The Coros Pace 4 Pro is one of the best sports watches to come out this year, and I’ve kept it on since testing it for my review to use as my main running watch during marathon training.

It’s a key competitor to Garmin’s Forerunner line-up, and the Garmin Forerunner 570 in particular, which lacks a key feature the Pace 4 Pro has in the shape of offline maps.

However, the Forerunner 570 does outshine the cheaper Coros in some areas, most notably smart features and training analysis, and it comes in two sizes.

I’ve run hundreds of miles with both watches individually in testing, and also wore them both for a run to test them head-to-head.

I’ve outlined the key differences to consider below, and for more details on either, check our Coros Pace 4 Pro review and Garmin Forerunner 570 review.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: price

The Coros Pace 4 Pro is the cheaper watch, costing $449/£389 compared to $549.99/£459.99 for the Forerunner 570. That’s at full price, but it’s worth noting the Forerunner 570 is reduced quite regularly to $449, the same price as the Coros.

Right now, the Pace 4 Pro only comes in one size with two colors: black and white. The Forerunner 570 comes in two sizes — 42mm and 47mm — with three colors available in each size.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: design and display

The Forerunner 570 has some design advantages purely in terms of the choice on offer — there are brighter colors available and having the smaller size option is great for those with smaller wrists.

I also slightly prefer the five-button design on the Garmin to the three buttons on the Coros, one of which is a digital dial, just because I sometimes set off the dial accidentally and find it less precise than buttons.

Both are attractive watches with bright AMOLED displays, but the Coros has a larger screen at 1.47 in to 1.4 in on the 47mm Forerunner 570 I tested (1.2 in on the 42mm watch), and it also uses more durable materials.

The Pace 4 Pro has a titanium bezel and sapphire crystal screen, whereas the Forerunner 570 has a Gorilla Glass screen and aluminum bezel. The sapphire crystal display in particular is a bonus for me as someone who has scratched glass screens in the past on runs.

Both 47mm watches feel light on the wrist, with the Coros being a little thinner, but the Garmin a little lighter. I found both comfortable to wear 24/7.

You get more storage on the Pace 4 Pro, which has 32GB of space compared with 8GB on the Garmin, which makes room for the maps you can download to the Coros.

Neither watch has a built-in flashlight, which is surprising for the Forerunner 570 since it’s a feature that is found on many Garmins, including the Venu 4 at the same price.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: sports tracking and training analysis

Both watches offer a wide array of sports modes, including track run, triathlon and open water swimming, with lots of stats available for the main sports of running, cycling and swimming in particular.

Though it doesn’t have all the training analysis features found on pricier Garmins, the Forerunner 570 does offer more features in this area than the Coros Pace 4 Pro.

One notable extra is Garmin’s Training Readiness rating, which condenses a lot of the data it tracks into one score you can use to guide your approach to training on any given day.

I also think Garmin does a better job of showing its training analysis in an engaging and easy-to-understand way.

The Coros does offer a good level of insight into your training, though, including info on your overall training load, VO2 max estimates, race predictions, and a recovery advisor. I don’t think the Pace 4 Pro is lacking in this area, but the Garmin does offer more.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: GPS and heart rate accuracy

Throughout testing, I kept constant tabs on the GPS accuracy of the watches by checking their tracks and looking at the pacing and distance stats in comparison to other top watches.

I also raced with both to see if they lined up with the official race distances, and both have been excellent for me with regard to GPS accuracy. I used the most accurate multi-band mode in both watches and haven’t experienced any noticeable errors with either.

To check their heart rate accuracy, I compared them with the readings from a chest strap sensor for a variety of workouts.

Both impressed again, but the odd error did creep in, I’d say more noticeably with the Coros Pace 4 Pro, which would show the occasional incorrect spike in heart rate and lag behind the chest strap more noticeably during interval sessions.

I’d call it a draw on GPS accuracy and give the Garmin an edge on heart rate accuracy, but both are very strong in both areas based on my testing.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: smart features

One area where the Forerunner 570 easily beats the Coros Pace 4 Pro is smart features.

The best Garmin watches in general are way ahead of their sporty rivals on this front, offering NFC payments, music storage including being able to link with streaming services like Spotify, and the Connect IQ app store, which does contain useful extras for the watch.

You also get more smart widgets on the Forerunner 570, like a calendar app and sports scores, and you can customize the watch face a lot more than on the Coros.

While the Pace 4 Pro does offer music storage, it can’t link with streaming apps, so you have to drag and drop MP3 files onto the watch, and it doesn’t offer NFC payments or an app store, beyond being able to send new watch faces from the app.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: maps and navigation

Garmin has the best maps and navigation tools available for sports watches, but only on its top-end devices, and the Forerunner 570 only offers breadcrumb navigation.

The Coros Pace 4 Pro has full offline maps, making navigation easier, especially when following routes on the watch, and it also delivers alerts when notable climbs and descents are coming up on your route.

Breadcrumb navigation is fine most of the time, but the maps on the Pace 4 Pro are a clear advantage over the Forerunner 570.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: battery life

Battery life is an area where Coros always shines, and the Pace 4 Pro easily outlasts the Forerunner 570 in both watch and GPS modes.

The 47mm Forerunner 570 lasts up to 11 days in watch mode and offers 14 hours of multi-band GPS tracking, whereas the Pace 4 Pro can last up to 21 days in watch mode and has 30 hours of multi-band GPS.

In my testing, I had the screen always on with both watches, which reduces battery life, and ran every day using the GPS, and the Forerunner 570 needed charging every three to four days, whereas the Coros lasted me seven days on a charge.

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: specs compared

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: verdict

The Garmin Forerunner 570 is a great sports watch, but given its high price, it’s definitely a shame Garmin left out some key features, including maps and a flashlight.

Unless you really need the smart features on the watch, or love its design and smaller size option, the Coros Pace 4 Pro is the better buy in my opinion.

It’s cheaper, lasts longer on a charge, has maps and a bigger display, and has proved to be reliably accurate and enjoyable to wear 24/7 in my experience.

More from Tom's Guide

• If you enjoy lifting weights — these are the only 3 gym shoes I'd wear, and they're up to 30% off in Prime Day sales
• I’ve tested the Hoka Clifton 11 vs Hoka Bondi 9 and this is the one I’d buy
• My favorite trail-running shoe is 34% off for Prime Day, and it’s great for hiking too

If you’ve been eyeing a smartwatch, there’s a good reason to check Amazon before paying full price. The retailer is currently offering massive discounts on top brands like Garmin, Apple, Google and more.

For instance, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is currently 46% off. It will still cost you $349 but it's a pretty hefty discount. On the more wallet-friendly side, Garmin’s tried-and-true entry-level Forerunner 55 is just $161 on Amazon (was $199). Plus, Apple Watch SE 3 is sporting a $50 discount. Keep scrolling to check out more smartwatch deals on Amazon.

Quick Links

• shop all Amazon deals
• Fitbit Charge 6: was $159 now $132
• Garmin Forerunner 55: was $199 now $161
• Apple Watch SE 3 (GPS/42mm): was $249 now $199
• Garmin Forerunner 165 Music: was $249 now $199
• Google Pixel Watch 3 (GPS/45mm): was $399 now $199
• Garmin Instinct 3: was $449 now $299
• Galaxy Watch Ultra: was $649 now $349

Best Smartwatch Deals

Shop more deals

I logged a 5,000-step walking workout with the Apple Watch Series 12 on my left wrist and the Garmin Forerunner 170 on my right wrist to find out which of these new smartwatches is the better fitness tracker.

The Apple Watch Series 12 is one of the best full-featured smartwatches of 2026, and the Garmin Forerunner 170 is one of the best budget-friendly running watches.

However, cost-wise, the Garmin is $349. The Apple Watch 12, meanwhile, starts at $399 and goes up to $549.

Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Forerunner 170

Both smartwatches offer comparable onboard heart rate, location (GPS), and elevation tracking (altimeter) tech, plus bright, touch-sensitive displays and sleek cases. Safety- and wellness-focused features are plentiful too. But the Apple Watch supports way more apps and smart features, while the Forerunner has better training and recovery tools for runners.

Design-wise, the Forerunner 170 Music comes in a wider range of colorful, sporty options, but features a plastic case. The Series 12, by comparison, boasts an aluminum case. That said, it also weighs more. The 46mm Apple Watch 12 case is roughly 39 g compared to 26 g for the Forerunner 170 Music case.

I already tested the Apple Watch Series 12 versus the Garmin Venu 4, a higher-end ($549) sibling of the Forerunner 170. In that showdown, both devices impressed across the board, but the Venu 4 proved slightly more accurate. Will Garmin pull a repeat win? There’s only one way to know.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Forerunner 170

As a primary control, I manually counted all 5,014 steps, using a tally counter to record every hundred. As a control for distance, climb, and pace, I turned to ol’ reliable, the Strava app.

Find the results of my Apple Watch 12 vs. Garmin Forerunner 170 Music walk test below, along with the five biggest takeaways from the data.

1. Both watches came remarkably close to my actual step count total

I've done dozens of these smartwatch walk tests, and my general rule of thumb is that any step count total within 100 steps of my actual tally is considered a solid result and within an acceptable margin of error. With that in mind, the Apple Watch 12 and Garmin Forerunner 170 each performed exceptionally well here.

The Series 12 undercounted by a mere 11 steps, while the Forerunner 170 was over by just six steps. Meanwhile, the Apple Watch and Garmin noted exactly the same amount of distance covered. More importantly, the tallies are also less than a tenth of a mile off from the control.

2. Garmin's climb data is slightly closer to the control

In my experience, even the best Apple Watch models sometimes inflate elevation gain data during outdoor workouts by a noticeable, albeit not outrageous, margin. That's again the case here.

The Apple Watch Series 12 noted 28 additional feet of climb compared to the control. The Forerunner 170, meanwhile, was off by just six feet, an impressive result.

3. Apple doesn't provide an average moving pace metric

Both the Strava app and Garmin provide average moving and elapsed pace metrics for outdoor workouts, like walks. Of the two, the former tends to be the more useful, as it more accurately reflects your overall speed.

Apple only provides one post-workout pace metric, and it's almost certainly elapsed pace, which is what I've recorded in the table above. That being said, Apple's average elapsed pace metric is closer to the control than Garmin's.

Meanwhile, Strava noted a moving pace of 18:07 per mile compared to 18:39 per mile for the Garmin.

4. Apple and Garmin's heart rate data is a perfect match

Both Apple and Garmin allow users to specify which wrist their smartwatch is on via the companion app. So, assuming those details are correctly entered, there should be zero difference in heart rate tracking accuracy between your right and left wrists. But is that actually the case?

The results of this walk test suggest that the answer is yes, seeing as both wearables noted identical average and max heart rates for my ~50-minute walk.

5. Garmin burned through more battery, but overall, proved more accurate

One might assume Garmin smartwatches always beat Apple Watches when it comes to battery performance, but this showdown proves that isn't always true. While the Garmin Forerunner 170 Music can far outlast the Apple Watch Series 12 in standard smartwatch mode, when using continuous GPS and heart rate tracking, the Apple Watch Series 12 actually has the advantage.

That said, when it comes to comparing the fitness tracking performance of the Apple Watch Series 12 vs. the Garmin Forerunner 170 Music, the latter slightly outperforms the former... in this test, at least. The Forerunner 170 produced an ever-so-slightly more accurate step count and climb total, while the Series 12 was closer in terms of pace.

Which of these two smartwatches would you rather use to keep tabs on your health and fitness? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Venu 4 — here's the winner
• Apple Watch Series 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Which new Apple Watch should you buy?
• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

I test a lot of smartwatches, but only the very best of them stay on my wrist after I’ve reviewed them to track my own training, and the Garmin Forerunner 970 and Coros Pace 4 Pro both certainly count among the best sports watches I’ve ever used.

The Garmin Forerunner 970 has been my go-to watch for a year and I used it to train for and run the London Marathon in April. For the last month, however, I’ve been using the Coros Pace 4 Pro as my main watch for my Frankfurt Marathon training.

To compare them directly I’ve also run with both at the same time (several times), including on a recent 20-miler. If you’re picking between the two, you can’t go too far wrong, but here are the key differences in design, features and accuracy I’ve noticed in my testing.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: price

The Garmin Forerunner 970 is more expensive than the Coros Pace 4 Pro, costing $749/£629 compared to $449/£389 for the Coros.

It’s a big price difference, but it is reduced a little at times because the Forerunner 970 does usually get discounted in big sales periods like Black Friday, when you can expect to pay $649, whereas Coros doesn’t tend to reduce its watches.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: design and display

The Forerunner 970 and Pace 4 Pro are both light and slim watches with big, bright AMOLED displays and titanium bezels, but there are some notable design differences between them.

This starts with the fact the Coros is a tad lighter and slimmer, and also has the slightly larger display of the pair. I prefer the look and feel of the Pace 4 Pro myself, but both are good-looking watches that are comfortable to wear 24/7, and I’d say Garmin has better line-up of watch faces to pick from.

With the Garmin you get five buttons to navigate the menus, whereas the Coros uses three buttons, one of which is a digital dial.

On the top of the Forerunner 970 is a built-in flashlight, which I find incredibly handy and more useful than the flashlight setting on the Coros, which uses its screen.

Both watches have the same extensive array of sensors, including an altimeter, barometer, optical heart rate sensor and multi-band GPS chipset, but when it comes to connecting to external sensors the Garmin can do this via both Bluetooth and ANT+, whereas the Coros just uses Bluetooth.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: sports tracking and training analysis

Both watches offer sports modes to track a huge variety of activities and in-depth training analysis to help guide your approach to workouts, but the Garmin Forerunner 970 does have some features you don’t get on the Coros.

For one, it has a Training Readiness score that brings together a lot of information like your recent training load, sleep and stress to give a rating out of 100 on how ready you are.

The Forerunner 970 also goes beyond the normal training analysis stats you get on watches to offer features like Running Tolerance, which estimates your running mileage taking into account intensity as well as distance, and Running Economy (when paired with the Garmin HRM 600 chest strap), which estimates your efficiency on the run.

You also get Hill Score and Endurance Score on the Forerunner 970, two more metrics that are unique to Garmin that rate your climbing ability and overall endurance.

The Coros Pace 4 Pro has all the classic training analysis data though, like training load, a VO2 max estimate, race predictions and an overall rating of your running ability, and you can use its overnight HRV measurements as a proxy for readiness.

Both watches present the data they track engagingly both on the watch itself and in their partner apps, and both have enough to satisfy even the keenest amateur athletes, but the Forerunner 970 does go above and beyond what you get from the Coros when it comes to training analysis.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: GPS & heart rate accuracy

I’ve run thousands of miles with the Forerunner 970 and hundreds with the Pace 4 Pro, including multiple races with both watches, and kept tabs on the GPS accuracy of them throughout by checking GPS tracks and comparing them to official race distances.

I use both in the most accurate multi-band GPS mode, and both are about as good as it gets for GPS accuracy. I’ve been able to rely on them even during twisting city races like the London Marathon with the Forerunner 970, and the Shoreditch Half Marathon in London with the Coros Pace 4 Pro.

I did a long workout with both watches recently, looping around a park near me, and they recorded near identical distances both overall, and for each of the seven 3km reps I did in the session.

With regards to heart rate accuracy I’ve compared both watches to a chest strap throughout my long-term testing and both have mostly impressed, delivering readings that are closely in line with the chest strap most of the time.

The Coros Pace 4 Pro is a little more prone to make errors in my experience, sometimes spiking for no reason during runs, but these spikes don’t usually last long before it returns to the right heart rate reading.

This happened during the long run I did with both watches, where the Pace 4 Pro had a couple of erroneous jumps in the middle of the workout, but for the most part both watches were closely in line with the chest strap.

I’d rate them equal for GPS accuracy but give a slight edge to the Forerunner 970 for heart rate, though if you really value accuracy with the latter I’d still pair a chest strap to either watch, as I do most of the time.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: battery life

Battery life has always been a big strength of Coros watches and that’s the case with the Pace 4 Pro, which is rated at lasting up to 21 days in watch mode and offers 30 hours of multi-band GPS.

The Forerunner 970 is listed as lasting up to 15 days and offers 21 hours of multi-band GPS.

In testing I had the always-on screen enabled on both watches and used the most accurate, and power intensive, GPS mode, and I also enabled real-time heart rate tracking on the Coros outside workouts (it’s set to take readings every 10 minutes outside workouts as default).

With the same use, the Coros Pace 4 Pro lasts me seven days on a charge, running every day, whereas I need to charge the Forerunner 970 every four or five days.

Seven days is exceptional for a slim watch like this with a bright AMOLED screen, and only really beaten by much larger AMOLED watches like the Suunto Vertical 2 and Garmin Fenix 9 Pro, or watches with memory-in-pixel displays.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: smart features

While neither watch matches the smarts of a device like the Apple Watch Ultra 4, Garmin wearables are much more advanced in this area than other dedicated sports watches.

The Forerunner 970 has NFC Payments, offline music storage and the ability to link with streaming services including Spotify, the modest but useful Connect IQ app store, and a lot more customization options with its watch faces than the Pace 4 Pro.

You can store music on the Pace 4 Pro, but only MP3 files you drag and drop across to the watch, and it doesn’t have an app store or NFC payments. If it’s smarts you need, the Garmin wins the day in this comparison.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: maps and navigation

Both watches have offline maps and can guide you through routes with turn-by-turn directions and give guidance on individual climbs and descents you encounter on those routes (like how long is left to the summit).

However, the Garmin Forerunner 970 has routable maps, which means it knows where you are and can create routes for you on the fly, and guide you back to a route or starting point with a new route if you go astray.

The Coros Pace 4 Pro’s maps are more like an image it overlays your route on, so you have to create routes on another platform (like the partner app) and send them over.

These non-routable maps are more than good enough in most scenarios in my experience, but the Forerunner 970 does have an extra string to its bow in that it can create routes without needing your phone at all.

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: specs compared

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: verdict

The Garmin Forerunner 970 has some clear advantages over the Coros Pace 4 Pro, with more training analysis, better smart features and navigation tools, and that handy built-in flashlight, but it does cost a lot more.

Furthermore, the Coros is not just cheaper, it also has longer battery life and its design is lighter and slimmer despite having a bigger screen, and it matches the Forerunner 970 on the essentials on sports tracking.

I’d say the Garmin Forerunner 970 remains the best sports watch overall you can get, unless you want something more rugged with connectivity like the Fenix 9 Pro, but the Coros Pace 4 Pro is better value and the watch I’d recommend if you don’t need the extras on the Forerunner 970.

More from Tom's Guide

• If you enjoy lifting weights — these are the only 3 gym shoes I'd wear, and they're up to 30% off in Prime Day sales
• I’ve tested the Hoka Clifton 11 vs Hoka Bondi 9 and this is the one I’d buy
• My favorite trail-running shoe is 34% off for Prime Day, and it’s great for hiking too

Garmin makes some of the best smartwatches out there, particularly when it comes to fitness tracking performance, training insights, and recovery advice. But they can be a tad pricey. Fortunately, five of my favorite models are on sale right now.

Amazon Prime Day may be over, but my go-to smartwatch for logging outdoor adventures, the Garmin Instinct 3, remains $100 off on Amazon.

On the more wallet-friendly side, Garmin’s tried-and-true entry-level Forerunner 55 is just $161 on Amazon, marked down from $199. Heck, even the brand-new Garmin Forerunner 170 is on sale for a modest 10% off. You can find links and details to these deals — and more — below.

Best fall Garmin watch deals: Quick links

• Garmin Forerunner 55: was $199 now $161 @ Amazon
• Garmin Forerunner 165 Music: was $249 now $199 @ Amazon
• Garmin Vivoactive 6: was $299 now $229 @ Amazon
• Garmin Forerunner 170: was $349 now $314 @ Amazon
• Garmin Instinct 3: was $449 now $349 @ Amazon

Shop today's best Amazon deals

• shop all last-minute October Prime day deals
• YETI sale: deals from $10
• Amazon devices: deals from $12
• Fall jackets/hoodies: from $18
• Anker Smart Display Charger: was $39 now $23
• Skechers: from $25
• TV sale: deals from $69

The Garmin Forerunner 170 isn’t just the best Garmin watch for beginner and intermediate runners; it’s also one of the best wallet-friendly running watches on the market today, particularly when it's selling for less than retail (which is rarely the case).

Thanks to Prime Day, you can scoop up the Garmin Forerunner 170 Music for just $314, reduced from $349. While those savings are modest, keep in mind this is a brand-new model for 2026, and a super-popular one at that.

Looking for something a little less spendy but nearly as capable? The Forerunner 170’s predecessor is also discounted. The Forerunner 165 is just $199 on Amazon and offers many of the same features in a similar package to the newer model.

I’m a big fan of the Garmin Forerunner 170 as a newby runner because it has all the features I want — like real-time pace, distance, and heart rate data, personalized training plans, race time predictions, recovery recommendations — and nothing I don’t.

It’s also a darn-reliable little tracker for logging both indoor and outdoor workouts and even supports a wide range of team sports. Comfort-wise, the Forerunner 170 is seriously lightweight and compact, making for an exceptional all-day wearing experience. There are also a lot of fun styles to choose from; I’m personally most partial to the “Red Pink with Red Pink/Mango Band”.

While logging workouts and helping runners train may be its forte, the Forerunner 170 is no dummy. This model boasts a range of handy smart features, like support for NFC payments, storage for onboard music, mirrored smartphone notifications, and real-time location sharing. It even plays nice with a selection of must-have apps, including Google Maps.

Shop more deals

• See all deals in the Prime Day sale
• All headphones on sale at Amazon

Garmin makes a lot of smartwatches. With dozens of models to choose from in 2026, the options can feel overwhelming. That’s where I come in, your friendly neighborhood smartwatch expert. I’ve tested nearly every current Garmin model, and the Garmin Instinct 3 is my favorite. Better yet, it’s on sale right now thanks to Prime Day.

Amazon has the Garmin Instinct 3 discounted by $100, dropping the cost of the 45mm AMOLED model — my preferred variant — from $449 to $349. Of course, we may see Garmin’s longest-lasting smartwatch go even lower as the week goes on.

So, while you decide whether to jump on this Garmin Instinct 3 deal ASAP or wait another day or two to see if this deal gets a little sweeter, here are the three biggest reasons it’s my favorite Garmin smartwatch in 2026 and also my go-to wearable for logging outdoor adventures.

Tough-as-nails design

Even the latest Apple Watch Series 12, arguably the best smartwatch in 2026, can’t match the Instinct 3’s epic water resistance rating of 100 meters (the same as the Apple Watch Ultra 4), enough for high-impact water sports and even scuba diving (the Series 12 is rated at 50 meters).

The Instinct 3 also boasts a shock-resistant design with an oversized, metal-reinforced bezel providing ample screen protection. As an added design bonus, this Garmin sports a powerful LED flashlight hidden in the top of the watch case.

Epic battery life

The Instinct 3 comes in several sizes and with either a bright AMOLED screen or a less impressive but longer-lasting MIP screen with solar-charging capabilities. Even if you opt for the AMOLED model, the Instinct 3 can last up to 24 days or 86 hours with continuous GPS tracking and heart rate monitoring running.

An accurate and reliable outdoor companion

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Garmin Instinct 3 has proven time and again to be as reliable as smartwatches that cost more than double its price. This is why it’s my go-to for logging outdoor adventures, snowboarding, hiking, mountain climbing, city cycling, e-mountain biking, and more.

Shop more deals

• See all deals in the Prime Day sale
• All headphones on sale at Amazon

I walked 5,500 steps with the new Apple Watch Series 12 on my left wrist and the Garmin Venu 4 on my right wrist (Okay, it was 5,520 steps) to determine which is the better fitness tracker.

Two of the best smartwatches in 2026, the Apple Watch Series 12 starts at $399, though the 46mm 5G+GPS model I'm testing is $549, the same cost as the Garmin Venu 4. More importantly, both devices are equipped with their respective brand's latest heart rate tracking tech, along with onboard GPS and barometric altimeters for elevation tracking.

So, which of these two popular, capable devices came out on top in this fitness tracking accuracy showdown between the Apple Watch Series 12 and Garmin Venu 4? See for yourself below, along with my five biggest takeaways. I've also declared a winner at the very end.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Venu 4

As noted above, I wore the Apple Watch on my left wrist and the Garmin on my right during this ~50-minute walk around hilly Seattle, Washington. As a control, I manually counted my steps, recording every 100 with a click of a tally counter, and logged the walk in the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus.

1. Both wearables logged my steps and distance with impressive accuracy

Strava logged the exact same number of total steps taken as my manual count: 5,520, a tally that both the Apple Watch 12 and Garmin Venu each came ridiculously close to matching as well.

Apple ended up overcounting by just 11 steps while Garmin undercounted by only two steps. Distance data is also impressively close to the control, with the Apple Watch being just a bit more spot-on than Garmin.

2. Apple was generous with climb data

I've come to expect my Apple Watch to be on the generous side when it comes to logging climb data, whether strolling around the city or hiking a mountain. That said, despite my expectations for this consistent inconsistency, the best Apple Watches still tend to be in the ballpark at logging uphill efforts, just, perhaps, the furthest corner of the upper deck.

That's the case here; Apple seemingly tacked an extra 38 feet of climb onto my walk compared to Strava, which is both forgivable and certainly better than undercounting my ascent by 38 feet.

3. Heart rate data is a perfect match

The Garmin Venu 4 sports the brand's latest Elevate V5 heart rate sensor, and the Apple Watch Series 12 — along with the Apple Watch Ultra 4 — uses Apple's newest, most powerful holistic sensor arrays.

Latest tech or not, Apple and Garmin are two brands I've come to trust when it comes to accurately logging heart rate. This is to say, I expected the Series 12 and Venu 4 to produce pretty similar HR data for my walk. Instead, they noted the exact same average and max, a rare, encouraging outcome!

4. The Venu 4 used a lot more battery than the Series 12

Garmin watches may have a reputation for outlasting their Apple rivals, but during this roughly 50-minute outdoor workout, the Garmin Venu 4 burned through four times the battery of the Apple Watch Series 12.

5. Both smartwatches did well, but Garmin wins overall

Ultimately, both watches performed extremely well in this fitness tracking showdown between the Apple Watch Series 12 and the Garmin Venu 4, but a winner must be declared, darn it.

While the Apple Watch Series 12 was closer distance-wise, the Garmin Venu 4 was slightly more precise at tracking steps, and comfortably closer to the control with regard to climb and pace data.

I am, of course, splitting hairs here. The big takeaway is that both the Garmin Venu 4 and Apple Watch Series 12 are both excellent, reliable options if you want a sleek, modern smartwatch to keep tabs on your outdoor workouts. That said, for the uphill-obsessed, the Series 12 just may be the bigger ego booster.

Which smartwatch did you expect to win this head-to-head? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’m a smartwatch reviewer: This is the new Apple Watch 12 feature I’m most excited for
• Apple just killed one of my favorite Apple Watch features with the launch of watchOS 27
• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

When it comes to high-end adventure watches, the Garmin Fenix has been in a league of its own for a while. No other sports watch or smartwatch can match the range and depth of features you get on a Fenix, and the strongest competition to the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro comes from past models of the watch.

The Fenix 9 Pro is the best Garmin watch yet, with upgrades on the Fenix 8 Pro including an all-titanium case and faster maps. These build on the best-in-class sports tracking, training analysis and navigation features you get on the Fenix 9 Pro, which also has some useful smart features and impressive battery life.

I’ve been testing the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro 51mm watch and it’s undoubtedly outstanding, but the high price means that the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro, and even the Garmin Fenix 8, look better value to me in sales, especially as many new features on the Fenix 9 Pro are rolling back to those models.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: price and availability

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro launched in August 2026 alongside the Garmin Fenix 9. There are a lot of different options in the Garmin Fenix 9 line-up, with three sizes and two display types to pick between, along with making the choice between a standard and Pro model of the watch.

For the standard Fenix 9, you’ll pay from $999/£859, whereas the Fenix 9 Pro costs from $1,029/£999, or $1,199/£1,029 if you want a watch with inReach connectivity.

The standard Fenix 9 only comes with an AMOLED display but you can choose from three sizes — 43mm, 47mm and 51mm.

You get the same three sizes options with the AMOLED Fenix 9 Pro, but if you want the Fenix 9 Pro Solar, which has a memory-in-pixel (MIP) screen, you can only pick from 47mm or 51mm sizes.

Along with the option of inReach connectivity, the main upgrades on the Fenix 9 Pro compared to the standard Fenix 9 are an all-titanium case, a brighter display, and a green mode on the built-in flashlight.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: specs compared

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: design and display

I’ve tested every model of the Garmin Fenix since the Fenix 5 Pro, and the Fenix 9 Pro is the best-looking version of the watch yet.

The all-titanium case makes a much bigger difference than I expected when I saw the launch notes on the watch. It doesn’t add weight, but makes the Fenix 9 Pro look and feel more impressive, and boosts its appeal for all-day wear.

I’ve been testing the 51mm Fenix 9 Pro, which has the largest screen on a Garmin watch yet, and the 1.5in AMOLED is very bright and easy to read even at an angle in always-on mode.

It’s interesting that Garmin dropped the MicroLED model from the Fenix line-up, presumably because it required a thicker watch with shorter battery life, but it’s not hugely missed given the quality of the AMOLED screen on the Fenix 9 Pro.

There’s no denying this is a big watch though, and even if you opt for the 43mm or 47mm models of the watch the Fenix is still relatively thick and heavy compared with Garmin’s Forerunner and Venu watches.

Even with my skinny wrists, I did get used to the Fenix 9 Pro 51mm and didn’t mind wearing it all the time, but I prefer the fit and feel of a thinner watch like the Garmin Forerunner 970, which also doesn’t catch on jacket sleeves as often.

There’s a built-in flashlight on top of the watch, which is one of the best features on Garmin watches in my opinion, and something that other brands are starting to introduce.

On top of the white and red modes you get on all Garmin watches with flashlights, the Fenix 9 Pro’s flashlight also has a green option, which can be useful when looking at maps and for certain sports like fishing.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: sports tracking and training analysis

It’s not easy to find ways to upgrade Garmin’s sports features at this point, but there are some new updates on the Fenix 9 Pro, many of which will roll back to older models.

These include upgrades to the rowing support on the watch, with FTP and VO2 max scores for indoor rowing, and the option to add your pack weight when rucking.

You can now also combine multiple activities into a ‘Garmin Epic’, which collates all the data from workouts you select to be included. This can be useful for looking at an entire marathon training block, for example, or for a multi-day hike or ultramarathon.

Garmin has also upgraded the Stamina feature on the watch, which aims to show your energy reserves in real time during activities to help you work out how hard you can push.

I still find this is a hard metric to trust when pushing all-out during races myself, but it can be a useful tool to stop yourself going out too hard at the start of longer events.

These updates build upon what was already an incredible array of sports tracking modes and stats, and the most comprehensive suite of training analysis tools you’ll find on a sports watch.

Along with standard stuff like chronic training load, Garmin has some unique analysis stats, like running tolerance, which gives you a total mileage for the past week of running that takes into account the intensity of your runs, and an overall endurance score.

Not everyone will want or need all of this data, but it’s all there if you do, and Garmin offers more than other sports watches. I’m a fan of its well-established Training Readiness tool as a good way to collate a lot of information into one handy score to judge the state of your body each day.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: GPS and heart rate accuracy

I checked the accuracy of the optical heart rate monitor on the Fenix 9 Pro against a chest strap for a variety of workouts, and checked its GPS tracks after runs, including during a half marathon where it measured just about the exact race distance.

Garmin has changed how it labels its various GPS modes, but the Max Accuracy option is what I used, which uses the most accurate multi-band GPS mode on the watch when required.

I found its GPS accuracy to be more or less spot on during my outdoor activities, and Garmin continues to be as good or better than everyone else in this area in my opinion.

The heart rate accuracy on the Fenix 9 Pro was also very good, matching a chest strap closely on runs and bike rides. The optical sensor is not as good as a chest strap or upper arm band for strength workouts, but even there I saw mostly accurate results.

One challenge for the heart rate accuracy of the watch could be its size if you opt for the 51mm watch, as sometimes I find it hard to get the snug fit required for reliable optical tracking with bigger watches, but I had no notable problems with the Fenix 9 Pro in my testing.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: connectivity

The inReach model of the Fenix 9 Pro offers LTE and satellite connectivity, a feature introduced on the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro.

You need a Garmin subscription to use these services, which costs between $7.99 and $49.99 depending on the level you need, which mostly relates to how many messages you plan to send and calls you might make.

There’s a free trial available of the features, after which you get free SOS messaging for 12 months, but will have to pay for other services.

These connectivity features are one of the main reasons to look at the top Fenix models over older watches, or the Forerunner line-up, and will appeal greatly to those who like to take their adventures off the grid, as well as those who just like to leave their phone behind on a run while staying in touch if required.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: battery life

The battery life of the Fenix 9 Pro varies greatly depending on which size you go for, but if you opt for the largest 51mm watch I tested, it’s incredibly long-lasting.

I had the screen set to always-on and used it for outdoor runs almost every day in the most accurate (and power intensive) GPS setting, and the Fenix 9 Pro 51mm lasted me 10-11 days on a charge.

This can easily be extended by setting the screen to raise to wake, or using the other GPS settings, or if you mainly exercise indoors and don’t use the GPS.

The only AMOLED sports watch I’ve tested that can outdo the Fenix 9 Pro on battery life is the Suunto Vertical 2, though some MIP options like the Garmin Enduro 3 and Coros Vertix 2S will last longer thanks to their less power-hungry displays.

If you opt for the 43mm or 47mm watch the battery life does drop off significantly, and the 43mm watch my colleague Jane McGuire has been testing will have you reaching for a charger every three or four days if you use the always-on screen.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: maps and navigation

A lot of sports watches now offer maps, including on relatively affordable models like the Coros Pace 4, but Garmin’s maps and navigation tools remain the best available.

That’s mainly because its watches have ‘routable’ maps that actually know where you are and can create routes for you on the fly. Other watch brands tend to have non-routable maps that just overlay your trail on an image of the map, which is more than good enough for most occasions, but not quite as handy if you’re out in the wilderness and get lost.

The Fenix 9 Pro has all of Garmin’s usual maps and navigation tools, but adds some upgrades you don’t get on other watches from the brand.

Firstly, the maps load faster when panning and zooming, and your heading updates more quickly too. Secondly, there’s a new perspective viewpoint, which tilts the maps slightly to make it clearer where you are.

These updates are useful, if not necessarily gamechangers. I don’t find that the maps load too slowly for me on other Garmins, but any boost in speed is appreciated, and I do prefer the perspective view.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro review: smart features

Along with its connectivity features, the Fenix 9 Pro packs in a lot of useful smart features. It’s not as impressive on this front as true smartwatch like the Apple Watch Ultra 4, but Garmin does offer a lot more smart features than rival sports watches.

You get NFC payments through Garmin Pay, music storage with the ability to link up to several streaming services, including Spotify, for offline playback, and a lot of customization options for your watch face and widgets.

The Garmin Connect IQ app store is not as well-stocked as the App Store or Google Play, but it does contain a lot of watch faces, data fields and other widgets that can improve the experience on the watch.

While it’s still clearly a sports watch over a smartwatch, the Fenix 9 Pro does offer a lot of handy features for day to day use.

Should you buy the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro?

If you simply want the best adventure watch available, regardless of price, then the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro is the watch to go for. The new design is great, its sports and navigation features are as good as it gets, and you can pick a size to suit your wrist and battery life requirements.

However, I’m not sure it’s a big enough update on the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro that I wouldn’t recommend going for the older watch instead, and if you don’t need the connectivity feature on those watches, the Garmin Fenix 8 might be an even better value buy.

Both older models are also regularly on sale, so you could save hundreds of dollars by buying one instead of the Fenix 9 Pro. Certainly if you have one of those watches I don’t see a pressing need to upgrade, but older Fenix owners will really notice the benefits of the newer model.

The Garmin Forerunner 970 also offers most of the same great features, aside from connectivity, in a lighter, slimmer package that I prefer the fit of as a thin-wristed runner.

Outside the Garmin line-up, I think the Apple Watch Ultra 4 offers a strong alternative to the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro, providing you’re not put off by its three-day battery life. It has a rugged design, good sports tracking, and LTE and satellite connectivity, and better smart features than the Fenix 9 Pro.

The Fenix is now on a yearly update cycle and Garmin made some big updates to the watch last year by adding LTE and satellite connectivity, so a smaller refresh this year isn’t unexpected.

Next year’s Garmin Fenix 10 might see bigger changes, but right now the Fenix 9 Pro is the best sports watch you can get for outdoor adventures.

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro and Garmin Forerunner 970 sit at the top of their respective trees within the Garmin line-up, and both are among the best sports watches available.

They’re pitched at slightly different athletes, with the Forerunner 970 being a lightweight, slim watch built for the keenest runners and triathletes, while the all-metal Fenix 9 Pro is aimed at adventurers, offering epic battery life, LTE and satellite connectivity.

However, they do share a lot of features, even including some of the new ones introduced with the Fenix 9 Pro that will roll back to the Forerunner 970, and many people will be picking between the two when buying one of the best Garmin watches.

I’ve worn the Garmin Forerunner 970 for over a year myself and have had the Fenix 9 Pro strapped on for a few weeks since its launch, and I tested the two head-to-head at a half marathon.

Here’s my full Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970 comparison, looking at price, accuracy, design, battery life and other key differences between the pair.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Price

The Garmin Forerunner 970 has been out for over a year, which means you can often find it for less than its full price of $749. It comes in one size and three colors, keeping things nice and simple compared with the sprawling Fenix 9 line-up.

I’m testing the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro 51mm AMOLED with inReach, which costs $1,299, but you have three sizes and two display options to pick from with the Fenix 9.

The standard Garmin Fenix 9 starts at $999, whereas the Fenix 9 Pro starts at $1,099. The Pro has an all-titanium case, the option to add inReach connectivity, plus a choice of an AMOLED or MIP display.

Whatever version of the Fenix 9 you go for, it’s going to be considerably more expensive than the Forerunner 970.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Specs

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Design and display

The two watches share a lot of common design features, including a sapphire crystal screen, built-in flashlight, five buttons, and Garmin’s Elevate v5 heart rate sensors.

For me, the key difference is certainly the size and weight. The Forerunner 970 is slimmer and lighter than any Fenix model, especially the 51mm model of the Fenix I’m testing.

Having three options of the Fenix 9 to pick from is an advantage, though, with the 43mm model perhaps a little more suitable for thin wrists than the 47mm Forerunner 970, though the latter is still lighter and thinner.

The Forerunner 970 has a titanium bezel but is mostly made from plastic, whereas the Fenix 9 Pro has a full titanium case, which gives it a premium look and feel that’s a little less sporty.

You also get a higher water resistance rating with the Fenix 9, which is diveproof to 40m and has a 10 ATM rating compared to 5 ATM for the Forerunner 970.

Other differences to note are that the Fenix 9 has a brighter display than the Forerunner 970, though this was rarely something I noticed when using both watches, and the flashlight on the Fenix 9 Pro has a green option, which you don’t get on the cheaper Fenix 9 or Forerunner 970.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: GPS and heart rate accuracy

My testing of the accuracy of the watches extends well beyond the half marathon I ran wearing both, but it was representative of the results I’ve had with them, in that both were very accurate in the race.

The GPS tracks were nearly identical when I checked them after the event, and both watches measured almost the exact half marathon distance of 13.1094 miles.

This was a measured course for my local county’s championship race, and I was able to run the most direct line almost the entire time, so I expected the watches to be very close to the official distance, and they were.

Things were similarly impressive with regard to heart rate, which I checked by comparing the watches’ measurements with a Garmin HRM 600 chest strap.

Aside from the Fenix 9 Pro having a short, erroneous spike near the start of the race, both watches matched the readings from the chest strap beat for beat throughout.

I have run thousands of miles with the Garmin Forerunner 970 and have racked up almost 200 miles with the Fenix 9 Pro so far, as well as doing a lot of other workouts with the watches, and they have been consistently excellent for both GPS and heart rate accuracy.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Battery life

Battery life is an area where the Fenix 9 Pro outdoes the Forerunner 970, especially with the largest 51mm model.

The Forerunner 970 generally lasts me four or five days on a charge with the screen always on, running outdoors every day, whereas the Feinx 9 Pro 51mm has been lasting me 10 or 11 days with the same use.

It’s closer when comparing the 47mm Fenix 9 to the Forerunner 970, but the Fenix is listed as lasting longer in watch and GPS modes. However, if you opt for the smaller 43mm Fenix 9, the Forerunner 970 will outlast it.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Connectivity

The inReach models of the Fenix 9 Pro offer LTE and satellite connectivity, which allow you to stay in touch with the world without carrying your phone, even when you’re in the wilderness and outside cellular coverage.

This is one of the biggest extra features you get on the Fenix 9 Pro compared with the Forerunner 970, and it will be a huge draw to the most adventurous athletes in particular.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Maps

Both watches offer Garmin’s routable maps and navigation tools, which are the best in the business, but the Fenix 9 Pro has a couple of small upgrades in this area that won’t be coming to the Forerunner 970.

The first is simply that the maps load a little faster when panning and zooming, and the second is the new perspective view you can use on the Fenix 9, which tilts the map slightly in line with your perspective.

Both upgrades are welcome, but I wouldn’t classify them as dealbreakers when picking between the two watches myself.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro vs Garmin Forerunner 970: Which should you buy?

The Garmin Forerunner 970 remains my favorite sports watch overall, and I’d pick it over the Fenix 9 Pro because of its lighter, slimmer design and the fact that it’s a lot cheaper.

However, this is also because none of the feature upgrades you get on the Fenix 9 Pro are absolutely essential for me — if you need the extra connectivity in particular, then paying more for a Fenix will be worthwhile.

The design of the Fenix 9 Pro will also appeal to a lot of people. The all-metal design is gorgeous and means the watch is a better fit for smart settings than the sportier Forerunner 970.

On accuracy and key sports and navigation features, however, the two watches are pretty much a wash based on my testing, and clearly two of the best options on the market from any brand.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple Watch 11 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — which one should you buy?
• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)

One of my favorite aspects of being a technology journalist is getting to cover the debut of exciting new products at events like the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, and most recently the Internationale Funkausstellung show, aka Innovation for All (IFA) in Berlin.

With no shortage of ground to cover at each of these tech conferences, I’ve made a habit of treating each day as a marathon of sorts, tracking my stats via one of the best fitness trackers or top smartwatches I can find.

For IFA 2026, I opted to log my efforts using the new Garmin Cirqa, a screen-free tracker that’s comfortable, long-lasting, and discreet. Ultimately, it proved to be a competent wearable for the task, with one notable exception (more on that below).

With that said, here are the five biggest takeaways from logging my steps at IFA 2026 on the Garmin Cirqa.

I logged 28k steps at IFA in Berlin on the Garmin Cirqa

1. I covered way more ground than expected, especially on day 1

Much to my surprise, I walked nearly 18,000 steps on my first day of IFA, which was technically a day before the show opened to the public (the press tends to get early access).

To be fair, the Berlin Messe is an absolutely sprawling conference complex, with no shortage of seemingly secret passages and tucked-away halls that are easy to stumble upon by accident but virtually impossible to find again when you’re actually looking for them.

This partially explains why my day one step count was so much higher than day two: I spent considerable time on the ground day one simply trying to get a lay of the land (in an admittedly very jet-lagged state). Day two, I had meetings scattered throughout the complex, and I didn’t want to be wandering around like a ding-dong.

2. I logged more steps on day 1 of IFA than any single day covering MWC

At 17,902 steps, my day one of IFA coverage in Berlin beat my step count for any individual day of coverage at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona back in March. That said, I spent a total of five days covering MWC compared to just two days covering IFA, for a total step count of 67,398 steps in Spain.

3. But CES day 1 was more intense than both

While day one of IFA may have been a leg-burner, it falls a bit short of my total step count from day one of the Consumer Electronics Show held in Las Vegas back in early January, where I logged a dog-barking 20,253 steps, more than double my everyday average back home.

Then again, as anyone who has been to CES likely knows, things are very spread out in Las Vegas, which also just might be the least pedestrian-friendly city in the U.S... want to cross the street? You'll need to walk another half-mile down the strip and wander through multiple casinos to do so.

4. Commuting on the U-Bahn seemingly skewed Garmin's distance and pace data

I didn’t include my distance or pace totals in the table above because it’s clear these figures are skewed. Both days of the show, I fired up a walking workout in the Cirqa upon leaving my hotel, trekked about half a mile to the nearest U-Bahn station — I am a nerd for experiencing public rail transit in new cities — and rode the metro roughly two miles to the show grounds.

Unfortunately, the Garmin Cirqa clearly interpreted this time spent riding the train as me moving at near-superhuman speed. For example, my average moving pace on day one of the show, according to Garmin, was 8 mins 41 secs per mile. Sure, I can maintain that pace when running a mile, but covering a trade show? Def not.

Garmin also said I walked 14.14 miles on day one, which would equal 1,266 steps per mile, way less than what I normally average, which is closer to 2,000 steps per mile.

5. I mostly forgot the Garmin Cirqa was even there, but might not wear it again

Ultimately, I opted to wear the Garmin Cirqa for two primary reasons. First, it’s comfortable and lightweight, so much so that I pretty much forgot it was even there. Second, I wanted to wear a mechanical watch on my left wrist to keep a constant eye on time; the nine-hour time difference between Seattle (where I live) and Berlin was my main rationale (also, I got a cool new watch I wanted to show off).

So, will I be wearing the Garmin Cirqa the next time I cover a major tech show? Honestly, probably not. While I appreciate how wrist-friendly it is, the lack of GPS means it has to piggyback off my smartphone’s signal, which isn’t necessarily ideal. Moreover, I’d rather opt for a wearable that’s capable of discerning time spent walking from time spent riding a subway.

More from Tom's Guide

• I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winner is clear
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — and we have a new Android champ
• I walked 7 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 5 — here's the winner

If you’re a fan of the best smartwatches, you’ve been treated in recent weeks with the launch of the latest models of the Garmin Fenix and Apple Watch Ultra.

The Garmin Fenix 9 line-up launched in late August, with the top-of-the-range Fenix 9 Pro being Garmin’s most advanced sports watch yet.

A couple of weeks later the Apple Watch Ultra 4 was announced at Apple’s September event, boasting new features like continuous heart rate tracking and a readiness score.

We’ll thoroughly test both watches and compare them in our full reviews, but for now here’s a breakdown of how the pair stack up with regards to their key specs, features and price.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Specs compared

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Price

The price is simple when it comes to the Apple Watch Ultra 4; it will set you back $799, the same price as its predecessor. There’s also only one model of the watch, which comes in either black or natural titanium,

Things are a lot more complicated with the Garmin Fenix 9 line-up, with three sizes, two display options and standard and Pro models to consider.

The standard Garmin Fenix 9 costs from $999, whereas the Fenix 9 Pro costs from $1099 and has a full titanium case and the option to add inReach connectivity as its key upgrades. I’m going to focus on the Fenix 9 Pro for this comparison, because it’s the top model in Garmin’s line-up.

Whatever Fenix you opt for, however, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is going to be the more affordable option, and it’s $400 cheaper than a Garmin Fenix 9 Pro with inReach.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Design and display

Both watches have rugged, durable designs with full titanium cases and sapphire crystal displays. The Apple Watch Ultra has a square 49mm case, whereas with the Fenix 9 Pro you can choose between circular 43mm, 47mm and 51mm case sizes.

Another choice you get with the Fenix 9 Pro is the display type, because there is a memory-in-pixel Fenix 9 Pro Solar with solar panels on its face to boost battery life.

The standard Fenix 9 Pro has a 3,000 nit AMOLED display, matching the brightness of the Apple Watch Ultra 4’s Retina display.

Both watches stick with their classic button layouts — the Ultra 4 has three buttons, one of which is a digital dial, while the Fenix 9 Pro has five buttons.

They have equivalent waterproof ratings and both can be used for diving to depths of 40m.

A big design advantage for the Fenix 9 Pro is its built-in flashlight, which has white, red and green modes and is brighter and more useful than the flashlight option on the Ultra 4, which uses the watch face itself to light the way.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Health and fitness features

Both watches are packed with useful sports and activity tracking features, and the Apple Watch Ultra 4’s new continuous heart rate monitor and readiness feature are two big improvements that bring it into line with features that have been available on Garmin watches for some time.

We’ll be testing Apple’s claims that the new heart rate monitor on the Ultra 4 and Apple Watch Series 12 is the most accurate on the market, but I have been impressed by the heart rate accuracy on the Fenix 9 Pro so far in testing, and on past Apple Watch models.

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 has more health tracking features, like alerts for signs of an irregular heart beat and hypertension, whereas the Garmin’s strengths are in more extensive training analysis, with additional metrics rating your overall endurance and predicted race times.

Both watches have all the sports modes and stats you need to track workouts, and are also comprehensive daily activity and sleep trackers.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Smart features and connectivity

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is a true smartwatch and offers more useful day-to-day features than the Fenix 9 Pro, especially with its new Siri AI-based features, like Live Rewind, Sound Recognition and Siri Recap.

There’s also a wealth of useful third-party apps available for the Apple Watch, whereas Garmin’s Connect IQ app store is much more limited, and Apple Pay is easier to set up and use than Garmin Pay.

The Fenix 9 Pro’s smart features do include music storage and the ability to link up with streaming services including Spotify, but the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is certainly smarter all round.

Both watches offer LTE and satellite connectivity though, which can be useful for staying in touch with others when you don’t have your phone, or to send SOS alerts if you get into trouble when adventuring off-the-grid.

This feature is only available on the more expensive Fenix 9 Pro model with inReach connectivity, and you will need a subscription with both watches to use these services, except for SOS alerts, which are free on both (for one year with the Fenix 9 Pro, for two years on the Apple Watch Ultra 4).

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: navigation

Garmin’s on-watch navigation tools are the best in the business, and you can quickly create and follow routes on the Fenix 9 Pro thanks to its routable maps, as well as getting specific info on what’s ahead of you when tackling long climbs or descents.

You can also view and use these maps with your sports modes, so you can see your activity stats and a map at the same time, unlike on the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which has its maps and routing features in a separate app to Workouts (though you can use third-party apps to shows maps during an activity).

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Battery life

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 got a battery life bump that means it now offers up to 50 hours on a charge with the always-on display enabled, and 18 hours of GPS tracking in its most accurate mode.

However, this is an area where the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro certainly has the edge, no matter what size of the watch you opt for.

The Fenix 9 Pro 43mm lasts up to 10 days in watch mode and has 18 hours of GPS tracking. The 47mm watch lasts up to 18 days in watch mode and has 32 hours of GPS tracking, and the biggest 51mm watch I’m testing can last a whopping 31 days in watch mode and has 56 hours of GPS tracking.

Both watches can extend these ratings by using various low-power modes during activities, but if it’s battery life you want, the Fenix is the watch to go for.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 vs Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Which should you buy?

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro is built to be the ultimate adventure and sports watch and focuses more on battery life and training features than the Apple Watch Ultra 4, and it also offers more design choices and the flashlight, which I find invaluable.

For its part the Apple Watch Ultra 4 looks to be a very capable sports watch with more smarts and health features than the Fenix 9 Pro, and it also comes in a lot cheaper.

Both are among the best options in their category, but which suits you better will largely depend if you’re mainly looking for a sports watch, or a smartwatch.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple Watch 11 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — which one should you buy?
• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is set to be one of the new products launched at Apple’s upcoming Surprise and Shine event on 9 September, and it will follow hot on the heels of Garmin’s new flagship sports watches, the Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro.

These were announced on 25 August, and I’ve been testing out the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro 51mm watch for the past week. I’ve tested every Fenix model since the Garmin Fenix 5 Plus, and I’ve also tested every Apple Watch Ultra launched to date, and both are consistently among the best sports watches available.

Apple has also made great strides in closing the sports tracking gap between its devices and the best Garmin watches, with accuracy, battery life and training analysis features all improving with each generation of the Ultra.

However, there are certainly still areas where the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro outperforms the Apple Watch Ultra, and even after just a week of using the new Fenix, there are two features I’d love to see on the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

Maps within activity screens

I feel like this should be a pretty simple update to effect, and it’s something that’s standard across any sports watch with offline maps.

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 does offer maps and navigation tools, but you can’t have the map as one of your data screens in an activity, so if you want to check your route during a run, for example, you have to exit the Workout app to see it, then switch back to the Workout app afterward.

With the Garmin Fenix 9, you just scroll down to your map screen, which can even show activity stats overlaid on the top, so you can follow a route while also checking the activity duration or pace.

You can actually do this already with third-party sports tracking apps on the Apple Watch, like WorkOutDoors, so hopefully it’s something that shows up as a software update during Apple’s September event and then rolls back to older Apple Watch models.

A built-in flashlight

This is an ambitious hope, but most of Garmin’s top watches now feature a built-in flashlight, and it’s just so useful that I have to hope it’s something that eventually pops up on the Apple Watch Ultra.

When Garmin first launched a watch with a built-in flashlight, I didn’t think it was all that big a deal, but I constantly use the flashlight on my watch, either to navigate around the house at night, find children’s toys that have rolled under sofas, or as an extra light when running after sunset.

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro has an upgraded flashlight compared to past watches, with a new green option alongside the red light and several levels of white.

I don’t think the Apple Watch Ultra 4 has to go green, though it’s apparently useful for certain sports and for reading maps at night, but any kind of built-in flashlight would be a great addition to the watch.

At the moment, you can use the screen on the Apple Watch Ultra 3 as a torch, but it’s not as bright as a built-in LED light, nor as easy to direct light, and you can’t use the flashlight at the same time as using the screen.

This major design change is the kind of thing that would probably have shown up in leaks if it were going to arrive on the Apple Watch Ultra 4, but I live in hope it makes an unexpected appearance, especially as it would fit perfectly with the "surprise and shine" theme of the September event.

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

More from Tom's Guide

• 10 Apple Watch innovations that changed the game — from Fall Detection to Hypertension Alerts
• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• 3 Apple Watch settings I always turn off to maximize battery life

Which is the better smartwatch for hikers, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 or the Garmin Instinct 3? The latter may be built for logging outdoor adventures, but both watches use similar tracking tech, offer a dedicated hiking mode, and also cost about the same.

To find out, I wore the Garmin Instinct 3 on my right wrist and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 on my left wrist, fired up a hiking workout on both, and started the ~1,700-foot climb to Snow Lake, a scenic high-altitude alpine lake located in the Cascade Mountains, an hour east of Seattle. I also logged the trek using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 as a control.

I hiked 7 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

So, which smartwatch, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 or the Garmin Instinct 3, proved to be the more reliable hiking companion? Find the results for each watch, along with Strava, below.

1. Samsung overcounted my climb and undercounted my distance

According to AllTrails, the Snow Lake Trail is 6.7 miles, which is exactly what Strava logged. The Instinct 3 came pretty close, depriving me of 0.15 miles of effort, while the Galaxy Watch 9 undercounted by 0.21 miles.

AllTrails additionally lists 1,686 feet of elevation gain for the hike, a tally that both Strava and Garmin came incredibly close to nailing; the former undercounted by just 12 feet and the latter overcounted by a mere 7 feet.

The Galaxy Watch 9, meanwhile, overcounted my uphill efforts by a whopping 180 feet.

2. The Galaxy Watch 9 didn't count my steps

While distance and elevation are the two metrics I care about most when tracking a hike, along with moving pace (more on that below), it's always nice to get a sense of my step count. Unfortunately, the Galaxy Watch 9 neglected to count my steps, which is odd, given it has no trouble doing so when you track a normal walking workout.

3. Samsung doesn't record a 'moving pace'

My brother, who was visiting from the U.S. East Coast, joined me on this hike. Our plan was to make it to the lake, cool off, enjoy the tranquility (along with a cheeky beverage), and then head back down.

During our mid-hike break, I left all three workout sessions running. Most smartwatches in 2026 are smart enough to notice that you've stopped moving and automatically pause your workout until you're in motion again.

Post-outdoor workout, the best smartwatches provide two pace metrics, one reflecting your average moving pace and the other showing your average elapsed pace with pauses included in the calculation. As you might guess, the former is more useful and reflective of your actual efforts.

Unfortunately, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 only provided one average pace metric without specifying which, but the answer seems obvious. For what it's worth, Garmin and Strava both noted a similar average elapsed pace to Samsung's: 34 mins 10 secs per mile for Garmin and 33 mins 06 secs per mile from Strava.

4. Heart rate and calorie data matches up nicely

Now for the good news. The Galaxy Watch 9's heart rate data is a near match with Garmin's, a result I love to see. Both smartwatches also calculated a similar number of calories burned during my 3.5-hour excursion.

Winner: Garmin Instinct 3

The Garmin Instinct 3 long ago established itself as my go-to smartwatch for logging outdoor adventures thanks to its reliability, ridiculously good battery performance, bright screen, and rugged design. And it once again excelled on all fronts in this hiking comparison versus the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

Not only did Garmin calculate more precise distance, climb, and pace data than Samsung, it also logged my steps, something the Galaxy Watch 9 failed to do, all while using way less battery. In other words, the Garmin Instinct 3 wins this comparison.

Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winner is clear
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — and we have a new Android champ
• I walked 7 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 5 — here's the winner

Garmin has launched the latest models of its flagship Fenix adventure watch, with the Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro set to go on sale on Friday, August 28.

Both look fantastic, with upgrades to the design and software that include the largest screen ever on a Fenix with the 51mm models, full titanium cases on the Pro models, and a faster mapping experience.

While the Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro might be the best Garmin watches available, you may get better value by opting for an older model, with the Garmin Fenix 8 and Garmin Fenix 8 Pro both reduced right now. The Fenix 8 Pro is down to $949 at Amazon, while the Fenix 8 is down to $849 at Amazon.

New features are rolling back to the Fenix 8 and Fenix 8 Pro

These deals are especially interesting because according to DC Rainmaker, Garmin is going to bring almost all of the new features from the Fenix 9 line-up to the Fenix 8 and Fenix 8 Pro.

Last year Garmin updated its software platform to make it the same across a wide range of models, and that means it’s easier for new features to be rolled back to older watches.

Some of the flagship features launched on the Fenix 9, like the Epic tool for grouping activities and upgraded Stamina feature for judging your effort during long activities, will be available on the Fenix 8 and Fenix 8 Pro (along with the Garmin Forerunner 970).

Older watches also get the updated rucking and rowing features, including VO2 max based on rowing activities, and the improved grade adjusted pace stats during runs.

The Fenix 9 still has some exclusive upgrades

Naturally there are still some reasons to opt for the new watch, such as the design upgrades — the all-titanium case on the Fenix 9 Pro is attractive and the 1.5in screen on the 51mm models will be exciting for those with big wrists.

The Fenix 9 line-up also gets mapping upgrades that will make it faster and smoother to pan and zoom on the maps, and archery features that will be nigh-on essential if that’s your main sport.

As always, you can expect future software updates to come to the Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro for longer than they will on the older watches too, and the new Pro models also have a green light mode on the built-in flashlight that’s exclusive to them.

However, if you don’t need to have the latest and greatest device on your wrist, I think there’s certainly better value to be had by opting for a Fenix 8 right now, especially the Fenix 8 Pro which has Garmin’s LTE and satellite connectivity.

To get those features, you pay a minimum of $1,199 for the Fenix 9 Pro InReach model, and the standard Fenix 9 starts at $999 compared to $749 for the Fenix 8 in the sales.

For those who don’t mind going for an even older device and just want a rugged Garmin adventure watch with maps and an AMOLED display, the Garmin Epix Pro is $519 on Amazon right now, down from $999.

Garmin has lined up a live event on its YouTube channel called "Play Harder," and while nothing has been confirmed yet, all signs suggest this could well be the launch of the Garmin Fenix 9, perhaps alongside the Garmin Enduro 4.

The Garmin Fenix 8 Pro and Enduro 3 remain two of the best Garmin watches available, so it will be exciting to see what updates are coming to the Fenix 9 and Enduro 4, if they are indeed launched at the Play Harder event.

How to watch the Garmin ‘Play Harder’ event

The Garmin Play Harder event is scheduled to go live on YouTube at 12:00pm BST on Tuesday, 25 August. That’s 7:00am Eastern Time, 4:00am Pacific Time and 1:00pm CET.

Whether the event will be a presentation or just trailers for new watches is yet to be seen, but you can sign up to be notified when the event happens on YouTube.

What watches are likely to launch?

Garmin plays its hand very close to its chest when it comes to new launches, so leaks and rumors always have to be taken with a pinch of salt, but there are several reasons to believe the Play Harder event will launch the Fenix 9 and Enduro 4.

Firstly, the timing of the event. It's been a couple of years (almost to the day) since Garmin put on a similar event to launch the Garmin Fenix 8 and Garmin Enduro 3 and it ties in with UTMB in Chamonix, France, which is one of the biggest weeks on the ultramarathon running calendar.

Garmin CEO Cliff Pemble said earlier this year that there would be a “significant number of new product introductions” in the outdoor category in the second half of 2026.

The Fenix 9 was always likely to be one of these since the flagship watch has been on a yearly release cycle since 2022, while the timing of this event also works for the Enduro’s biennial launch cycle.

With the event titled "Play Harder" and showing a surfer, it also suggests that rugged, outdoorsy devices are more likely to be on the billing than smartwatches.

What to expect from the Garmin Fenix 9 and Enduro 4?

The Fenix line-up is always extensive with regard to the size, material and display options available, and rumors suggest that both a Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro are likely to launch, with the Pro model having options with and without Garmin’s InReach connectivity.

A leak spotted by Fitness Tracker Test suggested that three sizes would be available for both watches — 43mm, 47mm, and 51mm — with AMOLED and MIP versions of the Pro watch.

The return of the smallest 43mm size is welcome after it wasn’t available for the Fenix 8 Pro. Interestingly, the rumors suggest there won’t be a MicroLED model, despite Garmin using the tech on the Fenix 8 Pro MicroLED last year.

We’ll have to wait and see what new features arrive with the Fenix 9 line-up, but a brighter screen is a likely upgrade.

This might hit battery life, but that’s where the rumored Enduro 4 will come in. The Enduro has traditionally been a MIP watch with the best battery life in the Garmin line-up, and we’d expect that to be the case with the Enduro 4.

We’ll try to get our hands on any new devices launched as soon as possible to see how they stack up against the best sports watches available.

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

More from Tom's Guide

• Rheon running shorts are being used by top road, track and trail runners — I spoke to an expert to find out more about the tech
• I tested shoes from 5 up-and-coming running brands — here are the ones worth your money
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

Google and Garmin both recently dropped new screen-free fitness trackers to rival the popular Whoop 5.0. The biggest difference? The Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa are both subscription-free.

I’ve already tested the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa head-to-head in a prior walk test comparison, but a hiccup with the latter’s data meant a rematch was inevitable.

About as evenly matched as they come, both the Air and Cirqa track your sleep, workouts, and overall health. Garmin’s insights go a bit more in-depth than Fitbit’s, but the Cirqa is also twice the price of the Air, $199 vs. $99.

When it comes to onboard tech, neither device has GPS, so you must carry a paired smartphone for location tracking data during outdoor workouts.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa

So, which screen-free tracker is the more reliable wearable? I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right wrist to find out (the opposite of the previous test).

For good measure, I also tracked the walk using the Strava app on my iPhone 16, and as always, I manually counted my steps with some help from an old-school tally counter (one click = 100 steps).

Find the results of the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa walk test, round 2, below.

Garmin's step count was closer

Given the fact that the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, and Strava were all making use of the same location data, courtesy of my smartphone, you'd expect metrics like distance, steps, and pace to be pretty similar across the board. And that is very much the case.

However, when it comes to steps, Garmin's tally was closer to my actual count than Fitbit's by a whopping margin of... three steps. This is to say, both devices performed remarkably well here.

Strava's step count, for what it's worth, was 4,992, another impressive result.

The Fitbit Air continues to struggle with climb data

Some things never change. While the Garmin Cirqa and Strava calculated virtually the same amount of ascent for my rather hilly walk, the Fitbit Air significantly undercounted.

This is far from the first time the Air has logged lower-than-expected climb data. I had a similar result when I last pitted the Air vs Cirqa in a walk test. It also undercounted in a walk test versus the Apple Watch 11, and another time in a comparison against the Pixel Watch 4.

All three tracking methods noted similar distance and pace

Despite inconsistencies in climb data, the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, and Strava app all calculated roughly the same amount of distance covered and average pace for my ~45-minute walk around sunny Seattle, Washington. That said, Garmin was the most generous with my efforts and speed.

Garmin failed to record any heart rate data

Well, this is a first: For unknown reasons, the Garmin Cirqa failed to record any heart rate data during my walk. This is particularly disappointing given the fact that it performed well in every other regard. Coincidentally, when I last tested the Garmin against the Fitbit, heart rate data was one of the few metrics it did log.

The Fitbit Air's max and average heart rate data, meanwhile, are right around what I expected for my walk, based on previous walk data from a zillion other tests.

Fitbit burned more battery and calories

Finally, neither device used much battery recording my walking workout, which makes sense given neither has a screen or GPS to power. While the Cirqa registered zero drain, the Air used just 2%.

Not only did the Fitbit burn more battery, but it also said I burned more calories than the Garmin during my stroll. That said, fitness tracker calorie counts are notoriously inconsistent, and one of the main metrics I tend to ignore.

Which of these two fitness trackers would you be more likely to use? 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
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

If you want a watch that will help you stay in shape, monitor your health, and look great in the process, then you're probably in the market for a new smartwatch.

When it comes to these stylish wearables, three big brands rule the roost: Garmin, Samsung, and Apple are the home of premium smartwatches that are packed with great features.

For this article I've picked out nine of my favorites from the big three – all of which are available to buy right now on Amazon. And while some are more expensive than others, you can still score bargains, with the cheapest smartwatch here clocking in at under $200.

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

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?

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’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'

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

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

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