UploadVR’s David Heaney highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as the first genuine competitor to Meta’s Quest 3, praising its lightweight, balanced design and notably improved passthrough clarity with minimal distortion or double imaging. Heaney appreciates Pico OS’s ambitious multitasking capabilities, allowing up to 20 simultaneous 2D windows, and lauds the innovative, easy-to-use Pico Motion Trackers for leg tracking, which open new gameplay possibilities. However, he points out key drawbacks: the headset uses somewhat outdated lenses with less edge-to-edge clarity and a narrower field of view compared to Quest 3, and its passthrough lacks dynamic occlusion and accurate depth perspective. The multitasking window placement is also more limited than competitors. While the Pico 4 Ultra shows promise with solid hardware and unique features, Heaney notes ByteDance’s reduced hardware subsidies and content investment may hinder its ability to fully challenge Meta’s ecosystem. Overall, the review conveys cautious optimism tempered by clear limitations and the need for further hands-on testing.

Hamish Hector from TechRadar highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as a powerful mid-range VR headset boasting superior hardware specs—such as a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, 12GB RAM, and 256GB storage—compared to its main rival, the Meta Quest 3. However, despite these impressive internals and standout features like accurate optional Motion Trackers and a unique spatial footage capture tool, the Pico 4 Ultra falls short due to its weaker software ecosystem and lack of major exclusive titles. Hector praises the headset’s solid performance, comfortable counterbalanced design, and reliable PC connectivity via Meta Connect, but criticizes the inconvenient spatial capture feature, the absence of a silicon facial interface, and the headset’s fan noise. While the Pico 4 Ultra offers good value for those seeking top specs outside the Meta ecosystem, its software limitations and higher price make it a less compelling choice for users prioritizing game library breadth or affordability.

UploadVR’s David Heaney highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as the first genuine competitor to Meta’s Quest 3, praising its lightweight, balanced design and notably improved passthrough clarity with minimal distortion or double imaging. Heaney appreciates Pico OS’s ambitious multitasking capabilities, allowing up to 20 simultaneous 2D windows, and lauds the innovative, easy-to-use Pico Motion Trackers for leg tracking, which open new gameplay possibilities. However, he points out key drawbacks: the headset uses somewhat outdated lenses with less edge-to-edge clarity and a narrower field of view compared to Quest 3, and its passthrough lacks dynamic occlusion and accurate depth perspective. The multitasking window placement is also more limited than competitors. While the Pico 4 Ultra shows promise with solid hardware and unique features, Heaney notes ByteDance’s reduced hardware subsidies and content investment may hinder its ability to fully challenge Meta’s ecosystem. Overall, the review conveys cautious optimism tempered by clear limitations and the need for further hands-on testing.

Hamish Hector from TechRadar highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as a powerful mid-range VR headset boasting superior hardware specs—such as a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, 12GB RAM, and 256GB storage—compared to its main rival, the Meta Quest 3. However, despite these impressive internals and standout features like accurate optional Motion Trackers and a unique spatial footage capture tool, the Pico 4 Ultra falls short due to its weaker software ecosystem and lack of major exclusive titles. Hector praises the headset’s solid performance, comfortable counterbalanced design, and reliable PC connectivity via Meta Connect, but criticizes the inconvenient spatial capture feature, the absence of a silicon facial interface, and the headset’s fan noise. While the Pico 4 Ultra offers good value for those seeking top specs outside the Meta ecosystem, its software limitations and higher price make it a less compelling choice for users prioritizing game library breadth or affordability.

UploadVR’s David Heaney highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as the first genuine competitor to Meta’s Quest 3, praising its lightweight, balanced design and notably improved passthrough clarity with minimal distortion or double imaging. Heaney appreciates Pico OS’s ambitious multitasking capabilities, allowing up to 20 simultaneous 2D windows, and lauds the innovative, easy-to-use Pico Motion Trackers for leg tracking, which open new gameplay possibilities. However, he points out key drawbacks: the headset uses somewhat outdated lenses with less edge-to-edge clarity and a narrower field of view compared to Quest 3, and its passthrough lacks dynamic occlusion and accurate depth perspective. The multitasking window placement is also more limited than competitors. While the Pico 4 Ultra shows promise with solid hardware and unique features, Heaney notes ByteDance’s reduced hardware subsidies and content investment may hinder its ability to fully challenge Meta’s ecosystem. Overall, the review conveys cautious optimism tempered by clear limitations and the need for further hands-on testing.

Hamish Hector from TechRadar highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as a powerful mid-range VR headset boasting superior hardware specs—such as a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, 12GB RAM, and 256GB storage—compared to its main rival, the Meta Quest 3. However, despite these impressive internals and standout features like accurate optional Motion Trackers and a unique spatial footage capture tool, the Pico 4 Ultra falls short due to its weaker software ecosystem and lack of major exclusive titles. Hector praises the headset’s solid performance, comfortable counterbalanced design, and reliable PC connectivity via Meta Connect, but criticizes the inconvenient spatial capture feature, the absence of a silicon facial interface, and the headset’s fan noise. While the Pico 4 Ultra offers good value for those seeking top specs outside the Meta ecosystem, its software limitations and higher price make it a less compelling choice for users prioritizing game library breadth or affordability.

UploadVR’s David Heaney highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as the first genuine competitor to Meta’s Quest 3, praising its lightweight, balanced design and notably improved passthrough clarity with minimal distortion or double imaging. Heaney appreciates Pico OS’s ambitious multitasking capabilities, allowing up to 20 simultaneous 2D windows, and lauds the innovative, easy-to-use Pico Motion Trackers for leg tracking, which open new gameplay possibilities. However, he points out key drawbacks: the headset uses somewhat outdated lenses with less edge-to-edge clarity and a narrower field of view compared to Quest 3, and its passthrough lacks dynamic occlusion and accurate depth perspective. The multitasking window placement is also more limited than competitors. While the Pico 4 Ultra shows promise with solid hardware and unique features, Heaney notes ByteDance’s reduced hardware subsidies and content investment may hinder its ability to fully challenge Meta’s ecosystem. Overall, the review conveys cautious optimism tempered by clear limitations and the need for further hands-on testing.

Hamish Hector from TechRadar highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as a powerful mid-range VR headset boasting superior hardware specs—such as a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, 12GB RAM, and 256GB storage—compared to its main rival, the Meta Quest 3. However, despite these impressive internals and standout features like accurate optional Motion Trackers and a unique spatial footage capture tool, the Pico 4 Ultra falls short due to its weaker software ecosystem and lack of major exclusive titles. Hector praises the headset’s solid performance, comfortable counterbalanced design, and reliable PC connectivity via Meta Connect, but criticizes the inconvenient spatial capture feature, the absence of a silicon facial interface, and the headset’s fan noise. While the Pico 4 Ultra offers good value for those seeking top specs outside the Meta ecosystem, its software limitations and higher price make it a less compelling choice for users prioritizing game library breadth or affordability.

UploadVR’s David Heaney highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as the first genuine competitor to Meta’s Quest 3, praising its lightweight, balanced design and notably improved passthrough clarity with minimal distortion or double imaging. Heaney appreciates Pico OS’s ambitious multitasking capabilities, allowing up to 20 simultaneous 2D windows, and lauds the innovative, easy-to-use Pico Motion Trackers for leg tracking, which open new gameplay possibilities. However, he points out key drawbacks: the headset uses somewhat outdated lenses with less edge-to-edge clarity and a narrower field of view compared to Quest 3, and its passthrough lacks dynamic occlusion and accurate depth perspective. The multitasking window placement is also more limited than competitors. While the Pico 4 Ultra shows promise with solid hardware and unique features, Heaney notes ByteDance’s reduced hardware subsidies and content investment may hinder its ability to fully challenge Meta’s ecosystem. Overall, the review conveys cautious optimism tempered by clear limitations and the need for further hands-on testing.

Hamish Hector from TechRadar highlights the Pico 4 Ultra as a powerful mid-range VR headset boasting superior hardware specs—such as a Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, 12GB RAM, and 256GB storage—compared to its main rival, the Meta Quest 3. However, despite these impressive internals and standout features like accurate optional Motion Trackers and a unique spatial footage capture tool, the Pico 4 Ultra falls short due to its weaker software ecosystem and lack of major exclusive titles. Hector praises the headset’s solid performance, comfortable counterbalanced design, and reliable PC connectivity via Meta Connect, but criticizes the inconvenient spatial capture feature, the absence of a silicon facial interface, and the headset’s fan noise. While the Pico 4 Ultra offers good value for those seeking top specs outside the Meta ecosystem, its software limitations and higher price make it a less compelling choice for users prioritizing game library breadth or affordability.