They say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. However, I have no idea what a gander is. What I do know is that the new Google Pixel Watch 5 is a very good thing for current and prospective Fitbit Air customers.

In case you forgot, Google owns Fitbit, and has for quite some time. The newish Fitbit Air, a $100 screen-free wearable with up to a week of battery, arrived just a few months ago and is one of the best fitness trackers in 2026.

Despite its recent arrival, with this week’s launch of the Pixel Watch 5, we’re already getting shiny new Fitbit Air features, adding to the wearable’s already impressive value proposition.

With that in mind, here are three reasons why the new Google Pixel Watch 5 is great news for the Fitbit Air.

1. Blood Pressure Trend reports

The Pixel Watch 5 is positively brimming with new health and safety features that you won’t find on most other competitor devices. And even though the Fitbit Air doesn’t inherit all of them, one important one it will support is monthly Blood Pressure Trend reports.

Now, this isn’t a proper blood pressure reading; rather, the Pixel Watch 5 (and soon the Fitbit Air) tracks a wide range of holistic factors over the course of a month and runs them through an algorithm to see how your blood pressure may (or may not) be changing over time.

The algorithm is based on holistic insights from half a million users, including 60 billion hours of heart rate data. So, yeah, it should be pretty accurate. While this new feature doesn't generate an actual blood pressure reading, it is designed to give you an early warning if signs of your blood pressure trending upward are observed.

2. Insulin Resistance Trends

Similar to Blood Pressure Trends, the Fitbit Air will inherit the Pixel Watch 5’s Insulin Resistance Trends reports, which are also delivered on a monthly basis.

This non-invasive feature similarly uses your passive holistic metrics — namely, sleep, fitness, and nutrition data — to determine whether or not your metabolic health is trending in the right direction.

Both of these new tools are designed with preventative care in mind, with the goal of better surfacing early warnings of common health conditions that could lead to more serious consequences down the road.

3. More to come?

For now, these two groundbreaking health features are the only ones Google has confirmed for the Fitbit Air in the immediate future, but that doesn’t mean we won’t see others trickle down soon.

For example, the Pixel Watch 5 also boasts a new Sleep Breathing Quality trend metric that monitors and analyzes your blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels each night while you snooze, potentially providing valuable long-term insights into your respiratory health.

What new Pixel Watch 5 features do you most want to see Google bring to the Fitbit Air? And do these additional features make you more likely to buy a Fitbit Air? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested the Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 side by side — here's the winner
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tracked my sleep on Fitbit Air vs Whoop for a week — does spending more buy you better sleep data?

I’ve been writing about fitness trackers before any of them could track a period. It was Fitbit that first added female health tracking to its app in 2018, launching alongside the Fitbit Versa.

Other major players followed suit, with Apple adding native Cycle Tracking to the Apple Watch Series 5 in 2019, and Garmin adding Menstrual Cycle Tracking to its Connect platform soon after. In 2022, wearables shifted from manual logging to sensor-driven predictions based on skin temperature, largely down to the rise in popularity of fitness trackers like the Oura Ring.

Yet eight years later, there’s still a lot of room for improvement. I’ve trusted all the major devices with tracking my periods, and some do it better than others. My Oura Ring knew I was pregnant before I did back in 2023, but at the time the wearable didn’t have any means of tracking the physical and hormonal changes occurring during pregnancy. That has since changed.

Here’s the work that still needs to be done.

Core metrics of most fitness trackers are still based on male physiology

Before joining Tom’s Guide, I worked for Runner’s World, where I’d frequently hear that shoes were designed for men and then tweaked for women, even though women have a physiologically different body shape and stride.

The same applies to fitness trackers. Core metrics, including Heart Rate Variability (HRV), VO2 max, and “Readiness” scores, have historically been benchmarked on male physiological data.

It’s easy to see why: a man’s hormone fluctuation is far simpler than a woman’s. Men primarily operate on a 24-hour rhythm, with testosterone peaking early in the morning, then steadily declining throughout the day.

Women, on the other hand, have a 28-35-day hormonal cycle, with estrogen and progesterone levels shifting throughout that window, causing fluctuations in resting heart rate, skin temperature, and sleep architecture.

Fitness trackers are getting smarter, but often cycle tracking stops at predicting your day of ovulation, rather than how hard you should be pushing yourself or how much you should be prioritizing recovery based on where you are in your cycle. That said, not everyone feels they need to adjust training, as we all feel different during our cycle, but it's still handy to know.

Period tracking often doesn’t integrate with broader metrics

This brings me nicely to my next point: many trackers don’t seem to integrate women’s health into broader health tracking, with Oura as an exception.

While the Apple Watch now predicts your date of ovulation pretty accurately in my experience, when the new Perimenopause and Menopause features were announced earlier this month, I asked Apple if, when a user reports nightly hot flashes, this would sync to her sleep score. The answer? Not yet.

It often feels like menstrual tracking is a bolt-on feature, not something fully integrated into the targets or recovery advice on the watch itself.

When I was pregnant in 2023, all the pregnancy mode on my Garmin did was tell me what vegetable my baby looked like each week. Sure, that’s cute, but what about giving me actionable advice on how I should be tweaking my workouts to accommodate the drastic blood volume and weight changes I experienced during pregnancy?

Plus, don’t get me started on how none of the wearable devices at my disposal allowed me to tell them that no, I wasn’t purposefully waking up every two hours for fun. I had a newborn and I was breastfeeding.

Smartwatches are still bulky

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — the watches with the best safety features are always the biggest and the most expensive. If you want advanced sensors and the ability to run with an SOS siren on your wrist, should you need it, you’ll have to sacrifice comfort.

Plus, if a watch isn’t sat flush against your wrist, the chances are the optical sensors aren’t as accurate. This is because ambient light leaks into the optical sensors, giving you inaccurate heart rate or SpO2 readings.

This isn’t something that can be solved overnight or in one update. And it’s not a criticism directed at one brand in particular. It's worth highlighting Apple's Women's Health Study — a long-term initiative advancing the scientific understanding of menstrual cycles and reproductive health, a chronically under-researched area of medicine.

Hopefully, if I’m still writing about fitness trackers in July 2036, I’ll be talking about devices that identify early perimenopausal patterns, like Oura is starting to do, or help new mothers understand the dramatic hormonal changes that occur post-birth.

I also hope that brands will have developed special tracking parameters for conditions like endometriosis, and when you tell the device your gender when you first set it up, the recovery, readiness, and sleep scores will be different based on that.

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• Exclusive: Can an Apple Watch actually spot perimenopause? I sat down with Apple to find out more about its new Women’s Health features

Apple debuted Fall Detection in the Apple Watch Series 4 way back in 2018, a major milestone for smartwatch safety tech, but in 2026, I'd argue that the health and safety features in modern Google smartwatches far surpass what Apple offers. And the new Google Pixel Watch 5 is concrete proof.

The Google Pixel Watch 5 officially debuted today alongside the latest Pixel 11 smartphones, new Pixel Buds, and a nifty-looking PixelTag tracker, the brand's take on an Apple AirTag.

I checked out the new Google Pixel Watch 5 ahead of its launch, and although it looks physically identical to its predecessor, small improvements to battery, processing power, and the onboard Gemini AI assistant should make it an all-around smoother operator.

However, the most notable and potentially groundbreaking upgrades come in the form of new safety features and health-tracking tools, namely Breathing Emergency Detection, Blood Pressure Trends, and Insulin Resistance Trends. Read on for everything you need to know about the Google Pixel Watch 5.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Upgrade cheat sheet

But first, here’s a cheat sheet to all the most notable Google Pixel Watch 5 stats and upgrades.

• Price: The Pixel Watch 5 sees a price increase across the lineup versus the Pixel Watch 4; the 41mm starts at an increase of $50, and the 45mm starts at $30 more
• Sizes and colors: 41mm and 45mm; same as Pixel Watch 4 and Pixel Watch 3; new colors include Obsidian, Fog, Olive, and Canyon; Olive features a Satin Pyrite casing
• Design: Same design and dimensions as Pixel Watch 4
• Limited edition model: Similar to the Fitbit Air, the new Pixel Watch 5 will be available in a Stephen Curry limited edition model with an upgraded strap for better breathability and moisture-wicking capabilities
• Screen: Same 3,000-nit max-brightness AMOLED touchscreen as Pixel Watch 4; comparable to the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9
• Health features: New Blood Pressure Trends + Insulin Resistance Trends with monthly reports on each (also coming to Fitbit Air); 15% more accurate sleep stage tracking; new sleep Breathing Quality Trends metric that tracks min-to-min SpO2
• Safety features: New Breathing Emergency Detection feature that works similarly to Loss of Pulse Detection; exclusive to Pixel Watch 5 (for now); only available in the EU and other select markets at launch
• Fitness features: Improved route mapping for workouts in “tough” environments (like cities and forests); new strength training workout builder feature
• Processor: Pixel Watch 5 should be 20% faster than the Pixel Watch 4 thanks to a 12% more powerful processor and 50% more RAM
• Battery life: Same 30 to 40-hour battery life rating as Pixel Watch 4

Google Pixel Watch 5: Versus competition

Google Pixel Watch 5: Price and release date

The Pixel Watch 5, like the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, sees a price increase across the lineup. The 41mm Pixel Watch 5 starts at $399 / AU$649 for the W-Fi model, an increase of $50 over the 41mm Pixel Watch 4. The 45mm Pixel Watch 5 is $429 / AU$699, a $30 increase over last year’s equivalent.

The 41mm LTE model, meanwhile, is $499 / AU$829, and the 45mm LTE model is $529 / AU$879.

Pre-orders begin today. The Pixel Watch 5 should start shipping and be on shelves beginning September 3rd.

• 41mm (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi): $399 / AU$649
• 45mm (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi): $429 / AU$699
• 41mm (LTE): $499 / AU$829
• 45mm (LTE: $529 / AU$879

Google Pixel Watch 5: Design

The Pixel Watch 5 has the same circular design and button placement as the Pixel Watch 4, including the same domed, 3,000-nit max brightness display. The panel is still 1.2 inches for the smaller model and 1.4 inches for the larger one.

The weight and dimensions also remain roughly the same. Like the Pixel Watch 4, the Pixel Watch 5 has charging contacts on the side of the case and uses the same charger. It also features the same strap connecting system as prior models.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Health features

The most impressive updates to the Pixel Watch 5 come in the form of expanded proactive preventative health tools and real-time life-saving tools, including Breathing Emergency Detection, which works similarly to 2024's Loss of Pulse Detection.

Using the onboard heart rate sensor, accelerometer, and barometric altimeter, the Pixel Watch 5 can be set up to identify when a breathing emergency happens and automatically send for help via 911 dispatch and/or messages to friends/loved ones.

Breathing Emergency Detection joins Loss of Pulse Detection and Fall/Crash Detection under the Pixel Watch’s new “Health Guardian" features umbrella.

When it comes to preventative health, the Pixel Watch 5 has two additional, potentially revolutionary new features, both of which are non-invasive, including a monthly Blood Pressure trends report and a monthly Insulin Resistance trends report.

The former doesn’t provide a blood pressure reading, but instead tracks how your blood pressure may be changing over time based on a combination of metrics run through a snazzy algorithm. To ensure accuracy, Google built the algorithm using 60 billion hours of 24/7 heart rate monitoring data from half a million individuals.

The Insulin Resistance Trends feature is not the same as a continuous blood glucose monitor. It similarly predicts changes by tracking factors like your average sleep time, heart rate, workout routines, and more. This all gets fed into an algorithm that was separately tested against a large sample group to ensure accuracy.

Both of these new health trend features will also be coming to the Fitbit Air, but we don’t know yet if the Pixel Watch 4 and Pixel Watch 3 will similarly support them.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Fitness and sleep features

Google says that the Pixel Watch 5 should be 15% more accurate than its predecessor at identifying and tracking sleep stages. It also gets a new bedtime mode watch face, along with the popular Smart Alarm feature, which aims to help you wake up less groggy via on-wrist vibrations.

Daily sleep reports feature a new Sleep Breathing Quality Trends metric that’s based on minute-to-minute blood oxygen level tracking (Sp02).

The Pixel Watch 5 sports Google’s “most accurate GPS on a Pixel Watch.” Post-workout route mapping should be twice as accurate as before, especially in locations with obstructed skies, like cities and forests.

The Pixel Watch 5 is still using L1 and L5 satellite data to track, except now, when you finish a workout, that data gets sent to a server for analysis and adjustment. Basically, Google creates a 3D model of your efforts designed to compensate for things like building reflections, tree cover, and atmospheric anomalies, including heat haze and other aberrations.

Google says that the GPS route tracking for outdoor workouts in the Pixel Watch 5 outperforms even the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Garmin Fenix 8 Pro, two much pricier models.

Starting in September, the Pixel Watch 5 and other older models will offer a new “workout builder” feature for strength training and HIIT workouts. This feature will include personalized routines, audio cues, rest timers, and weigh/rep tracking.

Google Pixel Watch 5: AI features

The Pixel Watch 5 continues to support Google’s fabulous Gemini AI voice assistant, which is accessible with a simple yet effective wrist raise.

Now, real-time relevant information is more accessible at a glance. For example, details like changed flight times or the number of train stops until you reach your destination will appear more frequently. Users can expand these bits of relevant information or dismiss them using one-handed gesture controls for added convenience.

The Pixel Watch 5 additionally supports eleven new information-rich homescreen complications.

Gemini’s proactive suggestions have also been tweaked to be more useful and actionable from the wrist, minimizing the need to switch to a smartphone. Finally, Google promises improved offline Gemini support, with the ability to execute basic tasks via voice control, like setting a timer or starting a workout.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Battery life

The Pixel Watch 5 sees a very small increase in battery capacity across both sizes, but the official ratings remain the same. The 41mm is rated at 30 hours per charge, and the 45mm model is rated at 40 hours per charge. That's the same rating as the Pixel Watch 4.

The question is, will the bigger one surpass that billing? After all, the 45mm Pixel Watch 4 easily cruised for 60 hours per charge in my testing.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Outlook

There’s probably not enough here to warrant Pixel Watch 4 users upgrading to the Pixel Watch 5, especially if some or all of the new health and safety features eventually trickle down via firmware. Hardware-wise, this is basically the same devices as its predecessor, just with a slight increase in battery and processing power.

The new Breathing Emergency feature is particularly exciting to see, and I look forward to learning more about how it works... that is, when it's finally available in the U.S. Similarly, time will tell whether or not the new blood pressure and insulin resistance trend reports are actually useful.

Either way, Google has entered a league of its own when it comes to on-wrist smartwatch safety tech, from Breathing Emergency Detection to Loss of Pulse. The question is, can Apple match Google in this regard with the debut of the Apple Watch Series 12 launches in a few months? I'm not convinced, but I remain cautiously optimistic.

Stay tuned for my full Google Pixel Watch 5 review. Until then, what are your thoughts on the new Google Pixel Watch 5? Would you consider buying/upgrading to one? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve been wearing the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 for nearly a week — 5 things I like and 1 thing I don’t
• I walked 7,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air — and there's a clear winner
• Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker

It seems that 2026 is the year of the screenless fitness tracker. Over the past few months, we’ve seen the release of the Oura Ring 5, Fitbit Air, and now the $199 Garmin Cirqa, which hit the market in July. It seems that users are moving away from constant notifications buzzing on their wrists and opting for distraction-free health and fitness tracking instead.

A huge selling point of the screenless tracker is that, without the bright light of a screen and often a smaller, lighter design, it can make sleep tracking more comfortable and less distracting.

I often remove my smartwatch entirely to sleep, as I find the likes of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 uncomfortable, but have been wearing an Oura Ring to track my sleep for years. Keen to take a look at how the data from the Garmin Cirqa compared, I wore both for 10 nights — read on to find out more.

Garmin Cirqa vs Oura Ring 5

Before we dive into the sleep tracking capabilities of the two devices, it seems wise to point out some of the similarities and differences, if you are trying to decide between the two. The Oura Ring 5 is the more expensive of the two trackers, starting at $399 for the basic finishes. You’ll also need to pay an ongoing subscription fee, which costs $5.99 per month. The Garmin Cirqa costs $199 and has no subscription fees.

Design-wise, the Oura Ring 5 is the smallest, lightest smart ring on the market. It truly disappears, and is the best option for anyone looking for a fitness or sleep tracker that looks like jewelry. The Garmin Cirqa is a stretch wristband with a single button. It’s not exactly small, and it’s bigger and heavier than the Fitbit Air. You can also buy an additional bicep strap for workouts or team sports.

Both devices have a battery life that’ll last longer than a week between charges. The Garmin Cirqa lasts 10-11 days; the Oura Ring 5 lasts around nine days, depending on the size of your ring.

Both are also compatible with iOS and Android. With the Garmin, you’ll see all your data on the Garmin Connect app, whereas Oura uses its own app. Both can be synced with third-party apps like Natural Cycles for advanced female health tracking.

The results

But back to sleep. Before I share my results, I feel like I must point out that this test fell during a pretty stressful time, as I was right in the middle of moving house. I’m also a single mom, raising the next Houdini, and often get woken multiple times a night by my toddler climbing into my bed. All this to say, please excuse some of these sleep scores.

Of course, there’s no real way of telling which of these devices was more accurate at tracking how much sleep I did (or didn’t) get without going to a sleep lab, but I found it interesting to see that most nights, my overall sleep score and advice was pretty much identical.

There are a few key differences to point out: my Oura Ring 5 always recorded me as being awake for a lot longer than the Garmin Cirqa, more accurately reflecting the fact that I often lay in bed scrolling on my phone before I went to sleep. A lot of nights, the ‘awake’ part of my Oura sleep graph was at the beginning of the night.

The sleep duration and stages were also pretty similar throughout the testing, except July 29, when my Oura Ring 5 died overnight, and July 30, when Garmin recorded 90 minutes more sleep.

It’s worth pointing out I’ve had the Oura Ring 5 on my finger for months, whereas the Garmin Cirqa has only been on my wrist for two weeks, so it could need a little longer for more precise readings.

That said, overall, the data recorded was pretty similar, and the overall message was clear: I need more sleep. If only Garmin and Oura could relay that information to my toddler.

More from Tom's Guide

• I review smartwatches for a living, but these are 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Apple Watch Series 12 rumors — everything we know so far
• Garmin’s rumored screen-less wearable just might be the subscription-free Whoop rival I’ve been waiting for

Which rugged smartwatch is the more reliable fitness tracker for cyclists, the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 or the Garmin Instinct 3? I decided to find out.

Having just tested the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Instinct 3 while e-mountain biking in the Northern Cascades — Garmin won decisively — I decided it was time for round 2. This time, I tested the two watches in a city setting along one of my favorite routes through central Seattle, Washington.

I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

With the Samsung on my left wrist and the Garmin on my right, my roughly one-hour ride took me through densely populated neighborhoods, alongside neat rows of postcard-worthy houseboats, beneath towering canopies of evergreens, and past buzzing corporate campuses.

Read on for the results.

All three tracking methods noted similar distance and speed

In addition to logging my bike ride with the two smartwatches, I also recorded it using the Strava app on my handlebar-mounted iPhone 16 Plus. Using Strava as our control, all three tracking methods recorded roughly the same total distance, give or take a tenth of a mile or two... but the Samsung was closer.

The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Instinct 3, and Strava also recorded roughly the same average moving and max speed, which is reassuring to see. In this case, assuming Strava is again on the money, the Garmin was a little more accurate than the Samsung.

Samsung climb data is (again) inflated

This is the third time I've tested the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 against other devices, and it resulted in noticeably inflated climb data compared to its peers. For example, I discovered the same when I took the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 hiking in the North Cascades, and again when I went e-mountain biking.

I've reached out to Samsung for comment on these results and will keep you posted on the brand's response. Meanwhile, Garmin also inflated my uphill efforts, just by a more forgivable amount.

It's worth noting that this is a bike route I'm deeply familiar with and have logged many times with a wide range of trackers. As a result, I've come to expect the total elevation gain for the ride to be somewhere between 675 and 725 feet.

Heart rate data also lines up nicely

Thankfully, elevation gain is the only metric where the data doesn't agree/upset my stomach. Moreover, it warms my heart to see that my average and max heart rates are a perfect match between the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and Garmin Instinct 3 for this ride.

While the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 uses Samsung's latest health sensor tech, the Instinct 3 uses Garmin's next-to-latest sensor array.

Both watches performed well, but I'd still opt for the Garmin

From heart rate to battery usage to speed and distance, both the Garmin Instinct 3 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 performed admirably in this 11-mile bike ride tracking comparison. Despite one outlier — Samsung's inflated ascent data — I'm pleasantly impressed by the performance of both.

Of course, the Garmin Instinct 3 has been my go-to smartwatch for any and all outdoor adventures, from hitting the trails to the slopes to the water. And even though I'm impressed by the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I'll likely stick with the Instinct 3 for the foreseeable future for logging these types of activities.

More from Tom's Guide

• I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Venu 4 vs Suunto Vertical 2 — and there's a clear winner
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

The Apple Watch has looked pretty much the same for the last 11+ years — a rectangular wearable with a large screen and some buttons on the side — but that could soon change.

According to a report from Business Insider’s Mark Gurman, a prolific Apple insider, Cupertino is actively exploring a potentially revolutionary redesign of the Apple Watch, and future models could look nothing like today's.

From a circular case design to ditching the screen altogether, here’s everything you need to know about the latest Apple Watch redesign mutterings.

Screen-free is the way to be?

2026 is truly the year of the screen-free fitness tracker. Both Garmin and Google just launched subscription-free competitors to the Whoop 5.0 in the form of the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air. Might Apple do the same?

According to Gurman, it’s doubtful we’ll see a screenless Apple Watch in 2026. However, Apple R&D is apparently actively considering the concept. Of course, this isn’t the first time talk of a screen-free Apple fitness tracker has surfaced.

Over the past decade, Apple has filed numerous patents hinting at the possible development of an Apple smart ring. However, there’s little evidence suggesting such a product is a current priority.

This is to say, I wouldn’t count on an Apple-built Oura Ring competitor anytime soon. But an Apple-built Whoop alternative? That might actually be on the horizon.

A screen-free Apple Watch could solve my biggest gripe

The number one thing holding back full-featured smartwatches, especially Apple Watches, in 2026 is battery life, or rather, lack thereof. Even the best Apple Watch models don’t last more than a few days per charge.

The latest Apple Watch Ultra 3, for instance, gets just 42 hours per charge in the standard operating mode, but what if Apple nixed the display, a notorious power hog?

The results could be an Apple wearable that cruises for closer to a week; the Fitbit Air lasts seven days, the Garmin Cirqa is good for ten days, and the Whoop 5.0 keeps on chooglin for up to two weeks.

Other radical Apple Watch redesigns are also on the table

Apple Watch with a circular design. He also suggests that Cupertino is considering expanding the Apple Watch line to potentially include premium models above the Ultra series and/or more affordable ones below the SE range.

In the more immediate term, Gurman suggests that 2026 may see a return of the ceramic Apple Watch case design as an optional upgrade for the latest models likely arriving this fall. The list may include the Apple Watch Series 12 and the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

Ultimately, while it’s exciting to know that Apple is taking an open-minded approach to the future look and feel of the Apple Watch, Gurman notes that the design team has yet to settle on any one direction.

Of course, as with all insider Apple reports and rumors, digest the above info with a grain of salt or two.

Would you consider a screen-free Apple Watch? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just reviewed the Garmin Cirqa — 5 things you need to know about Garmin’s subscription-free Whoop and Fitbit Air alternative
• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• Is your old fitness tracker good enough? I tested a 5-year-old Fitbit vs Apple Watch Series 11 on a 5,500-step walk to find out

I've been wearing an Apple Watch to track my runs ever since I ditched Fitbit a few years ago, and I've settled into a good rhythm with one of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Ultra 2, since 2024.

However, before considering a potential upgrade to the rumored Apple Watch Ultra 4 (if it breaks cover), I wanted to see what Samsung's latest — the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — had to offer. So I borrowed the press sample loaned to the Tom's Guide fitness team, strapped it to my right wrist (I wore the Apple Watch on my left) and clocked up my usual 10K (6-mile) run.

The watches are unerringly similar: both sport a rugged design, a shortcut button (Action Button on the Apple Watch, Quick Button on the Galaxy Watch) for starting an exercise quickly and dual-frequency GPS for accurate location tracking.

Of course, one run isn't enough to say whether one is better than the other, but there were a few things that immediately stood out about Samsung's effort. Before we get to them, here's the data each watch captured.

As you can see from the table above, there are some discrepancies in a few areas, which I can explain. I tend to mix running with calisthenics training and aim to complete 100 push-ups during each run.

On the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I had auto-pause enabled, which kicked in every time I dropped down to rattle off some push-ups. That explains the difference in duration, distance, pace and cadence (since the Apple Watch Ultra 2 just kept rolling), but I'm not sure why the active calorie count is so different between the two.

Leaving the stats behind and progressing on to good old-fashioned subjectivity, here are three things I really liked about the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and one where my trusty Apple Watch Ultra 2 still wins out.

3 things Samsung did better

The bright screen

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a 1.52-inch Super AMOLED display with up to 5,000 nits of peak brightness. The company is known for making display tech, and over the course of the run I was constantly impressed with how legible the display was. It adjusted smoothly between sunlight and shade, and I never had to worry about glare on the screen.

Literally and figuratively, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 outshone the 3,000-nit LTPO OLED screen on my Apple Watch Ultra 2. When you couple this with the fact that Samsung's workout display shows fewer metrics in a larger font size, it means the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 wins the glance-ability contest.

I also like how your current heart rate zone is displayed with a rainbow color scale at the bottom, which pops on the AMOLED screen. While you get more pixels on the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (502 × 410 vs 498 × 498 pixels on the Apple Watch Ultra 2), this didn't make as much of a difference to me as the brightness.

The strong haptics

Apple calls the haptic technology inside the Apple Watch (and iPhone) the "Taptic Engine". But based on my run with both watches, I'd rate the horsepower inside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 as higher.

I haven't done a teardown of each model, so I can't say for certain which vibration motor is larger or stronger, but I felt that buzz on my right wrist plenty more than the one on my left. I think it's important too, since I rely on the haptics to alert me to each kilometer I cover. It's not as much of a necessity on a small run, but if you're getting to half-marathon or marathon territory, it becomes indispensable.

Even without haptics, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 called out my splits and pacing from the built-in speaker. It was loud enough (albeit a little robotic) to hear comfortably without ever having to raise my wrist. I disabled this same feature (called Voice Feedback) on my Apple Watch Ultra 2 a long while ago, so I don't have a comparison from this run. But I'll make sure to re-enable it again on my next one to see if the Apple Watch Ultra 2 can hold up in this regard.

The comfortable strap

It seems like a small thing to mention, especially since they're interchangeable, but the bundled Marine Band attached to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 has caught my attention. Samsung sells this separately for $90, and in my experience, it's an extremely comfortable strap that sat snugly on my wrist during the run.

It didn't slide around when I started to sweat thanks to the channel on the underside that encourages airflow. My Apple Watch Ultra 2's Trail Loop band, by comparison, was drenched in sweat by the end of the run.

While I never wore Samsung's original Marine Band, this latest version reduces the weight by 10g (0.35oz) by, among other things, switching the keeper from titanium to rubber.

Overall, the band is slimmer and as a result more flexible on the wrist. Even if you don't plan on upgrading to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from the first generation, I'd encourage looking into this strap as a purchase. It uses Samsung’s Dynamic Lug band attachment system and fits the original Galaxy Watch Ultra just as well.

I have an affinity for chunky watches, so the Galaxy Watch Ultra's 47.4 x 47.4 x 12.1 mm dimensions don't bother me — but it's definitely a watch I'd rather wear for running than for sleeping.

1 thing it didn't like

Apple's Digital Crown still reigns

It's been hot this summer. Like, really hot. But I live in the U.K., where a lot of the time it's cold and/or rainy. This can often necessitate wearing gloves while out running, hiking, or cycling and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that physical controls always win out where gloves are concerned.

During a run, if I want to raise or lower the volume of my audio or scroll through my metrics, nothing beats the tactile feeling of Apple's Digital Crown. The tiny little grooves etched into the metal can be felt through running gloves, and you don't even need to look at the Apple Watch to use it.

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a Touch Bezel feature you can activate in the settings, letting you run your finger around the edge of the display to scroll through the watch's functions. There are some vibration haptics that accompany this, but it's just nowhere near as easy or as satisfying as Apple's solution.

Even a physical rotating bezel as you'd find on a dive watch would have been better. I haven't used this feature in the heavy rain or snow, but I can't see it faring as well as the Digital Crown when you need to interact with your smartwatch with cold, numb fingers.

Final thoughts

Coming away from a single run with the two watches, there's no question the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is the superior device. It's brighter and more performant with greater storage and a longer battery life.

It also undercut the Apple Watch Ultra 2 at launch with a price of $699 to Apple's $799 (the current price of the Apple Watch Ultra 3), so it wins out if you're on a budget, too. Of course, you can currently find the Ultra 2 at a reduced price since it's been usurped by the Ultra 3, but for the sake of comparing apples to...err...apples? Samsung wins on price.

But it's not a complete victory. For instance, I like that the summary of your run stays up longer on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 than it does on the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Also, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a good-looking timepiece, I'm not entirely sold on the square-circle hybrid case design.

My final takeaway is to see what the Apple Watch Ultra 4 holds if and when it launches in a couple of months. Then I'll decide whether to keep my affinity with Apple going for another year or jump ship over to Samsung's side for future workouts.

What's your wearable of choice for recording your activity? Let me know if you prefer Apple or Samsung (or split the difference and go with Garmin) in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin

If you’re headed into cougar country to go e-mountain biking and you're tempted to watch videos of real-world cougar encounters beforehand, I encourage you to reconsider. Otherwise, what should be a lovely day in nature might feel a bit more, well, intense.

Fortunately, I encountered no cougars while researching this story.

With that out of the way, I just got back from electric mountain biking in Northern Washington State’s Cascade range — aka, cougar country — while wearing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 on my left wrist and my go-to outdoor adventure watch, the Garmin Instinct 3 on my right wrist.

After several excellent hours spent ripping it up on a vast network of trails, followed by a quick check of the results, it was clear as day which smartwatch I’d choose to wear next time I go e-mountain biking.

I went e-mountain biking with the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Garmin Instinct 3

Samsung lacks a dedicated e-bike mode

I had a hunch that the Garmin Instinct 3 would be more up to the task of accurately logging a mountain e-bike adventure than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Even before my helmet reached my head, I noticed a shortcoming of the latter: it not only lacks a mountain e-bike tracking mode but also doesn’t even have an e-bike mode.

So, I settled for Samsung’s standard mountain bike tracking mode. Meanwhile, the outdoor-oriented Instinct 3, of course, had a dedicated mode for the day’s activity.

Garmin’s elevation data appears more accurate

Assuming our control, the Strava app running on my iPhone 16 Plus is correct, then the Instinct 3 overcounted my climb by 141 feet, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 inflated it by as much as 344 feet, a notable difference. This also isn’t the first time the Ultra 2 reported an inflated climb in my testing.

With elevation gain being one of the primary metrics I focus on post-ride, along with top speed and distance, the Garmin is an easy choice over the Samsung. It's also worth noting that the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 failed to report my total ascent in the post-workout stats. Fortunately, I documented the stat before ending the session (something I've made a habit of doing for these exact moments).

The Instinct 3 is more comfortable than the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

Finally, the Garmin Instinct 3 feels much comfier on my 6.5-inch wrist than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, especially while working up a sweat. The Samsung case isn’t only taller and wider than that of the 45mm Instinct 3; it’s also much heavier, weighing 86 g versus 54 g for the Garmin.

After a few hours of riding, I must admit, I was eager to remove the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from my wrist.

But the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 was easier to read in direct sunlight

There was one aspect of the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 I preferred: Its ultrabright display. Even in direct sunlight with shades on, I was able to read the Samsung watch’s display at a glance. That wasn’t the case for the Garmin Instinct 3.

Of course, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 display maxes out at a seriously impressive 5,000 nits. Garmin doesn’t generally provide screen brightness metrics for its wearables, but I highly suspect that the Instinct 3 screen maxes out at around 1,000 nits.

Which of these smartwatches would you choose to track your next outdoor adventure? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike

I just finished reviewing the new Garmin Cirqa, and it's one of the best fitness trackers of 2026. A screen-free wearable, the Cirqa is a direct competitor to the popular Fitbit Air and Whoop 5.0.

While these three wearable devices have a lot in common — like the lack of a screen, onboard GPS, and notifications — several key factors set the Garmin Cirqa apart from the Fitbit Air and Whoop 5.0.

With that in mind, after two+ weeks of wrist time, here are the five most important things you need to know about the new Garmin Cirqa.

1. Garmin Cirqa = Cheaper than Whoop, pricier than Fitbit

The Cirqa is pricier than the Fitbit Air but cheaper than the Whoop 5.0. Both the Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa are subscription-optional products, with the vast majority of their core features available for free. However, the Cirqa is twice the cost of the Air: $199 vs $99.

The more pro-athlete-oriented Whoop 5.0 is technically free, but users must sign up for an annual subscription to use it, which ranges from $199 to $359 a year depending on the tier.

2. Garmin Cirqa = Comfier than the Whoop, bulkier than the Fitbit

The Fitbit Air is both thinner and lighter than the Garmin Cirqa. The former weighs just 5.2 g, and the latter weighs 14.8 g (both excluding the strap). Compared to the Whoop 5.0, the Garmin Cirqa is roughly the same dimensions, but the Whoop weighs 26.5 g (no strap), making it less comfortable than the Cirqa.

That said, I’ve found the Cirqa strap to be the scratchiest of the bunch, though it does appear to be softening up a bit with wear.

3. Garmin Cirqa = Battery life also splits the difference

The Cirqa also splits the difference when it comes to battery life. Are you noticing a pattern here? As per our testing, while the Fitbit Air is good for about a week per charge and the Whoop 5.0 lasts for roughly two weeks, the Garmin Cirqa lasts about ten days.

4. Garmin Cirqa = Deeper holistic insights than Fitbit

Garmin Cirqa wearers will find the Garmin Connect app chock-full of sleep, wellness, workout recovery, and training insights. While not quite as detailed or serious/pro-athlete focused as Whoop’s holistic reports, Garmin offers more to chew on than the Google Health app (formerly the Fitbit app), both in terms of metrics and actionable advice.

For example, features like Fitness Age and recovery time suggestions are offered on the Garmin but not the Fitbit. Similarly, the Cirqa is compatible with the popular Natural Cycles women's health tracking app. The Air is not.

5. Garmin Cirqa: One button to rule them all

One very tiny yet impactful thing that really sets the Garmin Cirqa apart from the competition is the inclusion of a single physical button on the side of the device. Customizable to start/stop any of the 80+ supported workout types of your choosing, this nifty bit of design saves you a trip to the app. It also means you don’t have to worry about whether or not auto workout detection is actually working, should you go that route.

Which of these three screen-less trackers do you most fancy? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested the Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 side by side — here's the winner
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tracked my sleep on Fitbit Air vs Whoop for a week — does spending more buy you better sleep data?

You don’t need to break the bank to get a competent smartwatch that effectively tracks your sleep, stress, heart rate, physical activity, and more — and the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro proves it. Extremely comfortable to wear for days on end with up to 21 days of battery life to boot, the Band 10 Pro doesn’t give you much to complain about. Its AMOLED touchscreen is large and responsive, and the smartwatch looks sleek and classy.

The best part is that the Band 10 Pro can track over 150 sports and activities (including board games), and it gives you a detailed breakdown of your sleep quality, too. I’ve been testing this smartwatch for nearly a month, and I’m finding it quite hard to take it off my wrist.

If you don’t mind the lack of a built-in mic or speaker for answering calls, this could be the best cheap smartwatch for you. For the complete breakdown, read my full Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Specs

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Price & availability

If you’re on the hunt for a cheap and cheerful fitness tracker that doubles as a stylish smartwatch, the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro is an excellent choice. The standard model costs £69 and comes in Midnight Black, Glacier Silver and Mystic Rose colors. There’s also the Ceramic Edition (which I tested), available in Pearl White, which costs a little more at £84.

It’s important to note that the Band 10 Pro isn’t officially available through Xiaomi in the U.S., at the time of writing, at least. Even though it’s available for $89 / $109 through certain third-party retailers, keep in mind that doing so carries its own risks.

The Band 10 Pro is very cheap for a smartwatch and in-depth fitness tracker. It’s priced similarly to the Amazfit Bip 6 ($79) and is cheaper than the screen-free Fitbit Air ($99) while offering smartwatch functionality and a subscription-free model. The Band 10 Pro is pricier than the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 ($51), but I believe it’s worth the extra spend if you want a large smartwatch-style layout.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Design & comfort

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro has clearly taken design inspiration from the Apple Watch Series 11 ($399). This Apple dupe features a rectangular touchscreen, as opposed to the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 featuring a pill-shaped Fitbit-esque one, and it looks fantastic. I tested the Ceramic Edition in Pearl White, and though I usually prefer darker colors, I appreciated how seamlessly the smartwatch blended in with most of my outfits.

Weighing 1.01oz (without the strap), I’ve found the Band 10 Pro extremely comfortable to wear — while sleeping, working out, and even on a 9-hour long-haul flight. The included strap features 11 holes, making the Band 10 Pro suitable for most wrist sizes. Both the standard model and Ceramic Edition feature high-strength aluminum alloy frames, but the Ceramic Edition packs a fluororubber strap instead of a TPU one on the base model.

A compelling reason to spend the extra $$$ on the Ceramic Edition is the fluororubber strap, which is more resistant to UV rays, oils, harsh chemicals, and dust. Having worn the watch for nearly a month, at the time of writing, I haven’t noticed any wear-and-tear to the strap or frame. The fluororubber strap also lends the Band 10 Pro a more sophisticated look. It feels more comfortable than a silicone strap, too, with a smooth texture.

The Band 10 Pro shares its 5ATM durability rating with the Band 10… and the pricey Apple Watch Series 11 and the Garmin Venu 4 ($549). This means the watch is water-resistant and can be submerged up to 50 meters, so you can theoretically wear it in swimming pools and track your swims (but chlorine can damage the waterproofing over time), or during other shallow-water activities. Sweating during on-land workouts shouldn’t be an issue either. Xiaomi warns against using the Band 10 Pro in hot showers, saunas, or when diving, though. It’s also important to note that water resistance isn’t permanent and may reduce over time. Such is the case with almost all tech as waterproofing breaks down eventually.

Display & touchscreen

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro’s touchscreen is bright, vivid and detailed, displaying accurate, bold colors. The 1.74-inch AMOLED touchscreen has a refresh rate of 60Hz, and I found it extremely responsive in my testing. There was no noticeable lag, and all my commands were promptly registered by the smartwatch. I really like the size of the screen too, which proved big enough for reading my texts during my testing.

The Band 10 Pro has a resolution of 480 x 336 pixels and a maximum brightness of 2,000 nits — higher than the Xiaomi Band 10’s 1,500 nits. I found the screen easily readable regardless of the lighting conditions, including in direct sunlight. There’s a “Raise to Wake” feature which, by default, is automatically disabled after 10 pm to ensure it doesn’t wake you during the night — this can be changed via the Mi Fitness app (more on that shortly).

There are plenty of watchfaces to choose from on the Band 10 Pro itself, and you can access hundreds more via its companion app and use your own photos, too.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Fitness features

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro uses an array of sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope and more, to accurately measure and track over 150 workouts, physical activities, and… board games. Yep, I’ve used the Band 10 Pro to track card games and Scrabble sessions.

Having used the Band 10 Pro for tracking walks, hikes, and even just my steps, I can confidently say the metrics are very accurate. The Band 10 Pro gives you an in-depth breakdown of your heart rate, aerobic or anaerobic activity, workout performance, calories burned, and more. When walking or running, you can easily pause, stop, or add a lap to your workout by swiping right on the watch. I also appreciate being able to pause and play music and change tracks without reaching for my phone.

Another thing I love about the Band 10 Pro is the range of breathing exercises available. I’m an anxious traveler, and when waiting to board a nine-hour flight from Delhi to London, I noticed my heart rate was quite high at 140 BPM. The Band 10 guided me through a few rounds of box breathing, which helped me calm down.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Health & sleep features

In addition to tracking various sports and activities, the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro is capable of tracking passive metrics such as steps, stress, and more. These are similar to the ones you’ll find on the cheaper Xiaomi Smart Band 10. In terms of smartwatch functionality, you can receive notifications, but it’s important to note there’s no built-in mic or speaker for answering calls. You can, however, set custom text-based message responses for when you can’t answer calls, which is nice.

Health

To track every metric possible, you need to dive into the Mi Fitness app and allow certain permissions. Stress-tracking is disabled by default. I enabled it and appreciated in-depth stress analysis in the app, as it helps me determine triggers and unhealthy habits to eliminate from my life.

You can also use the Band 10 Pro to measure blood oxygen levels and blood pressure, and women can track their menstrual cycles and log things like pain and moods. Being able to track your cycle in the app or via the smartwatch can be useful as it negates the need for a dedicated period tracking app. The Band 10 Pro notifies you when you’ve been stationary for too long too, and will prompt you to get up, stretch and walk around — and as someone with a sedentary job, I’m grateful for it.

Sleep

My sleeping habits aren’t… great. I tend to stay up late, even when I have work the next day. Having worn the Band 10 Pro to bed every night for over three weeks, I truly appreciate that it called out my bad habits and gave me in-depth analysis. It tells you how long you were in the deep, light and REM stages, as well as how many times you woke up. It will also tell you your sleep efficiency or quality by citing metrics like average heart rate, average sleep HRV (heart rate variation), and how long it took you to fall asleep.

The Band 10 Pro makes sleep tracking fun by assigning a Sleep Animal to you. After you’ve worn the Band 10 Pro for seven straight nights, the watch will dissect your sleeping patterns and tell you which animal best describes you. In my case, it was a koala: a nocturnal animal active at night who doesn’t wake up easily. True, as I’m quite a heavy sleeper!

Based on your Sleep Animal, the Band 10 Pro will give you a recommended sleep schedule… but that’s about it. The Amazfit Bip 6’s Zepp app provides more useful recommendations — although you’ll need to pay an extra $69 for the annual subscription.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: App

To take full advantage of your Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro, you’ll need to download the free Mi Fitness app on your Android or iOS smartphone. Pairing the Band 10 Pro with your phone is super straightforward and took me just under two minutes. I then gave the necessary permissions to track all metrics available — extremely easy to do.

The Mi Fitness app sports a clean, user-friendly interface, and there aren’t intrusive pop-ups that negatively affect the user experience. You can use the app to customize every facet of the Band 10 Pro — from the display and icons, to the activities you can toggle straight from the watch and thresholds for blood oxygen levels and stress.

If you aren’t sure about what a metric or number means, you can click on the ‘i’ (information) symbol next to them to get a deeper understanding. This is handy for anyone who’s using a smartwatch or fitness tracker for the first time, and may not know what HRV means.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Battery life

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro houses a 350mAh battery and the smartwatch can be charged using the included magnetic charging cable. Xiaomi claims that a single charge should last up to 21 days, but your mileage will depend on the features you’ve enabled. For instance, continuous stress monitoring has a detrimental impact on battery life. But given that the smartwatch takes only 90 minutes to recharge, the lower runtime feels worth the trade-off.

Having used the Band 10 Pro for sleep and continuous stress monitoring, as well as its smartwatch features and tracking physical activities, I was able to get 13 days out of its battery — which isn’t bad considering the Apple Watch Series 11 can last only 24 hours.

If you choose to keep the screen on all the time, bear in mind that the battery life drops to around eight days… still far better than the Apple Watch Series 11. The Band 10 Pro outperforms the Amazfit Bip 6 (14 days) and the expensive Garmin Venu 4 (10 days).

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro review: Verdict

If you want a wearable that doesn’t cost hundreds of dollars but accurately tracks your workouts, sleep and other metrics, the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro should be your port of call. It’s extremely comfortable for 24/7 wear, and its AMOLED display is bright and responsive. It seamlessly blends smartwatch features, such as phone notifications, with the benefits of a fitness tracker.

The Band 10 Pro accurately tracks your sleep and gives you a detailed sleep quality breakdown, and it does the same for your workouts. With up to 21 days of battery life packed into a sleek, sophisticated design, the Band 10 Pro is a great affordable smartwatch for those on a budget.

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed wearing and using the Band 10 Pro. Being able to understand my stress levels, sleep quality and other metrics in a digestible format makes it a fantastic option for anyone wanting to do the same without breaking the bank.

I just got back from a trip to North Cascade National Park where I experienced the grandeur of jagged mountain peaks, dynamic waterfalls, cerulean rivers, and breathtaking glaciers. Of course, I logged each day of my adventure using a menagerie of the best smartwatches.

To kick things off, my partner and I hiked to Blue Lake, a seriously stunning alpine lake accessible via a well-maintained out-and-back trail. I’m in the process of reviewing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, so this seemed like the perfect opportunity to test it against its direct competitor, the Apple Watch Ultra 3, and my current go-to smartwatch for adventure tracking, the Garmin Instinct 3.

With just two wrists of my own, I asked my partner to rock the Apple Watch Ultra 3 (worn on her left wrist), while I wore the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 on my left wrist and the Garmin Instinct 3 on my right wrist before embarking on our Cascadian trek. I also ran Strava from my iPhone 16 Plus.

Apple Watch vs Galaxy Watch vs Garmin: hike data compared

Three hours, five miles, roughly a thousand feet of climb, and one very chilly swim later, we returned to the car, where I carefully logged the results from each device. The outcome of the comparison was crystal clear; one wearable proved more capable and up to the task than the others. Read on to find out which.

Here are three reasons why I’d choose the Garmin Instinct 3 over the Apple Watch Ultra 3 or Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 for my next hike.

1. Garmin's elevation data is the most accurate

According to the Washington Trail Association, Blue Lake Trail involves an estimated 1,050 feet of elevation gain, which is coincidentally the same exact amount of climb logged by the Garmin Instinct 3.

AllTrails lists the climb at a more modest 920 feet. Either way, Garmin was the closest of the bunch at accurately logging my uphill efforts for this hike. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 turned in a slightly elevated (some pun intended) metric, which is pretty much par for the course for even the best Apple Watches in 2026 from my experience.

Meanwhile, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 was notably and concerningly waaaaay off, calculating almost double the elevation of Strava and AllTrails.

2. The Instinct 3 used way less battery

With a lengthy pause taken at the top of Blue Lake Trail for a swim and snack, our total trek time took just over three hours. In that period, both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 burned through 18% of battery, suggesting that around 15 hours of continuous trekking is likely the limit for both when it comes to GPS power consumption.

The Garmin Instinct 3, meanwhile, used only 6% of battery tracking my three-ish-hour trek, making it the obvious choice of the bunch for multi-day outdoor adventurers where access to a charger isn't guaranteed.

3. The Garmin is lighter and comfier

Finally, on my 6.5-inch wrist, the Garmin Instinct 3 in 45mm feels way comfier than the Apple Watch Ultra 3 or the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. This is because it's both smaller and lighter. Including the straps used for the hike, the Instinct 3 weighs 53.5 g, compared to 95.4 g for th the Apple Watch Ultra 3, and 85.8 g for the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

The Instinct 3's rounded case also wears more comfortably than the rectangular case design of the Apple Watch and Samsung. Moreover, the Instinct 3 isn't nearly as tall as either of its rivals, and is noticeably narrower than the Samsung, with a similar width to the Apple Watch.

Which of these three smartwatches would you pick to log an epic outdoor mountain adventure? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I hiked 9 miles with the Apple Watch SE vs. Pixel Watch 3 vs. Garmin Forerunner 165 — 5 things I learned
• Samsung turned the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 into a fully-fledged dive computer — but there’s a catch

I started testing the best sports watches just over a decade ago, and even back then almost all the new releases had a built-in optical heart rate sensor.

It was also the time I started to take my own running seriously, which meant following a training plan set by a coach with sessions of varying intensity throughout the week. I often relied on heart rate data to judge my effort during these sessions, along with my own perception of how hard I was working.

This quickly led to the realisation that the sensors on watches were often out of whack with my own estimation of effort, and once I started using a chest strap heart rate monitor, my concerns about the accuracy of those watches were confirmed.

In the years since then the sensors on watches have gotten a lot better. The best Garmin watches and the Apple Watch in particular usually produce accurate readings during runs, in my experience.

However, if you use heart rate to judge your effort during runs, or pay close attention to the training analysis and recovery stats on your watch, which rely heavily on heart rate data, even the best optical sensors can still fall short, and I prefer to use a chest strap during all my runs myself.

It’s one of the best accessories you can get for your workouts, in my opinion — here’s why.

Why chest straps are more reliable than optical sensors on watches

The key difference with chest straps vs optical heart rate sensor is how they go about measuring heart rate.

Chest straps measure electrical signals directly from the heart, which not only makes them very accurate, but also means there’s virtually zero lag in their readings when your heart rate changes suddenly, like when you’re doing an interval session and quickly speed up.

Optical sensors use LED lights to measure changes in your blood volume, which affects how the light is reflected back to the sensor. This is a less direct method than electrical signals, and prone to interference.

When you’re at rest optical sensors on watches are usually very reliable, but during workouts when your heart rate can rise and fall rapidly and you might be swinging your arm around a lot, optical sensors have a harder time.

Chest straps are in a much more stable position as well as using a more reliable method of measuring heart rate.

In around a decade of using them almost daily, I can only remember a handful of incidents where I felt my chest strap was producing inaccurate results. In contrast, there are several problems that arise regularly with optical sensors on watches.

Common problems with watch sensors during runs

As I mentioned above, the heart rate sensors on watches are good these days, but there are still certain issues that crop up from time to time during runs.

The most common one is lag. Optical sensors take longer to notice rapid changes in heart rate, so during interval sessions they don’t rise and fall as quickly as a chest strap.

This can make it trickier to use heart rate to judge effort in short intervals in particular, but as you can see from the graph above the lag might only be a few seconds and overall it’s not a huge problem in my opinion, as long as you bear it in mind when running.

A bigger problem is cadence lock, which is still a major issue with some watches I test. This is when the optical sensor on the watch gets confused and measures your cadence — how often your feet hit the ground — rather than your heart rate.

This results in way too high a heart rate for me during runs, and means that an easy jog can be classed as an all-out effort in a watch’s training analysis, skewing my recovery data for weeks.

Since most people’s cadence when running is somewhere between 160 and 200, it can also be hard to even tell when your watch is reading it instead of your heart rate, because a lot of people will be hitting that kind of heart rate in runs.

You can see in this graph that the watch I was wearing jumped between heart rate and my cadence for the first half of a run before actually locking onto my pulse correctly. Cadence lock at the start of a run is especially common.

Another common problem I’ve experienced with optical sensors is that they are less reliable in cold conditions, because blood vessels near your skin contract, making it harder to measure heart rate using blood volume.

I find this makes cadence lock even more likely to happen, as in this graph where I compared a watch to a chest strap during a hard session involving three 5K efforts, where the watch read incorrectly high throughout.

Downsides of chest straps

Chest straps might be very accurate, but they’re still not the perfect product. Many people find it uncomfortable to wear them compared with watches, and during the winter months, pulling a cold strap onto your chest certainly makes for an unpleasant second or two, I can tell you.

They’re not unfailingly accurate too, and to reduce the risk of errors especially at the start of runs it’s worth wetting the sensors on the inside of the band. Ideally you can do this either with water or a dedicated gel, but a quick lick also gets the job done in a pinch.

You might not want to lick your chest strap though, because another problem with them is that they can get pretty disgusting over long-term use if you’re not careful about washing them regularly.

If you’re not a fan of chest straps, but do find wrist sensors inaccurate, then armbands can be a good middle ground.

These use optical sensors, but the position on your upper arm makes them more stable and reliable. The extra muscle mass in your upper arm tends to create a better contact point for the sensor too.

I’ve used the Coros Heart Rate Monitor for long periods and found it reliable, but actually I find chest straps comfortable and less hassle than armbands at times.

This is mainly because I put my heart rate sensor on last before a run, and can just lift my top up to put on a chest strap, whereas with armbands I have to take off a long-sleeved top or jacket entirely to put them on.

Best chest strap heart rate monitors I’ve tested

I’ve yet to test a chest strap that proved really unreliable in terms of heart rate accuracy, so picking out the best I’ve tested comes down to other features, like extra stats, battery life and price.

Coospo H9Z

Coospo’s line-up of budget heart rate monitors is impressive, and the H9Z is a great option for those who want an accurate chest strap at a low price, especially because it’s almost always in sales.

It’s a waterproof sensor with a rechargeable battery that lasts for up to 50 hours of use. I prefer this to using coin battery-powered straps myself, having broken a strap or two when changing batteries.

You can pair watches, apps and bike computers to the Coospo H9Z via both Bluetooth and ANT+, and it has a waterproof IP67 rating, though it’s not suitable for swimming.

I’ve tested the Coospo H9Z extensively and compared it to the ‘gold standard’ straps available like the Polar H10, and its readings were spot on.

Polar H10

The Polar H10 initially launched in 2017, so the fact it’s still seen as one of the most accurate options available is testament to its quality, and because it’s an older device, it pops up in sales more than ever these days.

I’ve used the Polar H10 regularly for years, and for a long time it was my main heart rate strap, and I never found it to be inaccurate or unreliable in linking to watches and other devices.

It uses a coin battery that I found usually had to be changed after about six months of use, and has internal storage for your workouts and can be used for swimming.

Polar also has the H9 sensor, which is a little cheaper and just as accurate, but can’t be used for swimming as it lacks internal storage. The H9 can also only have one Bluetooth connection at a time, but if you don’t need more than that, it’s worth looking at too.

Garmin HRM 600

The Garmin HRM 600 launched alongside the Garmin Forerunner 970 watch in 2025 and has been my go-to chest strap ever since.

This is not just because it’s reliably accurate and rechargeable, but also because when linked to a top Garmin watch it adds extra running dynamics stats like step speed loss (how much you slow down with each step during runs) and running economy measurements.

As with the Polar H10, the Garmin HRM 600 will connect to watches and apps from other brands easily, and you can use it for swimming because it’s waterproof and has internal storage.

It’s a pricy option, but is now often in sales and if you are a runner with a high-end Garmin watch, the HRM 600 does bring some extra data to the table you can’t get anywhere else.

Fourth Frontier Zone

This is the most expensive chest strap I’ve tested but it does have an extra feature that some will find vital — it produces live and continuous ECG measurements during activities.

If you’re an athlete with heart concerns, this extra data could be invaluable along with the heart strain score offered by the device, and it also has vibration alerts you can set up to notify you if you’re pushing too hard in a workout.

You can also wear it outside workouts to get heart rate, ECG and heart rate variability measurements throughout the day and night — the 30-day battery life on the Fourth Frontier Zone is extremely impressive.

Unless you need the ECG stats however, I’d look at other straps myself because the Zone is expensive and requires a monthly subscription to unlock all of its features.

Do you have a favorite chest strap? Let me know in the comments.

Need to invest in your first fitness tracker but don’t know where to start? Well, picking up one of the best cheap smartwatches is the best way to understand what you're looking for. You can start to understand your metrics without breaking the bank, and by knowing what data you find most actionable, you can invest in a more advanced model down the line. I think the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 is an ideal entry-level tracker, and it costs just $62.

It’s comfortable to wear all day and all night, water-resistant, and gives very accurate tracking data. The useful companion app is the cherry on top, so you can take in all of your metrics at a glance and use it to make lifestyle changes.

However, some of the data, such as sleep, doesn’t always seem actionable when compared to the feedback and advice I get from the Oura app. The battery life of the Smart Band 10 was also underwhelming, as I couldn’t achieve the advertised 21 days. To find out more about my experience with the wearable, you can keep reading this full Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Specs

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Price & availability

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 is available in three different editions. These editions are priced differently and have slightly different designs and materials, but their operation is the same. The standard edition, the Band 10, is available for purchase for $51 on Amazon U.S. and £42 on Amazon U.K. You can pick up this version of the band in three colors, including Midnight Black, Glacier Silver and Mystic Rose.

The version of the watch I tested is the Smart Band 10 Ceramic Edition in Pearl White, which you can purchase on Amazon U.S. for $62 or on Amazon U.K. for £54. You can also purchase a Glimmer Edition of the watch for £69 from the Xiaomi online store, which is available in Glimmer Gold.

This is obviously very cheap for an in-depth fitness tracker compared to well-known models such as the Garmin Venu 4, which starts at $549, or the Apple Watch Ultra 3, which costs $799.

But there are also many cheaper smartwatches and fitness trackers that the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 needs to hold its own against. For example, the Fitbit Air only costs $99 if you want a screen-free tracker. Or the Amazfit Active 3 Premium will only set you back $169 and offers a more Garmin-esque style. We love both of these trackers, so if you’re looking for something more advanced, it could be worth the extra spend.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Design

After wearing the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 every day, it has seamlessly blended with my accessories and complements most outfits — not just my activewear. I have the Band 10 Ceramic Edition, which is a little heavier than the other models you can purchase at 0.8 ounces, but has the same 1.72-inch AMOLED Touch display. I have small wrists, and the pebble-shaped screen fits perfectly, so this is a great option for anyone with narrower features. It felt secure on my wrist when running.

The Ceramic Edition, which I tested, has a ceramic frame and a fluororubber strap. This was comfortable to wear for the most part, although after I worked out, the strap rubbed slightly. The standard edition of the Band 10 has an aluminum alloy frame and a TPU strap, and the Glimmer Edition has an aluminum alloy frame and a stainless steel and glass crystal strap. The Glimmer Edition certainly looks the most sophisticated option for everyday wear, but practically, the TPU strap of the standard edition will provide the most comfort for workouts.

With a 5ATM durability rating, the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 is water-resistant and can be submerged up to 50 meters. That means you can wear the watch to track activities like swimming, and don’t need to worry about your sweat causing any issues. However, the water resistance is not permanent and may reduce over time, according to Xiaomi — this is the case with almost all tech, as water resistance breaks down eventually, so it isn’t an issue.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Fitness features

After using the Xiaomi Smart Band 10 to track all of my workouts, I’m impressed by how accurate it is. The watch can track 159 different sports and activities, including card games and board games, which I found very interesting.

It uses a combination of heart rate sensors and a nine-axis motion sensor to track performance. Daily, I wear the Oura Ring 5 to track my movement, and when comparing the data, I can confidently say that the Smart Band 10’s step counting is accurate.

When wearing the Smart Band 10 for running. I appreciated notifications for my splits with a small vibration to keep me on track. The metrics such as heart rate, pace, and distance are clearly displayed on the screen, and even though it’s small, I could still read everything while moving. I was able to pause or stop the workout from my wrist without reaching for my phone, and even paused and skipped my music.

More detailed feedback about your workout can be found in the Mi Fitness companion app, which has your training history and training load. Having these statistics on hand is very useful for managing your training and planning out your future workouts. I used it to plan out my workout days or rest days.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Health & sleep features

As a girl who is almost unhealthily focused on her readiness and sleep scores, I was impressed by the number of metrics I could track with the Xiaomi Smart Band 10.

Health

First things first. When you get the Smart Band 10, tracking has to be manually enabled for some metrics. Automatically, you get tracking for your heart rate and steps — you know, the basic stuff. But if you want the metrics that give you meaningful insights, you need to head into settings on the Mi Fitness app and enable them.

These tracking metrics include blood oxygen tracking, continuous heart rate tracking, stress monitoring and relax reminders. Again, when comparing my readings to my trusty Oura Ring, there wasn’t much discrepancy. I felt as though I could rely on the Smart Band 10 to give me accurate data post-workout.

Sleep

I was most interested in the sleep tracking on the Smart Band 10. One of the first things I noticed after downloading the app was that after seven nights of sleep, I would be given an animal to suit my sleep personality.

Apparently I am a shark. This means I fall asleep late, sleep very little, and may even sleep while swimming. Not my most glowing analysis.

I like that the app dissects your sleep for analysis, breaking up your deep, light and REM sleep so you can deduce how much rest you actually got. However, I didn’t feel as though I was getting actionable feedback as I do with my Oura Ring or the Amazfit Zepp app. Both of these apps can provide analysis and advice to better your overall health, and I didn’t feel I got that same level of tailored attention from the Mi Fitness app.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: App

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 is compatible with the Mi Fitness app, which is available to download on Android and iOS devices. The app is very straightforward to use and lays out all of your tracked metrics on the home page.

There are sections in the app for workouts, customizing the watch with digital faces, and your health at a glance. You can delve into all of these sections to get more of an understanding of what they mean and how they are tracked too.

One of my favorite features in the app is the ability to set thresholds for your blood oxygen levels and heart rate spikes and dips when at rest. This is very useful for me as I have an irregular heartbeat, so I like to keep an eye on my heart rate changes throughout the day.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Battery life

The watch houses a Li-Po 233mAh battery that is charged magnetically with the included cable. Xiaomi says the Smart Band 10 has a battery life of up to 21 days under typical usage, but I was unable to obtain that. In fact, in that time I had to charge the watch twice. When the watch says there are six days of battery remaining, I got just over two. I didn’t mind this, though, as it only takes an hour to fully charge.

Even though I wasn’t able to get the full 21 days of battery life and it was more like seven days, this is far better than the measly 24-hour battery life of the Apple Watch Series 11.

It’s worth noting that if you turn on continuous tracking for blood oxygen and heart rate levels, the battery will drain significantly faster, but I think the trade-off is worth it for in-depth metrics.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Verdict

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 is an affordable option if you want a wearable that’s going to accurately track your workouts. The comfortable design makes it ideal for wearing 24/7, so I was able to track my sleep as well as the whole day’s activities. It’s water-resistant too, so it can be used to track swimming or left on when you hit the showers so you don’t misplace it.

The useful companion app is the best thing about this watch, as having all of the metrics displayed in an easily digestible format makes it so much easier to understand your body.

Unfortunately, the battery life isn’t as long as I had hoped. Even when the watch says there are six days of battery remaining, I only got about two. The data also doesn’t feel as actionable as the feedback I get from my Oura Ring, but this is merely a software qualm. The watch itself is great and a decent choice for anyone wanting to start their health tracking journey.

There’s nothing more frustrating than feeling a little bit “off.” You can’t put your finger on it, but something in your body is crying out for help. You head to the doctor’s office; they run tests, but everything looks perfectly normal, so you just go home and get some rest.

Perfect.

After having major surgery, I spent months feeling just like this. Those months quickly turned into a year, and before I knew it, I was canceling plans with friends and avoiding my usual workout routine.

Little did I know the thing that would drag me out of this hole was one of the best smart rings that I’ve been wearing on my hand for three years — my Oura Ring.

I’ve been tracking everything

I’ve been wearing an Oura Ring 3 since 2023, and have recently upgraded to the new Oura Ring 5. Every morning I open the app to check my sleep score, note to myself what made it a great (or not great) night's sleep, and get on with my day.

By checking my readiness scores daily, I get a good idea of what my body can handle. If I didn’t get a restful sleep, I take on a lighter load, but if I’ve been out cold for a full nine hours, you can bet I’m going to be climbing a mountain.

I’m a pretty active person. Between running, Pilates, hiking, and running a million and one errands every day, I always hit my step goals. But at the end of 2024, suddenly my readiness scores were, well, poor.

It didn’t matter how much I slept or how easy I took it the day before; something in my body wasn’t adding up. My HRV (heart rate variability) crashed and my resting heart rate while asleep was higher than ever. So what was happening?

I dragged myself to the doctor’s office only to be told there wasn’t anything wrong and that I should just take it easy for a while. With a new list of vitamin recommendations, I went home and continued tracking every metric I could, knowing deep down that there was a reason for my sudden fatigue.

And then I noticed the pattern. My heart rate was jumping all over the place even when I was sitting down doing nothing. That, combined with some noticeable palpitations, made me take one more trip to the doctor’s office — and I’m glad I did.

What the experts think

I set out to find out why wearables can have such a positive impact when uncovering health concerns. And it turns out that my meticulous tracking was actually the right thing to do, and medical professionals advise doing just this.

Dr. Manu Sehgal, Senior Medical Contributor at Medical Tourism Corporation, told me, “While smart rings like the Oura Ring are not diagnostic devices, they can be remarkably useful for identifying trends that deserve medical attention.”

He says, “The key is to look for persistent patterns, not isolated readings. A single poor night's sleep or one low HRV value is rarely meaningful. Several weeks of consistent change, however, can provide valuable insight and prompt an earlier conversation with a healthcare professional.”

Oura is known for its sleep-tracking capabilities, and Dr. Segal notes the sleep score as one of the most telling metrics for long-term health, influencing cardiovascular and immune function, as well as mood and cognitive performance. Paying attention to the metrics that make up the sleep score can make a huge difference.

Further to that point, Dr. Naheed Ali, certified in clinical research by the National Institutes of Health, states that smart rings, such as the Oura Ring, are not diagnostic tools in themselves.

He says, “Their greatest value lies in identifying persistent deviations from your normal pattern… They're most effective when combined with healthy lifestyle habits, regular medical care, and attention to the whole person — not just individual numbers.”

Noticing the pattern

Following that advice, it’s become abundantly clear that understanding my own baseline and what the deviations in those metrics mean makes a huge difference. But we shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions from this data. “Normal” looks different for everyone, and a medical professional should be your first port of call.

Considering metrics alongside how I’m feeling has made the biggest difference in my understanding of my body. It’s not just about why I’m feeling tired and run down, but taking in the bigger picture and being aware of daily changes I can make.

After looking at my ring’s metrics over time, I found that my HRV balance was declining, my resting heart rate was elevated, and my body temperature was unstable. That would often give me alerts on the Symptom Radar section of the Oura app, which lets you know when your biometrics are showing signs of strain.

After taking these metrics to the doctor and getting the relevant testing done, I found out that I have a fast heartbeat, also known as tachycardia. Since then, I’ve been able to work closely with health professionals to delve into the cause and make changes, including medication and more focused exercise plans to improve my metrics and get me back to feeling my best.

As you can see from my updated 2025 metrics, taking time to slow down and recognize stressors in my life has vastly improved my health. Since using my ring for this purpose, I’ve been able to get back to hiking, restful nights of sleep, and generally quieting the anxieties I was experiencing daily.

I wholeheartedly recommend paying attention to your version of normal with a fitness tracker. Paying attention to my metrics has made a huge difference to my quality of life.

However, it’s paramount that you don’t jump to conclusions and make assumptions based on a few numbers; you should always seek advice about any health concerns you have from a medical professional.

More from Tom's Guide

• I wore an Oura Ring for an entire year — here’s why it's the best smart tech I have invested in
• I wore the Oura Ring for 6 months to track my sleep — and now I'm regularly getting 8 hours and feel so much better
• Oura Ring 5 review: I’ve worn the world’s smallest smart ring for a week, and it changes fitness tracking forever

I’ve been wearing the new Garmin Cirqa, a $199 screen-free and subscription-free fitness tracker for over a week, and while my initial impressions are mostly positive, burning questions about the device persist.

So, I reached out to Jill Kaiser, the lead product manager for the Garmin Cirqa, to learn more. Kaiser has been with the Kansas-based brand for a decade, and sees the Cirqa as her ‘baby.’

One of Garmin’s more unusual wearables, our conversation touched on the value of customer feedback in the design process, how customization and comfort were also key pillars, why the Cirqa lacks an onboard GPS, and whether or not Garmin plans to roll out more screen-free wearables anytime soon.

Why launch a screen-free tracker?

One of the biggest bits of info I gleaned from my chat with Kaiser: Garmin places a high value on user feedback and requests.

“We definitely are listening to our customers. We were looking at what our customers want,” says Kaiser. The Cirqa has “all of our training, all of our health metrics, everything that they are wanting in our other devices, just in an option that doesn't have a screen, that doesn't have that distraction for them.”

Garmin users have apparently been requesting a screen-free tracker for some time. So why launch one now, especially hot on the heels of the Fitbit Air, a device that promises many of the same features for half the cost?

“We've had quite a lot of customer feedback wanting a screenless product for some time, and so it's been on our radar, and [now] just felt like we had all of the pieces in place to be able to support this,” says Kaiser.

Of course, launching a successful screen-free wearable requires an equally successful, i.e., user-friendly companion app. Put another way, “there's a lot that goes into not having a screen on your wrist and just making sure that our ecosystem is built for it,” notes Kaiser.

An ‘all-day version’ of the Index sleep tracker

Kaiser says to think of the Cirqa as an “all-day version” of Garmin’s screen-free Index sleep tracker. However, “from a feature standpoint and what it tracks, the Vivoactive line and the Venu line fit really nicely with [the Cirqa]. We brought in all of the training metrics that the latest Venu has,” says Kaiser.

This is to say, the Cirqa should be one mighty reliable and comprehensive holistic device, up there with the best fitness trackers. And unlike other popular screen-free trackers out there, the Cirqa has one design element that truly sets it apart from the pack: a physical button.

“We added a button onto the product because we know from customers that it's important to be able to have that quick start and stop without having to pull out the phone,” says Kaiser. Not only that, the Cirqa vibrates each time you press the button to confirm the action.

‘Users can really dig in and make it what they want’

Designed to appeal to a wide range of users, whether you’re a hardcore athlete or a first-time jogger, personalization is king when it comes to the Cirqa.

“There's just a lot of customization we built into this that a user can really dig in and make it what they want. If they want to see their battery life from the device, they can turn that on, and with a double tap, you can see an LED; if it's green, it means it's good to go,” says Kaiser.

That’s not all. “If you feel like you're missing [knowing] what time it is, we have hourly alerts that you can turn on, and it vibrates on the hour.”

By default, a single press of the buttons starts a generic workout tracking session; however, users can customize the action to begin any supported workout of their choosing.

“You can go into Garmin Connect and customize that button. If you're always going floor climbing, like doing stadium stairs, and you want those metrics, you can go in and change that so floor climb is the activity on your device,” notes Kaiser.

Meanwhile, a long-press of the button turns on the broadcast heart rate function, while a triple-press forces the Cirqa into pairing mode.

A valuable companion to your Garmin Watch

What about users who already own a Garmin watch? Does the Cirqa have any value as a companion device? Yes! Users can specify a primary device in the Connect app. This is the one you plan to wear throughout the day and night.

So, if you’re someone who trains with a higher-end Garmin Fenix or Forerunner, but want something a little more wrist-friendly to wear to bed without sacrificing sleep and recovery insights, the Cirqa may be your answer.

Best of all, you don’t need to manually switch between devices; the Connect app is smart enough to sync data from whatever wearable you’re wearing/logging a workout with.

How to train your Cirqa

While a dedicated, customizable button to start and stop workouts is certainly handy, wouldn’t it be nice if your Garmin Cirqa automatically knew what workouts you were doing without any input from you?

Kaiser says that with a little bit of user guidance early on, you can train your Cirqa to do exactly that. You’ll just need to manually track those activities for the first week or two you wear the device; after that, it should start to automatically detect and track your go-to workouts.

“By you engaging with it and saying, yes, I did go for a walk, or no, I didn't go for a walk, I was actually doing something else, that is helping the system then learn and actually adapt to you,” says Kaiser.

I’m still testing Cirqa's auto workout detection out, and seeing as it's only been a week, I can't yet comment on its reliability. That said, I look forward to reporting my findings in the forthcoming Garmin Cirqa review.

On the lack of onboard GPS

One question I keep hearing about the Garmin Cirqa is ‘why doesn’t it have GPS?’ According to Kaiser, a desire to keep the size and cost down, while maximizing battery life, is the answer.

“There's a lot of benefit that we can get from a battery standpoint, from a size standpoint of not having [GPS] in there. And so it went back to the user need. Yes, we know GPS is important, but from the phone, that still gets what our customers want,” says Kaiser.

More screen-free trackers to come?

So, now that Garmin has two screen-free wearables under its belt, can we expect more to come? “We're always going to continue to be looking at what we can do in this space,” says Kaiser. So, maybe yes, maybe no?

Ultimately, the Cirqa was designed to be, well, whatever you want it to be, assuming you want a screen-free tracker. “There's just a lot of customization that we built in,” says Kaiser. “Depending on what your needs are and what you're looking for. You're either not getting anything from it, where it's completely distraction-free, or it's adding a little bit of help throughout the day.”

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 7,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air — and there's a clear winner
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• Exclusive: Ultrahuman CEO says smart rings will 'become a computer on the body' with the ability 'to at least micro-think'

As a fitness editor, I’ve spent hundreds of hours testing tech this year, and we’re only in July. Not a day goes by when I don’t have more than one fitness tracker strapped to a pulse point, and by now, my friends have stopped asking me why I’m wearing two watches (I think they’re just relieved I’ve not turned up to brunch wearing a chest strap…yet).

I often get asked which is the best tracker, and my answer is always, "It depends on who’s buying it." And while I stick by this answer — someone training for their seventh marathon, for example, would be looking for something completely different to someone getting back into fitness in their 60s — one tracker stands out this year, and it’s probably not what you’re expecting.

Why the Fitbit Air is the best fitness tracker to launch so far this year

Sure, I wouldn’t be without my Oura Ring 5, and I’ve been impressed by the tech packed into the affordable Garmin Forerunner 170, but for me, the Fitbit Air is the tracker to beat in 2026. If you’re looking to get a better understanding of your overall health, and you’re not put off by AI health coaches, here’s why it’s my top pick.

It disappears on your wrist

Whether you’re the kind of person who wears an actual watch (remember those) and wants a screenless tracker as well, or you’d prefer not to have something buzzing on your wrist with your phone notifications, the Fitbit Air is a great choice. Sure, it’s not as inconspicuous as the Oura Ring 5, but it’s also nowhere near as expensive, and if you don’t want to, you don’t have to sign up for an ongoing subscription.

Weighing in at just 12g, the Fitbit Air is seriously lightweight, and really does disappear on the wrist. I found it extremely comfortable wearing 24/7, especially when sleeping, and it was noticeably lighter than the Whoop 5.0 or Garmin Cirqa.

The AI Health Coach is the best I’ve used so far

I’m very anti-AI health coaching, especially because, up until now, most of them have just regurgitated information I can already see (don’t get me started on Apple’s Workout Buddy). I was skeptical about the Gemini-powered Google Health Coach on the Fitbit Air, but it really is excellent.

It breaks down your health information into easy-to-understand and actionable advice. This morning, after a heavy track session days before my period, my Google Health Coach told me, “That run was a solid effort, Jane, and since you’re in the luteal phase, your body is actually working harder than usual. During this time, your core temperature is naturally higher, and your body may prioritize burning fat over glycogen, which can make high-intensity efforts like today’s feel more draining.”

It then gave me three pillars to focus on to recover.

I’m lucky enough to have run with a coach for years, so I know my body and when I need to ease off. But for beginners, or those that need guidance, Google’s Health Coach does this super well, and the actionable advice can help you train smarter and avoid injury.

The downside is that to get this AI coaching, you’ll need to pay a subscription fee of $10/£8 per month. Still a lot cheaper than a running coach or personal trainer, but it won’t be a cost everyone can afford.

For most people, the Fitbit Air is enough

I’ve worn a Garmin for years, and while I trust Garmin’s data and love the Garmin Connect app, the Garmin Cirqa is definitely aimed at more dedicated athletes who want deeper athletic training readiness metrics. Whoop takes this even more seriously with the Whoop 5.0.

That said, for most people, the data the Fitbit Air gives you is more than enough. I truly believe that with fitness trackers, you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

There’s no point collecting months of data and not really doing anything with it. The power and change come when you can take the data and make healthy changes, and I believe the Fitbit Air is one of the best trackers I’ve tested when it comes to breaking down your data into actionable advice.

More from Tom's Guide

• I review smartwatches for a living, but these are 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Apple Watch Series 12 rumors — everything we know so far
• Garmin’s rumored screen-less wearable just might be the subscription-free Whoop rival I’ve been waiting for

The heart rate sensor on the Garmin Cirqa screen-free tracker powers pretty much all the important stats you get from the device. It’s key to sleep tracking, your body battery and training readiness scores, and your heart rate variability readings.

So it must be accurate, especially as, unlike with the best Garmin watches, you can’t pair an external heart rate monitor to the Cirqa to get more accurate data if required.

That’s what I do with my Garmin Forerunner 970, even though it has a pretty reliable optical heart rate sensor built into the watch. I pair the Garmin HRM 600 chest strap to the Forerunner 970 for my workouts, because chest straps offer an extra level of reliability.

Unlike optical sensors, which use LED lights to measure your heart rate via your blood, with your pulse changing the power of the light that comes back to the sensor, chest straps use electrical signals directly from the heart. They are more accurate and faster to respond to changes in heart rate.

Testing the Garmin Cirqa’s heart rate accuracy

The Cirqa uses Garmin’s Elevate Gen 4 sensor, which is not the latest sensor in the brand’s line-up — most of its watches now use an Elevate Gen 5 sensor, but Garmin told us this was too large for the Cirqa at the launch of the strap.

Having spent the last couple of months testing the Garmin Forerunner 170, which also uses the Elevate Gen 4 sensor but has been accurate in my testing, I wasn’t concerned that it would lead to poorer results with the Cirqa.

I’ve had the Garmin Cirqa on my wrist for a couple of days, and to check the heart rate accuracy of the device, I’ve done two interval running sessions on the track, an easy run, and a strength workout.

I don’t yet have the bicep band accessory for the Cirqa, but I have tested it on my wrist and on my forearm. In general, optical sensors like this are more accurate in thicker parts of the body where there’s more muscle, and the higher up the arm, the more stable the sensor tends to be.

The forearm is usually a little better than the wrist, and the upper arm is better still, so the bicep band could well be a worthy extra purchase if you pick up the Cirqa.

Top marks on my easy run

First up, the easiest test I’ve done so far with the Cirqa — a 40-minute easy run. I’ve rarely seen errors from Garmin watches during this kind of run in recent years, so I expected the Cirqa to match up with the Garmin HRM 600 chest strap more or less perfectly. I wore it on my forearm for this test.

As you can see from the graph (created with the DC Rainmaker Analyzer), the Cirqa matched the chest strap beat-for-beat throughout the run and ended up with an average heart rate of 111.39bpm vs. 111.50 bpm on the chest strap. Flying colors.

Impressive during intervals

Interval runs are a tougher challenge for heart rate sensors because they have to track rapid rises and falls in heart rate. I did one session running 4 x 8min with 90 seconds recovery, and one with shorter intervals — 12 x 600m with 90 seconds recovery.

I’d expect to see a slight lag in the readings from the Cirqa compared to a chest strap, because the chest strap responds quicker to changes in heart rate, but otherwise I’d hope to see the same rise and fall in heart rate during the interval workouts.

In the workout with longer intervals, the Cirqa was pretty much spot on when I was running hard, but didn’t drop as low as the chest strap between most of the intervals.

When doing shorter reps, you can see that the Cirqa often took a little longer than the chest strap to rise to my higher heart rate when I started running hard, but it did track the rise and fall of my heart rate pretty well throughout the session.

I wore the Cirqa on my wrist throughout both these workouts, and overall I was impressed with the heart rate accuracy.

Mixed results during a strength workout

I wore the Cirqa on my forearm for the 15-minute strength workout I did, which was a mix of weights and bodyweight exercises done at a fairly slow pace, so my heart rate didn’t climb too high throughout.

The Cirqa struggled more in this session than on the run, though the differences between it and the chest strap are exaggerated on the graph because it’s a shorter workout and my heart rate didn’t vary that much — the average heart rate measured by the Cirqa was 89.31 compared to 92.62 on the chest strap.

Still, it didn’t follow the reading from the chest strap that closely. I think for strength training, the bicep band would be a useful upgrade for the Cirqa.

More testing to come

It’s still early days in my testing of the Garmin Cirqa and I want to do a lot more workouts with it, trying out the bicep band in particular, but it has proved quite reliable overall so far.

Outside of workouts, I have little doubt the sensor is accurate, and the average and resting heart rate readings I’ve seen during sleep in my first two nights with the device look good, though I’ve not tested this against another sensor yet.

Whether a screen-free tracker is the right option for you also depends on a whole load of other factors, but the heart rate sensor on the Cirqa has been good for me so far.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

The Fitbit Charge 5 debuted in 2021 around the same time as the Apple Watch Series 7, and even though it was replaced by the Fitbit Charge 6 in 2023, you can still find the Charge 5 on sale in 2026 for around $100 new or ~$40 if you go the used/refurb route.

But can a 2021 wearable, like the Fitbit Charge 5, actually keep up with today’s best smartwatches, like the Apple Watch Series 11, when it comes to fitness tracking accuracy? I just had to find out.

While the Apple Watch Series 11 starts at roughly four times the cost of the Fitbit Charge 5 in today’s market, the two actually have a lot in common. Both sport AMOLED touchscreens — though the one on the Charge 5 is comically small — onboard GPS, heart rate monitors, blood oxygen sensors, and ECG capabilities.

More importantly, in terms of tracking an outdoor workout, you get nearly identical post-exercise stats, with insights into your distance, pace, climb, calories burned, heart rate max/average, and HR zones.

So, how did 2021’s Fitbit Charge 5 perform versus the 2026 flagship Apple Watch model? You can find the full results of my comparison below, followed by the five biggest takeaways from the test.

Old Fitbit vs new Apple Watch: Walk test results

1. Fitbit's step count tally is closer

Both the Fitbit Charge 5 and Apple Watch Series 11 calculated step count totals within 100 steps of my manual count (5,500 steps) and Strava's count (5,510 steps). This result is both impressive and well within a reasonable margin of error.

However, much to my surprise, the aging Fitbit proved slightly more accurate than Apple's latest at logging steps, besting the Series 11 by a small but noteworthy margin.

2. Apple's climb data is far more accurate

In an effort to thoroughly test both wearables — and to get my heart rate up — this trek involved quite a lot of uphill effort. Unfortunately, the Fitbit Charge 5 struggled to log my climb accurately during this roughly 52-minute walk.

That effort is reflected in both Strava and Apple's post-workout reports, even if the Series 11 slightly inflated my climb (I'm not mad).

Assuming Strava's data is close to correct, which I suspect it is, the Charge 5's climb tally is 132 feet shy of the control, a disappointing result.

It's worth noting that the Fitbit Charge 5 lacks an onboard barometric altimeter, a sensor dedicated to monitoring elevation changes, while the Apple Watch 11 and my smartphone running Strava both sport one.

3. Fitbit recorded a lower heart rate but more calories burned

The five-year-old Fitbit Charge 5 recorded a slightly lower average and max heart rate than the latest Apple Watch Series 11. Was the fact that I wore the Fitbit on my right wrist and the Apple Watch on my left a factor in this discrepancy? It shouldn't be. After all, both companion apps let you specify your wrist preference, which I did before this test.

Despite a lower heart rate, the Fitbit noted more calories burned overall than the Apple Watch. Then again, calorie counts are one of the smartwatch workout stats I trust the least.

4. The Fitbit burned through way more battery

While fitness tracking accuracy — minus climb data — from the five-year-old Fitbit Charge 5 is pretty similar to that of the current Apple Watch Series 11, one area the newer device easily outperforms the older generation is GPS battery life.

On paper, the Fitbit Charge 5 should outperform the Apple Watch 11 in terms of longevity; it's rated to last up to seven days per charge compared to just 24 hours for the Apple Watch.

However, over the course of tracking my 52-minute walk, the Charge 5 burned through nearly three times more battery than the Series 11. At this burn rate, I wouldn't trust the Charge 5 to log any outdoor workout longer than five or six hours, which means no epic hikes or snowboard sessions.

5. The Charge 5 still outperformed my expectations

Ultimately, despite coming up a bit short in terms of climb data and battery performance, the five-year-old Fitbit Charge 5 exceeded my expectations compared to the current Apple Watch Series 11, proving to be nearly as good a fitness tracker, despite its age.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches, new or old, would you like me to test head-to-head next? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

Today Apple announced its new leasing program, Apple Upgrade which is undergirded by Klarna for iPhone, Apple Watch, Mac and iPad.

The program lets customers sign up for a plan, similar to how you would lease a car, for fixed 12-, 24- and 36-month terms depending on the device. There are options to upgrade to a new device early or return it at the end of the lease.

Apple called the new plan a "more flexible way to pay for products."

It's possible this does offer some flexibility from paying an upfront lump sum or tying yourself to an onerous contract via a network carrier like Verizon or T-Mobile.

However, experts I spoke with think the Upgrade plan is meant to cover rising component costs.

"By shifting the focus to lower monthly payments, it helps mask the effect of rising hardware costs and makes premium devices feel more affordable and attainable for a broader range of consumers," Jitesh Ubrani, a director at IDC, said.

They added that it could entice people who don't want to pay the higher upfront costs, as even Apple has hiked prices recently. It also gives Apple a "steady stream of trade-ins" that the company can resell to expand its customer base.

"Many people are effectively leasing their phones already through carrier plans; leasing a watch or a Mac -- when you know that these are also devices that have upgrade cycles -- can make sense," Techsponential's Avi Greengart told Tom's Guide. "it's still a lease, so you won't be able to use it until it dies unless you buy out the lease, and it may not be the absolute most economical approach."

Beyond upfront prices, is Apple Upgrade better for you? Let's take a look at how the program works.

How Apple Upgrade works

Apple Upgrade offers 12- or 24-month lease terms for eligible iPhones and Apple Watches. For those seeking a Mac or iPad, there are 24- or 36-month options.

Prices start as low as $11.99 per month for the Apple Watch and iPad, depending on size and storage capacity. iPhones start at $17.99, while Macs can be leased starting at $24.99 a month.

You can sign up online or at an Apple Store, where you will be approved by Klarna, which does require a soft credit check that should not impact your credit score.

At the end of the lease term, you can return the device or upgrade to a newer generation or purchase it with a one-time payment.

Compared to the outgoing iPhone Upgrade program, the Apple Upgrade Program does not include AppleCare, which is a separate subscription price and varies in price depending on your device.

Per MacRumors, if you miss a payment, it will be rolled into the next month's payment with no late fees. However, if you miss three consecutive payments, the lease will end, and you will have to pay the full outstanding balance, minus the value of the device when returned. If Klarna can't collect, a debt collection agency will be sent your information.

Apple Upgrade prices

Apple is offering the entire iPhone 17 lineup, plus the iPhone Air, both the Apple Watch Series 11 and Apple Watch Ultra 3 and three iPad options, including the iPad Air, iPad Pro and iPad mini.

For Macs, you can lease the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac Studio.

Apple defaults to the 24-month leasing option, so we'll share that. The other options can lower or raise your price. Additionally, higher storage capacity or chip versions will also increase the monthly price.

Finally, the price does not include taxes and fees.

Here's how much the base model of each device will cost you.

We've separated the iPads and Macs out because these devices can have the longer 36-month term. Again, the prices below are for the base model of each device and the 24-month term.

No leasing entry-level devices

You may have noticed several Apple devices aren't eligible for the upgrade program. It includes the vanilla iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus, as well as the entry-level models of almost every device category.

Here's the full list of Apple products you can't lease:

• iPhone 16
• iPhone 16 Plus
• Apple Watch SE
• MacBook Neo
• Mac mini
• iPad (A16)
• Studio Display

Availability

Apple Upgrade is available now for all of the listed devices. Apple says that a security deposit is not required and that a trade-in device could reduce monthly payments.

I will note that if you end a lease early, you could see termination fees. Also, if you don't do anything at the end of the lease, you'll be charged the purchase fee.

Lastly, hidden in the fine print, upgrading a device could increase your monthly payments, which is true for both higher-capacity versions of devices and more expensive models when new generations launch in the coming years.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)
• iOS 27 finally fixes the most annoying iPhone workaround we all use
• New iPhone 20 video reveals the 8 biggest upgrades to expect from the 20th anniversary iPhone

Screen-free wearables like the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, Oura Ring 5 and Whoop 4 are having a moment, but is screen-free really the best way to be, especially when full-featured, hyper-connected devices like the Garmin Venu 4, Apple Watch 11 and Pixel Watch 4 exist?

That depends entirely on what you hope to get out of your wearable. I've already covered the five biggest things to consider before buying a screen-free wearable. Now, we're here to help you further understand the core differences between the best smartwatches and fitness trackers and the top no-screen trackers, including the best smart rings of 2026.

Howdy, I'm Dan Bracaglia, one of TG's resident experts on smartwatches, fitness trackers, and smart rings. I'm here to help you make sense of today's wearables market and even choose between two devices.

Got a burning question about the difference between the Fitbit Air and Fitbit Inspire 3? Are you deciding between the new Apple Watch SE 3 and the new Garmin Cirqa, two devices surprisingly close in price? Not sure if the latest Oura Ring 5 is right for you?

Responding to your questions are myself, Dan Bracaglia, a senior writer at TG and expert in wearables with nearly two decades of experience covering consumer technology, and TG's U.K editor-in-chief, Jeff Parsons, who's not only an avid runner, but also an expert in consumer tech of all kinds.

Please make sure that all queries are related to wearable tech, specifically, screen vs screen-free trackers. We can't wait to answer your questions! You might also like to let us know your feelings about screen-free wearables in the poll below.

As a reminder, please keep all questions appropriate and on-topic. This is an open space where we hope to foster a positive, helpful environment for all readers, whether you're new to the world of fitness trackers or you're a hardcore athlete shopping for your fifth Garmin.

If you've never left a comment on our site before, then you may need to sign up to post your first question. It's free to sign up and will unlock a host of other Tom's Club member benefits, such as exclusive rewards and savings, the ability to earn badges and enter giveaways, join in with popular conversations and all Live Q&As, and reveal hints for our quizzes and puzzles.

We can't wait to hear from you — let us know what you'd like help with now.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• The Samsung Galaxy Ring is about to be the world’s first FDA-cleared smart ring for sleep apnea
• I walked 7,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air — and there's a clear winner

Whether or not we see an Apple Watch Ultra 4 launch this fall remains to be seen, but that hasn’t stopped us from asking the Tom’s Guide readers exactly what they want from a new watch. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 is one of the best Apple watches on the market — it’s built for adventure and packed with features.

Personally, as a female with a petite wrist, I’m dreaming of the day when Apple gives us the option to buy the Apple Watch Ultra in a smaller size. I love the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and find it is, by far, the best Apple Watch for running (here’s what happened when I used it for the London Marathon alongside the Garmin Forerunner 570), but I find it uncomfortable to wear when sleeping.

But what did our readers have to say? We asked 368 people what they were hoping for from the next Apple Watch Ultra. Read on to find out more.

1. Better battery life: 42%

The most overwhelming answer? A longer battery life. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 has the longest battery life of any Apple Watch — 42 hours in low power mode, but this still isn’t enough to compare to some of the best Garmin watches on the market.

156 people said they’d want a longer battery life from the Apple Watch Ultra 4, and I’d tend to agree. Even going a couple of days between charges would make all the difference, especially if you are using this watch on an outdoor adventure.

2. Thinner, lighter case: 20%

75 people agreed with me that the current Apple Watch Ultra 3 is pretty bulky on the wrist. A thinner, lighter case would make the watch more comfortable for 24/7 sleep tracking and suit those with smaller wrists.

3. New health/fitness tracking tools: 20%

72 people wanted to see new tools from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. What this looks like remains to be seen. There are rumors that an Apple Watch Ultra 4 could have a new "extreme mode," designed specifically for long-distance outdoor adventures. This would extend GPS tracking runtime and be great for multi-day ultramarathoners.

4. New unlock method: 6%

23 people agreed with my colleague, Dan Bracaglia, that a new unlock method would be handy. Dan wrote, “Passcodes never seemed like a great way to unlock an Apple Watch, which is why two separate Apple Watch 12/Ultra 4 rumors have me excited. One suggests that Apple's next-gen smartwatches will get forward-facing cameras for Face ID. The other hints that an under-the-display fingerprint scanner could make an appearance.

“Either of these methods would be a welcome change to punching in a code every time you want to use your Apple Watch, though I ultimately think that Face ID is the better option of the two.”

5. Something else: 5%

20 people weren’t quite sure what they were hoping for from a new Apple Watch Ultra 4, but they wanted Apple to wow them, and we can relate.

6. Brighter screen: 3%

Only 11 people wanted a brighter screen with the new Apple Watch Ultra 4, and we’d tend to agree. The huge Apple Watch Ultra 3 screen is incredibly bright and easy to read in all weather conditions. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it, right?

7. Siri AI: 3%

And finally, only 11 people cared about the rumored Siri AI coming to the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Do we actually want or need AI assistants on our wrists? According to the people voting in this poll, the answer is no.

Do you agree? Have your say and vote here:

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

Which new screen-free fitness tracker is more accurate, the Fitbit Air or the Garmin Cirqa? I decided to find out by popping one on either wrist and logging a long walk.

Even though the Garmin Cirqa is twice the cost of the Fitbit Air — $199 vs $99 — these two trackers have a lot in common. Screen-free, your primary method for interacting with either is through the companion app. That said, the Cirqa also has one physical button to start and stop workouts.

More importantly, neither has onboard GPS, so both require you to bring your paired phone along when logging an outdoor workout so that they can piggyback off its location and elevation data.

Now, on to the test!

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa: Walk test rules

I manually counted 7,000 steps — using my trusty $6 tally counter to log every hundred — with the Fitbit Air on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right wrist to determine which is the more accurate fitness tracker.

I also ran Strava on my iPhone 16 Plus for additional step count, distance, elevation, and pace data. For the Fitbit Air, I manually began a walking workout from the Google Health app. For the Garmin Cirqa, I started the workout by pressing the single button. This proved to be a mistake.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa: Walk test results

It took me about one hour to walk 7,000 steps around sunny Seattle, Washington, a step count total that all three tracking methods came remarkably close to. For these tests, I consider any tally within 100 steps of my actual total to be outstanding.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air undercounted by a mere ten steps, while the Garmin Cirqa overcounted by 70. Strava, meanwhile, overcounted by ten.

Unfortunately, because the Cirqa logged my efforts as a generic workout rather than an outdoor walk, it frustratingly didn't register any distance, climb, or pace data for this test.

The Fitbit Air, on the other hand, logged the same distance as Strava, which isn't too surprising given both are making use of the same GPS data. However, its climb data is seemingly waaaay off. This is neither the first nor the second time I've had an issue with climb data when it comes to the Air.

Fortunately, the Air's pace data is much more aligned with Strava's.

The lack of consistency between the Air and Cirqa for heart rate data is a tad concerning. Without control data, it's hard to say for sure which watch is more accurate in this regard, but I suspect it's the Garmin, given my walk involved quickly ascending several very steep hills, which definitely got the blood pumping.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

Despite continuing to struggle with climb data, the Fitbit Air beats the Garmin Cirqa in this walk test head-to-head by a small but legit margin. This is similar to the results my colleague Jane discovered when she tested these two gadgets against one another in a 4,000-step comparison.

Stay tuned for more testing and coverage of the Garmin Cirqa, including my full review, coming soon.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

Can the new Garmin Cirqa fitness tracker survive being submerged in just over one foot of water for 30 minutes? As part of my forthcoming Cirqa review, I decided to find out.

Garmin promises 50 meters of water resistance for the new screen-free Cirqa fitness tracker, which should be more than enough to make it through this test unscathed, but is that actually the case? Read on.

What’s in a waterproof rating?

Waterproof ratings for wearables can be tricky business. After all, a 50-meter water resistance rating doesn’t actually mean you can swim at a depth of 50 meters and expect the device to survive.

In reality, 50 meters of water resistance translates to protection from water incursions during brief-ish surface-level swims. Most smartwatch manufacturers, including Apple, spell out these restrictions on their sites.

Garmin similarly states that the Cirqa’s 50 meters of water resistance is enough for “splashes, rain or snow, showering, swimming, diving into water, and snorkeling.”

Garmin Cirqa waterproof test

For this Garmin Cirqa waterproof test, I placed the device at the bottom of a tall graduated cylinder and filled it until the water level was just over one foot. I then set my trusted darkroom timer for 30 minutes and waited.

Once the time was up, I fished the Cirqa out and inspected it. The fact that the sensor lights were flashing upon my retrieval was immediately a good sign that things seemed to be working properly. I then pressed the single button on the Cirqa — used to start and stop workout tracking without the app — to see if it would vibrate. It did.

Finally, I opened the Garmin Connect app, and sure enough, the Cirqa popped up and began syncing. So, yes, the Garmin Cirqa passed the official Tom’s Guide fitness tracking waterproof test with flying colors. It’s now more than 24 hours later, and the Cirqa is still functioning as it should.

One side note from this test: Unlike the Fitbit Air's quick-drying fabric strap, the Garmin Cirqa strap seems to retain water, which translates to a very long dry time. After this particular soaking, for example, the Cirqa strap was still damp nearly two hours later; hardly ideal.

Which smartwatch or wearable should I waterproof test next? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin Cirqa Smart Band launch: Garmin debuts a screen-free Whoop and Fitbit Air competitor
• I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air — and the winner is clear
• Samsung turned the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 into a fully-fledged dive computer — but there’s a catch

Screen-free fitness trackers live and die on the strength of their apps. If you don’t have a screen to look at on the device itself, you have to dive into the app regularly to see your stats instead, and that data needs to be well-presented.

This has always been a strength for Whoop, has been a focus for the Fitbit Air since launch, and it was a glaring weakness when the Polar Loop screenless band launched, because the partner Polar Flow app wasn’t up to scratch.

Garmin just launched its first screenless tracker in the Cirqa band and the reliance it will have on the Garmin Connect app is the reason why I think all Garmin users will benefit from the new launch, because it will prompt updates to the app.

The Garmin Connect app could be better

I’ve been using the best Garmin watches for the past 10 years and I can’t fault the devices themselves, which are always accurate, offer a wealth of data and useful smart features, and look good.

However, the Garmin Connect app is less impressive, despite improvements to the home screen over the past couple of years.

There’s a lot of data in the app, but it’s not always easy to find what you want — features I use regularly like the workout creator and route builder are buried beneath several settings menus.

Since I can see all the stats I want and make changes to most settings directly on my Garmin Forerunner 970, this hasn’t been a problem, but if you buy the Garmin Cirqa and need to use the Connect app for everything, it could be more frustrating.

Improvements have already started

To its credit, Garmin does make fairly regular updates to the Connect app and has already made a telling upgrade to the home screen with the launch of the Cirqa, adding an "Essentials" section to the top of the home screen.

This shows four key stats at a glance, including things like your sleep score, training readiness and HRV status. The kind of stats that have been put front and center with other screenless devices, like the Whoop and Oura Ring.

The color-coded breakdown of these important stats immediately makes the home page more useful at a glance, and it’s a handy update for all Garmin users, not just those who have the Cirqa.

My hope as someone who uses Garmin watches is that the arrival of the Cirqa band will result in a continuing focus on Garmin Connect app improvements, to the benefit of all, so even if you have no interest in a screen-free band yourself, it’s worth celebrating if you’re a Garmin user.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

If you see me walking down the street and I start to cry, it’s probably because I’m doing a walk test for Tom’s Guide, and I’ve lost count. As you’ll know if you follow Tom’s Guide’s fitness desk, one of the first things we do when a new device drops is take it for a walk with another fitness tracker to see how well it does the basics.

This week, everyone is talking about the new Garmin Cirqa, Garmin’s $199 screenless fitness tracker, which looks set to take on the likes of Fitbit Air and Whoop 5.0. It’s a subscription-free tracker with comprehensive workout and sleep insights, up to 10 days of battery, haptic feedback, and a single physical button. You can read our early verdict on the Garmin Cirqa here.

To find out more, I strapped it to my wrist alongside the Apple Watch 11, which isn’t screenless, but is one of the most popular smartwatches on the market. I’ve had the Series 11 on my wrist since it was released last September. The newest iteration of Apple’s most popular smartwatch has hypertension alerts and a sleep score to help you gain a deeper understanding of your overall health.

But which was more accurate over 5,000 steps? Read on to find out more.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa and the Apple Watch 11 — here are the results

If you’ve read one of my articles before, you’ll know that manually counting anything more than around 50 steps is out of my remit, so I rely on a trusty $5 clicker tool from Amazon.

I manually click every time I take a step. For this test, I wore the Apple Watch 11 on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right. Both watches count your steps using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm.

Each swing counts for two steps, and it doesn’t matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand. It doesn’t matter if you walk with your hands in your pockets or holding a cup of coffee; the accelerometer should still measure your body’s movement. It does, however, make a difference if you’re pushing a stroller — no, Apple, I promise I haven’t done a 45-minute elliptical workout while trying to get my toddler to sleep.

As with all of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch 11 doesn’t tell you the number of steps you’ve taken during a specific workout; instead, you see an overall number of steps throughout the day. Probably because steps aren’t actually that useful a metric, but annoying for me when writing these articles. For this comparison, I downloaded a third-party Pedometer+ app onto my Apple Watch 11.

When I got home, I downloaded all the data.

As you can see, the Apple Watch got slightly closer to my actual step count than the Garmin Cirqa; however, I will caveat this slightly. I had a major problem with the device in that it didn’t recognise the activity as a walk at all. Instead, when I synced the Cirqa to Garmin Connect, I just got a "45-minute workout," with no distance or steps included.

I’ve only been wearing the device for 48 hours, and Garmin has stressed it gets smarter the more it gets to know you. Instead, I had to look at my overall steps throughout the day and use the numbers from there. I wonder if the results would have been different if the walk had been recorded as a walk, or if I’d been wearing the tracker for months, as I have with the Apple Watch 11.

I’ll continue my testing and my step counting before I make my verdict. Watch this space!

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

Which rugged smartwatch, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 or the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, is the better device for tracking outdoor workouts and adventures? I decided to find out by manually counting 4,000 steps with one on either wrist.

Aside from the obvious — the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is for iOS users, and the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is for the Android faithful — these two smartwatches are remarkably evenly matched. Of course, they also track a whole lot of other, more exciting activities, including scuba diving, but for the sake of our comparison, I’m going to stick with a good old-fashioned walk.

With my manual count as the primary control for this comparison, as a control for distance, climb, and pace, we’ll rely on ol’ reliable, the Strava app.

Read on to find out which smartwatch came out on top in this fitness tracking accuracy showdown with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3

Before diving into the results, here are the biggest differences between the Apple Watch Ultra 3, one of the best smartwatches in 2026, and the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (review pending). For starters, the Apple Watch is $100 more than the Galaxy Watch, $799 vs $699.

The Galaxy Watch, meanwhile, boasts a brighter display, better battery life, and a genuinely useful onboard AI assistant that's backed by Gemini and accessible via a wrist raise.

Design-wise, I find the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to be a lot comfier than the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Not only is the Apple Watch thinner, but it's also narrower. That said, the two weigh roughly the same.

When it comes to logging workouts, Apple and Samsung's best are evenly matched. They each boast dual-band GPS for location tracking, barometric altimeters for elevation monitoring, accelerometers and gyroscopes for motion tracking, and tons of health sensors to monitor your heart rate, body temperature, calories burned, and more.

With that out of the way, on to the result of my 4,000-step walk test comparison with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2!

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Walk test results

I took exactly 4,000 steps during my ~35-minute walk, a tally that's backed up by Strava, which also logged precisely 4K. As always, any step count total within 100 steps of my actual tally is considered excellent and well within a reasonable margin for error.

Both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 performed exceptionally well in this test, not just in terms of accurately counting my steps, but also logging distance, elevation gain, pace, and even heart rate.

Of course, when it comes to steps, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 beats the Apple Watch Ultra 3 by a modest margin compared to the control. The same goes for climb and pace. The Apple Watch, meanwhile, was a little bit closer to the control for distance.

Both devices registered roughly the same maximum and average heart rates, though the Apple Watch calculated more calories burned and used less battery to log my efforts.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

By a teeny-tiny margin, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 gets a win versus its main competitor, the Apple Watch Ultra 3. Ultimately, though, both devices performed with impressive accuracy during this test, and I would not hesitate to use either to log my next workout, whether it's a walk around the neighborhood or a recreational dive in Puget Sound.

Stay tuned for my full Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 review, to be published soon. In the meantime, which smartwatches would you like to see me test the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 against next? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• 5 things to know about the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• The Samsung Galaxy Ring is about to be the world’s first FDA-cleared smart ring for sleep apnea

If you’ve followed the Tom’s Guide fitness team for a while, you’ll know that one of the first things we do when a new device drops is take it for a walk test. Sure, most of the best fitness trackers on the market are designed to do much more than just count your steps, but how well they handle the basics is often a good place to start.

Next on my list was the long-awaited Garmin Cirqa, which was announced this week and launches on July 24 for $199. It’s Garmin’s new screenless tracker, designed to track your health and fitness stats without distractions or a monthly subscription.

The obvious device to compare it to was the Fitbit Air, Google’s $99 screenless tracker, which launched earlier this year. They both track everything you’d expect: your steps, calories, heart rate, menstrual cycle, skin temperature, and sleep. Both have haptic alerts to wake you up, and tons of data to help you live a healthier lifestyle. Check out the main similarities and differences between the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air here.

As a control, I manually counted my steps using a $5 clicker tool from Amazon — the kind a bouncer would use to count people into a club in my twenties. Every time I took a step, I clicked, and when I got home, I checked my stats on the respective apps. One key difference was that I was able to use the button on the right-hand side of the Garmin Cirqa to start the activity, whereas I logged into the Google Health app to manually start my walk, but more on that below.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air, and the winner is clear

As mentioned above, for each step I took, I clicked. I wore the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air on the same wrist. Both record steps in the same way: using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm.

Each swing counts for two steps, and it doesn’t matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand. It doesn’t matter if you walk with your hands in your pockets or holding a cup of coffee; the accelerometer should still measure your body’s movement.

Here are the results:

As you can see, the results are pretty clear: the Fitbit Air was pretty much spot on when it came to counting my steps.

That said, before we write the Garmin Cirqa off completely, I had a major problem with the device in that it didn’t recognize the activity as a walk at all. Instead, when I synced the Cirqa to Garmin Connect, I just got a "45-minute workout," with no distance or steps included.

I’ve only been wearing the device for 48 hours, and Garmin has stressed it gets smarter the more it gets to know you. Instead, I had to look at my overall steps throughout the day and use the numbers from there. I wonder if the results would have been different if the walk had been recorded as a walk, or if I’d been wearing the tracker for months, as I have with the Fitbit Air.

Either way, only overcounting by two steps is very impressive from the Fitbit Air. I’ll continue testing both alongside one another to help you decide which is the best screenless fitness tracker for you. Watch this space!

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

Apparently, 2026 is the year of the screenless tracker. Forget about AMOLED screens and checking your rings; the world is moving to discreet devices that track your health with zero distractions.

Earlier this year, Google launched the Fitbit Air, a $99 screenless tracker that looked set to take on the likes of the Whoop 5.0. Tuesday saw the long-awaited release of the Garmin Cirqa — Garmin’s latest tracker, which is also completely screen-free, and launching on July 24 for $199.

But how do the two devices compare? What are the main similarities and differences? I’ve got both on my wrist as I type, and while it’s too soon to give an honest verdict on which you should buy, here are the highlights.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air: Similarities

Both are screenless

By design, both of these trackers are screenless, material bands, designed to be worn 24/7 for constant health tracking. They both track everything you’d expect: your steps, calories, heart rate, menstrual cycle, skin temperature, and sleep. Both have haptic alerts to wake you up, and tons of data to help you live a healthier lifestyle.

Both can be used with Apple or Android

Both devices are compatible with Apple and Android devices. For the Fitbit Air, you’ll use the new Google Health app, and for the Garmin Cirqa, you’ll connect to the device using Garmin Connect.

Both can be used subscription-free

More on this below, but on the surface, both devices don’t need an ongoing subscription for you to see your health data. Compared to Whoop and Oura, which both have monthly subscriptions, this is a big plus.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air: Differences

Price

Let’s get into the differences and start with the $100 price difference. The Fitbit Air is $99/£85, whereas the Garmin Cirqa costs $199/£179. Both are still much cheaper than the Whoop 5.0 or the Oura Ring 5, but there’s still a big price difference between the two devices, and if you’re on a budget, the Fitbit Air is far more affordable.

Both can be used subscription-free, but there’s a slight difference in what you get without a subscription. The Garmin Cirqa gives you virtually all your performance and health metrics with no subscription required. Paying for Garmin Connect+ ($6.99 per month or $69.99 per year) gets you access to Garmin’s AI coach, nutrition plans and macro logging, and Garmin’s coaching plans.

The Fitbit Air gives you basic metrics like heart rate, basic sleep logs, and AFib alerts for free; however, some of the deeper sleep metrics, Gemini AI coach, which is excellent, plus your daily personalized readiness insights, are locked behind Google Health Premium. Google Health Premium costs $9.99 per month or $99 for the year.

Physical buttons

One big difference between the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air is that the former has a physical button, allowing you to start and stop a workout, rather than relying on auto workout recognition.

Garmin said this decision was based on the brand’s DNA and user base, who wouldn’t want to miss a second of their workout. I’ve only worn the Garmin Cirqa for two workouts so far, but I personally appreciate having the physical button because I am the exact user Garmin is talking about.

Size and comfort

Another big difference between the two screenless trackers is the size and weight. The Fitbit Air is 12g with the band, which comes in one size. The pebble itself is 34.9mm tall, 17mm wide, and has a depth of 8.3mm. It really is tiny on the wrist, and is extremely comfortable, even when sleeping.

The Garmin Cirqa is noticeably larger. It comes in two sizes — small/medium or large/extra-large — and weighs 20-25g depending on the size of the band. The tracker itself is 46.9mm tall, 27.5mm wide, and 8.7mm thick. It definitely feels bigger on the wrist and is a lot bulkier under clothing or when sleeping.

Third-party integrations

Another consideration if you’re using your screenless tracker to track your cycle is that Garmin can integrate your skin temperature data with apps like Natural Cycles to predict your ovulation date. This requires a separate Natural Cycles subscription. You can’t, at the time of writing, integrate the Fitbit Air with Natural Cycles.

Band placement

Both bands can also be worn around your biceps for tracking during team sports, or in the gym, where you might not want a band around your wrist. That said, for both you’ll need to buy another band. The Fitbit Air requires you to loop two bands together, and an additional band will cost $34.99/£34.99. The Garmin Cirqa requires you to buy the biceps loop for $59.99/£49.99.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

I've been wearing the Garmin Cirqa screen- and subscription-free fitness tracker for over two weeks, and I'm a fan. Reasonably comfortable, customizable, long-lasting, and accurate, the Garmin Cirqa is easily one of the best fitness trackers in 2026.

Garmin officially entered the no-screen fitness tracker/band wars in July with the launch of the $199 Cirqa, but how does it compare to its biggest competitors?

While the popular $99 Fitbit Air is aimed at enthusiasts and the subscription-only Whoop 5.0 is geared more toward hardcore athletes, the Garmin Cirqa strikes a balance between the two in terms of features, cost, and specs. That's a good thing.

The question is, has Garmin carved out enough of a niche between the entry-level Air and top-tier Whoop for the Cirqa to succeed? I sure think so. Read on to find out why.

Garmin Cirqa: Cheat sheet

• Price: $199 with core feature subscription-free; the optional Garmin Connect+ plan is $6.99 a month or $69.99 a year
• Design: Screen-free, the Cirqa is a lightweight, plastic fitness tracker with a single button, haptic feedback, and... that's it; it's bigger and heavier than the Fitbit Air but more wrist-friendly than the Whoop 5.0
• Health features: Comprehensive sleep reports, women's health tracking (with support for the Natural Cycles app), 24/7 heart rate monitoring, Sp02 readings, jet lag advisor
• Fitness features: Supports 80+ workout types with support for auto-workout tracking for popular exercises; users can manually start and stop a workout using a customizable physical button
• Battery life: Up to ten days of battery per charge, a little less than the Whoop 5.0 (14 days) but more than the Fitbit Air (7 days)

Garmin Cirqa: Versus competition

Garmin Cirqa value: 3.5/5

• More affordable than Whoop but twice the price of the Fitbit Air
• Core features and insights are subscription-free
• An optional Connect+ plan is $6.99 monthly or $69.99 annually, cheaper than Google Health Premium
• Garmin Cirqa accessories are pricey; extra straps start at $50

Similar to the Fitbit Air, the Garmin Cirqa is a one-and-done affair in terms of cost. Once you have it, all of the core health and fitness features are yours to use without the need to ever pony up for a subscription.

In terms of value, had Google not launched the Fitbit Air a few months before the Garmin Cirqa's debut, Garmin's screen-free wearable would hands down be my go-to budget-friendly alternative to the Whoop 5.0. I also probably would have scored it a 4.5 or even 5/5 for value.

Unfortunately for Garmin, the Fitbit Air does exist. And while the $199 Garmin Cirqa is certainly affordable for a modern Garmin wearable, it's still twice the cost of its Google rival.

Like the best Fitbits, users can unlock additional holistic insights and personalized training advice for a recurring fee. The Garmin Connect+ plan is $6.99 monthly or $69.99 annually. That's a better value than the Google Health Premium plan for the Fitbit Air, which will set you back $9.99 a month or $99 a year.

Whoop takes a different approach entirely to pricing, where users get the device itself on the house but pay a much higher annual subscription cost ranging from $199 to $359 depending on your tier.

Ultimately, the Garmin Cirqa is more affordable than the Whoop 5.0 but pricier than the Fitbit Air. Still, for $199, and with the vast majority of insights you’ll care about being free, the Cirqa is still a good bang-for-the-buck. After all, the cheapest current Garmin watch with equivalent features to the Cirqa is the Vivioactive 6, which costs $100 more.

That said, I'm knocking half a point off the value score because, unlike Google, which sells additional Air straps starting at $35, accessory straps for the Garmin Cirqa start at a whopping $50.

Garmin Cirqa design and comfort: 3.5/5

• Not as small or comfortable as the Fitbit Air, but lighter and comfier than the Whoop 5.0
• The Cirqa strap takes some time to break in; unfortunately, it also seems to retain moisture
• Proprietary strap design is annoying to remove/attach
• Customizable onboard button to start/stop workouts with haptic feedback to confirm your selection
• 50 meters of water resistance is a match with the Fitbit Air and better than the Whoop 5.0

The Garmin Cirqa is bigger and heavier than the Fitbit Air, with a noticeably wider strap (24 mm vs 18 mm). Compared to the Whoop 5.0, it's roughly the same shape and size, but a whole lot lighter. Depending on your preference, the Cirqa is designed to be worn either around the wrist or your upper arm.

The included fabric strap is a tad scratchy for my liking, but it does seem to be softening up a bit with wear. That said, unlike the cloth straps for the Fitbit Air, the Cirqa strap seems to retain water rather than dry quickly.

Removing the strap, should you choose to fork over $50 or more for an additional one, is a pain in the butt. While the Fitbit Air pops right out of its strap, I had to use a dedicated watch spring bar tool to get the job done on the Cirqa. The spring bars are also an oddly thin length, limiting third-party strap options.

Like the Whoop 5.0 and Fitbit Air, the device itself — a plastic case with a sensor array, status lamp and single button — is protected by the strap. Water resistance is 50 meters, the same as the Fitbit Air, but better than the Whoop 5.0, which is rated at just 10 meters.

As expected, the Garmin Cirqa easily survived thirty minutes submerged in a foot of water.

One thing that really sets the Cirqa apart from the competition, design-wise, is the inclusion of a single physical button on the side of the tracker used to start and stop a workout. Users can customize exactly what that workout is in the Connect app.

When pressed, an onboard vibration motor provides haptic feedback confirming that your workout has begun. Another buzz happens when you end a workout.

The button has additional functions: A triple-press forces the Cirqa into pairing mode, while a press-and-hold turns on the broadcast heart rate feature. Unfortunately, at this time, additional customization options for these actions are limited, but I'm hopeful Garmin will expand what they can do soon.

Garmin Cirqa health tracking: 4.5/5

• Garmin's sleep reports are highly detailed, with lots of unique and actionable insights and metrics
• In terms of tracking sleep duration, stages, and heart rate, the Cirqa and Air perform similarly well
• Heart rate tracking is nearly as accurate as a dedicated chest-mounted heart rate monitor, despite the Cirqa not using Garmin's latest/greatest sensor array
• The Cirqa works with the popular Natural Cycles women's health app; an onboard skin temp sensor helps track ovulation cycles

Sleep and women's health insights

Garmin smartwatches and wearables offer some of the most comprehensive, subscription-free sleep insights around. And even though the Cirqa is not FDA-approved to detect potential signs of sleep apnea, it does monitor your breathing while you snooze, along with your heart rate, body temperature, and movement.

Users are greeted each morning with a numeric sleep score out of 100, along with detailed insights into sleep cycles, disturbances, and more. The Cirqa also boasts a skin temperature sensor, which is used for both women's health tracking and early illness detection.

I wore the Garmin Cirqa every night for over two weeks, including a week-long period where I wore the Fitbit Air on the opposite wrist. After one fairly average (my rating) night of rest, both wearables reported similar sleep durations — 7:02 for the Garmin and 6:45 for the Fitbit — and nearly the same sleep score: 82 for the Garmin and 83 for the Fitbit.

My average resting heart rate was also a near-match between the two: 60 bpm for the Cirqa and 61 bpm for the Air. Garmin, however, provides additional sleep insights that Google doesn't.

For example, that same Garmin sleep report tells me exactly how many restless movements I had (58), average respiratory rate (13 breaths per minute), Body Battery Charge (+77)... more on this metric below, and my average changes in skin temperature compared to previous nights (-.03 degrees).

Speaking of skin temperature, the Garmin Cirqa is compatible with Natural Cycles, one of the most popular women's health apps for tracking fertility, postpartum health, and perimenopause. While the latest Whoop also works with Natural Cycles, the Fitbit Air does not support it at this time.

Smart Wake Alarm

The device additionally supports Garmin's Smart Wake Alarm feature. Users pre-select a wake-up window, and the device uses sleep stage tracking to gently nudge you out of bed via vibrations.

I've been using it for the past several nights, and it's a delightful way to rise, even if the vibrations occasionally seamlessly work their way into my dreams for a few moments before I actually wake.

Heart rate accuracy

The Cirqa uses Garmin’s older Gen 4 heart rate sensor; Gen 5 is the latest. Still, HR accuracy impressed in our testing. While it may not be as precise as a dedicated chest-mounted heart rate sensor (duh), it comes pretty darn close.

For folks with a compatible Garmin device, like the Garmin Edge cycling computer, the Cirqa can be programmed to broadcast your active heart rate while you log a workout.

An onboard SpO2 sensor continuously tracks your blood oxygen levels either all the time or only while sleeping. However, it's off by default. Switch it on from the Connect app > Health and Wellness.

Garmin Cirqa fitness tracking: 4/5

• The Garmin Cirqa lacks an onboard GPS, so you need to carry a paired smartphone for location-based workout insights
• The Cirqa proved to be an accurate overall tracker with lots of unique/actionable metrics to help you train, including Body Battery and Fitness Age
• 80+ workout types are supported; auto workout detection could be more reliable/requires user dedication to set up at first
• Users can seamlessly switch between the Garmin Cirqa and other Garmin wearables without a trip to the Connect app

Fitness tracking accuracy

Like the Whoop 5.0 and Fitbit Air, the Garmin Cirqa lacks onboard GPS. This means that you'll need to carry your paired phone along with you — and provide the Connect app with 24/7 location permission — when logging outdoor workouts for accurate distance, pace, and climb data.

Fortunately, in our testing, the Garmin Cirqa proved more than accurate enough across a wide range of activities. It may not be as precise as the best Garmin watches out there, which can cost as much as $1,000, but it comes pretty darn close.

I recently logged a particularly hilly walk with the Garmin Cirqa on one wrist and the Garmin Instinct 3 — my go-to wearable for logging outdoor adventures — to see how their distance and climb data compares. For good measure, I also logged the trek using the Strava app on my phone.

The Instinct 3 logged 328 feet of elevation gain, Strava logged 326 feet, and the Cirqa logged 301 feet; perfect? No, but probably close enough for most folks.

Having just reviewed the Fitbit Air, I can confirm that the Cirqa seems a bit more reliable at tracking outdoor workouts, especially for climb data. In a separate comparison (see data chart below) with the Cirqa vs Air vs Strava, the Garmin impressed, while the Fitbit came up way short in terms of elevation gain, a recurring issue.

Supported activities, auto-detect, and LiveTrack

The Cirqa supports over 80 common workout types, including winter sports, team sports, and common gym exercises. Users can pre-program up to ten of their favorite activities for quick access in the Garmin Connect app.

Unlike the Fitbit Air or Whoop 5.0, manually starting a workout with the Cirqa doesn't require a trip to the app. Users can start and stop any workout of their choosing with a press of the device's only button. By default, the button logs a basic timed workout with limited metrics. However, users can change that via a setting in the Connect app.

Like the competition, the Cirqa supports auto workout detection, but it demands some effort on the part of the user to work reliably. Based on my discussion with Garmin, the device is programmed to recognize the activities you do most frequently; however, users will need to manually log those workouts for the first few weeks they use the Cirqa before it eventually figures things out.

It would appear I need to spend a little more time with the Cirqa before it can accurately distinguish between a bike ride and jog without my input. For now, I manually start those activities via a trip to the app; I've set the onboard button to start and stop walking workouts.

When doing outdoor workouts, the Cirqa supports Garmin's LiveTrack safety feature, which allows friends and family to receive live location updates while you sweat it out. This, of course, requires a paired smartphone.

Fitness training and recovery metrics galore

Garmin provides users with some of the most detailed non-subscription training and recovery insights out there, including recovery time suggestions, a daily readiness score and status, VO2 max metric, and your "fitness age" based on your recent fitness and health habits versus other users in your gender and age group.

For example, my current fitness age, according to Garmin, is 35.5-years-old (I'm nearly 39), with my target fitness age set to 32.5. In addition to these stats, the Connect app provides you with useful recommendations to help you better reach your target. In my case, the app suggests I add weight-based workouts, while increasing the number of "vigorous" workouts I do a week.

Body Battery is another handy Garmin metric, similar to other brands' Energy Score, to help you better plan your day's activities. The more consistent your sleep, workout, and recovery times are, the better your Body Battery score (from 1 to 100).

Plays nicely with other Garmins

The Cirqa is designed to work seamlessly with other Garmin wearables. So, if you use a Forerunner or a Fenix to log workouts but want something a little comfier and lighter for sleep tracking, the Cirqa provides that. Best of all, users don't need to manually switch between the two devices in the Connect app settings; it does it automatically.

Garmin Cirqa battery: 4.5/5

• The Cirqa surpassed its ten-day-per-charge rating in my test
• Battery life is better than the Fitbit Air (7 days) but behind the Whoop 5.0 (14 days)
• It takes roughly an hour to fully recharge the Cirqa battery

Garmin says the Cirqa should last up to ten days per charge with normal use, which I can confirm. I wore the Cirqa for ten days straight, including while sleeping and logging my daily workouts, and had 20% battery remaining.

By default, the Cirqa does not continuously measure your blood oxygen saturation using the onboard pulse oximeter. Users can opt to turn this on 24/7 or just while they sleep. I did the former and surprisingly discovered that it had little impact on battery performance. At most, it draws an additional 1% to 2% per day.

Compared with the competition, the Whoop 5.0 lasts around 14 days per charge while the Fitbit Air is good for roughly seven days per charge.

The Garmin Cirqa is also impressively fast to recharge; a 5% to 100% power-up took about an hour, with the Garmin Cirqa drawing around 2 watts of continuous power during that duration.

Garmin Cirqa review: Verdict

As noted in the title, the Garmin Cirqa strikes a compelling balance between the entry-level Fitbit Air and the pro-level Whoop 5.0. Like the Fitbit Air, the Cirqa is reasonably priced and doesn't require a subscription.

It's not quite as small or light as the Air, but it does have better battery life and more detailed and actionable sleep, training, and workout recovery insights.

In terms of size, the Cirqa is more similar to Whoop 5.0, just much lighter. Battery life is nearly as good as the higher-end rival. However, Whoop still wins when it comes to heady training and recovery insights and advice for hardcore athletes, but Garmin comes darn close, even without a subscription.

For a lot of folks, the Fitbit Air is more than good enough at providing a cheap, distraction-free health and fitness tracking experience. However, if you want to step up your game with more advanced fitness and health metrics — without committing to a subscription — then the Cirqa is worth the extra $100 over the Air in my opinion.

Samsung just dropped the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, a larger-than-life, tough-built smartwatch with an ultra-bright display, plenty of battery life, health and fitness tech galore, and legit dive-ready features.

Unlike the original Galaxy Watch Ultra, which isn’t meant for diving or high-impact water sports despite its 100-meter water resistance rating, the new model is not only rated for 100 meters but is also EN13319-certified for scuba diving, not to mention IP69K-certified against dust and moisture.

That’s not all; Samsung has partnered with Mares, a popular and trusted dive app, to turn the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 into a fully-fledged dive computer to track your dives. It also provides real-time nitrogen level monitoring, depth and water temperature, dive time, and more. However, there is a catch.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is built for diving... for a price

To access all of these cool dive-ready features, Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 users will need to subscribe to the Mares app, which is $8.99 a month or $69.99 for the year. For the early birds, it's worth mentioning that support for Mares won't be available right when the smartwatch ships, but a little later this year.

Samsung has a two-year deal with Mares that makes the app exclusive to only the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and no other Android smartwatches. Of course, Apple already has a partnership in place with Mares, which similarly turns the Apple Watch Ultra, Apple Watch Ultra 2, and Apple Watch Ultra 3 into wrist-based dive computers.

One other important note: The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is meant for recreational dives only, specifically, those less than 40 meters in depth. Sorry, no deep-sea diving.

What are your thoughts on the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and its water-based features? Would you trust it on your next dive? More importantly, are you willing to pony up the extra cash for the Mares app? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Smartwatch water resistance ratings explained
• 5 things to know about the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9
• The Samsung Galaxy Ring is about to be the world’s first FDA-cleared smart ring for sleep apnea

I’ve been wearing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — just announced at Galaxy Unpacked alongside the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — for nearly a week, and I'm impressed.

Two years after the launch of the original ultra-rugged Samsung Galaxy Watch and Apple Watch Ultra competitor, the updated version adds better battery life, tons of new health and fitness insights, a brighter screen, and improved water resistance, all in a familiar design.

As one of TG’s resident smartwatch nerds, after five days on the wrist, here are the five things I dig the most about the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, along with one thing that I don’t like.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Upgrade cheat sheet

But first, here’s a cheat sheet to all the most notable Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 stats and upgrades.

• Price: At $699, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is $50 more than its predecessor, which launched two years ago, but still $100 less than its nearest competitor, the Apple Watch Ultra 3.
• Design: The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a tiny bit thinner than the original Galaxy Watch Ultra, but you may not notice the difference; the dimensions and weight are identical to the original model
• Screen: Maximum screen brightness has been bumped up from 4,000 nits to 5,000 nits, making it remarkably visible in direct sunlight
• Health features: New 'Vitals' dashboard with key metrics including heart rate, HRV, Sp02, body temp, and breath rate in one place; new 'Heart Health' score
• Fitness features: New Cardio Load insights, new Fitness Index score out of 100 based on factors like daily step count average, V02 Max, average heart rate, BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis), and average workout recovery time
• Battery life: 800 mAh battery is the largest in an Android wearable and a 35% capacity increase over the original Galaxy Watch Ultra; battery life usage averages ~25% drain per day in testing so far

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Versus competition

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like #1: The price

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is priced at $699, a modest $50 increase over the launch price of its two-year-old predecessor. More notably, it's a hundred bucks cheaper than the latest Apple Watch Ultra 3, its nearest non-Android competitor.

Meanwhile, the latest Galaxy Watch 9 models —which share pretty much all the same features, just in a less beefy package — range from $379 to $459.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like #2: Super-bright display

The new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 3 sports a sizable 1.52-inch display that maxes out at an impressive 5,000 nits, making it one of the brightest displays in any full-featured wearable, including 2026's best smartwatches.

The Apple Watch Ultra 3, by comparison, maxes out at 3,000 nits of max brightness. Real-world translation: the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a lot easier to read in bright sunlight than the newest Apple Watch Ultra.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like #3: A (finally) dive-ready design

The original Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra promises 100 meters of water resistance, but unlike the newest Apple Watch Ultra 3, it's not rated for use while diving or even snorkeling.

Samsung no doubt caught some flak for this shortcoming. Thankfully, the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is thoroughly dive-ready. In fact, Samsung is partnering with the Mares diving app to turn the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 into a fully-fledged dive computer, complete with speed monitoring and safety-stop alerts.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like #4: New holistic features galore

Similar to the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 ships fully-loaded with all sorts of new health and fitness insights. While some of these will possibly make their way to older models, for now, most are exclusive to the latest launches.

The features include a new Vitals dashboard for viewing your most important up-to-the-minute health stats in one place, a new Cardio Load score to see your heart health, a freshly launched Fitness Index score that compares your fitness to your peers, and more.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like #5: Big on battery life

Not only did Samsung equip the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 with a higher-capacity battery — 590 mAh for the old model vs 800 mAh for the new one — but the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is noticeably more power-efficient than its predecessor, despite a brighter display.

In my testing so far, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 uses about 35% battery every 24 hours, including tracking a daily ~45-minute outdoor workout and a full night of sleep.

This leads me to believe that the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 can last roughly three days or 72 hours per charge without using any power-saving features, a notable improvement over its predecessor, which lasted closer to 40 hours per charge.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 like dislike #1: The case is still massive

The original Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra required nothing short of a burly wrist to look and feel "at home." With dimensions as grand as 47.4 × 47.4 × 12.1 mm and a weight just over 60 g, the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 feels nearly as overwhelming on my normal-ish, 6.5-inch wrist as its predecessor.

Samsung made the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a tiny bit thinner, shaving off over 2 mm of thickness. Still, the width and height remain the same.

That said, the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 strap is thinner, softer, and more flexible than its predecessor, which is a major improvement.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 just got unveiled during the brand's annual summer Galaxy Unpacked event alongside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Galaxy Z Fold 9, and Galaxy Z Flip 8 handsets.

A fairly iterative update compared to the Galaxy Watch 8, the biggest improvements the new model brings to the table are (potentially) improved battery life and a fairly impressive list of new fitness and holistic tracking tools, which may or may not ultimately make it to older models via future firmware.

Here are the five biggest things you need to know about the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

Galaxy Watch 9 cheat sheet

• Price: $379 for 40mm (no LTE) or $409 for 44mm (no LTE); add $50 to either for cellular
• Design: Same design and size options as Galaxy Watch 8; 40mm is available in Cream or Graphite; 44mm comes in Graphite or Silver
• 'Classic' model: Samsung did not announce a Galaxy Watch 9 Classic with a clicky bezel
• Screen: Same max brightness, 3,000 nits, as Galaxy Watch 8
• Health features: New 'Vitals' dashboard with key metrics including heart rate, HRV, Sp02, body temp, breath rate in one place; new 'Heart Health' score
• Fitness features: New 'Cardio Load' insights, new 'Fitness Index' score out of 100 and based on factors like daily step count average, V02 Max, average heart rate, BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis), and average workout recovery time
• Battery life: 40mm Galaxy Watch 9 has a 390 mAh battery compared to a 325 mAh battery for the 40mm Galaxy Watch 8; 44mm Galaxy Watch 9 sports a 445 mAh battery compared to a 435 mAh battery for the 44mm Galaxy Watch 8

Galaxy Watch 9: Versus the competition

1. Samsung increased the price across the line

When Samsung announced the Galaxy Watch 8 this time last year, I wasn't surprised to see a $50 price increase across the board compared to the Galaxy Watch 7. However, I was surprised to see Samsung raise the price of the Watch 9 this time around.

The 40mm Galaxy Watch 9, for example, starts at $379 without LTE, compared to $349 for the Galaxy Watch 8 equivalent. The 44mm Galaxy Watch 9, meanwhile, is $409 versus $379 for last year's equivalent.

Preorders are now available for the Galaxy Watch 9, which should ship later this month.

• Galaxy Watch 9 (Bluetooth, 40mm): $379
• Galaxy Watch 9 (LTE, 40mm): $429
• Galaxy Watch 9 (Bluetooth, 44mm): $409
• Galaxy Watch 9 (LTE, 44mm): $459

2. There's no Galaxy Watch 9 'Classic'

I was a big fan of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic (see image above), which sports a bidirectional clicky bezel for navigation and an additional customizable button compared to the standard Galaxy Watch 8 models.

Unfortunately, there is no Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 Classic. That said, Samsung has confirmed that the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic will remain in the brand's lineup for the time being.

3. The external design is the same as Galaxy Watch 8

While Samsung made all sorts of under-the-hood upgrades to the Galaxy Watch 9, including a new processor and increased battery capacity, the outward appearance remains unchanged from its predecessor.

The physical dimensions and the weight are also essentially the same, as is the 50-meter water resistance rating. Finally, the Galaxy Watch 9 also boasts the same 3,000-nit max brightness display and twin-button design as the Galaxy Watch 8.

4. There are lots of new holistic features

Samsung's latest generation of wearables is all about preventative rather than reactive holistic insights. As a result, the Galaxy Watch 9 — and the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — both feature a whole host of new wellness scores, dashboards, and insights.

The list includes a new Vitals dashboard, Heart Health Score, Daily Cardio Load metric, and Fitness Index score.

The Vitals dashboard brings your most important wellness metrics into one easy-to-view panel with your current heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen saturation percentage (Sp02), body temperature, and breath rate.

The new Heart Health score, meanwhile, is based on four metrics including your seven-day physical activity average, sleep time average, Body Mass Index (BMI), and estimated blood pressure.

For runners and high-cardio athletes, the new Cardio Load metric is designed to help you train more effectively, with built-in recovery suggestions to help avoid injury.

Finally, the new Fitness Index is a personalized score based on factors like daily step count average, V02 Max, average heart rate, BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis), and average workout recovery time.

The output is five individual Fitness Index scores: Body Composition, Cardio, Endurance, Strength, and Flexibility, ranging from one to 100. These scores are calculated by comparing your fitness levels to other users in your age range.

5. Battery life should be slightly improved

Both the 40mm and 44mm Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 models see modest battery capacity increases. For the smaller model, that's a jump from 325 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 8 to 390 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 9. For the bigger model, the capacity has increased from 435 mAh on the Galaxy Watch 8 to 445 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 9.

Increased battery capacity, coupled with up to 15% more efficient processing, thanks to the new Snapdragon Wear Elite chipset, should mean that the Galaxy Watch 9 lasts longer than its predecessor, which averages about 30 hours per charge with the always-on display enabled.

Here's hoping that the Galaxy Watch 9 pushes that closer to 40 hours per charge or more to stay competitive with brands like Google; the 45mm Pixel Watch 4 lasts nearly 60 hours per charge in my testing.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

Garmin's long-rumored screenless fitness tracker, the Garmin Cirqa, has finally been unveiled. Pricier than the beginner-friendly Fitbit Air but more affordable than the pro-level Whoop 5.0, the Cirqa aims to offer the best of both in a lightweight, discreet package.

We checked out the new Garmin Cirqa on launch day; find out hands-on impressions below to learn more about the cost, design, features, battery life, and outlook for the new Garmin Cirqa.

Garmin Cirqa: Cheat sheet

• Price: $199/£179, no subscription required
• Design: Lightweight, screen-free fitness-tracking band
• Key features: Basic health and fitness tracking insights, including 24/7 heart rate tracking, Sp02, nightly sleep reports, women's health tracking
• Battery life: Up to 10 days
• Launch date: July 24, 2026

Garmin Cirqa: price and availability

The Garmin Cirqa fitness tracker will be available on July 24 for $199/ £179. The device is subscription-free, but for additional insights, users can optionally sign up for Garmin Connect+ for $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year.

By comparison, the Fitbit Air is just $99 and also subscription-optional. The Whoop 5.0, meanwhile, ranges from $199, $239, or $359 per year depending on your membership tier. However, the device itself is free.

Garmin Cirqa: Design

The Garmin Cirqa looks a whole lot like the Whoop 5.0, a design choice I can only assume was intentional. Users can choose between four band colors, including Black, Captain Blue, Mauve, and French Gray.

Additional bands are available at $49.99/$59.99, depending on whether you want to wear the band around your wrist or upper arm, and include three additional colors: Citron Gray, Dark Olive, and French Blue.

The device comes in two sizes, small/medium and large/extra large.

The tracker itself is held securely within the fabric loop with no screen and just a single button on the side.

Garmin Cirqa: Health and fitness

The Garmin Cirqa sports the brand's Elevate V4 sensor, which is one generation out from the latest/greatest. Onboard health tools include 24/7 heart rate tracking, Sp02 readings, body temperature monitoring, and women's health tracking.

Like the best Garmin watches in 2026, the Cirqa provides detailed nightly sleep reports and can automatically track a range of common workout types.

Garmin Cirqa: Battery

Battery life for the Cirqa is rated at up to 10 days.

By comparison, the Fitbit Air lasts right around one week per charge, while the Whoop 5.0 is good for closer to two weeks per charge.

Garmin Cirqa vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air

Like any screen-free wearable, whether we're talking about the best smart rings or the best fitness trackers/bands, the companion app can make or break the overall experience. With that in mind, the Garmin Connect app is comprehensive enough, though for first-time users, insights can feel a bit scattered and overwhelming.

Ultimately, I look forward to testing the new Garmin Cirqa head-to-head versus both the $99 Fitbit Air and higher-end Whoop 5.0. If it can offer just a little more, holistic-insight-wise, than the Fitbit Air, then it very well may be worth the extra $100.

Stay tuned for my full Garmin Cirqa review.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least
• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• It's time for a Fitbit Ring — 3 reasons why Google should make an Oura Ring alternative

The Apple Watch is absolutely packed with features, and while that’s undoubtedly a good thing, it also means there are a lot of menus and apps on the watch, which can slow down your navigation and make it harder to get straight to the things you want to do.

Fortunately, there are a lot of clever shortcuts available on the watch to speed up your usage, and two I use all the time when wearing the watch make it faster to navigate the menus and fire up a workout.

I use these shortcuts on an Apple Watch Series 11 because one of them is essentially a replacement for the Action button on the Apple Watch Ultra 3, so it is only needed on Series watches, but the first hidden feature is one that applies to all of the best Apple watches.

Tip #1 — tap the time to jump to the top

If you’ve ever found yourself down at the bottom of a very long Apple Watch menu, knowing that you now need to scroll all the way back to the top to find the setting you need, this tip’s for you.

Simply tap the time in any native Apple Watch app, and it will teleport you back to the top of the menu instantly.

This works in apps like Mail, Workout and Settings, and I find it saves me time every day when I’m working my way around the various menus and options in those apps.

If you just want to head back to your watch face from wherever you are in an app, you can also cover the Apple Watch with your palm for a second, and it will transport you there.

Tip #2 — create one-tap shortcuts to your favorite workouts

I’m a keen runner and often use the Apple Watch Ultra 3 instead of the Series 11, partly because the Action button is a handy way to start a run quickly.

With this feature, you can create a similar feature on any Series Apple Watch, adding a shortcut to starting a run or any workout to your Control Center.

Here’s how to do it:

1. In the Shortcuts app on your iPhone, create a new shortcut to start a run (or any workout type)
2. Long-press this shortcut and tick "show on Apple Watch"
3. You can also customize the icon for the shortcut in the iPhone app and rename it
4. Press the side button on your Apple Watch to open the Control Center
5. Scroll down to edit, then hit the "+" icon to add your shortcut
6. Find your new shortcut and position it where you want in your Control Center

Now when you hit that shortcut in the Control Center, it will immediately open the Workout app and start your chosen training session, almost as quickly as if you’d used the Action button on an Ultra.

You can also add your shortcut directly to a watch face if you have one with complications, meaning you don’t even need to open the Control Center.

I have shortcuts for outdoor run and functional strength training workouts set up on my watch, so I can fire them up with just one or two taps.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

I test a lot of smartwatches and fitness trackers here at Tom’s Guide. I mean A LOT. If the device was released in the past three years, there’s a very good chance I’ve not only helped to review it but also tested it head-to-head against the competition.

The vast majority of name-brand wearables track heart rate, distance, and step count — assuming you're going for a walk or hike — with impressive consistency, in my experience. For example, I’ve performed dozens of walk tests where I wear a device on either wrist and manually count my steps to see which comes closer.

Not only do most modern wearables come within a few hundred steps of my actual count — an impressive accomplishment when we're talking 5,000 or more steps per walk — but most also report similar distance data, down to a few tenths of a mile, and broadly the same heart rate data, give or take a handful of beats per minute.

That said, there are three workout stats that are consistently, well... inconsistent. And it's not just wallet-friendly models that struggle; even some of the best smartwatches and best fitness trackers occasionally have hiccups tracking these metrics.

The three fitness tracking stats I trust the least

1. Elevation gain

As an avid mountain sports enthusiast and someone who enjoys urban hiking and biking in a particularly hilly part of the U.S. (Seattle, WA), inconsistent elevation tracking seriously irks me. For example, it’s not unusual for a standard midday, two-mile walk to involve several hundred feet of climb.

Unfortunately, a lot of wearables come up short when it comes to assessing upward effort.

Not only that, some popular wearables don’t even offer a metric for elevation gain in the post-workout report, like the Fitbit Inspire 3. Others, like the newer Fitbit Air — a wearable I otherwise really like — measure elevation about as accurately as a newborn shooting pool.

Even the best Apple Watch models occasionally report inaccurate climb data. From my experience, the Ultra 3 is rock-solid, but both the Series 11 and SE 3 have been known to log slightly inflated elevation stats from time to time.

For what it’s worth, the brand I’ve found most consistent with elevation tracking is Garmin, that is, assuming you purchase one of the best Garmin watches, specifically, one with an onboard barometric altimeter. The new Forerunner 70, for example, lacks one.

2. Pace

Speaking of Garmin, it’s one of the few smartwatch brands that provides two pace metrics for outdoor activities like walks, hikes, runs, and bike rides: an average moving pace and an average elapsed (total) pace.

For most of us, the former is the more valuable metric, as it ignores long pauses — like waiting at a traffic light or stopping for a sip of water — thereby providing a more accurate measure of your actual moving effort.

Unfortunately, brands like Apple and Google only offer one pace metric in their respective workout reports. And though they don’t specify which pace metric it is, it's almost always slower than the competition’s moving pace stat, suggesting both are reporting elapsed pace, the less valuable one.

3. Calories

Post-workout calorie counts are perhaps the most all over the place in my testing. For example, it’s not uncommon for one device to log one hundred or more calories burned than another after the exact same workout.

In fact, this metric tends to be so inconsistent that I mostly ignore it completely. Not only are most manufacturers opaque about how the calorie counts are even calculated in the first place, but key factors like a user's metabolism or muscle mass are rarely taken into account when generating them.

Which fitness tracking stats do you think are bupkis? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch SE 3 vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and the results surprised me
• I ran a 5K with the Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3, and although the pace data matched up perfectly across both devices, the Garmin’s exercise load metric and detailed vertical ratio analysis made it the clear winner

Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out.

Steps are, of course, just one of the many metrics these high-tech wearables keep tally of, but for this head-to-head, it’s the primary figure I’ll be using to declare a winner.

I also tracked my Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 walk using the Strava app as a control for distance, climb, and pace.

Read on for the results!

Can a $99 Fitbit beat a $799 Apple Watch?

But first, if you’re thinking that this isn’t really a fair competition given the price difference between the Fitbit Air and Apple Watch Ultra 3, you’d be right! But who doesn’t love a good old-fashioned underdog showdown?

It is worth noting just a few of the key differences between these two trendy wearables before moving on to the outcome. The Fitbit Air is a discreet, screen-free health and fitness tracker with no buttons, notifications, or onboard GPS. While tracking a workout, the Air relies on a paired smartphone for location and elevation data.

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 sports a sizable, ultra-bright display and is easily one of the most high-tech, feature-packed smartwatches on the market. It boasts a dual-frequency GPS antenna and dedicated altimeter for logging outdoor adventures.

With that out of the way, here are the results of my 4,500-step walk test between the $99 Fitbit Air and the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Walk test results

Both wearables calculated my total steps with passable accuracy, but the Ultra 3 was closer. As a rule of thumb, I consider any step count total that's within ~150 steps of my actual count to be within a reasonable margin for error/impressive.

Strava, for what's worth, noted 4,496 total steps.

The Fitbit Air's distance measurement is a little further off from the control than the Apple Watch Ultra 3's, but not by a concerning amount.

What is a tad concerning is the fact that Google seemingly removed climb data from the post-workout report. Notably, because every other time I've logged a walking workout using the Air, the metric was there.

However, after some poking around, it appears the lack of climb data may be due to my inadvertently changing the Google Health app's location data setting on my paired phone from "always" to "while using the app" via an ill-timed pop-up.

Then again, I had the app open for the duration of my test, and it managed to pull all the other usual location-based metrics, so I'm not 100% convinced this caused the hiccup.

Coincidentally, as noted in my Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4 and Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch 11 walk tests, accurate elevation tracking isn't exactly the Air's strong suit. Whether inconsistent or missing entirely, I'm hopeful this is something Google irons out with future firmware.

Moving on, the Fitbit Air noted a slower pace than the competition, which is a bit strange, given it measured less distance than Strava and the Ultra 3. More reassuringly, heart rate and calorie data from the Fitbit and Apple Watch pretty much align for this hilly, ~42-minute walk.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

When pondering whether the $99 Fitbit Air can keep up with the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at reliably tracking an outdoor workout, the answer is, well, not quite. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 proved more precise across the board, not just at tracking total steps, but pace and climb, too.

When it comes to the Fitbit Air, even though it didn't log my workout as accurately as its pricier rival, the results were still in the ballpark (missing elevation data aside). For most folks, myself included, that's more than good enough for my exercise logging needs.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

Earlier this year, Garmin CEO Cliff Pemble tipped that 2026 was set to be a big year for its outdoor division, which would be “driven by a significant number of new product introductions” likely to land in the second half of the year.

One of those new products is expected to be the Garmin Fenix 9. Garmin’s flagship watch is refreshed each year and will probably be the most eye-catching launch to come this year.

However, I’m just as excited by the idea of a successor to the Garmin Enduro 3. This is another adventure watch that sits in Garmin’s outdoor division, and since the Enduro 3 came out in 2024, the line is due for an update this year.

While the Fenix line has long been the best Garmin watch for adventurous athletes who spend a lot of time in the wilderness, there are a couple of reasons I think the Enduro 4 might be the watch to beat in this area by the end of 2026.

The Enduro has the battery life to beat

Across the Garmin line-up, battery life is generally getting shorter with the brand’s latest models, as brighter and brighter AMOLED displays become the norm.

For the most part, I’m not against this move myself — I can charge my watch easily most days, Garmins still last way longer than smartwatches, and I like a bright display.

However, when it comes to spending days or weeks in the great outdoors, you want a long-lasting watch, and the Enduro is the best Garmin option on this front.

The Enduro 3 lasted me around 18 days on a charge even with heavy use, running every day, and it can last up to 90 days in sunny conditions thanks to its solar panels and power-saving memory-in-pixel display.

In contrast, the 47mm Garmin Fenix 8 Pro AMOLED lasts me more like four or five days with similar use, and even the 51mm watch can last a maximum of 27 days, or 15 days if the screen is always-on.

If the Garmin Enduro 4 can maintain the long battery life of its predecessor, or even exceed it, it’s almost certain to outlast the forthcoming Fenix 9.

Garmin’s satellite connectivity could come to the Enduro 4

The biggest update Garmin brought to the Fenix 8 Pro compared with the Fenix 8 was LTE and satellite connectivity, which allows you to stay in touch even when you're without your phone or when you're off the grid entirely.

This feature is likely to start spreading to other Garmin watches in the coming years, and the obvious place to start would be the adventure-focused Enduro line.

It’s a watch built to handle long expeditions in the wilderness, so satellite connectivity to send SOS messages and the like would be a natural addition to the Enduro 4.

MIP fans might only have the Enduro option

The Garmin Fenix 8 was the first Fenix to offer both MIP and AMOLED options — previously the AMOLED watches fell under the Epix barrier.

However, the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro series dropped the MIP option and added an innovative Fenix 8 Pro MicroLED to the lineup.

This MicroLED tech is very impressive, but MIP watches still have a dedicated fanbase that loves the long battery life they offer when always-on, and their excellent visibility in bright sunlight.

There’s no guarantee the Fenix 9 series will have a MIP option, so the Enduro 4 could become the go-to option for those who want a top Garmin with this display.

It’s notable that thus far it’s only MIP Garmins that have offered solar panels on the face, which extends the battery life even further, so that could be another plus to the Enduro 4.

Of course, Garmin could choose to make the Enduro 4 an AMOLED watch as well — there are some incredibly long-lasting AMOLED watches now, like the Suunto Vertical 2 — but that would bring it too close to the Fenix line in my opinion.

The Enduro is now cheaper than the Fenix

The Enduro line was initially more expensive than the Fenix line, but the Enduro 3 was cheaper than the Enduro 2 and fell well below the prices of the Fenix 8 and Fenix 8 Pro.

Given it’s a titanium watch with a sapphire display and most of Garmin’s top features, including offline maps, it was a bit of a bargain for those who didn’t want an AMOLED display.

If this price hierarchy continues with any new models launched in 2026, the new Enduro could offer better value to people seeking a resilient, long-lasting adventure watch.

More from Tom's Guide

• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 is one of the best smartwatches you can buy. And even though it’s less than a year old, Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumors are plentiful; some even hint at a fall 2026 release.

I test a lot of wearables here at Tom’s Guide, and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is easily my favorite rugged, full-featured smartwatch; I’d also argue that it’s the most advanced smartwatch on the market today. However, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

From physical upgrades to battery life improvements to new AI features, here are the five biggest Apple Watch Ultra 4 upgrades I’m hoping for.

1. A brighter display

Without an increase in screen brightness, Apple risks falling behind the competition, namely, Samsung, Google, and Garmin. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 maxes out at 3,000 nits, the same brightness as the Apple Watch Ultra 2. This is bright enough to see in direct sunlight, in most cases, but not nearly as bright as the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro LED, which goes up to 4,500 nits.

The Google Pixel Watch 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, both significantly cheaper than the Apple Watch Ultra 3, also boast 3,000-nit max brightness, and there’s a good shot that the Galaxy Watch 9 and/or Pixel Watch 5 will push that spec another 1,000 nits.

So, without an equal or greater bump in display output, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 risks feeling dated on arrival.

2. A thinner, lighter case

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 case is reasonably lightweight and thin, but I think Apple can go even slimmer. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 already wears way more comfortably than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra, its Android-friendly equivalent, but Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 rumors hint that a slimmer case might be in the cards.

To keep the competitive advantage of a comfier design, I’d love to see the Apple Watch Ultra 3 boast a thickness under 10 mm (a reduction of ~2 mm). Given that the Apple Watch Series 11 is 9.7 mm, I have no doubt that the fine folks in Cupertino can get this done.

3. Three days of battery (or more)

Battery life is arguably Apple’s Achilles heel when it comes to wearables, and even though the Ultra 3 is Apple’s longest-lasting smartwatch, battery life is only good for about 42 hours per charge without power-saving options enabled.

By comparison, the Galaxy Watch Ultra lasts for closer to 48 hours. Meanwhile, the Google Pixel Watch 4 in 45mm, though not a “rugged-style” smartwatch, is good for about two days per charge. Moreover, I suspect the successors to both models will see a battery life bump.

This is all to say, Apple has its work cut out when it comes to power consumption in the Watch Ultra 4.

4. An easier way to unlock the screen

Passcodes never seemed like a great way to unlock an Apple Watch, which is why two separate Apple Watch 12/Ultra 4 rumors have me excited. One suggests that Apple's next-gen smartwatches will get forward-facing cameras for Face ID. The other hints that an under-the-display fingerprint scanner could make an appearance.

Either of these methods would be a welcome change to punching in a code every time you want to use your Apple Watch, though I ultimately think that Face ID is the better option of the two.

5. Siri AI assistant

Last but not least, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 needs to debut with a ready-to-use, no-excuses version of Siri AI that’s on par with or better than Google’s implementation of Gemini AI as a virtual assistant on the latest Pixel Watch and Galaxy Watch models.

This not only means a Siri AI capable of answering complex, context-specific questions with ease, but also one that can be unlocked with a simple gesture control, similar to the Pixel Watch 4’s ‘raise wrist” gesture.

What upgrades or new features do you want to see come to the Apple Watch Ultra 4? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

Samsung’s answer to the Apple Watch Ultra series, the uniquely named Galaxy Watch Ultra, debuted almost two years ago exactly, and if recent Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 rumors prove to be true, we should get our first look at its successor in just a few weeks; Samsung has a Galaxy Unpacked event scheduled for July 22nd.

The original Galaxy Watch Ultra remains one of the best smartwatches for Android users in 2026. It’s the leader of the pack in display size, battery life, and durability, but there is room for improvement.

I’ve tested both the Galaxy Watch Ultra and Apple Watch Ultra 3 extensively, including in a head-to-head fitness-tracking showdown. OS and holistic tech aside, I prefer the design of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to the Galaxy Watch Ultra for several key reasons.

With that in mind, here are three improvements that would make the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 more competitive against — and even beat — the Apple Watch Ultra 3.

1. Slim down the case size

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is one chunky smartwatch. While the specs would lead you to believe it’s essentially the same thickness as the Apple Watch Ultra 3 (~12 mm), that official measurement isn’t telling the whole story.

Sure, the Galaxy Watch Ultra is about 12 mm thick at the very edge of the case; I just measured it using a caliper. However, at the center of the case, where the sensor array protrudes, the Galaxy Watch Ultra is closer to 16 mm thick. The Apple Watch Ultra 3, meanwhile, measures a little over 14 mm thick at the center of the case.

Both watches weigh about the same, but the Galaxy Watch Ultra wears significantly larger on my 6.5-inch wrist. This is not only due to the extra ~2 mm of thickness but also to its square case shape, which makes it roughly 3 mm wider than the Ultra 3. That said, the Apple is a little taller.

Ultimately, a slimmer, narrower case design would go a long way toward convincing me to consider the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 over the Apple Watch Ultra 3; shave off a little weight, and I’m even more sold.

2. Bump up battery life to three days or more

In full smartwatch mode (i.e., with no battery-saving options enabled), the Galaxy Watch Ultra lasts roughly two days per charge in our testing. The Apple Watch Ultra 3, on the other hand, lasts about 42 hours per charge, on average, just under the two-day mark.

For the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Samsung would be wise to double down on its battery life advantage and push the advertised rating to three days or more per charge. After all, Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumors also hint at a potential battery life bump, though we don't know for certain if such a model will debut this fall or not.

3. Improve water resistance for diving

Whether you’re a hardcore watersport enthusiast or not, the fact that the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is rated for scuba diving, with all sorts of tools to boot, definitely gives users some unique bragging rights.

Sadly, despite having the same 100-meter water-resistance rating, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is explicitly not designed for extended underwater use. This means deep-sea diving and even snorkeling are out of the question.

It also means that high-impact water sports, like water skiing or riding jet skis, are also ill-advised. Bummer!

There is, of course, only one way to correct course: Samsung needs the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 to be fully dive-ready, water-resistance-wise, while also including a set of comprehensive dive-friendly tools equal to or better than Apple's.

What are your thoughts on the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? Is there one feature or upgrade in particular you’re hoping for the most? Let me know in the poll or comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• 3 Apple Watch settings I always turn off to maximize battery life
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

Most people buy an Apple Watch for two reasons: tracking exercise and checking notifications. But if that’s all you’re using it for, you’re only scratching the surface of what’s on your wrist.

Beneath the standard watchOS interface lies a powerhouse of hidden tools designed to save you time, streamline your daily routines, and even protect your peace of mind.

Here are five deeply underrated Apple Watch features that will fundamentally change how you use your wearable every single day.

More from Tom's Guide

• How to use Apple Watch hypertension alerts — the life-saving feature you need to turn on
• Get more from your Apple Watch — hidden Control Center features worth knowing
• 5 hidden settings that extend your Apple Watch's battery life

Google should capitalize on the recent success of the screen-free Fitbit Air fitness tracker and launch a Fitbit-branded smart ring to take on the Oura Ring 5, Samsung Galaxy Ring, and other major players in the space.

I review wearable tech for a living, and Google has never been in a more prime position to debut a finger-based holistic wearable to rival the best smart ring out there. Here are the three biggest reasons why.

1. Screen-free wearables are having a moment

The $99 Fitbit Air debuted just a few months ago to mostly positive reviews, including from me; I even picked it as one of the best fitness trackers in 2026. Not only that, I’m wearing one as I type this. That’s how much I dig Google’s latest tracker.

Moreover, Fitbit isn’t the only major tech brand doubling down on screenless wearables. Oura just refreshed its flagship model with the Oura Ring 5; Garmin is rumored to be imminently launching a Fitbit Air alternative, potentially called the Garmin Cirqa; and the Whoop 5.0 remains a super-popular tracker for hardcore and pro athletes.

IMHO, Google should take everything that makes the Fitbit Air great — the affordable price, comfortable design, solid battery life, easy-to-digest holistic insights, etc. — and reconfigure it into a smart ring.

The Fitbit Air already significantly undercuts the competition, Whoop, by a massive margin in terms of cost (an annual Whoop membership starts at $199). A Fitbit smart ring could potentially do the same versus Oura (the Oura Ring 5 starts at $499).

2. Google wearables are already subscription-optional, unlike the Oura Ring

Another major advantage Google has over both Oura and Whoop is a subscription-optional approach to health and fitness tracking. Take the Fitbit Air, for example: $99 gets you the device and access to all the tracker’s core holistic data via the Google Health app for no additional charge.

Want next-level AI-backed insights? Google Health Premium is optional at $9.99 per month or $99 per year. The premium service also includes access to “The Coach,” Google’s personalized AI trainer. Not sure if these insights/tools are right for you? Most Google wearables come with a free Premium subscription demo to try before you buy.

3. Fitbits work with Android and iOS, unlike the Galaxy Ring

This one applies less to the Oura Ring, which plays nicely with both Android and iOS devices. However, the Samsung Galaxy Ring — which is arguably the next-best smart ring to anything named Oura — is Android-only.

The fact that Fitbit wearables also work with both operating systems — and presumably, a Fitbit Ring would too — gives Google a potentially major advantage over Samsung in terms of acquiring new customers.

Then again, recent rumors suggest that a Samsung Galaxy Ring 2 is in the works, and that iPhone compatibility isn’t out of the question. That said, a refresh of the Galaxy Ring in 2026 seems unlikely, which is all the more reason for Google to roll out a Fitbit Ring sooner rather than later.

What do you think? Would you be interested in a Google/Fitbit Ring? Let me know in our poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

Apple makes some of the best smartwatches money can buy. However, battery life has never been the Apple Watch’s strong suit. The Series 11 lasts an average of 24 hours, the SE 3 lasts roughly 18 hours, and the Ultra 3 lasts about 42 hours per charge.

Looking to squeeze a little more juice? Apple’s low-power mode is one option. For example, on the Series 11, it can extend your battery life up to 38 hours per charge. The trade-off is that the handy features you paid for, like the always-on display and continuous heart rate monitoring, get disabled.

Rather than losing essential Apple Watch features, what follows are three settings you can change that won’t impact the user experience much but will noticeably improve your device’s battery life.

Best of all, you don’t need to own one of the best Apple Watches, i.e., the latest/greatest model. These battery life tips work for older models, too.

1. Turn off 'Background app refresh'

The apps on your Apple Watch are constantly updating and/or refreshing with new content behind the scenes, which can lead to faster-than-normal battery drain, especially if you have loads of third-party ones.

For example, an app like AP News pulls in updates throughout the day so that when you open it, you see the newest headlines. Switching off background app refresh means that you may need to wait a few seconds for the freshest news to appear, but that’s a worthwhile trade-off for improved battery performance as far as I'm concerned.

To switch background app refresh off, head to the settings menu > general, and scroll down.

2. Turn on 'Reduce motion'

Apple wants your experience operating the Apple Watch to be as smooth and seamless as possible. As a result, the user interface is chock-full of quick animations that make transitioning from one app to another, for example, a more visually appealing experience.

However, these animations are far from essential. Reduce motion switches them off, saving you battery. Moreover, I find the difference between motion on and off hardly noticeable, and I’m guessing you will too.

The reduced motion setting is located under the settings menu, followed by accessibility. Scroll about halfway down to toggle it.

3. Turn off 'Optimize charge limit'

Last but not least, to ensure I get the best possible battery life out of my Apple Watch, I always turn off the “optimize charge limit” setting. This feature is designed to prevent your smartwatch from overcharging, which should in turn extend its long-term battery life.

However, optimizing the charge limit also cuts off charging at 80%, which isn’t ideal. To turn off the optimize charge limit setting, head to the settings menu > battery > battery life.

One note of caution: If you take my advice and switch it off to get that extra 20% juice, get in the habit of keeping an eye on your Apple Watch while it recharges. Leaving it unattended on a charger, especially overnight, could result in the need for a premature battery replacement.

Moreover, while older smartwatches take a few hours to fully juice up, the latest generations recharge from 0% to 100% in about an hour... so no excuses.

What are your favorite Apple Watch battery-saving tips? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

I pitted the $99 Fitbit Air against the $349 Pixel Watch 4 in a head-to-head fitness tracking comparison to determine which is the more precise Google wearable. The results genuinely surprised me.

The Fitbit Air is a lightweight, screen-free fitness tracking band that's as easy on the wallet as it is comfortable on the wrist. The Pixel Watch 4 is Google's flagship smartwatch, with a large, bright display and features galore, including a handy, voice- or gesture-activated Gemini AI assistant.

To find out which of these flagship Google products is the more competent fitness tracker — at least when it comes to step-counting — I walked 4,000 steps with the Fitbit Air on my right wrist and the Pixel Watch 4 on my left. My primary control metric for the comparison is total steps taken. To ensure a precise tally on my end, I manually counted my steps, noting every hundred with a click of my old-school tally counter.

As a control for distance, pace, and climb, I brought along my iPhone 16 Plus and logged the walk using the Strava app. Find the results of the Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4 walk test below.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: fitness tracking accuracy compared

When it comes to tracking outdoor workouts, it's important to note a key difference between the Fitbit Air and Pixel Watch 4. The former lacks onboard GPS, so for location-based insights, you need to carry along a paired smartphone.

In addition to piggybacking off of your phone's GPS antenna, the Fitbit Air also relies on its altimeter for elevation data. The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, boasts both an onboard GPS antenna and a barometric altimeter.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Walk test results

I took exactly 4,000 steps (manually counted) during my 38-minute walk, including a stroll up Seattle's steepest block (for old-time's sake). While both wearables noted step count totals within 15 steps of my actual count — a seriously impressive result and well within a reasonable margin for error — much to my surprise, the Fitbit Air was a little bit closer than the Pixel Watch 4.

The Air and Pixel Watch 4 also beat Strava, which logged 3,978 steps.

The Fitbit Air's distance data is additionally more in line with the control; the same goes for pace. However, the Air's climb data is woefully inaccurate, a result I noted in my previous walk test with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch 11.

When it comes to heart rate and calories, the Air logged a slightly less aggressive workout compared to the Pixel Watch 4. The Air also used marginally less battery — not surprising, since it lacks a display.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Winner

And the winner is... the Fitbit Air, thanks to a slightly more accurate step count total, pace metric, and distance data. That said, the Air's win versus the Pixel Watch 4 comes with an asterisk due to disappointing elevation tracking performance.

The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, performed with acceptable accuracy across the board, including measuring my climb. For this reason, as someone who loves mountain sports, I'd likely opt for the latest Pixel Watch over the Fitbit Air for logging my next adventure. What do you think? Let me know which Google wearable you prefer in the poll below.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I test head-to-head next?

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free

Rumors of a screen-free Garmin fitness tracker, potentially called the “Cirqa,” have reached a fever pitch. Plus, the fact that Garmin has officially trademarked, ”Cirqa” in several markets only adds to the anticipation for what could very well be the biggest challenger to the Fitbit Air in 2026.

Screen-free fitness trackers are clearly having a moment. Google just debuted its $99 Fitbit Air band to positive reviews, including from yours truly, and Oura just dropped a thinner, comfier flagship in the Oura Ring 5.

Of course, you also have the Whoop 5.0, Polar Loop, and Amazfit Helio Strap. So, what does Garmin need to do with the rumored Cirqa to set it apart from the competition? I have three big ideas.

1. Onboard GPS

In 2026, if you want to onboard GPS in your fitness-tracking wearable, you need to either opt for one of the best smartwatches or one of the best fitness trackers, like the Fitbit Charge 6. As of writing, there aren’t any smart rings or screen-free trackers with onboard GPS.

The advantage, of course, of a built-in GPS antenna is the ability to track an outdoor workout, like a walk, run, hike, bike ride, etc., without the need to carry a paired smartphone. Even the Oura Ring 5 and Fitbit Air piggyback off your phone’s location data when logging an outdoor exercise.

2. Wide-ranging, reliable auto-workout detection

One of my biggest complaints about the Fitbit Air is the auto workout detection feature. It only supports a very small selection of workout types, and you need to be doing one of those supported exercises for a minimum of 15-20 minutes for the feature to kick in.

The best Garmin watches already support loads of workout types; however, like the Fitbit Air, auto-detect is limited to roughly five common exercises, like walks, runs, and swims. Expanding that list and ensuring detection works even after a short duration would give the rumored Garmin Cirqa a major advantage over the Fitbit Air.

Perhaps Garmin should ask Oura for advice on how to best log a range of exercise types without any user input; the latest generation Oura Ring autodetects 40 different workout types.

3. Two weeks or more of battery

Finally, the rumored Garmin Cirqa could set itself apart from the Fitbit Air by cruising well beyond the week-long battery barrier. In my testing, the Fitbit Air can easily last up to seven days per charge. However, that’s nothing compared to the Whoop 5.0, which is good for up to two weeks.

If Garmin wants the Cirqa to be considered a premium wearable, as the rumored price suggests it might be, then matching or surpassing the latest Whoop’s battery life is a must.

What are you hoping to see in the rumored Garmin Cirqa? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

Apple Watch Series 11 or Fitbit Air, which popular wearable is the more competent/reliable fitness tracker? I decided to find out by performing one of my renowned head-to-head walk tests.

For this showdown, I wore the Apple Watch 11 on my left wrist and the Fitbit Air on my right wrist for a 5,000-step walk around beautiful Seattle, Washington. How do I know it was 5,000 steps? I counted every darn one, with some assistance from my trusty tally counter (one click= 100 steps).

Now, if I were a betting man (I'm not), my money would be on the Series 11 to come out victorious. Not only is it one of the best smartwatches in 2026, but it's also four times the cost of the Fitbit Air: $399 vs $99.

Then again, the Fitbit Air may be affordable, but it's also one of the best fitness trackers in 2026. Not only that, when I pitted in a separate walk test versus the Apple Watch SE 3, the Air surprisingly came out victorious. Will this be a repeat win? Read on!

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: tech compared

When it comes to wrist-based trackers, the Fitbit Air and Apple Watch 11 couldn't be more different. The former has no screens, buttons, or notifications, and lasts up to a week.

The Series 11, meanwhile, is a super-connected device, boasting a large, bright touchscreen, multiple physical buttons, and compatibility with a dizzying array of apps. That said, the Series 11 comes up short on battery life; 24 hours per charge is the norm.

Another major difference: the Fitbit Air has no onboard GPS for location tracking or altimeter for elevation data, so you need to carry a smartphone along when logging an outdoor workout. The Apple Watch 11, on the other wrist, has both GPS and an altimeter.

With that out of the way, let's move on to the results!

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Walk test results

Before we begin, it's worth noting that Strava appears to have had a "hiccup" while recording this walk test. How do I know? The app logged just 4,506 steps, which is a major red flag. Normally, Strava's step-count data is within 10-20 steps of my actual count. TLDR: Take Strava's distance, climb, and pace data with a grain of salt.

Anyhow, both the Apple Watch 11 and Fitbit Air performed admirably when it came to keeping an accurate tally of my steps — anything within ~150 steps of the control is considered excellent in my book — but the Apple Watch was just a little closer!

Distance data between the Apple Watch and Fitbit Air is similar enough for my liking. The Fitbit noted slightly more ground covered but also a faster pace, which checks out.

The Fitbit Air's elevation metric is concerningly inaccurate (this walk was particularly hill-heavy), which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given the device can piggyback off of the iPhone 16 Plus's climb data. This also isn't the first time I experienced less-than-precise elevation tracking insights from the Fitbit Air; it was also way lower than expected versus the Apple Watch SE 3.

Fortunately, the Fitbit Air finishes strong: Heart rate data is a perfect match with the Apple Watch Series 11, a result I love to see. Meanwhile, the Air logged slightly more calories burned, but used way less battery during my ~42-minute stroll.

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Winner

Ultimately, the Apple Watch Series 11 wins this showdown of fitness tracking accuracy against the Fitbit Air, with a more precise total step count and climb data.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I pit head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below. Also, which do you prefer, the Apple Watch 11 or the Fitbit Air? Share your opinion in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker

From the Oura Ring 5 to the Fitbit Air to the Whoop 5.0, screen-less health and fitness trackers are more popular than ever. But is a display-free wearable better than, say, the best smartwatch on the market today?

That depends on your expectations for the device, namely, whether you want a piece of tech that monitors your health passively or something you interact with more actively.

As TG’s resident wearables expert — and someone who just reviewed the new Fitbit Air — below are the five biggest things to consider before committing to the no-screen lifestyle.

1. Is distraction-free the way to be?

Whether you're considering one of the best smart rings, like the Oura Ring 5 or the more wallet-friendly Ringconn Gen 2 Air, or a screen-less fitness band, like the Whoop 5.0 or Fitbit Air, all of these wearables promise distraction-free health and fitness tracking insights.

Of course, if you want mirrored smartphone notifications, there is no shortage of wrist-based wearables that fill the role, including the $99 Fitbit Inspire 3 and $50 Amazfit Band 7. In fact, when comparing the Fitbit Air vs. the Fitbit Inspire 3, both devices offer broadly the same set of data; the Inspire 3 is just a little more "connected."

The point is, when it comes to screen-free fitness trackers in 2026, giving up the display also means giving up the ability to receive on-wrist/finger smartphone alerts. If that sounds delightful, read on.

2. Am I ready to bond with a companion app?

Most of the best screen-free wellness trackers, including the Oura Ring 5 and Fitbit Air, lack buttons, which means the companion app is your new best friend, whether you're checking how much battery you have left or trying to start tracking a workout.

As such, it's a good idea to get a sense of whether or not you vibe with, say, the Google Health app (formerly the Fitbit app) if you're considering the Fitbit Air. It's also worth mentioning that both Oura and Whoop charge monthly fees for their respective apps.

That said, there are plenty of subscription-free smart rings and trackers available (some with screens, some without). The tradeoff is that Oura and Whoop's holistic insights are the most in-depth across the board, especially for hardcore athletes. The Fitbit Air, on the other wrist, is subscription-optional and more geared toward casual health-conscious users.

3. Smart features? What smart features?

With no display, buttons, or notifications, it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise that the best screen-free fitness trackers also lack support for smart features. Still, I would love to see NFC added to a smart ring, if for no other reason, because paying for something with a tap of the finger sounds positively futuristic.

4. No GPS, no problem?

For my outdoor workout peeps, one of the biggest considerations to make before investing in a screen-free wearable is whether or not you can get by without onboard GPS.

While many of the best smartwatches and some of the best fitness trackers have built-in GPS antennas, no smart rings or screen-free trackers do. This means, for accurate location-based data when working out, you'll need to bring your paired smartphone along for insights into your distance, speed, pace, climb, and more after a run, walk, bike ride, etc.

5. Am I big on battery life?

It still kind of blows my mind that one of the most popular smartwatches in 2026 only lasts for roughly 24 hours per charge. I'm speaking, of course, of the Apple Watch Series 11.

Fortunately, screen-free wearables, by and large, beat their display-graced siblings when it comes to longevity. In fact, from smart rings to fitness bands, most will last up to a week, sometimes more, per charge.

What do you think of screen-free wearables? Do you already own one? Are you considering one? Let me know in the poll or comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch

I’m not sure whether it’s the fact I’m training for a marathon (again), or that I have a toddler who wakes me up at least once a night, but when I do sleep, I go into a coma.

I’ve been seriously impressed with the new $99 Fitbit Air — in fact, I’d go as far as to say it’s one of the best wearables to launch so far this year, but I’ve had one issue with it: the haptic alarm just isn’t strong enough to wake me from said sleep coma in the mornings.

I know what you’re thinking — surely my two-year-old is my alarm clock, and you’d be right, but as any parent knows, if I want to drink a warm cup of coffee, do a quick Pilates workout, or just sit and stare at my phone in silence, the only way to do so is to wake up before he does. Luckily, I’ve found a hidden Fitbit Air hack that solves this problem — read on to find out more.

I found that by making this simple tweak, I was definitely able to feel the alarm going off on my wrist in the morning. It was still silent enough that it didn’t wake my toddler if he had crept into my bed at 2 am, and I was able to have 20 minutes of peace before my day began.

If I didn’t have a human alarm clock, I’d love the custom alarm schedule on the Fitbit Air, which allows you to set different alarms for different days of the week. The Smart Wake feature also looks great for those who don’t want such an abrupt start to their day — the Fitbit Air will gently wake you up in a timeframe that’s best for your REM sleep, helping you wake up feeling more refreshed. A girl can only dream.

Did you know about this hidden vibration setting? Follow Tom’s Guide for more Fitbit Air tips and tricks.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• I review smartwatches for a living, but these are 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Apple Watch Series 12 rumors — everything we know so far
• Garmin’s rumored screen-less wearable just might be the subscription-free Whoop rival I’ve been waiting for

Ever since the Fitbit Air launched in May 2026, the conversation has almost always been about its price point. Reviews have been calling it a "$100 Whoop killer," and even we named it the best Whoop alternative for the rest of us. But one thing everyone seems to be missing is whether the tracking is actually any good.

Sure, it costs less, but does the Fitbit and Google name automatically mean it's great at tracking your health? Does it even give insights that are, first of all, accurate and then actually useful?

I've been tracking my sleep with both the Fitbit Air and the Whoop MG for a week, and the Fitbit Air actually held up much better than I expected. It's not perfect, though, and there are a few things you should know before buying one.

Here's how I tested both trackers side by side

Before we get into the numbers, there's one thing worth knowing upfront: I've been using the Whoop MG for over a year now. It's been my primary fitness and health tracking device for that entire time, which means it has a lot more context about my body compared to the Fitbit Air.

I got the Fitbit Air around June 16 and started properly testing it from the night of June 17. For this test, I wore the Fitbit Air on my left, non-dominant wrist, while my Whoop MG has been on a bicep band on the same arm for the past three months. I tracked a full week across both devices from June 17 to June 25, with two nights being an exception where I actually slept without any of the bands because I fell sick.

Before we dive into the numbers, though, it's worth knowing that since the Fitbit Air was brand new out of the box, it was still building its baseline during the first couple of nights.

It's also worth noting that wearing the Whoop MG on the bicep rather than the wrist does influence readings. Both are valid measurement points, but it's commonly believed that less movement leads to more accurate results.

The wrist moves around a lot, while the bicep stays relatively still, so the Whoop data could be slightly more accurate because of that, though I can't say for certain. Either way, the Fitbit Air doesn't offer a bicep band yet, so if a bicep option is something you need, the Whoop MG is currently the only choice.

Fitbit needed a few nights before the data made sense

As expected, the Fitbit Air took a couple of days to calibrate to my body and sleep patterns. I wasn't expecting it to agree with the Whoop MG right from the first night, and that was pretty obvious in the data. On day one, there was almost a one-hour difference in total sleep. Fitbit Air logged just 5 hours and 15 minutes of sleep, while the Whoop MG recorded around 6 hours and 15 minutes.

Thankfully, things improved quickly after that. From the second night onward, the two trackers became much more consistent. On the final two nights of my testing (June 22 and June 25), both devices recorded roughly seven hours of sleep on one night and around seven and a half hours on the other, with only about a 15-minute difference.

I'd call that accurate enough for tracking total sleep duration. If all you care about is knowing how long you slept, the Fitbit Air becomes much more reliable after a few days of wear.

Sleep stages, though, are a completely different story. Even after a week, both devices continued to disagree quite a bit on deep sleep and REM sleep. You can see from the table above that there are some pretty noticeable differences between the two, despite both devices tracking the exact same nights.

Which one is actually right? Honestly, it's hard to tell after just a week of testing. A longer testing period might reveal whether the two begin converging over time, but that is something I'll give one or two months to test.

It's also worth noting that placement could be playing a role here. As I mentioned above, I wore the Whoop MG on my left bicep while the Fitbit Air stayed on my left wrist, and this might have led the trackers to produce slightly different readings.

One area where the Fitbit Air clearly felt better to me, however, was the representation of the data collected overnight.

Fitbit's app actually won me over

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. While Whoop has become popular with casual users, it's still a product built primarily for athletes. That means the moment you open the app after waking up, you're greeted with a wall of numbers, graphs, and recovery metrics.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Google has done a great job with the Google Health app that powers the Fitbit Air, even though plenty of Fitbit users might disagree with me.

I don't want to wake up and immediately analyze a dashboard full of metrics. Instead, Fitbit Air gives me a quick summary of how I slept, and for most mornings, that's all I need to know whether I had a good night's sleep or not. I also like that I can tell the app when I don't agree with how I'm feeling, rather than blindly accepting the data.

One thing I also noticed during my testing was how much faster Fitbit Air processes sleep data. Most mornings, it gave me my sleep summary within five to seven minutes of waking up.

The Whoop app, on the other hand, often took much longer. There were days when I didn't get my sleep report for nearly 30 minutes, and sometimes I even had to manually end the sleep session before it would process the data.

Verdict

Overall, I still think the Fitbit Air offers a better experience for the average user. Sure, the data differed from Whoop, but that's true of almost every consumer sleep tracker. None of these devices are clinical-grade after all.

After a week of wearing both trackers, I don't think sleep tracking alone is a good enough reason to spend significantly more on a Whoop. Once the Fitbit Air had a few nights to calibrate, its total sleep tracking was consistently close enough that I stopped paying attention to the differences.

What you're really paying the Whoop premium for isn't better sleep tracking. It has other features as well, like ECG, blood pressure insights, strain tracking, and a whole recovery ecosystem built for athletes. If those features matter to you, the subscription makes sense.

But if your main priority is simply understanding how well you slept each night, I honestly think the $100 Fitbit Air gets you most of the way there, with a friendlier app experience and for a fraction of the yearly cost.

More from Tom's Guide

• I used the Apple Watch and Whoop to track my sleep for a year — there's a clear winner for me
• I walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — and there's a clear winner
• Forget the Apple Watch: I use AirPods Pro 3 for Live Heart Rate Tracking while running

July officially kicks off what I like to call “the summer of smartwatch launches.” Samsung tends to get things started with a new slate of Galaxy Watches toward the end of the month, then Google answers with fresh Pixel Watches sometime in August, before Apple closes things out in early September with the latest Apple Watch debuts.

This schedule is, of course, not set in stone, but based on the recent past, it seems likely that the summer of 2026 will look a lot like 2025 and 2024, in terms of launch timing.

While an Apple Watch Ultra 4 and/or a replacement for the budget-friendly Apple Watch SE 3 are far from certain, we’ll almost certainly lay eyes on the Apple Watch Series 12 in just over two months. After all, Cupertino has shown off a new flagship Apple Watch series every single year for the past 11 straight years.

As a smartwatch reviewer with no shortage of Apple Watch 12 rumors to go off of, these are the three upgrades — that actually have a chance of coming to fruition — I’m hoping for most, plus one I desperately don’t want to happen.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.1: Touch ID

Punching in a passcode on the Apple Watch 11’s modest-sized display is a pain in the butt, which is why I keep the security feature turned off, even though I know better. One way to improve things? Add Touch ID support.

Not only would Touch ID make unlocking the smartwatch a breeze, but it could also be used to confirm purchases via Apple Pay and/or app downloads.

According to a report in Macworld, Touch ID on the Apple Watch Series 12 is a real possibility. Then again, separate leaks suggest that Face ID could also be in the cards. Both of these upgrades would require additional onboard hardware, in the form of either an under-the-display fingerprint scanner or front-facing camera. I'd ultimately be pleased with either.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.2: A brighter display

The Apple Watch Series 11 display maxes out at a respectable 2,000 nits of brightness, which is enough output to view the screen in most lighting conditions. However, both the Google Pixel Watch 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 boast displays with 3,000 nits of max brightness, and their successors might push that output even further.

To both stay competitive and to ensure optimal viewability, even when lounging on white sand beaches under clear blue skies, I’m hoping the Series 12 at least matches the screen brightness of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and the above-mentioned watches, 3,000 nits.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.3: AI-powered Siri

It’s not even close: Google’s Gemini AI voice assistant for Pixel Watches and select Samsung Galaxy Watches is a zillion times better than the same-old Siri that’s been offered in every Apple Watch for more than a decade.

When I reviewed the Pixel Watch 4, I was genuinely impressed by the onboard AI assistant’s ability to answer genuinely complex questions with helpful, accurate replies.

Of course, we know Apple has partnered with Google to power Siri 2.0 with Gemini, and we've already had a taste of what that looks like on iPhone. The question is, will this be ready in time for the fall? I sure hope so, particularly if it debuts alongside a new dedicated gesture control to wake it, similar to Google's "raise to wake" gesture for Pixel Watch 4.

Apple Watch 12 — what I don’t want: A redesigned band system

One Apple Watch 12 “upgrade” rumor I’m hoping doesn’t come to pass, though it's been widely reported on, is a redesigned case with a new system for attaching straps. Apple has used the same band system ever since the original Apple Watch debuted.

One of the nicest things about upgrading from an older Apple Watch to a newer model is the ability to bring your band along with you, assuming you're sticking with a similar case size.

For example, I’ve got four or five favorite Apple Watch bands, and I’d be seriously annoyed if none of them worked on the Series 12.

Apple Watch Series 12: What do you want?

So, now that you know my three biggest Apple Watch Series 12 wishes, I’m curious to hear your thoughts. What are you most hoping to see in the next flagship Apple Watch model? Let me know in the comments or survey below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Your Samsung Galaxy Watch now supports blood pressure tracking — but it’s not the same as Apple’s Hypertension Alerts
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Snapdragon Reality Elite is here, and I’ve already tested it without realizing in Xreal’s Project Aura — its a giant step towards the future of smart glasses

Apple Watch rumors are a dime a dozen, so getting bent out of shape about one in particular isn’t advisable. Then again, the vast majority of Apple Watch leaks suggest positive improvements to Cupertino’s range of wearables, not potentially negative changes.

This is why one particular Apple Watch 12 rumor has me a bit, shall we say, perturbed, particularly as someone who’s invested heavily over the years in accessories for the best Apple Watch models, namely, a large collection of Apple Watch straps.

A new case design could mark the end of an era

Ever since the first Apple Watch launched over a decade ago, Apple has consistently used the same strap attachment system. Sure, it's proprietary, and an old-fashioned spring bar works just as well, but now, nearly eleven years later, many of us have acquired a sizable array of compatible bands.

I know I have my favorite Apple Watch straps, which I frequently shift between the Apple Watch Series 11, SE 3 and Ultra 3, depending on what I’m testing/writing about (I’m quite partial to the Nike Sport Loop).

Well, if a recent report from the known leaker Instant Digital proves to be true, Apple could be moving away from the strap attachment system we’ve all come to know and, well, tolerate. Such a move would surely irritate Apple Watch owners everywhere, myself included.

Apple is already in hot water with some smartwatch owners

With the recent debut of watchOS 27 beta, Cupertino has already thoroughly irked a wide swath of the Apple Watch faithful. Why? The next-gen operating system for the watch — which fully launches this fall — will only support the very latest Apple Watch models.

That list includes the Series 11, Series 10, Series 9, Ultra 3, Ultra 2, and SE 3. Basically, unless you purchased your Apple Watch in the past two to three years, you’re out of luck, software-wise.

Now owners of the Series 8, SE 2, Ultra, etc., have to decide whether to upgrade to a newer Apple Watch model or bail on the form-factor/move to a competitor like Garmin. What better way to convince them to stay than by making their existing collection of straps obsolete? Heck, Apple might as well introduce a newer charger while it's at it (Dear Apple: Please, don't).

What are your thoughts on Apple potentially switching to a new band attachment system for the Apple Watch Series 12 or Ultra 4? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• The end of an era: Apple is quietly ditching one of its iconic Apple Watch features with watchOS 27
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought