What business models are working in the XR market?
In our XR market deck, you will find everything you need to understand the market
SUMMARY
The XR business models working today are smart-glasses hardware, portable display glasses, VR games with strong in-app spending, selective subscriptions, enterprise training and workflow software, professional design tools, premium simulation hardware, location-based entertainment and mobile AR advertising.
The market is splitting rather than moving in one direction. Conventional VR headset shipments are falling, while lightweight smart glasses and AR glasses are growing quickly, so “XR growth” increasingly means glasses rather than headsets.
Consumer hardware works best when XR disappears into a familiar product. Ray-Ban Meta succeeds partly because it is still eyewear first; portable display glasses work because they borrow content from phones, laptops and consoles instead of asking users to adopt a new software ecosystem.
VR software is healthier than VR hardware shipments suggest. Quest usage reached a record high in 2025, more than 100 titles cleared $1 million in gross revenue and in-app purchases kept growing even as new headset shipments weakened.
The strongest VR game economics are moving toward persistent social experiences. A one-time game sale can still work, but titles such as Gorilla Tag show how recurring cosmetics and high daily engagement can push lifetime value far beyond the first download.
Enterprise XR is most convincing when it replaces an existing cost rather than creating a new “XR budget.” Training, warehouse guidance, field service and simulation sell more easily when buyers can compare them with instructor time, travel, equipment downtime or mistakes.
That also explains why expensive professional headsets can make sense while premium consumer headsets struggle. A several-thousand-dollar device is a small line item inside a flight simulator, defense program or industrial workflow if it saves enough real-world training time.
Location-based VR solves one of the category’s oldest problems: hardware utilization. The same equipment can be sold again every hour to new customers, which makes a headset much easier to monetize than when it sits unused in someone’s home.
Mobile AR may already be XR’s broadest commercial distribution model. Snapchat reaches massive AR usage without asking users to buy any new hardware, letting advertising ride on top of an existing camera habit.
The weakest models are still the ones that need people to adopt “spatial computing” itself as a new daily behavior. General-purpose AR computers, XR operating-system licensing and smartphone-replacement glasses remain promising, but the commercial proof is thinner than the technology story.
This market map, featured in our XR market deck, highlights top companies and startups in the XR market
What does an XR business model have to prove before we call it “working”?
A working XR business model today needs paying demand that repeats, expands or produces clear customer ROI; selling devices or running pilots alone is too weak a test.
That distinction clears up a lot of the confusion around XR. Meta can dominate consumer VR hardware while losing billions of dollars on Reality Labs. A company can announce an enterprise headset deployment that never grows beyond 50 devices. A VR app can attract millions of downloads without turning those users into meaningful revenue.
We therefore looked for harder evidence: customers expanding deployments, software clearing meaningful revenue thresholds, people paying repeatedly, venues opening more locations, or buyers saving enough money that XR pays for itself.
Several models clear that bar. Meta said at GDC 2026 that more than 100 Quest titles generated over $1 million in gross revenue during 2025. Sandbox VR has grown past 80 locations and roughly $300 million in lifetime ticket sales. Transfr says its VR workforce-training platform has reached more than 275,000 learners through over 1,100 implementations. EssilorLuxottica sold more than 7 million Meta-powered AI glasses in 2025 alone.
Those businesses earn money in very different ways. XR currently contains a shrinking consumer VR hardware market, a fast-growing smart-glasses market, profitable software niches, enterprise tools and physical entertainment businesses. Treating all of them as one “XR business model” tells us very little.
Is the XR market actually growing today, or is VR shrinking?
XR is growing today, but the growth has moved decisively toward glasses while conventional VR headset shipments keep falling.
Counterpoint Research's latest quarterly data makes the split unusually clear. Global VR headset shipments fell 17% year over year in Q1 2026 and 39% from the previous quarter. During the same period, AR-glasses shipments jumped 136% year over year and display-less smart glasses grew 210%.
This has been developing for more than one quarter. VR headset shipments had already fallen sharply during 2025, while smart glasses accelerated as Meta, EssilorLuxottica, RayNeo, VITURE, XREAL and others expanded products and distribution.
Even the composition of AR glasses is changing. Birdbath and flat-prism display glasses still accounted for 58% of AR-glasses shipments in Q1 2026, according to Counterpoint, but their share had fallen from 82% a year earlier. Waveguide products rose from 18% to 42%. Rokid Glasses and Meta Ray-Ban Display were already among the best-selling AR models in the quarter despite the latter facing supply constraints.
So when someone says “XR is growing,” the useful follow-up is: which XR? Traditional VR hardware currently has a demand problem. Lightweight glasses have the momentum.
| XR category | Latest YoY shipment change | What we are seeing |
|---|---|---|
| VR headsets | -17% | Weak demand and an aging product cycle |
| AR glasses | +136% | Rapid growth across display glasses and newer waveguide products |
| Display-less smart glasses | +210% | Strong consumer demand for lightweight AI eyewear |
| Waveguide share of AR glasses | 42%, up from 18% | More advanced glasses are starting to take share |
As this chart shows, and as featured in our XR market deck, search interest in VR headsets has increased significantly
Why are smart glasses selling while VR headsets struggle?
Smart glasses are currently the clearest consumer XR hardware model because they fit into something people already wear instead of asking people to build a new habit around a headset.
EssilorLuxottica reported more than 7 million AI-glasses sales in 2025 across Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta. A year earlier, the company had reported only around 2 million cumulative Ray-Ban Meta sales since the current generation launched. Annual sales have moved from a few million cumulative units to more than 7 million in a single year.
Counterpoint's latest data suggests the lead has widened further. Meta had roughly 84% of the global smart-glasses market in Q1 2026.
The product proposition helps explain it. Ray-Ban Meta glasses look close to normal eyewear and add cameras, audio, calls, music, translation and an AI assistant. Oakley Meta extends the same idea into sports. Meta Ray-Ban Display adds a visual interface for customers willing to accept a higher price and slightly less conventional form factor.
EssilorLuxottica also gives Meta something headset makers rarely possess: established fashion brands, prescription lenses, opticians and a worldwide retail network. The customer can discover the product in an eyewear store rather than entering a specialist technology ecosystem.
There is still a warning inside the financial results. EssilorLuxottica said AI glasses, alongside US tariffs, weighed on its adjusted operating margin in 2025. Strong volume has arrived faster than proof of exceptional hardware margins.
Meta's broader XR economics are harsher still. Reality Labs generated $431 million of revenue in Q2 2026 and lost $4.62 billion from operations. Building an entire consumer spatial-computing ecosystem remains brutally expensive.
Smart-glasses demand has been commercially validated. Owning the whole XR hardware and platform stack is a much rougher business.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest XR market report.
Can simple AR display glasses really make money?
Yes, simple AR display glasses have found a real consumer niche because they sell one obvious benefit: a large private screen that travels with you.
RayNeo, VITURE and XREAL dominate this part of the AR market. Counterpoint's Q1 2026 data put RayNeo at roughly 41% of the birdbath and flat-prism segment and VITURE at 34%. VITURE's shipments were up 281% year over year.
Those products can plug into laptops, phones, handheld consoles and other devices people already own. Someone can buy the glasses for a larger Steam Deck display, private laptop work on a plane or a portable cinema without waiting for a large library of native AR applications.
That removes one of XR's oldest commercial headaches. A new computing platform normally needs hardware buyers to attract developers and developers to attract hardware buyers. Display glasses borrow their content from Windows, Android, iOS, Steam and game consoles from day one.
The category is still small compared with mainstream consumer electronics, and similar optical architectures make competition intense. But three companies controlling most shipments while one grows nearly threefold year over year looks much more like an emerging product category than an experiment.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, illustrates yearly venture capital funding for XR startups
Is expensive enterprise XR hardware a better business than consumer headsets?
For high-value simulation and training, expensive enterprise XR hardware currently makes much more economic sense than trying to sell premium headsets to ordinary consumers.
Varjo shows why. The Finnish company focuses heavily on professional simulation, aviation and defense, where a headset costing several thousand dollars can sit inside a simulator worth hundreds of thousands or millions. Varjo says its systems are used across more than 100 defense and aviation programs.
The buying decision is completely different from a consumer Quest purchase. A military organization training pilots, vehicle crews or drone operators cares about visual fidelity, latency, integration and whether simulated training can replace some hours in extremely expensive real equipment. A few thousand dollars of hardware barely moves the total cost.
Varjo can also layer software revenue onto those installations. Its professional software packages and support products create recurring or license-based revenue after the hardware sale.
Certification can make the position stronger. Varjo and REISER have announced European aviation pre-qualification work around a mixed-reality H145 D3 simulator, pushing this kind of system closer to the regulated professional-simulation market.
This model does not need tens of millions of headset sales. A relatively small number of customers can support a serious XR business when each customer has a large training budget and a reason to keep buying compatible equipment and software.
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest XR market report.
Are paid VR games still working, or has free-to-play taken over?
Paid VR games still make money, but the strongest growth now comes from games that keep people inside the world and monetize them repeatedly through in-app purchases.
Meta's latest developer numbers are surprisingly solid given the weakness in headset shipments. At GDC 2026, the company said Quest usage reached an all-time high during 2025, more than 100 titles generated at least $1 million in gross revenue and in-app purchase revenue grew by more than 10%.
Fewer new headsets can ship while existing Quest owners spend more time and money inside the ecosystem. That installed base is doing more work than the hardware numbers imply.
Premium games still work. Beat Saber created a durable model around the initial game purchase plus paid music. Large franchises and polished narrative experiences can charge upfront because customers understand the product before downloading it.
The bigger breakout story has come from social free-to-play games. Another Axiom disclosed that Gorilla Tag had passed $100 million in revenue after reaching more than 10 million lifetime players, over 3 million monthly active users and more than 1 million daily users. Players were spending close to an hour per session, while most revenue came from cosmetic purchases.
Gorilla Tag had roughly one daily user for every three monthly users, unusually high engagement for a VR title. Players meet other people inside the game, see what they are wearing and can show off their own purchases. Cosmetics have an audience.
Animal Company later showed that the formula could travel beyond a single hit. The game grew past 1 million monthly users and became profitable while using free access to build its audience before pushing harder on monetization.
VR gaming is drifting closer to the economics of Roblox, Fortnite and other live games. Premium releases still belong in the market, but persistent social worlds have more ways to increase lifetime value after the first download.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, looks at XREAL’s strategy in XR
Can VR subscriptions actually keep people paying every month?
VR subscriptions can work in fitness and content bundles, but recurring billing becomes fragile when people only put on the headset occasionally.
Meta Horizon+ has now passed 1 million subscribers. At GDC 2026, Meta also said the subscription had paid nearly $20 million to participating developers. That gives us much stronger evidence for the model than simply seeing a subscription button inside the Quest Store.
Fitness is another logical fit. FitXR charges for continued access to classes, programs and new workouts rather than selling a single exercise application. The customer can mentally compare the subscription with a gym membership, connected-fitness service or paid class.
Supernatural pushes that logic further. After Meta decided to wind down its version of the service, the team announced plans to continue Supernatural independently with pricing around $20 per month or $200 per year after its founding offer. That is expensive by VR-game standards, yet fairly normal by boutique-fitness standards.
The challenge is obvious in practice. Headset friction makes usage less automatic than checking a phone. If someone stops exercising in VR for a few weeks, the monthly charge becomes conspicuous very quickly.
Fitness, game libraries and continuously refreshed services can support subscriptions. A mostly static XR application with a subscription attached to it has a much weaker case.
Is Meta’s Quest app-store business actually working?
Meta's Quest store is now a meaningful software marketplace, although its economics are still tiny beside the money Meta spends building the XR platform.
At GDC 2026, Meta said more than 100 titles had generated over $1 million in gross revenue during 2025. In-app purchase revenue rose more than 10%, Horizon+ crossed 1 million subscribers and Quest usage reached its highest level yet.
For developers, this is a genuine market. A studio can charge upfront, sell virtual goods, add subscriptions or receive payments through Horizon+. Meta collects platform fees while providing payments, discovery, accounts and the underlying hardware ecosystem.
The problem appears when we zoom out to Meta itself. Reality Labs produced only $833 million of revenue in the first half of 2026 while recording an $8.65 billion operating loss. The latest Q2 numbers were $431 million of revenue and a $4.62 billion loss.
Those losses include long-term AR research, smart glasses, software and future products, so dividing the loss by current Quest revenue would be misleading. The scale gap is still extraordinary. Meta lost more than ten dollars at Reality Labs for each dollar the segment generated in the first half.
The Quest software economy is commercially real. Funding the hardware, operating system, research and future devices underneath that store is the brutal part.
| Meta Reality Labs | Revenue | Operating loss | Loss per $1 of revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q2 2026 | $431M | $4.62B | ~$10.7 |
| H1 2026 | $833M | $8.65B | ~$10.4 |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest XR market report.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, illustrates yearly funding for XR startups
Does enterprise AR software save enough money to justify recurring fees?
Enterprise AR software can justify recurring fees when workers become faster, make fewer mistakes or avoid waiting for an expert to travel to the site.
TeamViewer Frontline has years of deployments that let us judge the model on operating results rather than demos. DHL Supply Chain reported cutting onboarding time by 50% to 70% with vision-picking workflows. Samsung SDS reported picking-speed gains of up to 30%. Coca-Cola HBC reached 99.99% picking accuracy after introducing AR-guided workflows and recorded picking-performance improvements of roughly 6% to 10% across reported deployments.
Those percentages can look modest until they hit a warehouse process performed thousands of times per shift. Then a few percentage points can save money every working day. The software can also connect directly to systems such as SAP, so workers receive the next instruction in their field of view without introducing a separate planning system.
Remote assistance creates another revenue path. Companies using devices from RealWear and similar vendors can let a technician show an off-site expert exactly what they see. If that prevents one engineer from flying to a factory or shortens an expensive equipment outage, the hardware and software can pay for themselves quickly.
This has become one of XR's more dependable enterprise models because the customer already has a budget for warehouse productivity, field service, maintenance and training. The AR vendor only needs to beat the existing process.
Is VR training one of the few proven B2B XR models?
Yes, VR training is one of the most proven B2B XR models because companies can directly compare its cost with instructors, travel, physical equipment and employee time.
Walmart's work with Strivr remains one of the best scale examples. When Walmart trained employees to use Pickup Towers, the old process took roughly eight hours. Strivr's VR module cut the exercise to around 15 minutes, while employees trained in VR scored around 10% to 15% higher on assessments. Walmart eventually used immersive training across more than 4,700 locations and developed dozens of VR modules covering operations, customer service and safety.
Transfr has built a broader workforce-training business around the same economics. The company now reports more than 330 simulations across eight sectors, over 275,000 learners, more than one million simulations completed and over 1,100 implementations across 48 US states.
The scale is particularly revealing because these customers are not all technology companies. Workforce boards, schools, training organizations and employers use the system for jobs such as welding, automotive maintenance, construction and manufacturing.
Physical training often has a hidden bottleneck: the expensive machine or workplace cannot be given to every learner at once. VR creates extra practice capacity without buying another forklift, manufacturing cell or piece of medical equipment.
This model has much stronger evidence than broad promises about virtual offices. Companies already spend heavily on training, and the ROI can often be measured in hours saved per employee.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, compares the main business model options for XR headset companies
Can XR design software make money without a huge headset market?
Yes, XR design software can build a useful SaaS business with a relatively small professional audience because each designer is solving a high-value problem.
Gravity Sketch is one of the clearest examples. Ford, Honda, New Balance, Adidas, Polaris and other design teams have used the platform to create and review three-dimensional products at actual scale.
In car interiors, footwear and industrial design, a flat monitor hides information the designer ultimately cares about. Does this dashboard feel too close? Is this shoe proportion right from every angle? Can a person reach this control naturally? A headset is far less awkward when the work itself is three-dimensional.
ShapesXR applies similar economics to spatial-interface design. Teams can prototype XR experiences, test layouts and export work into development environments such as Unity before engineers spend time building the final application. The company has structured the product like familiar software: free access for lighter users, paid professional plans and higher-value business or enterprise options.
Some customer case studies report prototyping cycles falling from weeks to days or teams exploring many spatial variations before starting expensive development work. Vendor case studies deserve some caution, but the economic mechanism is straightforward: one subscription can be cheap if it prevents hours of engineering rework.
This is a smaller market than general productivity software, and that is fine. A professional tool can survive with thousands of high-value teams instead of hundreds of millions of consumers.
Does location-based VR solve the problem of people not buying headsets?
Location-based VR has become a real entertainment business because one venue can buy the equipment once and sell the experience to thousands of people who would never own a headset.
Sandbox VR has moved well beyond proof of concept. Forbes reported that the company now operates more than 80 locations, attracts roughly 150,000 players per month and has passed about $300 million in lifetime ticket sales. More than five million people have played, and roughly 70% of guests book online before arriving.
Those numbers are useful because this industry has also produced high-profile failures. The Void collapsed after being one of the most visible location-based VR companies, and Dreamscape struggled despite major partners. Sandbox reaching dozens of venues after surviving that period tells us more than another newly funded VR arcade would.
Zero Latency has taken the model even further through operator partnerships. It now says its network covers more than 150 arenas in over 30 countries and has served more than six million players. Its library includes original experiences and licensed IP from companies such as Ubisoft, Sony Pictures, Games Workshop and CD Projekt Red.
The customer is basically buying a premium group activity. Birthdays, corporate events and nights out create demand without requiring anyone to justify a $500 headset purchase at home. The venue owner handles maintenance, onboarding and hardware utilization.
A household headset might sit unused for days. Commercial equipment can generate another ticket every hour. That is a much friendlier utilization curve.
| Company | Current scale | Main revenue model |
|---|---|---|
| Sandbox VR | 80+ locations, ~150K players/month, ~$300M lifetime ticket sales | Tickets, events, franchises and proprietary/licensed content |
| Zero Latency | 150+ arenas, 30+ countries, 6M+ players | Operator network, technology/content fees and ticket economics |
| Home VR | One device per household | Hardware plus software spending |
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest XR market report.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, breaks down revenue by customer segment in the XR market
Is mobile AR advertising already a bigger business than headset XR?
Mobile AR advertising is already one of XR's most commercially mature uses because hundreds of millions of people use AR inside Snapchat without buying any XR hardware.
Snap reported that 75% of Snapchatters were engaging with AR on an average day in Q1 2026. Users activated AR Lenses more than 9 billion times per day, up from roughly 8 billion a day in earlier reporting. More than 400,000 Lenses were submitted during the quarter alone, a year-over-year increase of more than 150%.
That usage level dwarfs headset XR. The user opens a camera they already use, selects a Lens and starts interacting. There is no headset setup, separate app-store search or additional device purchase.
Brands can pay to insert themselves into that behavior through sponsored AR experiences, product try-ons and interactive campaigns. Snap can also use the Lens ecosystem to make the overall advertising platform more engaging, even when a particular ad impression is sold in another format.
We should be careful with the revenue claim. Snap does not break out “AR advertising revenue,” so its $1.60 billion of Q2 2026 company revenue cannot be treated as XR revenue. The commercial evidence lies in the huge AR usage base combined with Snap's established advertising machine.
The latest strategic move also shows that Snap wants to connect this mobile AR ecosystem to glasses. The company has unveiled SPECS, a $2,195 pair of see-through AR glasses expected to ship this fall, and says developers have already published hundreds of experiences for the platform.
For now, the proven part of Snap's XR business is still phone-based AR engagement and advertising. The glasses business has barely begun its commercial test.
Which XR business models still look exciting but are not proven?
General-purpose AR computers, XR operating-system licensing and smartphone-replacement glasses are still bets on future behavior, even though the technology is getting much better.
Snap's new SPECS provide a timely example. The glasses combine see-through AR with AI assistance and spatial applications, and developers have already created hundreds of experiences. But a $2,195 product that has not yet shipped at consumer scale cannot tell us whether ordinary people will wear full-display AR glasses every day.
The same caution applies to broader XR platform strategies. Meta wants Horizon OS to reach hardware made by other companies. Google is pushing Android XR with partners. Both models could eventually look attractive because operating systems, app stores and services can earn money without the platform owner manufacturing every device.
The missing ingredient is third-party volume. We have not yet seen an Android-like ecosystem where millions of XR devices from many manufacturers create a large recurring software and services market.
High-end general-purpose spatial computers remain unproven as mass products too. Apple Vision Pro established an important technical reference point and found professional uses in areas such as training, visualization and design, but a $3,499 headset did not turn premium spatial computing into a mainstream consumer category.
The market is moving quickly enough that it would be silly to declare any of these ideas dead. Counterpoint's latest data shows waveguide AR glasses gaining share fast, while Meta Ray-Ban Display and Rokid Glasses have already moved near the top of AR-glasses shipment rankings.
There is still a wide commercial gap between “people are buying smart glasses” and “people want a general-purpose computer floating in front of their eyes all day.”
If you want more recent data on this point, please see our latest XR market report.
This chart, featured in our XR market deck, shows how VR headset technology has evolved over time
So what business models are actually working in the XR market today?
The XR business models working today are smart-glasses hardware, portable display glasses, VR games with strong in-app spending, selective subscriptions, enterprise training and workflow software, professional design tools, premium simulation hardware, location-based entertainment and mobile AR advertising.
The evidence also tells us which models are strongest.
Smart glasses currently have the best consumer-hardware momentum. More than 7 million Meta-powered AI glasses sold in one year, followed by Counterpoint measuring 210% year-over-year growth for display-less smart glasses in Q1 2026. Traditional VR hardware is heading in the opposite direction.
VR software is healthier than VR hardware shipments make it look. More than 100 Quest titles generated over $1 million during 2025, in-app purchase revenue grew more than 10%, Horizon+ passed 1 million subscribers and Quest usage reached a record high. The strongest game economics are shifting toward persistent experiences that give users reasons to return and spend again.
Enterprise XR looks even more durable when the application has measurable ROI. Walmart compressed hours of training into minutes. DHL cut onboarding time sharply. Coca-Cola HBC pushed warehouse accuracy to 99.99%. Transfr has expanded beyond 1,100 implementations. These customers are spending existing training and operations budgets rather than creating speculative “metaverse” budgets.
Location-based VR has also proved that headset ownership is optional. Sandbox VR has passed roughly $300 million in lifetime ticket sales, while Zero Latency has built a network of more than 150 arenas. The same hardware becomes easier to monetize when hundreds of customers share it.
Mobile AR may be the least appreciated model of all. Snapchat users activate AR Lenses more than 9 billion times per day, showing that AR can reach mass usage when it sits inside a behavior people already have.
The weaker economics sit around businesses that need XR adoption itself to become the product. Meta's latest Reality Labs results make the cost of that approach impossible to ignore: $833 million of first-half revenue against an $8.65 billion operating loss.
XR is already supporting several real businesses, but practical use cases are winning far more convincingly than broad “spatial computing” visions. The companies making money today usually solve a familiar problem first: better eyewear, a better game, cheaper training, faster design, fewer warehouse mistakes, more effective advertising or a premium night out.
The more an XR company depends on people falling in love with “XR” as a category, the less proven its business still looks.
OUR METHODOLOGY
This analysis tests which XR business models are working based on observed commercial evidence rather than product launches, funding rounds or broad forecasts. We separated the market into consumer hardware demand, software monetization, subscriptions, enterprise ROI, professional workflows, location-based entertainment and advertising-supported AR, then judged each model on the economics that actually matter to it.
We prioritized the freshest evidence available: shipment trends, company financial results, developer revenue disclosures, subscriber and usage figures, deployment scale, customer case studies and measurable productivity improvements. We gave more weight to customers paying repeatedly, deployments expanding, venues adding locations and buyers showing measurable ROI than to downloads, pilots or announced ecosystems.
We also looked for convergence between different forms of evidence. Hardware shipments can show demand without proving profitability, while a large enterprise deployment becomes much more convincing when it also cuts training time, raises picking speed or reduces errors. Models moved into the stronger group when several of those indicators pointed in the same direction.
Key sources include Counterpoint Research on Q1 2026 intelligent eyewear shipments, EssilorLuxottica's FY2025 results, Meta's Q2 2026 financial results, Another Axiom on Gorilla Tag, TeamViewer Frontline's industrial AR evidence, Strivr's Walmart case study, Transfr's deployment data, Forbes on Sandbox VR, Zero Latency's network data, and Snap's Q1 2026 results.
There is no artificial score behind the conclusion. The final ranking comes from structured aggregation of recent commercial evidence across those dimensions, with stronger confidence where paying demand, repeat usage, expansion and measurable ROI reinforce one another.
In our XR market deck, we identify pain points entrepreneurs should prioritize
Related blog posts
