Viture Pro 2 review: Affordable glasses that I loved more for work than play
Viture Pro 2 deliver a fantastic mix of affordability, visual brilliance, comfort, and productivity perks. If you want to finally experience smart glasses, this one is a lovely pick.
Two years after trying the original Viture Pro smart glasses, which impressed with their sleek design and vibrant display but lacked cost-effectiveness for most users at $459, Viture unveiled its successor, the Viture Pro 2. Priced at a much more accessible $299, this updated pair of XR glasses aims to rival higher-end competitors while incorporating vision correction without additional cost.
The build quality of the Pro 2 is exceptional for its price, and the software experience is also quite satisfying, regardless of the device you're using. After testing the Pro 2 for a couple of weeks as both a travel monitor and gaming screen, I concluded that it is currently the best entry-level XR glasses option available, provided you know exactly what Viture has sacrificed to achieve this price point.
It's worth noting that "Pro 2" might lead one to believe it's a direct upgrade to the original Pro model. However, Viture has shifted its premium lineup to the Luma series, with prices ranging from $399 to $599. Despite the "Pro" label, the Pro 2 is actually the most affordable model, priced at $299. Upon inspection, the Pro 2 shares a similar appearance to the Luma Pro, with a thinner and lighter design.
The glasses are also comfortable and discreet, making them suitable for public use. While the Pro 2 lacks the electrochromic dimming glass and Harman-tuned audio found in higher-end models, it compensates with a more secure USB-C interface and improved comfort features, such as adjustable nose pads and a lightweight design weighing only 63 grams.
Overall, the Viture Pro 2 delivers a premium feel and performance for a fraction of the cost of its competitors, making it the top pick for those looking to enter the world of XR glasses.
Written by urgent.news from Digital Trends's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.