Yes, thank you for pointing this out - I should have said it explicitly. It's why I said "product line" rather than "product". I thought the 32" vs 52" distinction would be clear for anyone who clicked through.
I also didn't realize that at the Dell store webpage, clicking the "32 inch" option actually slightly changed the product line - from U##26 to U##25 (as the 52" option is the only model associated with 2026), and generally I only consider UltraSharp's of different sizes to be "approximately equivalent in quality" if they share the same model year - and nothing yet shares the 2026 model year with this 52" option.
Interesting! If you sort their monitor reviews[0] page by "Office Rating" the top monitor is the ASUS ProArt Display PA27JCV with a score of 9.0
But their "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026"[1] lists a Dell Ultrasharp in the #1 rank and the Asus ProArt does not appear in the recommendations at all. The info cards imply that the recommendation rankings might result from a weighted blend of "Office Rating", "Text Clarity" and "SDR Brightness". However, the ProArt outscores the Ultrasharp in both "Office Rating" and "SDR Brightness" while exactly matching the Ultrasharp's score in "Text Clarity".
So the "The 5 Best Work Monitors of 2026" appears to be a somewhat subjective list, rather than purely a result of objective measurements.
In the end of the day everything is subjective. A choice of what objective measuremetns to make is already a choice.
I think the reason for their list not having that 9.0 monitor is that it is 50% more expensive, and doesn't really add that much more. One might say it is superfluous. They should probably add their justification to the article though. Personally I am in agreement, I wouldn't buy a 5k display for my office staff because I really don't think it adds anything over the 4k display to their productivity, but I could definetly justify a 4k display over a 1080p display.
0: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/u3225qe