Do you despise prizes for TVs? So do we. That's why we made our own 😉!

We’ve introduced our rewards system and nominated this year’s TVs for them. If you pay attention to accolades when shopping, you’ve come to the right place. And if you dismiss all awards given by editorial teams, well… welcome to the club. In that case, you should definitely read to the end. In this article, we’ll explain what our new badges mean: Bronze Everyday Hero, Silver Solid Choice, and Gold Exemplary Quality. We’ll also present the awarded TVs and immediately answer the key question:

How much did the producers pay for our awards?

The answer is: 0 złoty.

Our awards are not for sale. As you’ll soon see, no specific manufacturer has received them; only those models whose screens truly rank high. Because that’s how it is: one company can have both brilliant TVs and complete rubbish. We’re not afraid to praise one and criticise the other. But the most interesting part is yet to come. We’ll show you how in some reviews TVs are tested and why – in our opinion – such methods are not optimal. You often ask how it’s possible that a particular screen received an average rating from us, while others sing its praises. We’ll expose a bit of uncomfortable truth. We won’t force you to be convinced of anything — you’ll simply see the facts and draw your own conclusions.

Test board vs real film. Why do "standard" tests mislead?

At ChooseTV, we had a clear vision from the start: our site is meant to be a benchmark. If someone wants to find out how a particular model really performs, they will find a reliable answer here. That's why our tests reflect real-world usage. Not laboratory tricks, but what you'll actually see when you turn on a movie or game. We know it sounds like a cliché that anyone could say. The thing is... soon we'll show that many reviews focus on something completely different.

Let's take HDR measurements as an example. The standard procedure involves displaying a test pattern, e.g., 10% of the screen area, and measuring how many nits of brightness the TV will generate. What's the problem with that? Well, let’s think… Have you ever watched test patterns for fun? Of course not. We watch movies, series, and play on consoles. Only then does it become apparent how much the numbers from the patterns can diverge from reality.

An example? Hisense U8Q can pull almost 4000 nits on a small pattern. Impressive, right? But in real movie scenes, that brightness drops to the range of 400 - 2200 nits. Comparing patterns has very little correlation with reality. MiniLEDs diverge significantly, while cheaper QLEDs or OLEDs hardly diverge at all. The value from the pattern doesn't tell you anything.

Another example is the naturalness of the image. Classic measurements show that the TV performs excellently. Such results were achieved, for instance, by TCL C8K on two platforms with huge reach. However, when we compared the same movie scenes with a director's monitor, it turned out that the image on the TV is clearly boosted. This isn't visible on the patterns because the TV knows it's being tested and simply enchants reality.

This is where our methodology comes in: we use our own patterns hidden within movie scenes. The TV treats the signal like an ordinary film and shows its true behaviour.

How TVs "cheat" in tests and why our motion test makes sense

The same goes for motion. Many tests rely on "motion resolution" from test patterns – a method from several decades ago that tells us absolutely nothing today. We use the UFO test at different resolutions. You can immediately see how the object trails and whether the screen actually provides an advantage in games. Because what's the point of 144 Hz if there's a trail behind the objects?

Lastly, digital processing. Others focus on the perfect 4K Blu-ray signal. We check that too, but we additionally fire up YouTube, poor quality DVDs, or terrestrial TV. After all, you don't buy a TV just for perfect films. And here, there is often a huge disconnect between ads about "amazing AI features" and what is actually visible on the screen.

Our philosophy: 50+ tested models a year is the minimum

Pay attention to one more thing: how many screens the portal that you see the award from has actually tested. The vast majority of creators have a few, maybe a dozen models per year. And that's usually from companies that had a marketing budget! You can't draw valid conclusions from this. This article is being created only after over 120 screens from the 2025 and 2024 model years have passed through our laboratory. Only then can we actually determine which television holds up against the market. Since our ranking clearly shows how the models perform, we decided to take it a step further and highlight those that are exceptionally versatile and which we ourselves would consider buying.

What Our Awards Mean and Why Some Didn’t Receive Them

Basis: we award prizes within the realm of technology and price range (we assess OLEDs differently from MiniLEDs). Secondly: versatility matters. It’s not enough for a TV to impress in one category. It must work as a whole. The only thing we can overlook is sound – anyone who wants quality will still buy external speakers or a soundbar. But the operating system and smart features are crucial.

Therefore, the award was not given to, for example, Panasonic Z95B. The picture has brilliant moments, but the operating system is so underdeveloped that it's hard to consider it a complete product. Similarly, Philips OLED910 – here the system is fine, but the picture in lower quality showed posterisation, and the infrared remote control and only 2 HDMI 2.1 inputs spoil the effect. Both are also absurdly expensive. The distinction is my answer to the question: “what would I buy for myself?”. And I am not orthodox. If there’s an option to sacrifice 5% quality while saving 40% on price and getting a more convenient system – it’s definitely worth it. Technology changes too quickly.

Daily Hero (Bronze)

Solid Choice (Silver)

Exemplary Quality (Gold)

The list of winners is not closed because we haven't finished all the tests for this year. I'll wait until the payments from the producers come through… 😉Alright, that's not even funny, so let's not go there with those jokes.

We'll wait until we finish publishing all the tests and by the end of October, we will issue the final verdicts.