and 67% one week earlier.
The Fed’s efforts to combat inflation and support job growth could be complicated by a weakening of the jobs market. By slowing the economic growth, raising interest rates helps to tame inflation. The weakening jobs market could be exacerbated by higher interest rates, as it becomes more difficult for businesses to grow under the increased borrowing rate.
Wall Street and businesses alike prefer low interest rates, as they can boost investment. This could help a weakening jobs market but worsen inflation.
Next week, Wall Street will receive several important updates on inflation. Consumer price index (CPI), which is a measure of consumer costs, will be closely monitored. Wall Street anticipates that it will show an inflation rate of 3.4% in July, which is a small decrease from June’s 3.5%. The inflation rate has been stubbornly higher than 3% throughout the majority of this year.
In a Morgan Stanley Wealth Management research note, Ellen Zentner said that the Fed’s September rate-hike decision may be influenced by today’s payrolls data, but the inflation figures next week will likely still play a major role.
Earnings picture
This report on jobs caps off a week that was dominated by concerns over the U.S. ongoing war against Iran and corporate profits.
The second-quarter earnings of companies are expected to be the highest since 2021. Analysts expect that the S&P 500 will see profit growth in excess of 50%. This has eased some Wall Street concerns about the validity of big stock gains in 2026. Stock values are supported by strong profits.
The day was light on earnings, as the companies were nearing the end of their latest reports.
Airbnb’s shares jumped 17.4% after the company reported stronger profits and revenues for its latest quarter than analysts had expected late Thursday.
The price of oil has risen. Brent crude oil, which is the standard international price, increased 1.3%, to $83.55 per barrel.
Inflation has been fueled by rising oil prices. The price of a barrel reached $113 at one time during the five-month U.S. conflict with Iran. This increased the price of gasoline, shipping and other products. Both the U.S.A. and Iran said that they were working together on deals to reopen Strait of Hormuz. This is where once a fifth of all oil and gas in the world passed.
___
Elaine Kurtenbach, Associated Press Business writer, contributed to the report.

Researchers in the US have created new viruses by using artificial intelligence. This is a first for science and raises the hopes of medical advances while also raising concerns about the risks of this frontier technology.
Researchers at Stanford University, the Broad Institute of MIT, and Harvard University published findings in Science that they had used a naturally-occurring phage – a virus type which infects bacteria – as a template for generating thousands of genomes using AI.
Read More Stories
List of four items
List 1 of 4. South Lebanon residents are outraged by Israel’s return to strikes
List 2 of 4Travel Restrictions – From Israel and Europe – Trap Students in Gaza
List 3 of 4. After the floods comes hunger in Mozambique
List 4 of 4Do you know the ownership details for media that you consume?
End of List
According to findings published Thursday, the researchers chemically synthesized nearly 300 genomes, tested them under laboratory conditions and found 16 “viable viruses”.
According to tests, the mixture of synthetic viruses was more effective than naturally occurring viruses in killing E. coli bacteria.
The researchers reported in Science that “Our approach extends the capabilities of synthetic genomics alongside other methods, such as rational engineering and directed evolution, provides a pathway for developing adaptive and resistant phage therapy against rapidly evolving pathogens and establishes the foundation for generative design for larger and more complex genomes.”
Two of the authors of this paper, Brian Hie, and Samuel King did not respond immediately to comments.
Isaac Bogoch is an infectious diseases specialist from the University of Toronto/Toronto General Hospital, who wasn’t involved with the study. He said that the findings had both positive and negative implications.
Bogoch, speaking to Al Jazeera, said that AI-designed viruses may have potential benefits. For example they could help create targeted bacteriophages which could potentially help us combat antibiotic-resistant infection in new ways.
Bogoch stated that “the same capability to create whole functional viruses can easily turn into a biosecurity threat if it is applied to pathogens which are harmful. Therefore, strong safeguards, screening and oversight must grow along with the technology.”
Fatemeh Vafaee is a Professor at UNSW School of Biotechnology & Biomolecular Sciences, Sydney. She said while the research itself posed little risk for humans as phages only affect bacteria, it was possible that the techniques used could be harmful.
Vafaee, speaking to Al Jazeera, said that researchers have already called for a stronger biosecurity supervision as an advance-looking measure rather than in response to any real danger.
This milestone is a result of rapid AI advances that have sparked concern over the potential for harm from malicious humans or AI systems.
The United Kingdom government’s AI watchdog revealed this week that Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s frontier AI models were engaged in malicious and “unsanctioned”, “autonomous”, and uncontrolled activity against real people during a routine safety assessment.
AI Security Institute reported that Anthropic’s Claude Mythos 5, created fake online identities to try and insert malicious code in an open-source platform project.
Watchdog findings follow OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s announcements last month, that their high-end models were engaged in hacking sprees without human assistance against multiple organisations.
Donald Trump, US president, has increasingly embraced AI regulation after promoting light-touch regulations in the early years of his second term.
Trump issued an executive order in June to create a framework that would allow for the evaluation of frontier AI models before their release.
Tech industry observers have criticised the Trump administration for not releasing its evaluation criteria and methods.
Tom Ellis, a synthetic genome engineer at Imperial College London said the Stanford research findings are “impressive” but also show how AI is still far from creating more complex genomes, both for viruses and cells.
Ellis, speaking to Al Jazeera said: “This phage DNA is the smallest and easiest genome to design. Phage are known to tolerate mutations very well and to quickly evolve in order to take advantage of them.”
The COVID genome is 6 times larger, so the complexity of a model for something even bigger increases exponentially. “So something six-times longer is likely to be 100 times more difficult.”
Ellis stated that while the study has implications for biosecurity the manipulation of naturally-occurring viruses is a more pressing and serious threat than AI created pathogens.
He said it would be absurd to use AI in order to create a pathogen when so many are already available.
Hsu Li Ya, director of Asia Centre for Health Security, in Singapore said, while AI might be used to increase the virulence of viruses, it is important not to overstate the significance of this study.
Hsu, speaking to Al Jazeera said: “It’s not true that someone with a scientific background and laboratory experience can make dangerous or life-saving viruses from their garage.”
He said that the capability of the downstream wet lab for steps after design is substantial, and it hasn’t changed.
Hsu said: “I find it both valuable and worrying at the same, which is true of such clearly dual use research.”

US President Donald Trump issued an executive order Thursday imposing a 15 percent tariff on imports of polysilicon products, which is a critical material in solar panels and semiconductors.
This order set import minimum prices for polysilicon, and products related to it. The order was issued after an investigation by the national security agency into the overseas production of polysilicon.
This move aims to protect US chip manufacturers from the increasing competition they are facing in China, a major source of friction for both economies.
Beijing said it would protect its businesses. The Chinese Embassy in Washington stated that the action “seriously disturbs” the trade between China and the United States.
Washington “abuses state power” to target Chinese companies, the US embassy stated. Protectionism won’t make the US competitive.
Trump stated in his order that he accepted the recommendations of Secretary Howard Lutnick for setting minimum import prices and a 15% duty on imports related to polysilicon.
These measures will come into effect on December 1.
Trump said that the US had allowed foreign firms “to weaken United States polysilicon producers” for decades. He has advocated the use of tariffs in order to boost American employment and protect the economy.
Trump stated that the material was critical to military equipment and electronic devices, but imports caused US polysilicon production share to drop from 50% in 2005 down to less than 2 % in 2024.
Hemlock Semiconductor, Wacker Chemie and other US-based producers are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this order.
In the race to develop AI, the US and China are focusing on the production of computer chip. Washington and Beijing are also locked in a tariff war that has been put on hold by May 2025.
Global Times, a Chinese government-run media outlet, quoted analysts who said that the new tariff represents the latest step in Washington’s effort to reduce China’s influence in the critical supply chain of technology.

Now that Samsung has a new form factor in the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold8, it is only natural for at least some prospective buyers to be weighing it against the more established foldable design in the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra. After all, the difference in price between the two isn’t huge, so the decision has to be based on other considerations.
So, let’s look into some of the finer points in this comparison together. Perhaps we might just help you figure out which is the best Fold for you.
Table of Contents:
Design
Display
Battery Life
Charging
Speaker Test
Performance
Cameras
Verdict
For starters, you can compare the complete specs sheets or directly continue with our editor’s assessment in the following text.
Size comparison
Let’s kick things off with the most obvious and the most important of comparisons – the proportions. The Z Fold8 Ultra is clearly the bigger phone. And even though the Z Fold8 Ultra is technically thinner, it still feels more substantial.
Granted, this is going to be subjective, but we think that the new Z Fold8 is both more pocket-friendly and easier to handle. Not to mention more versatile.
Here’s how the two foldables stack up when it comes to displays and their advertised aspect ratios (the actual ones are slightly different, but these are definitely close enough).
Cover display comparison
Let’s start with the cover display first. We can do some quick napkin math to help us out. The Z Fold8 Ultra cover display has an area of about 98.7 cm², while the Z Fold8 has around 88.2 cm² to work with. Not drastically different in absolute terms (The Ultra cover has 11.9% more total area), but definitely very different in proportions. The Fold8 cover is about 14.9% physically wider in portrait. The Ultra cover screen is about 28.6% taller.
Let’s go on with our handy math then. Say you want to watch 16:9 video content, which is the most prevalent aspect out there. The Fold8’s cover display will actually provide about a 4.2% bigger picture with considerably smaller black lines. 4:3 video is even more dramatic of a win for the Fold8 cover display, which offers about a 32% larger picture. The only real win in this department for the Z Fold8 Ultra is with 21:9 cinematic video in particular, which is about 65% larger on the Ultra’s cover display.
Next, let’s look at social media. Most of it is designed around tall aspect ratios, so you will generally see more posts on the Z Fold8 Ultra’s cover display. While neither display is perfect for 9:16 vertical video, the Ultra is a lot closer. However, there is a tradeoff here and as far as individual posts go, especially photos, these will generally look bigger on the Z Fold8’s cover display.
General web browsing is an interesting comparison. With mobile-formatted webpages, the taller Ultra’s cover screen is able to fit more content. However, desktop-style pages definitely feel more at home on the Z Fold8’s wider cover display. Text wraps into fewer lines. Wide horizontal spreadsheets and similar table layouts just plain look better.
And speaking of browsing the web, messengers just unquestionably feel better on the Z Fold8’s wider cover display. Typing on there is a real pleasure too.
The Fold8 cover’s roughly 1.58:1 portrait shape is close to the proportions of many paperback and e-book formats. It feels refreshingly nice for reading. And things like comics and manga are usually in a 3:2 aspect, which also feels a lot better on the Z Fold8’s cover display.
Finally, gaming on the cover displays is an interesting topic. In modern titles with proper widescreen support, the Z Fold8 Ultra takes the cake. But for compatibility, emulation, 16:9 games, and potentially getting physically larger touch controls, the Z Fold8’s cover is better overall.
Main display comparison
Ok, time for the main display comparison. The Fold8’s main panel has a total area of around 177.8 cm², while the Z Fold8 Ultra’s main display covers around 204.4 cm². That’s a 15% total difference in favor of the Ultra. Again, it’s all about the sort of content you intend to view here. The Ultra’s main display is about 17.8% wider in portrait. The Fold8’s main display is actually about 2.4% taller in portrait.
Let’s look at the video playback area first, since that is what really surprises most. The Ultra main display has 15% more total area, but it is almost square. Its landscape width is slightly smaller than the regular Fold8’s. As a result, video windows in pretty much every popular aspect are about 5% larger on the Z Fold8 (around 4% for 4:3).
Better still, the Z Fold8 uses much more of its display with smaller black bars: about 75% display coverage in 16:9 compared to about 62% on the Ultra. A whopping 99% and above for 4:3 content, compared to 83% on the Ultra and about 57% coverage for 21:9 cinematic, compared to 48% on the Ultra. In plain terms, less of the screen is wasted and watching videos feels more natural without the wide black bars.
On to social media. This is one area where neither phone is amazing on its main display. The regular Fold8’s 4:3 format is already unusually wide for portrait social apps, but the Ultra is even squarer. That can lead to things like very wide posts, large empty side margins and more unused space around vertical photos and videos. The Fold8’s narrower portrait width makes Instagram, Facebook and X feel somewhat closer to conventional phone applications. However, the Ultra quickly gets a massive advantage in any app that has a proper tablet interface.
General web browsing and productivity tasks go to the Ultra’s main display. In portrait orientation, the Ultra is around 18% wider. Websites can use that to show wider article columns, more complete desktop layouts, larger tables and charts, better two-column or dual-pane layouts and generally a more comfortable split-screen browsing experience.
The Fold8’s 4:3 shape is almost ideal for displaying two conventional book pages side by side. A pair of approximately 3:2 portrait pages forms a 4:3 spread, matching the screen closely. It is also better for a single page because it has a more page-like portrait shape.
The Ultra provides more total surface for content, but its near-square proportions result in excess width for a single page and more empty space around standard pages. For things like comics and manga, surprisingly again, despite its smaller total area, the Z Fold8’s main display provides a roughly 5% larger 3:2 image. However, for specific things like panel-by-panel viewing, zooming into artwork or keeping controls on screen beside the content, the Ultra is better.
For gaming, the Ultra ultimately has 15% more screen real estate. Games that adapt correctly to arbitrary aspect ratios will generally feel more expansive on the Ultra. This is especially relevant for strategy games, card games, board games, racing or action games that expand the viewport, games with maps, inventories or complex interfaces and emulation with on-screen controls around the image.
The Z Fold8’s main display still gets a few gaming wins, albeit very specific ones. Things like fixed-aspect Android games will likely be 4 to 5% larger. Also, 4:3 retro gaming emulation will arguably look better.
Closing out this already bloated size comparison section, we can sum up that the regular Fold8 is the content-consumption specialist. Both of its screens are shaped more efficiently for conventional video, books, comics and fixed-aspect gaming.
The Fold8 Ultra, on the other hand, is the productivity and vertical-content specialist. Its cover is excellent for scrolling social feeds, long mobile web articles and ultrawide video, while its nearly square inner screen gives substantially more workspace for websites, spreadsheets, multitasking and games that can genuinely use the full panel.
Display comparison
We mostly covered the most important screen usability bits in the previous section already. Tech-wise, all four panels across both devices are actually very similar. All of them are LTPO panels capable of refresh rates up to 120Hz, and all of them peak at somewhere around 3,000 nits of brightness.
Despite what look like pretty different resolution figures at first glance, the two cover panels actually come very close in terms of actual pixel density. They are basically equally sharp, so to say.
The one real difference worth mentioning is that this year Samsung upgraded the main display resolution of its traditional form factor foldable. So, with 2256 x 2504 pixels on an 8-inch diagonal, the Z Fold8 Ultra has a pixel density of around 422 ppi, up from around 368 ppi on the Z Fold7. All the while, the Z Fold8 is rocking 1828 x 2448 pixels on a 7.6-inch diagonal, which works out to around 403 ppi. Honestly, the sharpness difference between the Z Fold8 and the Z Fold8 Ultra is not really noticeable with a naked eye.
Regardless of which phone you choose, you will get Samsung’s excellent dynamic refresh rate control, superb HDR support and all that goodness.
Z Fold8 Ultra display crease
Now, when it comes to display creases, the Z Fold8 Ultra seems to be prone to developing a more noticeable crease than the Z Fold8, though neither device can be described as crease-less. Both phones theoretically use very similar hinge technology, improved for this generation of foldables, but we can’t say we are seeing any difference in the crease section.
Z Fold8 display crease
Battery life
The Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra packs a 5,000 mAh battery – the largest in a Samsung foldable to date. This was at least partially achieved through the use of modern Si/C battery chemistry – another first for a Samsung device.
The Galaxy Z Fold8 is also using Si/C tech, but it has a slightly smaller 4,800 mAh battery.
Both the Z Fold8 and Z Fold8 Ultra offer pretty good battery life for a modern foldable. Despite its smaller battery, the Z Fold8 offers a bit better battery life, when using their main displays. If you prioritize working on the cover display more, then the Z Fold8 generally has a more convincing lead in the battery life department.
Charging speed
We get 45W charging on both Z Fold8’s. This is achieved through what Samsung brands Super Fast Charging 2.0. It is based on USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) with PPS on top. In its current iteration, the protocol does not require a 5A cable to function properly. It works just fine with a 3A cable, as the one provided in the box, so you don’t need a fancy charger to get the fastest possible charging speed.
It is worth remembering that the two phones do have slightly different battery capacities. Hence, it comes as no surprise that Samsung claims the Z Fold8 Ultra can charge up to 67% in thirty minutes, while the Z Fold8 can get about 63% charge in the same time.
In our testing, we actually managed to consistently outperform both of these figures, which is great. Ultimately, the Z Fold8 Ultra does charge a bit faster out of the two, but honestly it’s not much of a difference in practical terms.
Speaker test
As mentioned, the speaker setup on the Z Fold8 looks a lot like that on the Z Fold8 Ultra. However, it’s likely that Samsung had even less room for proper resonance chambers on the inside. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the Z Fold8 is a tad quieter than the Z Fold7, which was already a downgrade compared to the Z Fold6 and even that one only managed a “Good” rating in our loudness test. Well, unfortunately, the Z Fold8 just misses the cutoff for “Good” territory and falls into “Average”. To be clear, it is not terrible, but don’t expect room-filling sound.
Surprisingly, the Z Fold8 Ultra seems to be as quiet as the Z Fold8. A tad worse even, though the two tests are basically identical and within the margin of error of each other. So neither phone is really a winner in the speaker category.
Performance
While technically the Z Fold8 Ultra is the “pinnacle” flagship in the current lineup, Samsung decided not to treat the Z Fold8 Ultra as a second-class citizen when it comes to performance. At least on paper, that is.
Both phones are equipped with Qualcomm’s still top-dog Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5. Better yet, it is the higher-clocked “for Galaxy” variant. Granted, this chip is a few months old at this point and due for a replacement, but that’s just in the nature of foldable development and release cycles.
While there are slight differences in the memory configurations available for the two phones, the two are basically on par. Most users will end up with 12GB of LPDDR5X RAM. However, you can get 16GB of RAM if you really want to splurge. Storage starts at 256GB on both and goes up to 1TB. Non-expandable on both, and as far as we can tell, both use the same fast UFS 4.X chips.
Benchmark performance
While the two phones use the same core hardware and don’t even technically differ in maximum clock speeds, judging by the burst benchmark results, the Z Fold8 Ultra seems to perform slightly better than the Z Fold8. Nothing colossal, but still a notable difference.
As for sustained performance, the two phones perform about the same, with their performance dropping around 50% of their max performance. That sounds like a lot in isolation, but 50% performance loss is not out of the ordinary for the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5.
Camera comparison
There’s a relatively significant difference on paper between the two camera systems, with the Ultra obviously packing higher-tier hardware. That means a larger-sensor, higher-resolution main camera (1/1.3″ 200MP vs. 1/1.56″ 50MP) and an extra telephoto, though the extra 1/3.94″ 10MP 3x camera is hardly cutting-edge. The ultrawides are the same between the two models, as are the two in-display selfie cameras.
So from the onset, logic would dictate that we should be expecting better zooming capabilities from the Ultra, and potentially better low-light performance from its main camera, while the rest should be more or less identical.
Image quality
Daylight
What’s pretty easy to pick up when looking at side-by-side sample comparisons is that global properties are more or less identical between the two phones. Of course, that’s to be expected, and anything other than that would be most unusual. In that sense, it’s mostly sharpness that we’ll be comparing – there’s little to no difference in the other aspects of image quality. And on the cameras that are identical, there wouldn’t even be that.
Starting at 1x, the Ultra’s images are a little sharper and have a finer and more natural detail presentation next to the vanilla model’s slightly softer and more processed-looking take. It’s not a massive difference, but it’s not negligible, and it’s always there.
Daylight comparison, main camera (1x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
There’s a bit more of that at 2x, though here we’d say there’s less of a difference – the Z Fold8 Ultra’s 2x photos are not exactly industry-leading, but they’re still a little better than the Z Fold8’s.
Daylight comparison, main camera (2x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
It gets a bit more interesting at 3x – you’d expect the Ultra to be significantly better than its lesser stablemate on account of actually having a 3x camera, but that’s not always the case. In bright outdoor conditions, the Z Fold8’s images are at least as good as those from the Ultra – we’d attribute that to the combined effects of the Ultra’s 3x camera being rather unremarkable in the first place, and the AI being able to sharpen up straight edges and come up with plausible greenery on the plain model. In dimmer light, the Ultra still has a bit of an advantage.
Daylight samples, 3x zoom: Galaxy Z Fold8 (main camera) • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra (telephoto camera)
Moving on to the ultrawides, there’s little in the way of differences.
Daylight comparison, ultrawide camera (0.6x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Low light
In the dark, the Z Fold8 Ultra’s main camera produces photos that are a little bit less noisy than the vanilla model, and it just might have an almost negligible sharpness advantage.
Low-light comparison, main camera (1x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Both phones change their output somewhat significantly in some scenes if you force the Night mode on them, dialing up sharpening and possibly messing up the white balance/exposure. Neither is particularly likable.
Low-light comparison, main camera (1x), Night mode: Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
At 2x zoom, the Ultra displays a more pronounced advantage in sharpness and noise performance.
Low-light comparison, main camera (2x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Night mode does improve the sharpness on both phones, but the Ultra’s processing isn’t necessarily more likable than that of its regular mode results. Either way, the Ultra wins.
Low-light comparison, main camera (2x), Night mode: Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Photos at 3x zoom in the dark are meaningfully better on the Ultra, even if they’re not all that great in absolute terms.
Low-light samples, 3x zoom: Galaxy Z Fold8 (main camera) • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra (telephoto camera)
Night mode changes the output somewhat, but the net result is the same – the Ultra is better.
Low-light samples, 3x zoom, Night mode: Galaxy Z Fold8 (main camera) • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra (telephoto camera)
The ultrawide cameras of the two phones take essentially the same photos at night.
Low-light comparison, ultrawide camera (0.6x): Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Low-light comparison, ultrawide camera (0.6x), Night mode: Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Selfies
The selfie cameras are the same on the two Folds, and the results you’ll get will be the same too.
Selfies comparison, cover camera: Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Selfies comparison, internal camera: Galaxy Z Fold8 • Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra
Video quality
The phones can record up to 4K60 with all of their cameras, and the main and ultrawide also support 8K30. The Pro video mode unlocks a number of other frame rates, including 24fps across the board and 4K120 for the main and ultrawide cameras. The Samsung-developed pro-grade APV codec is available in addition to the default h.265 (HEVC) and the optional older h.264, and you can record in HDR10+ or Log. Video stabilization is available in all modes on all cameras, and there’s also Horizon lock mode.
When it comes to video quality, the ultrawide cameras produce the same results, of course. The main cameras do introduce some differences, with the Ultra having a bit of an advantage at 1x, which gets more substantial at 2x. The Ultra does win by a wide margin at 3x – the vanilla model can compute its way to good 3x stills, but not so much 3x video.
Daylight video screengrabs, Galaxy Z Fold8: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x
Daylight video screengrabs, Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x
In the dark, the parity of the ultrawides predictably continues. The Ultra’s main camera footage is again noticeably sharper at 1x and even more so at 2x. The Ultra’s 3x telephoto isn’t particularly great at low-light video recording, but it’s still better than the vanilla model’s main camera, pushed to 3x in the dark.
Low-light video screengrabs, Galaxy Z Fold8: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x
Low-light video screengrabs, Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra: 0.6x • 1x • 3x
Verdict
At the end of the day, there is no objectively better phone in this comparison. The Galaxy Z Fold8 and the Z Fold8 Ultra share most of their core hardware and deliver broadly comparable display quality, performance, charging, speakers and battery life. The meaningful differences all stem from their very different proportions and what those proportions make each phone better suited for.
The regular Z Fold8 is the more compact, pocket-friendly and arguably more versatile option. Its wider cover screen is excellent for typing and messaging, while both displays make more efficient use of their area for conventional video, books, comics and fixed-aspect games. It also posts slightly better battery life. The Ultra does have the more capable camera system, but the differences are generally small enough that casual shooters should not feel like they are giving up too much by choosing the regular Z Fold8.
The Z Fold8 Ultra, meanwhile, is the better fit for anyone who wants a more conventional phone experience when folded and as much workspace as possible when open. Its larger, nearly square inner display is considerably better suited to productivity, multitasking, tablet layouts and games that scale properly, while its tall cover screen works better for social feeds, long webpages and ultrawide video. It also charges a little faster, performs slightly better in short bursts and consistently captures marginally better photos and videos, with its dedicated telephoto camera giving it the clearest hardware advantage.
So, this one really does come down to form factor. Pick the Galaxy Z Fold8 if its compact shape and content-friendly screens appeal to you more. Pick the Galaxy Z Fold8 Ultra if you prefer the established book-style foldable design and value maximum workspace. Neither choice is inherently superior; it is simply a matter of which set of compromises suits you better.
These are the best offers from our affiliate partners. We may get a commission from qualifying sales.
256GB 12GB RAM$ 1,899.99£ 1,699.00512GB 12GB RAM$ 2,099.99£ 1,869.00
Show all prices

Meta said Thursday that one of its artificial intelligence models accessed the internet on its own and hacked another company, the latest in a series of disclosures about AI models going rogue.
In recent weeks OpenAI and Anthropic also have described instances of AI models going beyond humans’ instructions to access the web and find ways around other companies’ digital security.
Meta said in a statement that a “misconfiguration” during cybersecurity testing by Irregular, an independent company hired by Meta, inadvertently allowed one of its models to access the internet.
“The model subsequently exploited a security vulnerability in a third-party service, in a manner similar to previously-reported instances with other companies,” the company said. Meta said it is investigating the incident and will issue a report when that’s complete.
The disclosure has added to worries about AI models acting autonomously.
Separately this week, the United Kingdom’s AI Security Institute announced it had found “unsanctioned agent behavior” during cyber testing. In one case, an agent created fake online identities to pressure a person to approve use of malicious code.
“On investigation, we found that some of the agents being tested had engaged in sustained, potentially harmful activity directed at real people and organizations,” AISI said Tuesday. “We declared a security incident and, within roughly one hour of discovery, had contained it and begun a full investigation.”
During the agency’s testing, Anthropic and OpenAI models took “autonomous, unsanctioned action” on the internet. Some guardrails to prevent misuse had been disabled, the agency said.
“As was standard in our cyber testing, we had intentionally permitted internet access, and model-provider cyber classifiers were deliberately disabled — conditions that do not reflect how frontier models are made available to the public,” AISI said. “We do this to best assess the maximum capability of models.”
Anthropic said it is “grateful” for AISI’s work and added that it underscores the need for a broader conversation about how to safely evaluate AI agents as their capabilities grow.
OpenAI said the AISI incidents took place “in testing environments with reduced safeguards, under conditions that do not reflect ordinary use.” It added it will continue working with others across the industry to “strengthen shared practices for conducting evaluations safely as models become more capable.”
The first company to disclose a hack late last month, OpenAI said it had tasked the AI models involved with pursuing “advanced exploitation using complex attack paths” to test cyber capabilities, but the technology went to unexpected lengths. It apparently decided on its own to target Hugging Face, a well-known AI development hub and marketplace, to obtain information it needed to carry out a task.
A spokesperson for Irregular, the San Francisco-based AI security company, said the Meta episode involves a test-environment issue that was disclosed last week by Anthropic.
Irregular said it’s writing a paper to share “best practices for containment” to prevent such incidents in the future and securely run cyber tests.