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

We love a poll at Tom's Guide, as it helps us to understand you (our readers) much better, so we can give you more (or less) of what you do (or don't) want.

One poll that recently caught my attention, featured below, asked readers: "Which fitness tracking metrics do you trust the least?" Here's what you said, and why you're definitely on the right track when strapping on one of the best fitness trackers for your workout.

Which fitness tracking metrics do you trust the least?

Here's the results of the top three:

• 1st place: 45%, calories burned
• 2nd place: 21%, heart rate
• 3rd place: 13%, distance

You guys are right to not trust the calorie burn totals on your fitness trackers, and here's a little more on why.

Why calorie burn isn't too accurate on fitness trackers

Calorie burn is very person-specific and varies depending on multiple factors, from lifestyle choices, sex, weight, activity levels, to genetics or health conditions. So before we get into it, if anyone online touts a high-calorie burn workout, I, as a trainer myself, would run a mile.

To test it out myself not long ago, I pressed play on a 500-calorie HIIT workout, and I wasn't even close to the target.

There are several ways to calculate the calories burned during a workout, which I'll briefly summarize below, but your best bet would be to get hooked up in a lab setting, where monitoring would be the gold standard.

• Calorie calculators: These use MET value charts to estimate how much energy a person could burn during different workouts, but these are standardized across the board.
• Fitness trackers and the best running watches: These track calorie burn by looking at your personal details (age and weight, for example), workout type and factors like heart rate, workout length and oxygen consumption. They’ll estimate VO2 max and expected energy expenditure.
• Chest strap heart rate monitors: I'd say these are your best bet for more accurate data. They look at the effort it takes for an individual to do a workout based on heart rate and assess calories you’re likely to burn. Most devices are still only an estimate, though some do better than others based on the wealth of data they have to crunch.

Ideally, you’ll need to find out your basal metabolic rate (BMR) — how many calories your body requires to get through the day — and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), which refers to how many calories you expend outside of "dedicated" exercise bouts, to help determine likely calorie burn during the day.

There are methods to help you calculate BMR and TDEE, but, as mentioned, visiting a doctor, lab, or sports clinic will help you get more accurate BMR and body mass readings. I'd also recommend measuring your VO2 max and maximum heart rate.

Now, you could go through all of this to find out likely calorie burn, but if you, like me, enjoy training different ways, you're looking at a wide range of calorie burn depending on your activity. And, really, who cares?

Bottom line

I always tell my clients that calorie burn during workouts only determines a very small amount of overall energy expenditure and doesn't really tell you much about your health, fitness, or longevity.

Firstly, your diet moves the needle the most in terms of fat loss or muscle gain. And other areas of your fitness, recovery and health, like Heart Rate Variance (HRV), steps taken, sleep quality, stress, sedentary time and workout intensity, are much more important metrics to look at for your overall health and the likelihood of developing health conditions in the long term.

The best advice I can give is to use calorie burn as an estimate and focus attention on other goals — building strength, increasing muscle mass (which is more metabolically active) and, most importantly, feeling good during and after workouts.

Calorie burn should never really be the focus, so I'm glad to see Tom's Guide readers are wary!

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

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• 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’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I got home, I downloaded all the data.

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the results:

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air: Similarities

Both are screenless

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

Both can be used with Apple or Android

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

Both can be used subscription-free

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

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air: Differences

Price

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

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

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

Physical buttons

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

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

Size and comfort

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

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

Third-party integrations

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

Band placement

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Garmin has officially entered the screen-free fitness tracker/band wars with the debut of the new Garmin Cirqa, a $199, subscription-free wearable with haptic feedback, up to ten days of battery, and a single button.

I’ve been wearing the Cirqa for just a few hours, but I can already say with some certainty that both Google/Fitbit and Whoop should be a bit worried. While the $99 Fitbit Air is aimed at enthusiasts and the subscription-only Whoop 5.0 is geared more toward serious and pro athletes, the Garmin Cirqa seems to strike a delightful balance between the two, in terms of features, cost, and specs.

Here are the five biggest things you should know about the Garmin Cirqa based on my hands-on experience, including why it just might make my list of the best fitness trackers in 2026.

Garmin Cirqa: Cheat sheet

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

Garmin Cirqa: Versus competition

1. Garmin Cirqa: Cheaper than the Whoop but more than the Fitbit Air

Priced at $199 via Garmin direct, the Garmin Cirqa is twice the cost of the $99 Fitbit Air, but still pretty affordable (for a Garmin). However, unlike Google, which sells additional Fitbit Air straps starting at $34.99, accessory straps for the Garmin Cirqa start at $49.99.

2. Garmin Cirqa: No subscription required

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

However, for added insights and training advice, Garmin offers the Connect+ plan for $6.99 monthly or $69.99 annually. That's a better value than the Google Health Premium plan for the Fitbit Air, which will set you back $9.99 a month or $99 a year.

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

3. Garmin Cirqa: Bigger than the Air but still light and comfy

The Garmin Cirqa is bigger and heavier than the Fitbit Air, with a noticeably wider strap (24 mm vs 18 mm). Compared to the Whoop 5.0, it's roughly the same shape and size, but a whole lot lighter.

The Garmin Cirqa fabric strap is a tad scratchy for my liking, based on first impressions, but I am hoping it will soften a bit over time. Like the Whoop 5.0 and Fitbit Air, the device itself — a plastic case with a sensor array, status lamp and single button — is protected by the strap.

Unlike the Fitbit Air, swapping one strap for another on the Garmin Cirqa is a pain in the butt. I had to use a dedicated watch spring bar tool to get the job done. The spring bars are also an oddly thin length, limiting third-party strap options.

4. Garmin Cirqa: No GPS, but lots of holistic insights and tracking modes

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

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

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

Unlike the Fitbit Air or Whoop 5.0, manually starting a workout with the Cirqa doesn't require a trip to the app. Users can start and stop workout tracking with a press of the device's only button. Haptic feedback confirms when your efforts start and finish. You can additionally schedule vibration-based alarms in the companion app.

5. Garmin Cirqa: Ten days of battery

Garmin says the Cirqa's battery should last up to ten days per charge, which puts its longevity squarely between the Fitbit Air at seven days and the Whoop 5.0 at 14 days.

With my official battery test underway, we should know soon whether or not the Cirqa lives up to its ten-day rating. Oh, and it uses the same exact charging cable as every other modern Garmin watch, something I love to see.

Garmin Cirqa: Outlook

As noted in the title, the Garmin Cirqa seemingly strikes a compelling balance between the entry-level Fitbit Air and the pro-level Whoop 5.0. Like the Fitbit Air, it's reasonably priced and doesn't require a subscription. It's not quite as small or light as the Air, but it does have better battery life.

Like the Whoop 5.0, the Garmin Cirqa should easily last for over a week per charge, while delivering heady fitness, sleep, and workout recovery insights that go beyond what the Fitbit Air provides.

Stay tuned for my full review of the Garmin Cirqa screen-less fitness tracker. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on Garmin's latest wearable? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Cheat sheet

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

Garmin Cirqa: price and availability

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Design

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

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

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Health and fitness

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Battery

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

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

Garmin Cirqa vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air

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

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

Stay tuned for my full Garmin Cirqa review.

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

The three fitness tracking stats I trust the least

1. Elevation gain

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

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

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

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

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

2. Pace

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

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

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

3. Calories

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Read on for the results!

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Walk test results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Review in brief

Despite my love of sleep tech, I used to think the only way you'd get me in a smartwatch was by tearing my beloved analog watch from my cold, dead wrist. The Withings ScanWatch 2 has proven me wrong, showing there is an option for those who want functional health tracking in more attractive packaging than a black screen.

The Withings ScanWatch 2 looks like your conventional watch but packed inside is a wealth of health and fitness tech. From sleep tracking to step counters to SpO2 measures, the ScanWatch 2 features advanced tech designed to give you a well-rounded view of your health.

Overall, the health and sleep data is comparable to the best sleep trackers (although I found the Withings Sleep Mat comes out on top for sleep metrics), and the Withings app makes it easy to understand. You do have to upgrade to Withings+, however, if you want advice on what to do with that data.

To maintain the analog look, the ScanWatch2 does have to make some sacrifices. The paired down display means you have to use the app for detailed insight and scrolling through the small dial can be frustrating. It’s also one of the bulkier health trackers, which makes it less comfortable for sleep (and quite warm to wear).

But this is a smartwatch for people who don’t want to wear a smartwatch and although the display might be simplified compared to say, the Apple Watch 11, the data and the tech isn’t.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Price

The WithingsScan Watch 2 starts at $369.95 US / £319.99 UK at Withings. A standard wristband is included, but you can add additional wristbands (including a metal buckle design) from $35.95 / £35.95.

That places it among premium fitness trackers, such as the Apple Watch 11 (from $399.99 / £369.99 at Amazon) or the Oura Ring 5 (from $399 / £399 at Oura). Withings does offer a more affordable alternative in the ScanWatch Light ($249.95 / £319.95) or, if it’s just sleep tracking you want, the Withings Sleep Mat is $199.95 / £129.95.

I tested the Withings ScanWatch 2 using the basic free tier but you can upgrade to the Withings+ subscription. One month comes free and after that it's either $9.95 / £8.95 per month, or $99.50 / £89.50 a year.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Design and Comfort

I’m a diehard analog watch lover and so the hybrid design of the Withings ScanWatch 2 appeals exactly to my taste. It looks like an analog watch until you get close and discover the double dials are hiding a health tracker and a step counter.

The upper dial is the digital display and it's here you'll find your health tracking data (and any notifications). It's easy to see both in daylight and the dark. The crown on the bezel is used not to change the time (that happens automatically automatically) but to scroll through the menu. The lower dial tracks your fitness goal, such as how close you are to 10,000 steps.

Made from Sapphire glass and a stainless steel case with an FKM (fluoroelastomer), the ScanWatch 2 feels durable (and perhaps a little bulky — I'll get into that now). It's also swimproof.

The disadvantage of this hybrid design is that the ScanWatch is cumbersome in comparison to lightweight trackers such as the FitBit Air. It's particularly notable when sleeping — I wear my watch on my left wrist which is the side I gravitate towards in sleep. As a result, it often takes some readjustment to ensure my watch isn’t pressing into me.

However, it’s not much bulkier than the Apple Watch 11 or the Garmin Forerunner, which both prioritize plenty of tech over a streamlined design.

There's also less data available on the screen, although that does mean it's less distracting than other smartwatches. It's a matter of preference; if you want a traditional look with at-a-glance data, the ScanWatch 2 has you covered.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Sleep tracking

The Withings ScanWatch 2 tracks a variety of metrics to deliver a sleep score summing up your night. This includes duration (time in bed and time asleep), sleep stage, heart rate, and HRV (heart rate variability).

I compared the sleep metrics collected by my Withings ScanWatch to the data from my Muse S Athena headband and, bar a few minor differences in sleep and wake time, the results largely matched. My heart rate metrics are also comparable.

However, the ScanWatch 2 has a tendency to miss minor interruptions, attributing them instead to light sleep. For example, in data from July 7th my Muse S Athena noted a wake up at 5.17 a.m., which my ScanWatch didn’t. I know for certain I was awake at this point because I checked the time... but I did fall asleep again quickly.

The ScanWatch can also confuse moments of stillness for sleep. (See my ‘nap’ at 7.40 a.m. which was definitely just me scrolling through my phone.) However, I’ve found it’s more accurate than Withings’s dedicated Sleep tracker for determining when I’m actively trying to sleep — the Withings Sleep Mat tends to mistake ‘reading in bed’ with ‘lying awake’.

The ScanWatch 2 has a few more advantages over the Sleep Mat (also from Withings). For a start, it’s portable which means I can track consistently even when traveling. It also collects health data that’s not directly related to hours in bed but nonetheless influences your rest (such as temperature, activity levels, and menstrual cycle).

However, for accurate and detailed sleep tracking, both the Withings Sleep Mat and the Muse S Athena come out on top. The ScanWatch provides an excellent overview but can miss the finer details. Not to mention, the bulky design means that on some particularly restless nights, I've had to take it off around 3 a.m.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Health and fitness tracking

Despite the streamlined display and the analog design, the ScanWatch 2 is packed with some high tech health tracking features, including a step tracker, heart rate monitor and SpO2 tracker. A lot of this tech is accessible subscription free, which is a bonus for a health tracker (for example, much of Whoop’s tracking features are premium access).

I use it primarily to track my steps (I’m a walker), although you can also log swimming, running, cycling and ‘other’. I have the dial on the watch face set to log my steps as I go, with a vibration and notification when I hit 10,000. It’s a useful feature to stay on top of your fitness without having it glaring in your face (overall, the ScanWatch excels at subtlety).

In terms of accuracy, both the step counter and temperature tracker have impressed me with their accuracy, although some steps do appear to be overlooked (I count more steps quietly padding around my living room than the ScanWatch acknowledges). From this, I assume data such as SpO2 monitoring is accurate, although I don’t have clinical results to compare to.

There’s two more additional features I’d like to call attention to. First, the ‘breathe’ app. This is displayed on the watch face and guides you through simple breathing exercises. I’ve found it useful both before bed and on-the-go.

Second, temperature tracking. Overnight temperature readings helped me see a clear link between warm weather and disrupted sleep (and it works with the menstrual tracking feature to predict periods). It's just a shame that the bulky design means on hot nights I tend to take the watch off midway through the night, because it's too stuffy.

While the ScanWatch has impressed me with its accuracy, for free users, it delivers little in the way of analysis — you need to upgrade to the Withings+ app for that.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Performance

Set up

The ScanWatch 2 is incredibly easy to set up. Connecting to your phone via Bluetooth, you’re guided through the best way to wear the ScanWatch, proper usage including setting your fitness goal (measured by the watch face dial) and even sets the time for you.

Scrolling through the data with the crown isn’t the easiest method to access information but that’s a natural downside of this type of design. And, once you’re familiar with the order of the menu, things do speed up.

App

The Withings App stores data from all your collected Withings devices and so for those dedicated to the brand, it can store a lot of metrics. Mine has access to my ScanWatch and my Sleep Mat, and I highly recommend editing the home screen to ensure your preferred metrics are displayed first — I used to scroll past all kinds of data to access my sleep score.

In the app, you can access all the data collected from your ScanWatch displayed in charts and graphs. Overall, I’ve found these easy to scroll through and to understand, with data clearly displayed (I particularly enjoy the sleep tracking analytics, which provide a thorough overview with just a quick glance).

You can also generate health reports in the app, drawing together data into a handy PDF you can send to your doctor.

For this review, I used the free Withings app, which I found helpful enough. For ‘health improvement scores’, you’ll need to upgrade to Withings+. This will give you access to AI insights and personalized care; useful for those looking to improve an aspect of health, rather than simply monitor.

Battery life

Withings claims the ScanWatch 2 has 35 days of battery life. Based on my experience, that’s accurate: I started wearing mine on April 23rd and by July 3rd, I’d only charged it twice. Those who favor referring to the watch screen over the app are likely to find the battery drains quicker but for moderate usage, you can get at least a month of wear before charging becomes necessary.

Withings ScanWatch also claims a “2 hour” charge time. Again, this seems accurate. On my last charge, I noted I had 15% battery life at 10.04 a.m. — by 11.04 a.m., I was up to 90%.

You do need to take the ScanWatch off to charge it, so quick juice is necessary to avoid missing out on data. It also has a non-standard charger which is $24.95 to replace, so during those 35 days you don’t need it, keep it in a secure place.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Should you buy?

Buy the Withings ScanWatch 2 if:

✅You want a classic watch design: The ScanWatch 2 is an excellent blend of form and functionality, pairing a classic analog watch design with a subtle display and a handy dial. The result is a sleep tracker that doesn’t look like a sleep tracker.

✅You’re looking for all-round health tracking: Withings’s free access app collects sleep data, heart rate, activity levels, temperature and more to give a reliable and accurate overview of your health. It’s a lot of info that’s easy to access.

✅You rarely find time to charge your devices: The ScanWatch 2 has a maximum battery life of 35 days and can fully charge in just two hours. That means minimal time off the wrist (and losing precious data) plus with careful planning, you can travel without a charger.

Don't buy the Withings ScanWatch 2 if...

❌ You won’t action, not just oversight: You’ll need to upgrade to the Withings+ if you want to turn your data into action with the help of AI intelligence and professional advice,

❌ You want a sleek wearable: The ScanWatch 2 has a classic watch design but the downside is it’s a bulkier wearable. The FitBit Air has a much slimmer profile while the Oura Ring is the closest you’ll get to invisible sleep tracking.

❌ You want top-class sleep data: While the ScanWatch 2 provides a decent insight into your sleep, Withings has another device that’s better suited to track your rest: the Sleep Mat.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Alternatives

I pitted the $99 Fitbit Air against the $349 Pixel Watch 4 in a head-to-head fitness tracking comparison to determine which is the more precise Google wearable. The results genuinely surprised me.

The Fitbit Air is a lightweight, screen-free fitness tracking band that's as easy on the wallet as it is comfortable on the wrist. The Pixel Watch 4 is Google's flagship smartwatch, with a large, bright display and features galore, including a handy, voice- or gesture-activated Gemini AI assistant.

To find out which of these flagship Google products is the more competent fitness tracker — at least when it comes to step-counting — I walked 4,000 steps with the Fitbit Air on my right wrist and the Pixel Watch 4 on my left. My primary control metric for the comparison is total steps taken. To ensure a precise tally on my end, I manually counted my steps, noting every hundred with a click of my old-school tally counter.

As a control for distance, pace, and climb, I brought along my iPhone 16 Plus and logged the walk using the Strava app. Find the results of the Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4 walk test below.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: fitness tracking accuracy compared

When it comes to tracking outdoor workouts, it's important to note a key difference between the Fitbit Air and Pixel Watch 4. The former lacks onboard GPS, so for location-based insights, you need to carry along a paired smartphone.

In addition to piggybacking off of your phone's GPS antenna, the Fitbit Air also relies on its altimeter for elevation data. The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, boasts both an onboard GPS antenna and a barometric altimeter.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Walk test results

I took exactly 4,000 steps (manually counted) during my 38-minute walk, including a stroll up Seattle's steepest block (for old-time's sake). While both wearables noted step count totals within 15 steps of my actual count — a seriously impressive result and well within a reasonable margin for error — much to my surprise, the Fitbit Air was a little bit closer than the Pixel Watch 4.

The Air and Pixel Watch 4 also beat Strava, which logged 3,978 steps.

The Fitbit Air's distance data is additionally more in line with the control; the same goes for pace. However, the Air's climb data is woefully inaccurate, a result I noted in my previous walk test with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch 11.

When it comes to heart rate and calories, the Air logged a slightly less aggressive workout compared to the Pixel Watch 4. The Air also used marginally less battery — not surprising, since it lacks a display.

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Winner

And the winner is... the Fitbit Air, thanks to a slightly more accurate step count total, pace metric, and distance data. That said, the Air's win versus the Pixel Watch 4 comes with an asterisk due to disappointing elevation tracking performance.

The Pixel Watch 4, meanwhile, performed with acceptable accuracy across the board, including measuring my climb. For this reason, as someone who loves mountain sports, I'd likely opt for the latest Pixel Watch over the Fitbit Air for logging my next adventure. What do you think? Let me know which Google wearable you prefer in the poll below.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I test head-to-head next?

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free

Rumors of a screen-free Garmin fitness tracker, potentially called the “Cirqa,” have reached a fever pitch. Plus, the fact that Garmin has officially trademarked, ”Cirqa” in several markets only adds to the anticipation for what could very well be the biggest challenger to the Fitbit Air in 2026.

Screen-free fitness trackers are clearly having a moment. Google just debuted its $99 Fitbit Air band to positive reviews, including from yours truly, and Oura just dropped a thinner, comfier flagship in the Oura Ring 5.

Of course, you also have the Whoop 5.0, Polar Loop, and Amazfit Helio Strap. So, what does Garmin need to do with the rumored Cirqa to set it apart from the competition? I have three big ideas.

1. Onboard GPS

In 2026, if you want to onboard GPS in your fitness-tracking wearable, you need to either opt for one of the best smartwatches or one of the best fitness trackers, like the Fitbit Charge 6. As of writing, there aren’t any smart rings or screen-free trackers with onboard GPS.

The advantage, of course, of a built-in GPS antenna is the ability to track an outdoor workout, like a walk, run, hike, bike ride, etc., without the need to carry a paired smartphone. Even the Oura Ring 5 and Fitbit Air piggyback off your phone’s location data when logging an outdoor exercise.

2. Wide-ranging, reliable auto-workout detection

One of my biggest complaints about the Fitbit Air is the auto workout detection feature. It only supports a very small selection of workout types, and you need to be doing one of those supported exercises for a minimum of 15-20 minutes for the feature to kick in.

The best Garmin watches already support loads of workout types; however, like the Fitbit Air, auto-detect is limited to roughly five common exercises, like walks, runs, and swims. Expanding that list and ensuring detection works even after a short duration would give the rumored Garmin Cirqa a major advantage over the Fitbit Air.

Perhaps Garmin should ask Oura for advice on how to best log a range of exercise types without any user input; the latest generation Oura Ring autodetects 40 different workout types.

3. Two weeks or more of battery

Finally, the rumored Garmin Cirqa could set itself apart from the Fitbit Air by cruising well beyond the week-long battery barrier. In my testing, the Fitbit Air can easily last up to seven days per charge. However, that’s nothing compared to the Whoop 5.0, which is good for up to two weeks.

If Garmin wants the Cirqa to be considered a premium wearable, as the rumored price suggests it might be, then matching or surpassing the latest Whoop’s battery life is a must.

What are you hoping to see in the rumored Garmin Cirqa? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

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

Apple Watch Series 11 or Fitbit Air, which popular wearable is the more competent/reliable fitness tracker? I decided to find out by performing one of my renowned head-to-head walk tests.

For this showdown, I wore the Apple Watch 11 on my left wrist and the Fitbit Air on my right wrist for a 5,000-step walk around beautiful Seattle, Washington. How do I know it was 5,000 steps? I counted every darn one, with some assistance from my trusty tally counter (one click= 100 steps).

Now, if I were a betting man (I'm not), my money would be on the Series 11 to come out victorious. Not only is it one of the best smartwatches in 2026, but it's also four times the cost of the Fitbit Air: $399 vs $99.

Then again, the Fitbit Air may be affordable, but it's also one of the best fitness trackers in 2026. Not only that, when I pitted in a separate walk test versus the Apple Watch SE 3, the Air surprisingly came out victorious. Will this be a repeat win? Read on!

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: tech compared

When it comes to wrist-based trackers, the Fitbit Air and Apple Watch 11 couldn't be more different. The former has no screens, buttons, or notifications, and lasts up to a week.

The Series 11, meanwhile, is a super-connected device, boasting a large, bright touchscreen, multiple physical buttons, and compatibility with a dizzying array of apps. That said, the Series 11 comes up short on battery life; 24 hours per charge is the norm.

Another major difference: the Fitbit Air has no onboard GPS for location tracking or altimeter for elevation data, so you need to carry a smartphone along when logging an outdoor workout. The Apple Watch 11, on the other wrist, has both GPS and an altimeter.

With that out of the way, let's move on to the results!

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Walk test results

Before we begin, it's worth noting that Strava appears to have had a "hiccup" while recording this walk test. How do I know? The app logged just 4,506 steps, which is a major red flag. Normally, Strava's step-count data is within 10-20 steps of my actual count. TLDR: Take Strava's distance, climb, and pace data with a grain of salt.

Anyhow, both the Apple Watch 11 and Fitbit Air performed admirably when it came to keeping an accurate tally of my steps — anything within ~150 steps of the control is considered excellent in my book — but the Apple Watch was just a little closer!

Distance data between the Apple Watch and Fitbit Air is similar enough for my liking. The Fitbit noted slightly more ground covered but also a faster pace, which checks out.

The Fitbit Air's elevation metric is concerningly inaccurate (this walk was particularly hill-heavy), which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given the device can piggyback off of the iPhone 16 Plus's climb data. This also isn't the first time I experienced less-than-precise elevation tracking insights from the Fitbit Air; it was also way lower than expected versus the Apple Watch SE 3.

Fortunately, the Fitbit Air finishes strong: Heart rate data is a perfect match with the Apple Watch Series 11, a result I love to see. Meanwhile, the Air logged slightly more calories burned, but used way less battery during my ~42-minute stroll.

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Winner

Ultimately, the Apple Watch Series 11 wins this showdown of fitness tracking accuracy against the Fitbit Air, with a more precise total step count and climb data.

Which fitness trackers or smartwatches should I pit head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below. Also, which do you prefer, the Apple Watch 11 or the Fitbit Air? Share your opinion in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

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

From the Oura Ring 5 to the Fitbit Air to the Whoop 5.0, screen-less health and fitness trackers are more popular than ever. But is a display-free wearable better than, say, the best smartwatch on the market today?

That depends on your expectations for the device, namely, whether you want a piece of tech that monitors your health passively or something you interact with more actively.

As TG’s resident wearables expert — and someone who just reviewed the new Fitbit Air — below are the five biggest things to consider before committing to the no-screen lifestyle.

1. Is distraction-free the way to be?

Whether you're considering one of the best smart rings, like the Oura Ring 5 or the more wallet-friendly Ringconn Gen 2 Air, or a screen-less fitness band, like the Whoop 5.0 or Fitbit Air, all of these wearables promise distraction-free health and fitness tracking insights.

Of course, if you want mirrored smartphone notifications, there is no shortage of wrist-based wearables that fill the role, including the $99 Fitbit Inspire 3 and $50 Amazfit Band 7. In fact, when comparing the Fitbit Air vs. the Fitbit Inspire 3, both devices offer broadly the same set of data; the Inspire 3 is just a little more "connected."

The point is, when it comes to screen-free fitness trackers in 2026, giving up the display also means giving up the ability to receive on-wrist/finger smartphone alerts. If that sounds delightful, read on.

2. Am I ready to bond with a companion app?

Most of the best screen-free wellness trackers, including the Oura Ring 5 and Fitbit Air, lack buttons, which means the companion app is your new best friend, whether you're checking how much battery you have left or trying to start tracking a workout.

As such, it's a good idea to get a sense of whether or not you vibe with, say, the Google Health app (formerly the Fitbit app) if you're considering the Fitbit Air. It's also worth mentioning that both Oura and Whoop charge monthly fees for their respective apps.

That said, there are plenty of subscription-free smart rings and trackers available (some with screens, some without). The tradeoff is that Oura and Whoop's holistic insights are the most in-depth across the board, especially for hardcore athletes. The Fitbit Air, on the other wrist, is subscription-optional and more geared toward casual health-conscious users.

3. Smart features? What smart features?

With no display, buttons, or notifications, it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise that the best screen-free fitness trackers also lack support for smart features. Still, I would love to see NFC added to a smart ring, if for no other reason, because paying for something with a tap of the finger sounds positively futuristic.

4. No GPS, no problem?

For my outdoor workout peeps, one of the biggest considerations to make before investing in a screen-free wearable is whether or not you can get by without onboard GPS.

While many of the best smartwatches and some of the best fitness trackers have built-in GPS antennas, no smart rings or screen-free trackers do. This means, for accurate location-based data when working out, you'll need to bring your paired smartphone along for insights into your distance, speed, pace, climb, and more after a run, walk, bike ride, etc.

5. Am I big on battery life?

It still kind of blows my mind that one of the most popular smartwatches in 2026 only lasts for roughly 24 hours per charge. I'm speaking, of course, of the Apple Watch Series 11.

Fortunately, screen-free wearables, by and large, beat their display-graced siblings when it comes to longevity. In fact, from smart rings to fitness bands, most will last up to a week, sometimes more, per charge.

What do you think of screen-free wearables? Do you already own one? Are you considering one? Let me know in the poll or comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch

I’m not sure whether it’s the fact I’m training for a marathon (again), or that I have a toddler who wakes me up at least once a night, but when I do sleep, I go into a coma.

I’ve been seriously impressed with the new $99 Fitbit Air — in fact, I’d go as far as to say it’s one of the best wearables to launch so far this year, but I’ve had one issue with it: the haptic alarm just isn’t strong enough to wake me from said sleep coma in the mornings.

I know what you’re thinking — surely my two-year-old is my alarm clock, and you’d be right, but as any parent knows, if I want to drink a warm cup of coffee, do a quick Pilates workout, or just sit and stare at my phone in silence, the only way to do so is to wake up before he does. Luckily, I’ve found a hidden Fitbit Air hack that solves this problem — read on to find out more.

I found that by making this simple tweak, I was definitely able to feel the alarm going off on my wrist in the morning. It was still silent enough that it didn’t wake my toddler if he had crept into my bed at 2 am, and I was able to have 20 minutes of peace before my day began.

If I didn’t have a human alarm clock, I’d love the custom alarm schedule on the Fitbit Air, which allows you to set different alarms for different days of the week. The Smart Wake feature also looks great for those who don’t want such an abrupt start to their day — the Fitbit Air will gently wake you up in a timeframe that’s best for your REM sleep, helping you wake up feeling more refreshed. A girl can only dream.

Did you know about this hidden vibration setting? Follow Tom’s Guide for more Fitbit Air tips and tricks.

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Ever since the Fitbit Air launched in May 2026, the conversation has almost always been about its price point. Reviews have been calling it a "$100 Whoop killer," and even we named it the best Whoop alternative for the rest of us. But one thing everyone seems to be missing is whether the tracking is actually any good.

Sure, it costs less, but does the Fitbit and Google name automatically mean it's great at tracking your health? Does it even give insights that are, first of all, accurate and then actually useful?

I've been tracking my sleep with both the Fitbit Air and the Whoop MG for a week, and the Fitbit Air actually held up much better than I expected. It's not perfect, though, and there are a few things you should know before buying one.

Here's how I tested both trackers side by side

Before we get into the numbers, there's one thing worth knowing upfront: I've been using the Whoop MG for over a year now. It's been my primary fitness and health tracking device for that entire time, which means it has a lot more context about my body compared to the Fitbit Air.

I got the Fitbit Air around June 16 and started properly testing it from the night of June 17. For this test, I wore the Fitbit Air on my left, non-dominant wrist, while my Whoop MG has been on a bicep band on the same arm for the past three months. I tracked a full week across both devices from June 17 to June 25, with two nights being an exception where I actually slept without any of the bands because I fell sick.

Before we dive into the numbers, though, it's worth knowing that since the Fitbit Air was brand new out of the box, it was still building its baseline during the first couple of nights.

It's also worth noting that wearing the Whoop MG on the bicep rather than the wrist does influence readings. Both are valid measurement points, but it's commonly believed that less movement leads to more accurate results.

The wrist moves around a lot, while the bicep stays relatively still, so the Whoop data could be slightly more accurate because of that, though I can't say for certain. Either way, the Fitbit Air doesn't offer a bicep band yet, so if a bicep option is something you need, the Whoop MG is currently the only choice.

Fitbit needed a few nights before the data made sense

As expected, the Fitbit Air took a couple of days to calibrate to my body and sleep patterns. I wasn't expecting it to agree with the Whoop MG right from the first night, and that was pretty obvious in the data. On day one, there was almost a one-hour difference in total sleep. Fitbit Air logged just 5 hours and 15 minutes of sleep, while the Whoop MG recorded around 6 hours and 15 minutes.

Thankfully, things improved quickly after that. From the second night onward, the two trackers became much more consistent. On the final two nights of my testing (June 22 and June 25), both devices recorded roughly seven hours of sleep on one night and around seven and a half hours on the other, with only about a 15-minute difference.

I'd call that accurate enough for tracking total sleep duration. If all you care about is knowing how long you slept, the Fitbit Air becomes much more reliable after a few days of wear.

Sleep stages, though, are a completely different story. Even after a week, both devices continued to disagree quite a bit on deep sleep and REM sleep. You can see from the table above that there are some pretty noticeable differences between the two, despite both devices tracking the exact same nights.

Which one is actually right? Honestly, it's hard to tell after just a week of testing. A longer testing period might reveal whether the two begin converging over time, but that is something I'll give one or two months to test.

It's also worth noting that placement could be playing a role here. As I mentioned above, I wore the Whoop MG on my left bicep while the Fitbit Air stayed on my left wrist, and this might have led the trackers to produce slightly different readings.

One area where the Fitbit Air clearly felt better to me, however, was the representation of the data collected overnight.

Fitbit's app actually won me over

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. While Whoop has become popular with casual users, it's still a product built primarily for athletes. That means the moment you open the app after waking up, you're greeted with a wall of numbers, graphs, and recovery metrics.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Google has done a great job with the Google Health app that powers the Fitbit Air, even though plenty of Fitbit users might disagree with me.

I don't want to wake up and immediately analyze a dashboard full of metrics. Instead, Fitbit Air gives me a quick summary of how I slept, and for most mornings, that's all I need to know whether I had a good night's sleep or not. I also like that I can tell the app when I don't agree with how I'm feeling, rather than blindly accepting the data.

One thing I also noticed during my testing was how much faster Fitbit Air processes sleep data. Most mornings, it gave me my sleep summary within five to seven minutes of waking up.

The Whoop app, on the other hand, often took much longer. There were days when I didn't get my sleep report for nearly 30 minutes, and sometimes I even had to manually end the sleep session before it would process the data.

Verdict

Overall, I still think the Fitbit Air offers a better experience for the average user. Sure, the data differed from Whoop, but that's true of almost every consumer sleep tracker. None of these devices are clinical-grade after all.

After a week of wearing both trackers, I don't think sleep tracking alone is a good enough reason to spend significantly more on a Whoop. Once the Fitbit Air had a few nights to calibrate, its total sleep tracking was consistently close enough that I stopped paying attention to the differences.

What you're really paying the Whoop premium for isn't better sleep tracking. It has other features as well, like ECG, blood pressure insights, strain tracking, and a whole recovery ecosystem built for athletes. If those features matter to you, the subscription makes sense.

But if your main priority is simply understanding how well you slept each night, I honestly think the $100 Fitbit Air gets you most of the way there, with a friendlier app experience and for a fraction of the yearly cost.

More from Tom's Guide

• I used the Apple Watch and Whoop to track my sleep for a year — there's a clear winner for me
• I walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — and there's a clear winner
• Forget the Apple Watch: I use AirPods Pro 3 for Live Heart Rate Tracking while running

I must admit, as a wearable tech writer, I predicted that Fitbit would die under Google, which acquired the brand in 2021. I was wrong.

So, when the opportunity arose to sit down and chat with Jonah Becker — design director for wearables at Google — about the recently debuted Fitbit Air, I was a tad embarrassed. Fortunately, Jonah didn’t take my doomsday predictions personally, which is a relief given he’s been working on Fitbit products for over a decade.

Jonah started at Fitbit in 2016 and moved over to Google during the 2021 acquisition. He currently leads the industrial design teams behind the Pixel Watch, Pixel Buds, and, of course, Fitbit.

Our chat touched on the inspiration and design process behind the Fitbit Air (i.e., one of the best fitness trackers in 2026), the reason it doesn’t have onboard GPS, and the possibility of other Google-built screen-free wearables. I also got his candid thoughts on the outcome of the Google x Fitbit acquisition, five years on.

Inspired by his children's friendship bracelets

The Fitbit Air is a $99 screen- and button-free fitness tracker that doesn’t require a subscription and works with both Android and iOS devices. Incredibly lightweight and comfortable, it barely even looks like a piece of wearable tech, and that’s the point.

“The inspiration we had from the start was the friendship bracelet — the idea that you have this thing that is super lightweight, comfortable — it's not a typical fitness watch or fitness tracker,” says Becker. It’s “something that has a more casual, all-hours-in-the-day vibe. I would see my kids at summer camp; they'd put on a friendship bracelet and wear it for months on end until basically the threads went bare and they fell off.”

The beauty of the Fitbit Air is that all of the tracking technology is condensed into a small, bean-like object that can easily be popped in and out of bands for maximum customization. Google even released a hardware development kit allowing DIYers to design and 3D-print their own bands for the Air.

“There are a lot of creative people in the world who have unique situations, and the idea that it becomes something that people can have fun with," says Becker on the subject of creating your own straps for the Air. "You know, as long as it's working in a way that it's supporting their health, that's what's most important.”

A Whoop alternative for you and me

Of course, the Fitbit Air is far from the only screen-free fitness tracker out there. Its primary competition is the Whoop 5.0, a subscription-based tracker that’s big on heady training stats and recovery insights. Perfect for hardcore athletes and pros, the Fitbit Air is essentially the exact opposite.

While Whoop-wearers are less likely to need daily motivation to work out, the rest of us, well, could probably benefit from it.

"You have your high-tier athletes, and then you have like the other 99.7% of the population. There are a lot of people who don't have that motivation and guidance. So for me, it's like, that's where the real opportunity is, this broad population health."

As I noted in my review of the Fitbit Air, the device is basically a “Whoop alternative for the rest of us.” And after chatting with Becker, it seems that was the intention behind its development.

"I see [the Fitbit Air] as sort of the archetype of the ambient fitness tracker, the displayless tracker that's not demanding your attention. We have so many devices around us demanding our attention all the time, and at the same time, health is every hour of every day, seven days a week."

No GPS, no problem... for most people

It's worth noting that the Fitbit Air lacks onboard GPS, something I critiqued in the review, but why? According to Becker, the size, cost, and battery implications of including GPS didn’t align with the overall design intent of the Air.

Moreover, “the reality is that like 99% of people who might want to track a run or a hike or something like that are going to have their phones with them. So, having the paired GPS with the phone is going to provide a great experience,” adds Becker.

On the longterm outcome of Google’s Fitbit acquisition

Becker has the unique perspective of working on the Fitbit brand both when it was a standalone company and under Google. And much to my surprise, he revealed that Fitbit Air has been under development since shortly after the acquisition in 2021. That's a long time!

“To launch [the Fitbit Air] now feels in many ways like the first big move in delivering upon the promise of the acquisition,” admits Becker.

“I think one of the great things about Fitbit becoming part of Google is that Fitbit brings a ton of health expertise, history, brand recognition, and many years — a decade plus — of data collection, so an understanding of people's biometrics and behaviors,” says Becker. “And Google is a company that can probably do the best job in the world of making sense of all that data, and I think that's what it's really unlocked.”

What’s next for Fitbit?

All of this begs the question: Is the Fitbit brand actually here to stay? When I asked Becker, he was coy, but I picked up on a glimmer of excitement. So, I pushed further. "With word of a Samsung Galaxy Ring 2 under development, might we expect other screen-free wearables from Google in the near future?" I asked.

“I think we are seeing a really great reception to Fitbit Air, so it gives us confidence that we made the right decision in pursuing a screen-free form factor, and I, and I'll have to leave it at that.”

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Air performance issues? 3 ways to make sure the Fitbit Air accurately tracks your next workout
• An ‘iPhone moment’ for your eyes — why Xpanceo is betting big on smart contact lenses as the future of AR
• I went to Sweden to watch bike helmets get smashed into anvils — 3 things I learned at the MIPS test lab

If you’re having issues with your Fitbit Air’s fitness tracking accuracy, I’m here to help. I just reviewed the Fitbit Air and have been wearing one pretty much nonstop for nearly a month. I’ve tested it against numerous other wearables, as well as Strava, while walking, running, hiking, and cycling with mostly impressive results.

Of course, shiny new pieces of consumer tech often ship with “quirks” — who could forget Apple's “Antennagate” — but with a growing number of Fitbit Air users reporting issues with fitness tracking accuracy via TikTok and Reddit, it’s worth rehashing the device’s technical limitations, along with some troubleshooting tips.

So, if you’re having issues with Fitbit Air fitness tracking accuracy, try these three things.

1. Manually start your workouts from the app; don’t use auto-tracking

The Fitbit Air’s auto workout tracking needs, well, work. At present, it only logs walks, bike rides, "sports," and "other activities." Moreover, you need to spend 15-20 consecutive minutes or more doing a supported activity for tracking to kick in. That’s hardly ideal.

For instance, I'm a beginner runner who averages about two miles per outdoor session. As a result, my runs tend to be shorter than 20 minutes, which means the Fitbit Air is hit-or-miss at automatically logging them.

Fortunately, the solution to this issue is simple: If you want to ensure the Fitbit Air actually records your workout, manually start a workout session for your activity of choice in the Google Health app (formerly the Fitbit app) before beginning.

2. For accurate daily step counts, carry your phone at all times

One of the biggest complaints I've heard about the Fitbit Air is that daily step count totals are far from accurate. However, there's a good reason this might be the case.

As a reminder, the Fitbit Air lacks an onboard GPS. This means you need to carry a paired smartphone with you at all times if you want precise daily step count totals, as the Air piggybacks off your phone’s GPS signal.

3. When tracking outdoor workouts, always bring your phone

Similarly, if you want accurate run, hike, walk, or bike data in your post-workout report, you must carry your phone along; otherwise, metrics like distance and pace will be far from accurate.

In my testing, you can start an outdoor-based workout from your phone, then leave it behind, and the Fitbit Air will try its best to measure location-based stats, but the results are faaaar from reliable. It’s also worth noting that there’s no onboard altimeter in the Fitbit Air. So, like GPS, the wearable relies on a paired phone, carried with you, for that info.

Ultimately, Google might be wise to add a warning in the Google Health app when users start an outdoor workout stating that a paired phone is required for accurate data.

Alternatively, Google could simply turn off all location-based metrics in the post-workout report when no GPS or altimeter info is available. If nothing else, this might help folks better understand the technical limitations of the Fitbit Air.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — and there's a clear winner
• I went for a run with the Fitbit Air and Garmin Forerunner 70 to see how the $99 tracker compared, and I’m impressed
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?

As a smartwatch expert, I meet a lot of Garmin-curious Apple Watch owners in my travels. Often, they’re tempted by the superior battery life and fitness-tracking insights of Apple’s number one smartwatch competitor.

It’s true that Garmin watches tend to offer far better battery performance compared to even the best Apple Watch models, and Garmin’s workout, recovery, and sleep insights are class-leading, especially the higher-end models.

Ready to ditch your Apple Watch for a Garmin? Here are the three Prime Day Garmin deals I recommend in lieu of the Apple Watch SE 3, Series 11, or Ultra 3, including the Forerunner 165 for just $129.

Quick Links

• Garmin Forerunner 165: was $249 now $129 @ Amazon
• Garmin Instinct 3: was $449 now $299 @ Amazon
• Garmin Epix Pro: was $999 now $499 @ Amazon

Best Garmin deals

We're tracking all the best Prime Day smartwatch deals

The Fitbit Air and Fitbit Charge 6 are two of the best fitness trackers in 2026. But is one better than the other? That truly depends on your budget, the number of smart features, and the type of user experience you desire.

To help you better understand the differences between 2023's Fitbit Charge 6 and 2026's Fitbit Air, I've compared the two across five categories, including cost, design, health and fitness tracking features, smart features, and battery life.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Cost

The newer Fitbit Air is $99, while 2023's Fitbit Charge 6 is $159. However, the latter goes on sale frequently. For example, you can pick up the Charge 6 right now for just $99 via Amazon. That said, the Fitbit Air is consistently cheaper than the Charge 6, so it wins this category.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: design

Both fitness trackers are lightweight, comfortable wearables with modest footprints. While the Fitbit Air is screen-free and button-free, providing a no-distractions health and fitness tracking experience, the Charge 6 offers a small 1.04-inch AMOLED touchscreen and haptic side buttons.

Does this make the Charge 6 a better tracker than the Air? That depends on whether you prefer a more-connected device capable of mirroring phone notifications and displaying stats, or one designed with a set-it-and-forget-it mentality.

Either way, the Charge 6 and Air each proved to be well-built in our testing, with respectable water resistance ratings of 50 meters. The Air is, of course, a bit more understated due to the lack of a screen; it's also a bit smaller. These factors don't necessarily make it a better-designed device, though.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Air vs Charge 6: Health and fitness tracking

The Fitbit Air proved to be a competent fitness tracker when pitted head-to-head against other popular wearables, like versus the Fitbit Inspire 3. However, it lacks onboard GPS, so you need to carry your paired phone to ensure metrics like distance, pace, and elevation gain are recorded accurately.

Not a fan of jogging with a bulky smartphone in your pocket? I feel you. In that case, the GPS-sporting Fitbit Charge 6 is going to be the better tracker for you.

The Charge 6 has other advantages over the Fitbit Air, most notably, the ability to record ECGs. When it comes to tracking workouts, both devices support over 40 modes with automatic detection and tracking for basic workouts like walks, runs, and bike rides.

Of course, thanks to its screen, users can manually start a workout on the Charge 6 with just a few taps, while Fitbit Air users will need to make a trip to the Google Health app on their paired phone.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Smart features

This one isn't even close. When it comes to support for smart features, the Fitbit Charge 6 blows the Fitbit Air out of the water. However, the Charge 6 doesn't offer anywhere near the level of smarts you'll get from the best smartwatch models in 2026, like the Apple Watch Series 11 or Google Pixel Watch 4.

Still, the Charge 6 has NFC, so you can tap-to-pay using Google Wallet. It also supports a small selection of handy Google apps, like Google Maps and YouTube Music. There's no onboard music storage, but you can control media playback from your paired device.

The Charge 6 additionally mirrors smartphone notifications for both Android and iOS users.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Battery life

The Fitbit Charge 6 is rated to last up to six days per charge on average, while the Fitbit Air is billed for up to seven days per charge. In my testing, both ratings proved accurate, making the Fitbit Air the winner of this category.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Verdict

When choosing between the Fitbit Air and the Fitbit Charge 6, the ultimate question to ask yourself is, "Do I want a screen-free and distraction-free fitness tracker or a more connected device?"

Put another way, the Fitbit Air is a wearable that you simply, well, wear and let it do its thing; the Charge 6 is one you interact with via a small touchscreen and haptic buttons.

Both are reliable, comfortable, and long-lasting. Of course, the Charge 6 has the advantage of onboard GPS, which is why I ultimately prefer it to the Air, along with NFC. But if you're not big on outdoor workouts or using tap-to-pay from this wrist, this may not matter much to you.

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up

Which $99 Fitbit fitness tracker is more accurate, the Fitbit Inspire 3 or the newer, screen-free Fitbit Air? Both devices performed admirably in our review test process, but is one more reliable than the other? I decided to find out.

On a picture-perfect cerulean Seattle summer day, I took one for the team and walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Inspire 3 strapped to my left wrist and the Fitbit Air affixed to my right.

How do I know I walked exactly 3.5K steps? I counted each and every one, clicking my trusty manual tally counter to note every hundred, before starting the count over at one.

While my manual count was a control for steps, I used the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and elevation gain. Ultimately, one of these top-performing fitness trackers proved more competent. Was it the Fitbit Air or the Fitbit Inspire 3? Read on for the results.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: key differences

I’ve already gone in-depth concerning the pros and cons of the Fitbit Air vs. the Fitbit Inspire 3. But as a quick refresher, both wearables are compact and record the basics, like sleep quality, workouts, women’s health, and overall well-being.

The most notable difference: The Fitbit Inspire 3 has a screen — albeit a tiny one — for mirrored smartphone notifications, starting workouts, and viewing stats. The Fitbit Air, meanwhile, is screen-free and distraction-free.

They each cost $99, though the Inspire 3 is frequently on sale for less (It's just $79 via Amazon as of publishing). When it comes to logging outdoor workouts, like walks, neither has an onboard GPS, so you’ll need to carry your smartphone along (as I did) for accurate location-based metrics.

Now, on to the results of my 3,500-step walk test with the Fitbit Air vs the Fitbit Inspire 3.

I walked 3,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3

During my roughly 34-minute walk, I took exactly 3,500 steps. The Fitbit Air was more accurate, with a total that's off by just a single step. Strava, for what it's worth, noted a total of 3,510 steps.

The Fitbit Air recorded nearly the same total distance covered as Strava, while the Inspire 3 was off by nearly a third of a mile.

"The Fitbit Air's elevation tracking data has proven less than reliable in my testing, but at least the tracker provides the metric (unlike the Inspire 3)."

The Air's pace data is pretty darn close to Strava's. I didn't pause at any point during the walk, so I expected roughly the same pace from all three tracking methods. That may be the case for the Fitit Air, but not the Inspire 3.

Despite noting less distance covered, the Fitbit Inspire 3 recorded slightly higher heart rate data than the Air and more calories burned.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Winner

The Fitbit Air is the clear winner of this head-to-head fitness-tracking accuracy showdown against its older sibling, the Fitbit Inspire 3.

Ultimately, the Air has newer hardware and represents the latest in Google's holistic tech. The Fitbit Inspire 3 may record most of the same metrics, but the Fitbit Air does so with better overall accuracy.

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

More from Tom's Guide

• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• We asked Tom's Guide readers if they prefer the Fitbit Air vs. the Garmin Forerunner 70 — and the results were overwhelming

We asked Tom’s Guide readers which new fitness tracker they prefer, the screen-free Fitbit Air or the running-focused Garmin Forerunner 70, and your response was overwhelming.

With more than 800 total votes — 821 to be exact — one wearable proved far more popular than the other, receiving nods from 67% of respondents. So, which of these top-performing fitness trackers came out on top, the Fitbit Air or the Garmin Forerunner 70? Read on.

67% of TG readers prefer the Fitbit Air, but why?

We ran our “Which 2026 fitness tracker do you prefer, the latest Garmin or the newest Fitbit?” poll for two weeks, and the results speak for themselves. With all votes tallied, 67% of Tom’s Guide readers prefer the Fitbit Air to the Garmin Forerunner 70. But why?

For starters, the Fitbit Air is just $99, and the Garmin Forerunner 70 is $249, but that’s just one likely factor in the former’s popularity.

An even bigger reason folks prefer the Fitbit might come down to the target audiences. While the Garmin Forerunner 70 is designed with running enthusiasts in mind, the Fitbit Air is geared toward, well, anyone who’s looking for health and fitness insights from a no-fuss wearable.

Ultimately, the Forerunner 70 is a more niche product, while the Fitbit Air has more mass appeal.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Biggest differences

I’ve already covered the core differences between the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 in the intro to my 3,000-step walk test between the two (Spoiler alert: both performed with remarkable accuracy). But to summarize, the Garmin boasts more training and recovery tools, running features, and onboard GPS. It’s light on smart features but does offer mirrored notifications and media control.

The Fitbit Air, meanwhile, offers a well-rounded mix of holistic and fitness features with no screen, buttons, or ability to mirror notifications. It also requires a paired smartphone for location data when working out.

Ultimately, both the Fitbit Air and Garmin Forerunner 70 impressed me during testing, with each proving reliable, long-lasting, durable, and comfortable.

Haven’t voted in our Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 poll yet? Make your voice heard now, below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Forerunner 55: Here's how Garmin's new entry-level running watch stacks up against its predecessor
• I went for a run with the Fitbit Air and Garmin Forerunner 70 to see how the $99 tracker compared, and I’m impressed
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?

Perimenopause — the transition leading up to menopause — remains one of the most significant gaps in modern medicine. For years, clinical criteria have focused on a woman’s bleeding cycle, rather than symptom patterns, but research shows that hormonal fluctations and neurological symptoms like anxiety, brain fog, and sleep disruption can occur years before a woman’s period becomes irregular.

Apple is striving to change this, adding menopause and perimenopause tracking to the Health app. Sitting under Cycle Tracking, users can track their symptoms and monitor their cycles. Many women don’t recognize they are in perimenopause, so with iOS 27, users aged 40 and over can receive a notification if a deviation in their logged cycle is suggestive of perimenopause. Users don’t need an Apple Watch to do this — they can use the Cycle Tracking feature on iPhone or iPad. There’s also a new Strong Through Menopause Fitness+ program designed to build strength, improve balance and mobility, and reduce stress.

I’ve been writing about the Apple Watch since before it could even track periods (a feature that was added in September 2019 for anyone wondering), so I was keen to sit down with Dr Lauren Cheung (Clinician at Apple) and Julz Arney (Senior Director of Fitness Technologies), to find out more about its new Women’s Health features.

Why the focus on perimenopause and menopause now?

Through its Health app, Apple has strived to support women through every stage of life. "For us, it's been really important to help users turn their health information into meaningful insights they can better understand and act on", explains Dr Cheung. "We believe everyone deserves powerful personalized health tools, and so we have a track record of focusing on health needs that have often been overlooked and building thoughtful solutions, whether that's for fall risk to hearing health, to heart rhythm notifications, and as you know, cycle tracking and women's health has been long, long been one of those areas of health that's been underserved."

"Cycle tracking is a feature that we design to grow with you from logging a first period to family building, to pregnancy, to ongoing health awareness, and what makes this powerful is that continuity", Dr Cheung tells me as we chat. "It's a system that offers the right tool at the right moment. With our newest updates, we're extending that continuity into a life stage that, as you know, probably affects roughly half the world's population, but again has historically been underresearched, misunderstood, and very often stigmatized, and that's perimenopause and menopause."

What's changing in the Health app in iOS 27?

Users can now log whether they're in perimenopause or menopause, they can track symptoms, and they can monitor their cycles over time. If you're over 40 and the Cycle Tracking app spots irregular or missed periods, users will get an alert that they might be in perimenopause.

There will also be new educational articles to help users understand the new changes.

There's also a new Apple Fitness Plus program, Strong Through Menopause, which is a progressive three-week program featuring weekly Yoga and Strength workouts designed to help users navigating perimenopause and menopause build strength, improve balance and mobility, and reduce stress

Jules Arney, Senior Director of Fitness Technologies, told Tom's Guide, "Staying active, it's one of the most powerful things you can do for your body and mind, especially during this transition, and we just really wanted to make sure we were showing up for users in this moment specifically. We've always believed that fitness should be accessible and welcoming for everyone, and so we looked at what users going through perimenopause and menopause actually mean."

"And what we landed on is that it isn't about performance metrics necessarily in this stage of life. It's about resilience and finding ways to protect your health and feel strong and really feel more like yourself through the journey."

How many consecutive months of cycle data are required before the health app triggers a perimenopause alert?

"We use a six-month window, and we look for essentially more than one abnormal occurrence," explains Dr Cheung.

Anyone tracking their cycle will know it's not abnormal to have one or two cycles that look a little different for several reasons, so Apple explained that this longer six-month period allows them to be more certain when it is something a user actually needs to pay attention to.

When I asked how the tool would be able to differentiate between perimenopausal irregularities and other causes of erratic periods, such as PCOS, Dr Cheung explained, "We are using the FIGO guidelines — that’s the Federation of International Obstetrician-Gynecologists, and they have definitions for irregular and infrequent menses. Anyone at any age can get one of those deviations for an irregular or infrequent period, but once users are over the age of 40, it is more likely that one of those deviations is likely due to perimenopause."

Research suggests that perimenopause can start as early as your late 30s, but Apple has decided to restrict these alerts to users aged 40 or over. Why, I asked Dr Cheung? "Women in their late 30s can develop perimenopause, but it is less common. For anyone under the age of 40, we think it's really important that they still treat this as something that they need to go and talk to their physician about to confirm that it isn't something else that might be causing it," she tells me.

How much does the tracking rely on the Apple Watch's wrist temperature tool vs manual logging?

"It is all based on manual logging," explains Dr Cheung. "However, what the temperature and heart rate data on Apple Watch do is improve the accuracy of our predictions. When someone uses temperature to better track and understand retrospective ovulation and their cycles in general, it improves the period predictions as well as the fertile window predictions," she adds.

At the rollout, the temperature sensor on the Apple Watch won't be able to record symptoms like night sweats and hot flashes; users will have to manually log these. Night sweats also won't be linked to the sleep tracking feature just yet, explains Dr Cheung. "They're not linked at this point, but what users can do is they can track symptoms in the cycle tracking room, including sleep changes, and then through the PDF, they can actually understand the symptoms they've logged in conjunction with the rest of their cycle and things like sleep changes and other symptoms that they have."

What’s unique about Strong Through Menopause compared to other Fitness+ programmes?

"What's unique about this program, compared to others that you might find in a general fitness routine, is that the trainers are going to talk about that pelvic floor activation and help you feel confident in movement, which hopefully will scale to other things that you want to do after this program," explains Arney.

"The trainers themselves, you know, are in this stage of life, and so it's just really relatable. Some of the things that are built in that you are so important to talk about are things like incontinence, which is a big blocker for people doing any kind of movement. It's not that they are harping on the subject, but you just feel this real sense of like we're all in this together because they understand it as well."

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• watchOS 27: All the new features coming to Apple Watch later this year

Which fitness tracker is better, 2026's Fitbit Air or 2022's Fitbit Inspire 3? Logic might suggest that the newer model has the advantage, but that's not necessarily the case.

I just reviewed the Fitbit Air and have worn a Fitbit Inspire 3 for several years, and there's plenty of good reason why both make our list of the best fitness trackers in 2026.

Here's how these two trackers compare head-to-head across six categories, including cost, design, customization, health and fitness features, smart features, and battery.

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Cost

The Fitbit Air and Fitbit Inspire 3 each cost $99. However, the former is much newer and unlikely to see a discount anytime soon, while the latter goes on sale often for up to 30% off.

For example, as of writing, you can pick up the Inspire 3 for just $79 at Amazon.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: design

The Fitbit Inspire 3 and Fitbit Air are both small, comfortable fitness trackers that don't garner much attention or get in the way of daily life. However, the newer Air is both smaller and lighter than the Inspire 3 and offers a wider selection of band materials.

Neither wearable has physical buttons, but the Inspire 3 offers two haptic buttons on either side and sports a small AMOLED touchscreen. Depending on your ability to read tiny text and the daintiness of your fingers, navigating the Inspire 3's controls is a hit-or-miss affair.

Ultimately, I prefer the simpler, less-distracting design of the Fitbit Air to the fiddly controls and comically small screen of the Inspire 3.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: customization

The Fitbit Air is designed for maximum accessory customization. All of the tracking components and battery are contained within a small, pebble-like shell that can easily be popped out of one strap and swapped into another.

Google has a decent selection of accessory bands for the Fitbit Air available; I tried them all, and there's a clear winner. However, with a starting price of $34.99, I'm looking forward to more affordable third-party options popping up on Amazon and the likes, eventually.

The Fitbit Inspire 3 also supports band swapping, but removing and installing a band is a trickier process. That said, to my surprise, Google sells some pretty cool-looking Inspire 3 bands to replace the standard-issued ones.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Health and fitness

The Fitbit Inspire 3 and Fitbit Air boast the same onboard tech, including sensors for tracking heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, movement and temperature. However, it's unclear whether the Air is using newer sensors or the same generation as the Inspire 3.

Either way, both devices keep tabs on your overall well-being, sleep quality, fitness, and women's health. However, neither sports an onboard GPS for location tracking data or an altimeter for elevation insights.

This means that you'll need to carry a paired smartphone along when working out to accurately capture metrics like distance, pace, speed, and elevation gain.

You also get automatic workout tracking for a small selection of common exercises, regardless of which tracker you choose. Meanwhile, more nuanced activities can be manually selected.

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Smart features

Neither of these fitness trackers offers much by way of smart features, but that's the point. Apps like Google Wallet and YouTube Music are reserved for the higher-end Fitbit Charge 6. You also won't find onboard storage for saving music on either.

The Inspire 3 can mirror smartphone notifications from Android or iOS devices on its tiny screen, but it's not a great user experience. Meanwhile, both wearables support Google's lovely Smart Wake haptic alarm feature. And that's a wrap for smart features.

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Battery life

Battery life is impressive with any tracker you choose, but the Fitbit Inspire 3 lasts a little longer than the Air. In our testing, the Inspire 3 easily meets the ten-day-per-charge threshold, while the Air effortlessly matches the advertised seven days per charge.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Verdict

In terms of performance, wearability, and cost, the Fitbit Air and Fitbit Inspire 3 are extremely similar. What sets them apart largely boils down to design. Simply put, the Inspire 3 has a small screen for starting workouts, viewing stats, and receiving mirrored smartphone notifications, while the Air does not.

Personally, I prefer the Fitbit Air's set-it-and-forget-it approach to wellness tracking, with no annoying controls or tiny screens to deal with. I admit, starting a workout session from the Google Health app is a tad annoying, and the Air's auto workout tracking needs... work, but the overall user experience of the Air feels more refined than that of the Inspire 3.

Of course, at the end of the day, they both log the same health and fitness insights.

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I tested all 3 Fitbit Air accessory bands — and there’s a clear winner
• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up

I’ve been living with the Fitbit Air for two weeks now, and I’ve been impressed with the affordable screenless tracker. The Fitbit Air is a new, $99 device, taking on the likes of Whoop with its simplistic design. It’s designed for people like me who want to keep track of all their health and sleep, without the constant distraction of a buzzing wrist.

Yet no fitness tracker is perfect, and after two weeks, here’s everything I love about the Fitbit Air, plus the things to consider before investing. For a more in-depth look, check out our Fitbit Air review here, as well as the results of my colleague Dan’s Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 walk test.

3 reasons to buy the Fitbit Air

It’s distraction-free

I struggle to live in the moment, and the constant buzz of my Apple Watch 11 on my wrist doesn’t make it any easier. One of the huge selling points of the Fitbit Air is that it’s completely distraction-free, with no screen to stare at. The device fits neatly on your wrist and quietly collects data in the background.

Like the Whoop or Oura Ring 5, a screenless device is only ever as good as its connected app, and the updated Fitbit app, now Google Health, is excellent. It’s simple and easy to use, and the Google Health Coach is the best AI health tool I’ve used, helping translate data into actionable advice.

It’s extremely comfortable

One of the first things I loved about the Fitbit Air was how lightweight and discreet it was on the wrist. The unit I got in for review came with the Performance Loop in Lavender, but you can also choose a hardy plastic Active Band.

The sensor easily pops in and out of the band in seconds. The Performance Loop is extremely comfortable — it’s long enough to wear around the wrist or the top of my arm if I’m lifting weights in the gym, and it’s extremely comfortable and lightweight. My colleague Dan has reviewed all of the Fitbit Air bands here.

A pet peeve of mine, as a female, is that sports watches in particular often feel like they’ve been designed for the male wrist. If you want the top tech and safety features, you’ll often have to choose a bulky device that just isn’t comfortable. The Fitbit Air, on the other hand, disappears, which is what you want from a screenless tracker.

It’s affordable

Unlike Whoop, which locks your data behind a subscription, you can get all of your core biometrics completely free after the $99/£85 purchase. The main difference between the free and premium subscriptions in the Google Health app is the AI coaching. You get a premium subscription for three months when you buy the Fitbit Air, but if you don’t use the coaching or you’re on a budget, you can still get all of your data for free.

3 reasons to skip the Fitbit Air

Bugs

It’s worth pointing out that this is a new device, so there’s bound to be some teething issues, and during my testing of the Fitbit Air, I found a few glitches. The main glitch being the tracker doesn’t give me a sleep score some mornings, despite recording my overnight sleep. This can be fixed by logging out and back into the Google Health app, and I’m sure it’ll be fixed soon, but it’s worth flagging if you have bought a Fitbit Air and are experiencing the same.

Subscription cost

One of the main things I love about the Fitbit Air is the Gemini-powered AI Health Coach. It’s the best AI health coach I’ve used, as unlike others, it doesn’t just regurgitate what you can already see from your workout breakdown, but gives you useful, actionable advice.

After a particularly sleep-disturbed night with my toddler, my Health Coach told me in the morning, “Your Readiness is 46 this morning. While you spent nearly two hours awake between 4 am and 6 am, the sleep you did get was high quality — you actually hit the top 5% for deep sleep restoration. After yesterday’s 18,000 steps, your legs need a bridge day. Stick to a gentle 20-minute walk to keep blood flowing without adding stress.”

Rather than a bad sleep score adding stress to my day, I found this incredibly reassuring. Of course, the downside here is that this useful coaching is behind a paywall that’ll cost $10/£8 per month.

Screenless devices won’t be for everyone

There are obvious drawbacks to screenless devices, the main being that you get zero real-time feedback. For the Fitbit Air, as with the Oura Ring 5, you’ll need to use the app on your phone to see how hard you’re working or how fast you’re running.

Talking of running, there’s no built-in GPS on the Fitbit Air. The device won’t map workouts unless you start it as a manual workout on the Google Health app, and even then, it uses your smartphone’s location services, so you’ll need to have it with you.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just spent 36 hours with Garmin’s new entry-level watch for runners — 5 things to know about the Garmin Forerunner 70
• I just ran my first 5K — 5 practical ways I conquered my pre-race nerves for a strong finish
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

I test fitness tech for a living, and two of the newest products on my wrist right now are the Garmin Forerunner 70, Garmin’s latest, entry-level running watch, and the Fitbit Air, a $99 screenless fitness tracker. To see how the affordable Fitbit compared to Garmin’s $249 Foreunner 70, I strapped both to my wrist and headed out for a 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) run.

Of course, to truly place the two watches head-to-head, we’d need to do more extensive testing, and we will, but after seeing what happened when my colleague Dan took these devices on a walk test, I was intrigued and ready to test for myself. Read on to find out more.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: The main differences

Of course, before we dive into my results, it’s worth pointing out the very obvious differences between the two fitness trackers. Firstly, from a price perspective, the Fitbit Air is $99/£85, and the Garmin Forerunner 70 is $249/£219.

The Fitbit Air is completely screenless, like the Whoop 5.0 or the Oura Ring 5; it’s designed to disappear and silently track all your health metrics completely. To check on any progress, you’ll need to use the Google Health app. The Garmin Forerunner 70 has a 1.2-inch AMOLED touchscreen. You’ll be able to use the watch to check your stats on the run and your smartphone notifications throughout the day.

From a GPS perspective, the Fitbit Air doesn’t have any. To track an outdoor run, it uses the GPS from your phone. The Garmin Forerunner 70 has built-in multi-band GPS, so if you’re looking for a device to use to train for your first 5K, it’s a no-brainer.

Finally, to unlock AI-powered health coaching, which, during my testing, I genuinely found useful, you’ll need to subscribe to Google Health Premium. This costs an additional $9.99/£7.99 per month. Garmin’s Connect app is free.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Run test

The chances are, however, most people aren’t deciding which of these two devices to buy, as they serve different purposes. So let’s jump into how the $99 Fitbit Air compares to the Garmin Forerunner 70, which is more than double the price.

It’s worth noting that I didn’t set the run up on the Google Health app; I let the tracker use the auto-detect workout feature to realize I was running. Because of this, there is no GPS map from the Fitbit.

The Garmin Forerunner 70 recorded my run as 4 miles exactly, taking 32 minutes and 51 seconds, with an average pace of 8:12 minutes per mile. The Fitbit Air recorded my run as 3.8 miles, but said I was running for 48 minutes and 36 seconds, and that my average pace was 12:45 minutes per mile.

Of course, this issue is almost definitely down to the fact that I walked my son to nursery pre-run, and home from the coffee shop post-run. Plus, without telling the tracker I’d started a workout, it obviously didn’t start recording at the right time, hence the difference in mileage.

From a heart rate perspective, however, the $99 tracker was pretty much spot on. My Garmin Forerunner 70 recorded my average heart rate as 143 beats per minute. If I take out the data from my walk to my son’s daycare, the Fitbit Air had a similar reading of 145 beats per minute.

The Forerunner 70 predicted I burned a total of 316 active calories on my run. The Fitbit Air estimated it was 317 calories.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Verdict

While I’m impressed with how well the Fitbit Air read my heart rate on the run, I’d say if you are using the affordable device to track your running workouts, it’s essential to start the workout in the companion app itself to avoid the auto-detect issues I had.

Of course, one downside to all of the screenless wearables is that you get no live feedback when running, unless you look at your phone, but this isn’t a bad thing. Running to feel is an essential part of most training blocks, and every running coach I’ve ever worked with has encouraged me to ignore my watch and listen to my body, especially on easy runs.

I’ll be doing more testing, but from this easy run, I’m impressed at how accurate the Fitbit Air was when measuring my heart rate. Of course, if you’re doing any serious training, I’d still recommend the Garmin, but if you’re looking to keep an eye on your daily stats, with a tracker that disappears on your wrist, the Fitbit Air is a strong contender.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin just added WhatsApp support to a huge number of watches — here’s how to unlock it
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I spent one week with a wallet-friendly Garmin Forerunner 970 dupe — 5 things that stand out about the $300 cheaper Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro

Which Fitbit Air band is best? I tried all three, and there’s a clear winner.

The screen-free and subscription-optional Fitbit Air is Google's answer to the Whoop 5.0 fitness tracker, and one of the best fitness trackers in 2026. Starting at $99, users can select from three strap types — though, more are in the works — including two woven options and one silicone.

I've been wearing the Fitbit Air for over a week and tested all three options, both while working out and hanging out. Here's how I rank them.

Third place: Fitbit Active Band

• Price: $34.99 or $99 with Fitbit Air
• Styles: Obsidian, Lavender, Berry, Fog
• Sizes: Small (130-175mm), Large (165-210mm)
• Material: Silicone

In third place, we have the silicone Fitbit Active Band, available in your choice of four colors, including Berry, shown here. This option is sold either kitted with the Fitbit Air for $99 or on its own for $34.99 via Google directly.

As far as rubbery/silicone straps go, this one is fairly soft on the skin; however, several factors detract from its appeal.

For starters, the Active Band is both thicker and less flexible than the woven strap options. It also secures to your wrist with a pin-and-buckle style system, so you can't make micro-adjustments for maximum comfort. That said, two sizes are available.

Finally, I'm not a fan of how silicone feels on my skin, in general, when I'm super sweaty. So, the Fitbit Active Band was never going to be my top choice.

Second place: Fitbit Performance Loop

• Price: $34.99 or $99 with Fitbit Air
• Styles: Obsidian, Lavender, Berry, Fog
• Size: One size (130-210mm)
• Material: Woven polyester and elastane fabric, stainless steel buckle

In second place, we have the Fitbit Performance Loop, which comes in the same four color options as the Active Band above. It's also priced at $34.99 from Google à la carte, or $99 with the tracker.

The Performance Loop is a woven textile strap made from a mix of polyester and stretchy elastane, with a shiny, stainless steel buckle. Available in one size, velcro allows for infinite micro-adjustments.

Overall, I found this strap to be quite comfortable; it's seriously lightweight, flexible, and anything but thick. However, the woven material is a bit slick, so the Fitbit's sensors occasionally slide from their ideal position, atop the wrist, when working out or just getting sweaty.

Fortunately, my favorite Fitbit Air band solves this issue.

First place: Fitbit Stephen Curry Loop

• Price: $129 with Fitbit Air
• Style: Orange and Rye
• Size: One size (130-210mm)
• Material: Woven polyester and elastane fabric w/ water resistant coating and silicone ribs, satin finish stainless steel buckle

The Fitbit Air Stephen Curry Loop is hands down the best accessory band for the device from a comfort standpoint. I also think the black, orange, and rye woven pattern looks really sharp; colleagues and pals tend to agree.

Unfortunately, at this time, Google isn't selling the Stephen Curry band on its own. The only way to secure one is to purchase the special edition Fitbit Air for $129.99; fortunately, while it's 'special edition,' it's not 'limited edition.'

This band uses the same woven material as the standard Performance Loop; however, Steph's version is treated with a water-repellent coating to make it more quick drying. In my testing, it dries extremely fast, even after a proper soaking in the shower.

The underside of the Steph Curry Loop features raised silicone ribs running parallel to the length of the strap. These not only increase airflow but also help secure the Fitbit Air in place on your wrist during physical activities.

Ultimately, I think the Steph Curry strap is worth the extra $30 compared to the others. Now I just wish Google would offer it in additional styles and à la carte. Even if they're $40, I'd probably pick up another. Any more than that, and I'll wait for a sale.

Which Fitbit Air strap do you prefer? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• Forget the Whoop 5.0 — The new Fitbit Air is a screen-less, subscription-free fitness tracker for the masses

I review fitness tech for a living, and personally, I couldn’t be more thrilled that screenless trackers are making a comeback. I’m chronically online, and as a mom to a toddler, I’m really trying to be more disciplined with my screentime. A huge selling point of both the newly-released Fitbit Air and the Whoop 5.0 is that they disappear, allowing you to track everything you need, without the distraction of non-stop notifications.

The Fitbit Air has been hailed as a Whoop-killer, and if you’ve clicked on this article, the chances are you’re trying to choose between the two devices. I’ve spent an extended amount of time with both trackers, and below, I’ll dive into why I think, for most people, the Fitbit Air is the tracker worth buying. Read on to find out more.

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Price and subscriptions

The Fitbit Air is the newer of the two trackers, released in May 2026. It costs $99/£85 and. There's also an optional Google Health Premium subscription, which unlocks personalized AI-backed health and fitness insights, along with deeper dives into your holistic trends. This costs $9.99/£7.99 a month or $99/£79 a year.

While you don’t pay for the Whoop 5.0 tracker itself, you have to choose between three subscriptions. The Whoop One costs $199/£169 per year and is the cheapest option. You’ll get the Whoop 5.0 tracker and CoreKnit band, as well as basic tracking.

Whoop Peak costs $239/£229 per year. It’s the mid-tier option where you get the Whoop 5.0 tracker with the SuperKnit band, along with a wireless charger, and everything in the ‘One’ membership, but also Healthspan (this is Whoop’s new feature with ‘Whoop Age’ and ‘Pace of Aging’), the Health Monitor, and the Stress Monitor.

Finally, Whoop Life is the top-tier option and costs $359/£349 per year. This plan comes with the Whoop MG device and SuperKnit Luxe band. You’ll get all of the features from the ‘Peak’ membership, as well as blood pressure and ECG readings.

Winner: If you’re on a budget, the Fitbit Air is the obvious choice. If you don’t choose to pay for a Google Health Premium subscription, after the initial $99 outlay, you won’t have to pay a penny.

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Design

Both trackers are screenless bands, which are designed to disappear on the wrist. There’s one huge difference, especially if, like me, you have tiny wrists. The Fitbit Air is much smaller and lighter than the Whoop 5.0 — it weighs in at 12g compared to Whoop’s 28g.

One benefit of the Whoop is that you can wear the device in multiple locations, like a bicep band or in a sports bra, giving you other options for data capture.

Winner: I found the Fitbit Air far more comfortable than the Whoop MG I tested. I tested the performance band, and found that it never felt overly soggy on my wrist, even after swimming workouts.

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: The apps

A screenless tracker is only as good as its app, as you’re not really getting anything from the device strapped to your wrist without it. The Google Health app for the Fitbit Air is extremely user-friendly. However, you’re not getting the same amount of tracking data as you’d get on Whoop, which centers around three color-coded pillars: recovery, strain, and sleep.

During testing, I found the Whoop experience incredibly granular. You’re getting a huge amount of data, and it truly is amazing, but unless you really know what you’re looking for, or you have a coach who can help, it can be pretty overwhelming.

If you subscribe to Google Health Premium, the main differences in your app experience are the AI summaries and Fitbit Coach. This takes all your data and gives you suggestions on how you can better reach your goals. I’ve tested an awful lot of these AI coaches, and the Google Health Premium offering is the best yet.

After my run this morning, for example, the Health Coach told me my heart rate dropped quickly during my cool-down, which is a sign my body is coping with the intensity of my workouts. It’s not something I’d often look for in my running data, and I found the insight genuinely interesting.

One downside to the Google Health app compared to Whoop is the auto-detect workout feature. Google Health only detects five different workout types, although it says it’s adding more, whereas Whoop has endless options. While I found both to be pretty accurate when detecting a run, Google Health struggled to notice I’d done a walking workout or cycled part of my commute, whereas Whoop nailed it both times.

Winner: This one is a tough one to call, but I’d argue that for most people, the Fitbit Air app is simple, easy to navigate, and if you pay for the subscription, it gives you great actionable insights into your health. I do wish there were the option to add slightly more customization to the focus menu in the app, as I’d love to see metrics like my overall distance run per week, but I’m sure this will roll out in a later update.

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Why I’d choose the Fitbit Air over Whoop

For the average person, you’ll get everything you need and more from the Fitbit Air. The Google Health app is easy to use, and if you pay for the Premium subscription, you’re getting the best AI health companion I’ve tested so far. Plus, for $99, this isn’t a huge investment, but it can help guide you to make actionable differences to your health.

If you’re an athlete or a more data-centric person, there’s definitely still a place for the Whoop on the market. However, next to the Fitbit Air, it’s hard for me to justify spending hundreds of dollars each year, now that there’s a cheaper, lighter alternative in town.

More from Tom's Guide

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

I tested the fitness tracking performance of the Apple Watch SE 3 vs the Fitbit Air while walking exactly 4,500 steps, and I'm surprised by the winner.

The Apple Watch SE 3 is Cupertino's latest entry-level, full-featured smartwatch and one of the best cheap smartwatches of 2026. The Fitbit Air, meanwhile, is a brand-new, diminutive, screen-free wearable and one of the best fitness trackers available right now.

Both devices track tons of workout types and deliver similarly detailed post-effort insights, but which one is more reliable? To find out, I walked 4,5000 steps while wearing the Apple Watch SE 3 on my left wrist and the Fitbit Air on my right. As a primary control for tracking accuracy, I manually counted my steps, noting every hundred taken with a click of my trusty tally counter.

I also logged my efforts using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and climb data. So, which wearable came out on top, the Fitbit Air or the Apple Watch SE 3? Read on.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: fitness tracking accuracy compared

Before jumping into the results, it's worth noting some of the primary differences between these two popular wearables. For starters, the screen-less Fitbit Air is designed to be a distraction-free tracker with no notifications or smart features (except just one).

On the other hand, the Apple Watch SE 3 is essentially the opposite: an ultra-connected smartwatch that does much more, in terms of smart features, than just track health and fitness stats. The SE 3 is also considerably pricier than the Air, starting at $249 compared to $99 for the latest Fitbit.

Finally, the Apple Watch SE 3 sports onboard GPS for location tracking without a paired smartphone; the Fitbit Air does not. That said, when you do carry your smartphone while logging an outdoor workout with the Air, fitness tracking performance is excellent.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Walk test results

I logged exactly 4,500 steps (manual count) during my roughly 40-minute walk around a gloomy Seattle, Washington, including a climb up the city's steepest hill. And much to my delight, both wearables logged similar step counts that fall well within a reasonable margin of error; ultimately, any tally within 100 steps of my actual count is considered an impressive outcome.

However, while the Apple Watch SE 3 is just 37 steps of my actual total, the Fitbit Air is off by just 12 steps. Strava, meanwhile, bested them both, logging 4,502 steps.

Distance data is similarly enough across the board, with Fitbit Air proving slightly more in line with the control data. However, the Air's climb data leaves a lot to be desired. The SE 3, in contrast, noted just a bit more uphill effort than Strava.

Thanks to the gloom, I encountered little traffic, which meant that I didn't stop moving at any point during this walk. As a result, I expected my average pace to be pretty similar across the board, which it is. However, Apple's pace calculation is closer to the control than Fitbit's.

Similar to my prior walk test with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70, the former's heart rate data is noticeably lower than the competition's. This is a somewhat odd result, given that the Fitbit Air's heart rate tracking performed admirably time and again during testing for the review, regardless of which wrist I wore it on.

One possible theory for the discrepancies: I didn't wear the Air tightly enough during my last two walk tests.

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Winner

Despite the Apple Watch SE 3 costing 2.5x the Fitbit Air, Google's humble, screen-less fitness tracker wins this showdown. However, the SE 3 performed nearly as well when it comes to step count and was more accurate across the board for other key metrics.

Which fitness trackers, smartwatches, smart rings, etc. would you like me to test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 3,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 — and I’m seriously amazed by the results
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I spent one week with a wallet-friendly Garmin Forerunner 970 dupe — 5 things that stand out about the $300 cheaper Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro

The time has come: the Oura Ring 4 has officially been upstaged by the hotly anticipated Oura Ring 5, and there are plenty of changes to the ring you should know about if you're deciding whether or not to invest.

I have been wearing my Oura Ring since its 2021 release, graduating from the Oura Ring Gen 3 to the latest 5 model, and I'm convinced it's still the best smart ring on the market, despite stiff competition emerging.

Launched on May 28 2026, the Ring 5 is now the "world's smallest smart ring," but what else can you expect? Oura announced new features that will roll out to the Oura Ring Gen3, Oura Ring 4, and Oura Ring 4 Ceramic. These include live workout tracking, more women’s health features and a brand new way to find your ring or charging case if you lose it.

Read on to find out more about the Oura Ring 5 vs Oura Ring 4, whether we think it's worth upgrading and a sneak peek at the new design.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Specs compared

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Price and availability

The Oura Ring 5 launched on May 28 and is now available for pre-order directly with Oura and other retailers including Amazon and Best Buy.

Shipping is due to begin June 4, while the Oura Ring 4 and ceramic will continue to be available.

As for pricing, the Oura Ring 4 starts at $349, while the Ring 5 begins at $399, with premium finishes (Gold, Stealth, Brushed Silver and Deep Rose) coming in at $499. Each purchase comes with a charger, but you can buy Oura's Ring 5 charging case, which is now available for pre-order at $99.

You'll get a one-year protection plan, plus a free month's trial of the Oura membership, which costs $5.99 a month thereafter.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Design

There have been some pretty significant changes to the newer version's design, and the most notable is that the Ring 5 is 40% smaller than its predecessor, making it more wearable for your everyday life; it's now the world's smallest smart ring.

Like the Oura Ring 4, the Ring 5's sensors are recessed. However, the 5's sensor domes provide better skin contact, more powerful LEDS (for clearer readings) and 12 stronger signal pathways for better accuracy across finger types and skin tones.

Oura also redesigned the mechanical, electrical, optical, battery and sensing architectures to ensure the quality of the ring isn't compromised by the smaller size. The rings are made from non-allergenic titanium, but the 5 features an extra-strong physical vapor deposition coating that enhances scratch resistance. It's also dust and waterproof to 100 meters (IP68), rather than waster resistant.

While the Oura Ring 4 comes in sizes 4 through 15, the Ring 5 comes in sizes 6 to 13. Oura strongly recommends confirming your best fit with a sizing kit; the new design means your ring size might change.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Fitness tracking features

The Oura Ring 4 introduced smart sensing, which meant your ring could create up to 18 sensing paths to read through your finger. As mentioned, Oura redesigned the ring from the ground up, creating smaller but more powerful LEDS repositioned for accuracy, and 12 refined but stronger signal pathways.

Gen 3, 4 and Ring 5 users can benefit from Oura's large bounty of health metrics and integrations, like sleep tracking, activity tracking, automatic workout detection, heart rate readings, readiness scores, stress tracking, menstrual cycle predictions, resilience estimates and long-term health trend insights, to name a few.

The Oura app is still split into three tabs, Today, Vitals and My Health, in an effort to keep all your information organized.

Oura has now introduced live activity tracking that lets members start a workout and follow their key metrics in real time from their phone. You can start a workout in the Oura App and track pace and distance during activities like running, cycling and strength training.

Members can also connect third-party heart rate monitors and supported devices, which gives access to heart rate in real time, including lock screen widgets for metrics. This feature becomes globally live on June 4. Automatic Activity Detection will also be more accurate, especially for low-motion activities like Pilates or yoga.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Battery life and charging

The Ring 4 can last up to 8 days, though we've found it typically lasts around 5-6 days, which declines gradually over time. The Ring 5 is expected to add a day of battery life, lasting up to 9 days. How this fares is down to testing, so we will include our results in our Oura Ring 5 review.

With one-touch multiring support, members can pair and switch among multiple Oura Ring 4 and Oura Ring 5 devices on a single account at no further cost.

A sandblasted anodized aluminum case stores one month of battery and, unlike the 4, the Oura Ring 5 charging case supports wireless charging. There's also a dedicated action button to check charging status and quickly pair the device. This will cost $99 and is available for pre-order.

Oura also introduced Locate, which helps you find your case and ring more easily, available for Oura Ring 4 and 5. You can support multiple devices and use the search mode in the app.

Oura Ring 4 vs Oura 5: Women's Health & Privacy settings

Menopause Insights

Menopause Insights asks you structured questions about sleep, mood, cognition and daily functioning, helping your Oura ring understand how strongly perimenopause may affect your daily life. After the symptom assessment, Oura members will access a personalized dashboard that translates these symptoms into an overall impact level.

Thankfully, it’ll be easy to follow at a glance, and you can learn how lifestyle changes, stress and interventions can change this data using your My Health view. Members can also save and share results with clinicians.

This update will be available to anyone with the app.

Hormonal Birth Control

Also rolling out is Oura’s new Hormonal Birth Control feature, which adapts Cycle Insights for members using pills, patches, IUDs, implants and other hormonal methods. You can gain insight into how contraception influences your wellbeing, and how your hormone fluctuations impact your body.

This is an update to the ring’s current Cycle Insights tool.

Lab Uploads

Oura users will now be able to import lab and blood work results directly into the Oura App, placing blood biomarkers alongside the data Oura collects. This will be available globally from June 30, 2026.

Privacy and Data Control

Finally, Oura will now make it possible for all members to erase data stored in the Oura App by choosing a specific time window. This will still preserve the account and longitudinal history but allows members to decide what data is stored without impacting the value of long-term trends.

Oura Ring 5 vs. Oura Ring 4: Should you upgrade?

Although the in-app features will be available across both devices, there are some pretty big changes to the design of the 5 that could make it worth the upgrade, given the price isn't enormously different.

However, if you're not ready to invest in the 5, we suspect the Oura Ring 4 will be on sale, so you could pick up a bargain.

If you're an avid Oura Ring user and want to be on the cutting edge of the company's latest hardware, I think you can purchase a new one knowing it won't be replaced for a while.

And if the size of the current ring feels off-putting, I can confirm that I've worn the Oura Ring 5 and it is super tiny, much easier to wear, and comes in beautiful colorways that blend into my everyday. Think sleek and chic.

We'll be testing the Oura Ring 5 here at Tom's Guide, so look out for our full, in-depth review coming soon.

More from Tom's Guide

• I wore an Oura Ring for an entire year — what I like and don't like
• I ditched my Apple Watch for an Oura Ring for a month
• Samsung Galaxy Ring vs. Oura Ring 4 — which smart ring wins?

The Fitbit Air is one of the best fitness trackers in 2026, especially if you prefer a screenless and distraction-free wearable with long-lasting battery and rock-solid reliability.

Priced at $99, with all major health, sleep, and fitness metrics available subscription-free, the Fitbit Air is also the best budget-friendly Whoop alternative, and my favorite fitness tracker of 2026 so far.

With no screen, buttons, NFC, or mirrored smartphone notifications to distract you, the Fitbit Air offers just one feature I’d consider to be truly ‘smart.’ More importantly, this feature has totally changed the way I start my day.

No smart alerts or distractions… except this one

In theory, the Fitbit Air could alert you to an incoming phone call, text message, or any other notification. However, by design, the onboard haptic motor is only capable of vibrating when you set an alarm from the sleep tab in the Google Health app (formerly the Fitbit app).

This is by no means a new or groundbreaking feature for wearables in 2026; plenty of the best Fitbits and many of the best smartwatch models offer something similar. However, I’m a little surprised but genuinely pleased that Google included hatpic feedback with the brand’s latest Fitbit.

Users can save up to eight alarms total. When one goes off, the tracker gently vibrates for roughly 30 seconds before going into snooze mode. This delays the alarm for exactly nine minutes (and can’t be changed) before it goes off again.

Not only is this a lovely, non-startling way to wake up — and one I’ve fully adopted — but unlike a standard audible alarm, the Fitbit Air alarm doesn’t wake my sleeping partner, or even my dog, Belverdere.

To silence the Fitbit Air’s haptic alarm, firmly double-tap the top of the tracker. From my experience, this works the first time, roughly 90% of the time.

The brilliance of ‘Smart Wake’

In addition to a haptic alarm, the Fitbit Air also supports Google’s ‘Smart Wake’ feature, which, when activated, prioritizes waking you during your optimal sleep stage, i.e., when you’re not in deep sleep or REM.

When switched on, Smart Wake will wake you up to 30 minutes before your actual alarm, but never after.

Some room for improvement

It’s worth noting that I’m a reasonably light sleeper, and even though the level of vibration offered by the Fitbit Air’s alarm is more than enough to get my eyes open, it may not be enough to awaken more hardcore snoozers.

My suggested solution for Google: Add a new function that lets users adjust how much the Air vibrates when the alarm goes off, with three levels to select from.

Have you ever tried waking up via haptics on a fitness tracker or smartwatch? What was your experience? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin’s screen-less Whoop competitor could cost five times as much as the Fitbit Air
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• Forget the Whoop 5.0 — The new Fitbit Air is a screen-less, subscription-free fitness tracker for the masses

I tested the fitness tracking performance of the new Fitbit Air versus the (also) new Garmin Forerunner 70, and was seriously amazed by the results.

The Fitbit Air is a screen-less, wallet-friendly alternative to the Whoop 5.0, while the Garmin Forerunner 70 is the brand’s latest entry-level running watch, replacing the beloved but aging Forerunner 55.

To find out which of these 2026 wearables is the more accurate fitness tracker, I walked 3,000 steps with the Garmin on my left wrist and the Fitbit on my right. As a primary control for this head-to-head, I manually counted my steps (with some help from my trusty, old-school tally counter). Additionally, I logged my walk using the Strava app on an iPhone 16 Plus.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: fitness tracking accuracy compared

Before diving into the results, it’s worth noting some key differences between these two devices. For one, the Garmin Forerunner 70 is $250 on Amazon and other major retailers, which is more than twice the cost of the $99 Fitbit Air.

Both wearables offer their primary health and fitness tracking features without a subscription. Want personalized insights, trend reports, workout recommendations, and more? Google Health Premium for the Fitbit Air is $9.99 a month or $99 for the year, while Garmin Connect+ is $6.99 a month or $69.99 annually.

The other notable difference is that the Garmin Forerunner 70 sports an onboard GPS while the Fitbit Air doesn’t. This means you'll need to carry your smartphone for location and elevation data when tracking an outdoor workout with the Air, something that isn’t the case for the Forerunner 70.

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Walk test results

Any step count total within one hundred steps of my actual tally is considered a fantastic result by TG walk test standards. For this head-to-head, the Fitbit Air and Garmin Forerunner 70 were both within just five steps of the actual tally, a seriously amazing outcome. Strava, meanwhile, logged 3,006 total steps taken.

Distance data also lines up nicely across the board, with Fitbit's tally being just a tad closer to the control. The Fitbit Air also delivered a more accurate elevation gain total than the Garmin Forerunner 70, which notably lacks a barometric altimeter for tracking climb data (the Air piggyback's off your phone's altimeter just like it does for GPS).

While Strava and Garmin each provide moving and elapsed pace metrics, the Fitbit Air only offers one, and doesn't specify which it is (my money is on the latter). The figures above reflect Garmin and Strava's elapsed pace. For moving pace, Strava noted 17 mins 15 secs per mile, while Garmin logged 17 mins 35 secs.

Fitbit's average heart rate metric is quite a bit lower than Garmin's — the Fitbit was on my right wrist and the Garmin on my left, which could be a factor — but both wearables recorded roughly the same max heart rate for the walk, which notably included some extra-steep terrain to get my blood pumping.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Winner

And the winner is... both wearables! This one is a tie, as both the Air and Forerunner 70 were within four steps of my actual count.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air is one of the best fitness trackers you can buy in 2026, and while I'm still reviewing the Garmin Forerunner 70, there's a solid shot it's destined for our best Garmin watch guide as well.

This is to say, top-notch performance is not only what I hoped for from these two modern wearables, but also what I expected. And both delivered with flying colors.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin just added WhatsApp support to a huge number of watches — here’s how to unlock it
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• I spent one week with a wallet-friendly Garmin Forerunner 970 dupe — 5 things that stand out about the $300 cheaper Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro

I just reviewed the Fitbit Air, and it’s safe to say that it’s destined for our best fitness tracker buying guide. But, is it the best fitness tracker for you?

That depends on factors like your holistic and fitness monitoring needs, budget, and desire for smart features. With that in mind, here are five reasons to buy the Fitbit Air and two reasons to skip it.

Buy: The price (it’s cheap)

The Fitbit Air is just $99 with no subscription costs for core health and fitness tracking insights. However, a Google Health Premium subscription for $99 a year or $9.99 a month unlocks all sorts of heady AI-backed holistic tools and trend deep dives.

Not a subscription person? Google includes three months of Google Health Premium free with your purchase, so that you can try those premium features first before making a commitment.

Buy: All-day comfort

The Fitbit Air is the smallest and lightest screen-free fitness tracker of its kind, with a footprint that’s 35 x 17 x 8 mm and a weight of only 5.2 g without the strap. By comparison, the Whoop 5.0 weighs a wrist-crunching 26.5 g.

The straps for the Fitbit Air are also noticeably slimmer than the competition’s offerings, making the Air one of the comfiest trackers I’ve tested, particularly on the special edition Stephen Curry knit strap.

This also makes the Air an excellent choice for sleep tracking insights, especially if you’re like me and seriously loathe anything bulky on the wrist while snoozing.

Buy: Accurate health and fitness insights

I tested the Fitbit Air’s tracking performance against the Garmin Forerunner 70, a $250 entry-leving running watch, and the Strava app, my go-to for logging any outdoor workout.

After comparing the data from a 3,000-step walk and a 1.5-mile run, the results proved decisive: the Fitbit Air is as competent and reliable a wearable for measuring heart rate and metrics like speed, pace, and distance during outdoor workouts as the far pricier Garmin.

Buy: Distraction-free tracking

One of the biggest selling points of the Fitbit Air is what it doesn’t have: there’s no screen, no buttons, no mirrored smartphone notifications, and basically, no distractions to slow you down.

The device does have a built-in haptic motor that can be used to gently and silently wake you using the Fitbit’s Smart Alarm, but that’s essentially it for smarts.

Buy: Long-lasting battery

Google promises up to seven days of battery from the Fitbit Air, and that’s been exactly my experience while testing it. After seven consecutive days wearing the device pretty much 24/7, I had roughly 15% battery remaining.

Considering just how lightweight the Air is, a week of battery is darn impressive. It also recharges rather quickly, going from 0 to 100% in about 90 minutes.

Skip: A lack of GPS

I mentioned accurate fitness tracking performance, but there’s one caveat: the Fitbit Air lacks an onboard GPS for location tracking data, so you’ll need to carry your paired smartphone for insights into distance, pace, etc, along with a post-effort map.

The Air additionally lacks an onboard altimeter for elevation tracking data, but worry not! Your smartphone also has one of those, too.

Skip: No smart features

Finally, if you’re the type of person who prefers a screen, buttons, smart features, and optional smartphone notifications, the Fitbit Air isn’t for you.

Instead, I recommend taking a look at the Fitbit Charge 6, which is similar in size but with a screen, NFC payments, and other useful smarts. A little pricier than the Air at $159, it also sports onboard GPS.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin’s screen-less Whoop competitor could cost five times as much as the Fitbit Air
• The Fitbit Air is basically just a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3 — and that’s a very good thing
• The Fitbit app is officially dead — but don’t panic, its replacement is even better

In 2026, it seems that fitness trackers are losing screens and gaining followers. In a world of buzzing notifications, users seem to be moving to a more peaceful approach when it comes to keeping an eye on their sleep, stress, and movement goals.

I’m in the other camp — I review fitness tech for a living, so there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t have multiple devices strapped to my pulse points. For the past week, I’ve been road-testing the newly released Fitbit Air — Google’s first Fitbit-branded product since the Charge 6, and a $99 screenless tracker that looks set to take on the likes of Whoop.

I’ve been impressed with how lightweight and comfortable the band is, and I’ve been using it to track my sleep, alongside my Oura Ring 4.

Of course, without heading to a lab, it’s impossible to tell which of these is actually more accurate, but I’ve been wearing the Oura Ring 4 since its release in 2024, and before that, the Oura Ring Generation 3, so this device knows a lot about my sleep patterns. Read on to find out how Fitbit’s newest tracker compares.

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 4: The basics

Of course, before jumping into the sleep tracking, it’s important to highlight the obvious difference between these two devices. Let’s start with the design — the Oura Ring 4 is a smart ring that can be worn on any finger.

It looks like jewelry and comes in six finishes for the titanium version or four colors for the ceramic version. Pricing starts at $349/£349, and you’ll need an ongoing subscription to get the most out of the ring, which costs $5.99/£5.99 per month or $ 72/£72 per year.

The Fitbit Air, on the other hand, is a screenless tracker designed to be worn on the wrist. Designed so that you can easily swap one band for another, the selection of strap options at launch is seriously vast, with a wide range of both silicone and textile options to choose from.

The device costs $99/£89 and comes with a three-month trial to Google Health Premium (previously called Fitbit Premium). You can choose to stay subscription-free, but to get more detailed sleep information, Google’s new health coach, and workouts, you’ll need to pay for the subscription, which costs $9.99 / £7.99 a month or $99 / £79 per year.

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 4: Sleep tracking

Both devices are designed to track your sleep stages, sleep duration, sleep quality, and more. Both will also package your sleep data up into a score out of 100, so you can see at a glance when you wake up how well you’ve slept.

Below, I’ve taken a deep dive into those scores over the past seven nights. In a previous life, I was a solid eight-hours-a-night sleeper. These days, I’m a single mom to a toddler who moonlights as a Houdini-style escape artist.

My nights often involve negotiations with said toddler to persuade him it’s not, in fact, morning, so let’s not focus too much on the sleep duration part of this test, before I accidentally cry on my keyboard.

As you can see, the overall sleep scores between the two devices were pretty similar, even with differences between the sleep durations recorded by each device each night. Both agreed that May 17 was my worst night’s sleep, and both accurately recorded the 2 hours and 24 minutes it took me to get my toddler back into bed. Both also gave me a sleep efficiency score of 70%, which is lower than the typical range.

Both devices show your sleep scores and patterns on a graph, so you can see your awake time (hopefully a lot shorter than mine) and your time in the REM, Light, and Deep stages of sleep. I would say Oura goes into more detail, with features such as sleep debt, which shows you how much sleep you need to fully recover (a girl can dream, Oura).

While knowing all my sleep stages is interesting, a key metric I look at each night is my resting heart rate, as this is a really accurate reflection of my overall health. A high resting heart rate usually signals that I’m overtraining, getting sick, or, more often than not, have had a glass of wine with dinner.

Sticking with the worst night’s sleep of the week, the Fitbit Air recorded my resting heart rate as 56 beats per minute. The Oura Ring 4 recorded 49 beats per minute, but goes a step further by giving me data on my heart rate variability, too. I know from tracking my sleep religiously that this is within my baseline, so I’m not getting sick; I just have a toddler.

Of course, there’s no real way to measure sleep without doing controlled tests, but I’ve been impressed at how close the Fitbit Air has gotten to the much pricier Oura Ring 4, which has a lot more of my data after years of wear.

The only anomaly was on May 21, when, for some reason, Fitbit didn’t give me a sleep score. Common errors include the tracker being low on battery (mine was fully charged) or too loose, but I’ll write this off as a one-off.

For $99, you’re getting a great sleep tracker that is far more comfortable to wear overnight than most of the best smartwatches on the market. So far, I’m impressed, but I’ll continue to wear both as I chase my toddler around in the small hours to continue testing. Wish me luck.

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin’s screen-less Whoop competitor could cost five times as much as the Fitbit Air
• Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170 — what are the main differences between Garmin’s two new running watches
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

Good things should be worth the wait. After all, the legendary neo-soul recording artist D’Angelo kept us waiting 14 years for his third and arguably most groundbreaking album, Black Messiah. Google hasn’t made us wait quite as long for a new Fitbit model; the last Fitbit designed for adults debuted in 2023 — the Fitbit Charge 6 — while the latest entry-level addition to the lineup, the Fitbit Inspire 3, launched in 2022.

Thankfully — and much to my surprise — Google’s Fitbit draught ended in early May with the debut of the ultra-petite, screen-free, and subscription-optional Fitbit Air.

Priced at just $99, the Fitbit Air is designed to be a set-it-and-forget-it, ultra-discreet health tracker with 24/7 heart rate monitoring, detailed nightly sleep reports, basic fitness tracking, recovery recommendations, women’s health tracking, and perhaps most notably, zero buttons or smart features.

I tested the Fitbit Air for over a week, and I may never take it off. The Fitbit Air is easily the best no-fuss, bang-for-your-buck, screen-less fitness tracker on the market in 2026. That's right, forget the more advanced, serious-athletes-only, wallet-draining Whoop 5.0, here’s why I’ll be recommending the Fitbit Air to users far and wide for the foreseeable future.

Fitbit Air: Specs compared

Fitbit Air value: 5/5

• At $99 and subscription-free for core features, the Fitbit Air is one of the best value screenless trackers available in 2026
• An optional Google Health Premium account unlocks personalized AI-backed health and fitness insights, along with deeper dives into your holistic trends; it's $9.99 a month or $99 a year
• Cost-wise, the Fitbit Air is the same price as 2022's entry-level Fitbit Inspire 3 tracker, which is still sold by Google (but often for $79); the Air is less than the GPS-sporting Fitbit Charge 6 ($159)

The Fitbit Air is $99, the same price that the Fitbit Inspire 3 debuted at in 2022. This may have you thinking that the Air replaces the Inspire 3 in the brand's lineup, but that's not the case. Google will continue selling the Fitbit Inspire 3 for $79-$99 and the Fitbit Charge 6 for $159 for the foreseeable future.

The Fitbit Air will set you back $99 paired with one of Google's standard silicone or kniy straps or $129 paired with the special edition Stephan Curry strap (which I'm a big fan of, more on that below).

Compared to the competition, the Fitbit Air is the same price as the Amazfit Helio Strap and half the price of the Polar Loop, both of which are also subscription-free. The Fitbit Air is additionally less than half the price of the cheapest annual Whoop subscription.

Speaking of subscriptions, some of the more advanced features, like AI-backed recommendations and trend insights, require a Google Health Premium (previously Fitbit Premium) subscription for $9.99 a month or $99 for the year; full review of that coming soon.

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air ships with a three-month trial to Premium to help you decide whether those additional features are worth it to you, something I appreciate.

Fitbit Air value: 5/5

Fitbit Air design and comfort: 5/5

• The Fitbit Air is smaller, lighter, and more comfortable than the competition
• Better water resistance than Whoop 5.0
• Designed to be swapped from strap to strap with ease
• The special edition Stephen Curry strap is the comfiest of Google's initial offerings

The Fitbit Air doesn't have a screen or any buttons; however, it does have a haptic motor, which can be set to vibrate for a limited number of use cases, most notably as a way to gently and silently wake you up via Google's Smart Alarm function. You cannot set it to vibrate to alert you to incoming texts, calls, or other smartphone notifications.

The Fitbit Air is noticeably smaller, thinner, and lighter than all of its competitors, including the Whoop 5.0, Polar Loop, and Amazfit Helio Strap.

Weighing just over 5 g and with a tiny footprint, the Fitbit Air is not only extremely comfortable, especially on the special edition Stephen Curry strap, but it also doesn't really resemble a fitness tracker... like, at all. Instead, it looks more like a sporty bracelet than a tech gadget.

Water resistance is 50 meters, which beats the pants off the Whoop 5.0, and should be enough to protect the Air during short surface-level swims, showers, hand-washing, etc.

The tracker itself is nothing more than a small plastic pebble with some sensors and charging contacts on the underside. However, because it's protected by the strap, it's nearly impossible to damage the tech components, even if you slam your wrist unintentionally into a wall.

Customization is a big selling point of the Air. The tracker itself, which looks like a slimmed-down Inspire 3 without straps, pops with delightful fashion in and out of its housing with a firm push.

Google is selling a fairly wide selection of straps, starting at $34.99, in all sorts of eye-catching colors. Choose from sporty silicone or stretchy knit fabric. Meanwhile, wallet-friendly, third-party straps have yet to materialize on Amazon and the likes, but give it time.

It's worth calling out the Steph Curry strap, because it feels a lot more premium, breathable, and less scratchy than the standard knit strap Google offers with the device for $99.

Health tracking: 4/5

• Lots of sleep tracking insights on par with the best fitness trackers and best smartwatches
• User-friendly app for tracking holistic trends like resting heart rate, average calorie burn, step count, heart rate variability, menstrual cycles, and daily readiness
• Some health tracking features require a Google Health Premium subscription, like AI-analyzed sleep trend recommendations (via Google Coach)

The Fitbit Air sports an onboard continuous heart rate tracker, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) reader, and body temperature sensor for keeping tabs on all your core holistic metrics, including heart rate variability trends, breath rate, cardio load, and daily readiness, a numeric score out of 100.

For a $99 wearable, the Fitbit Air provides detailed sleep reports on par with some of the best smartwatch models in 2026, with insights into your sleep duration, time spent in sleep cycles, restlessness, and daily sleep quality rating and score, also out of 100.

I tested the Fitbit Air against the Garmin Forerunner 70 nightly for a week straight. The chart above shows recent results, logged during the same night from each tracker. While the data doesn't match perfectly, the results are pretty darn close across the board, suggesting that the Fitbit Air is just as capable of logging sleep quality as a device 2.5 times its cost.

Google completely overhauled the Fitbit companion app, now called 'Google Health,' and the results are an easy-to-navigate experience with quick and easy access to whatever metrics you value most — the app is highly customizable — along with just the right amount of context and analysis to prove useful but not overwhelming.

Fitbit Air fitness tracking: 3/5

• Reliable fitness tracking performance when you carry a paired smartphone for location and elevation data
• Auto workout mode only starts tracking after 15 minutes and is limited to a handful of common exercises
• Similar heart rate tracking reliability to entry-level Garmin watches; no apparent performance differences between tracking on left vs right wrists
• Personalized AI-backed adaptive fitness plans require a Google Health Premium subscription

Like nearly every screen-less wearable, the Fitbit Air lacks an onboard GPS for location data and an altimeter for elevation insights. This means that you'll want to carry your paired smartphone when performing outdoor workouts for the Air to piggyback off of, to ensure reliable distance, pace, and elevation gain metrics.

The Fitbit Air automatically tracks a small selection of workout types, including walks, bike rides, 'sports,' and 'other activities.' It does so whether you carry your paired phone or not, but there's a catch. For an activity to be auto-logged, you have to do it for at least 15 consecutive minutes.

I'm a newbie runner who jogs roughly 1.5 miles several times a week. That often takes me less than 15 minutes, which means that I have to manually open the Fitbit app on my phone and start a running workout session to ensure the Air actually logs it. This is less than ideal, IMHO, and Google should instead lower the auto workout threshold for the Air to five minutes instead.

The selectable tracking modes for the Fitbit Air in the app are also somewhat limited compared to the competition, with just 41 to choose from. For example, there isn't even a pickleball mode!

When carrying a paired smartphone, fitness tracking performance from the Fitbit Air is top-notch. I walked 3,000 steps — manually counted — with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Strava running on an iPhone 16, and the Air proved just as accurate across the board as the others (though its pace data was a little sluggish).

To ensure similar heart rate tracking capabilities on either wrist, I performed 50 jumping jacks with the Air on first on my left and then on my right wrist (giving time for my heart to return to a resting rate in between). I also wore the Garmin Forerunner 70 on the opposite wrist of the Air during testing for an additional data set. The results: The Fitbit Air tracks your heart rate with similar reliability to Garmin's top entry-level smartwatch, regardless of which wrist you wear it on.

In addition to testing the Fitbit Air while walking and doing aerobic workouts, I also tested it against Garmin and Strava while going for a 1.5-mile run. In this test, the Air's results once again line up nicely with the competition.

Of course, for the most valuable insights into your fitness trends, you'll want to take Google Health Premium for a spin, which notably unlocks Google's Gemini-backed 'Coach,' a personalized, holistic concierge that is far more helpful, in my testing, than Apple's 'Workout Buddy' or Samsung's 'Running Coach.'

For example, after a week of less-than-ideal sleep and more workouts logged than normal, the Coach not only advised I take it easy, but also gave me targets for how much sleep to get in the next few nights, low-key workout suggestions that target muscle groups I didn't utilize in recent days, and big picture advice based on my fitness goals and recent performance.

Fitbit Air battery life: 4/5

• The Fitbit Air lasted over a week in my testing, meeting its advertised rating
• It also recharges quickly: 0 to 100% in roughly 90 minutes
• Whoop 5.0 boasts double the battery life of the Fitbit Air

The Fitbit Air is rated to last up to seven days per charge. After exactly one week of testing the Fitbit Air on my wrist, I still had 15% battery remaining. During my time wearing the device, I recorded around a dozen workouts and only took the tracker off while showering.

Google says you can fully recharge the Air from 0% to 100% battery in roughly 90 minutes, a claim that also proved true in my testing.

Sure, the Whoop 5.0 offers double the advertised battery life of the Fitbit Air, but it also weighs roughly five times more. Besides, a week of battery is more than enough in my opinion, especially when you consider that some of the best smartwatch models only last for one day per charge... cough, cough, Apple Watch 11.

Fitbit Air review: Verdict

I tested the Fitbit Air for a week, and I have no intentions of taking it off anytime soon. In fact, it's hands down my favorite screenless, subscription-free tracker on the market today and a great choice for anyone looking to learn more about their health trends without breaking the bank or straining their wrist. In short: It's a Whoop 5.0 for the rest of us.

Smaller, lighter, and overall more comfortable than alternatives from Whoop, Amazfit, and Polar, it may not have the best-in-class battery life, but at over a week per charge, it's good enough for me. While you'll find more in-depth fitness tracking insights from the best GPS sport watches, the Fitbit Air covers all the basics well, even if the auto-workout tracking could use refinement and an expansion of exercise types.

Ultimately, the combination of a completely distraction-free user experience, an affordable price, reliable holistic features, excellent comfort, impressive battery life, and no subscription requirement all add up to the Fitbit Air being my new favorite fitness tracker in 2026, and a wearable I'll be recommending to all sorts of wellness and fitness enthusiasts.

Fitbit Air final score: 21 out of 25

I’m currently reviewing the new Fitbit Air, and after four days wearing it, I’m already obsessed.

While the Fitbit Air is far from the most advanced fitness tracker on the market today — it doesn’t even have a screen or onboard GPS — a $99 price tag, playful design, and simple-to-use disposition make it a potentially compelling choice for wrists far and wide.

With that in mind, these are the three biggest reasons why I’m smitten with the new Fitbit Air, so much so that it just might be my favorite wearable in 2026, at least, so far.

1. Accessibly priced; plays well with others

The Fitbit Air is accessibly priced at $99. That cost covers the tracker and one band; additional straps start at $34.99 via Amazon and come in a wide range of colors, and your choice of silicone or woven knit.

Speaking of accessible, the Fitbit app… excuse me, the Google Health app (new name) plays nicely on both Android and iOS devices, offering users the same experience regardless of their OS preference; how democratic!

2. Subscription and distraction-free tracking

With no screen and no buttons to get in your way, not to mention a diminutive footprint (more on that below), the Fitbit Air is the antithesis of wearables like the Apple Watch 11, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, or the Google Pixel Watch 4, and that's the point!

There’s also no NFC for mobile payments, no speaker or microphone for taking calls, and ultimately, nothing to distract you from living in the moment.

Additionally, unlike other popular screen-free trackers aimed more at advanced athletes, most notably the Whoop 5.0 and MG, the Fitbit Air is subscription-optional. So, aside from the cost of the device itself, you never need to shell out any additional cash to make use of its primary tracking features.

That said, Google does offer an optional subscription plan for the Fitbit Air and Pixel Watch series called Google Health Premium (previously called Fitbit Premium). Priced at $9.99 a month or $99 for the year, a subscription unlocks all sorts of additional holistic tools, perhaps most notably, access to the tech giant’s new personalized wellness ‘Coach’ that turns your health data into surprisingly actionable insights.

3. Easy-wearing and addictively customizable

After roughly four days with the Fitbit Air on my wrist, I can say with certainty that this thing is comfortable as heck, a sentiment shared by my colleague Jane McGuire. Not only that, it barely resembles a piece of nerdy wearable tech; rather, it looks more like a stylish little bracelet, depending on which strap you opt for. I’m currently rocking the slick, limited-edition Stephen Curry jawn, and I’m hooked.

It’s also addictively easy to pop the little tracker out of the strap housing and swap it into a different setup. This is, of course, intentional on Google’s part. The idea is to make it easy for users to match their Air strap to their outfit or mood.

The official Google Fitbit Air straps start at $34.99, but I don't doubt that cheaper, third-party options will start popping up on Amazon in the coming weeks and months. When that happens, you can bet I’ll be purchasing a variety to test out.

What do you think of the Fitbit Air? What features are you most impressed with (or not), and are you considering buying one? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just spent 36 hours with Garmin’s new entry-level watch for runners — 5 things to know about the Garmin Forerunner 70
• I just ran my first 5K — 5 practical ways I conquered my pre-race nerves for a strong finish
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

I review wearable tech for a living, and while some folks, myself included, predicted the death of the Fitbit brand at the hands of Google in 2026, much to my delight, the tech giant just came through with the shiny new Fitbit Air.

Priced at $99, this diminutive fitness tracker focuses on the basics, like monitoring your daily movement, workouts, sleep quality and women’s health. There’s no GPS, so you’ll need to carry your phone for location data, no NFC for mobile payments and no onboard storage for music.

But, wait a minute, that sounds a whole lot like 2022’s entry-level Fitbit Inspire 3, which also costs $99 (but can easily be found for less, like this Inspire 3 Amazon deal for $84). So, is the Fitbit Air essentially just a Fitbit Inspire 3 without a screen?

I’d argue that it is, but that’s actually a very good thing. Here’s why.

Did we really wait four years for a screen-less Fitbit Inspire 3? Yes and no.

The Fitbit Inspire 3 was my very first fitness tracker, which I purchased shortly after its 2022 debut. Well-priced and offering more than enough features for my fitness and health-tracking needs at the time, it was the little tracker I ultimately grew attached to and wore daily for years.

However, the Inspire 3, which is still technically a current fitness tracker in Google’s lineup, wasn’t without its faults. For one, the screen is tiny, and the controls are rather fiddly. This makes it a poor choice for folks with larger hands or those who struggle to read teeny-tiny text.

The Fitbit Air is the natural successor to the Inspire 3, but it’s better in lots of ways

Ultimately, the Fitbit Air is the natural evolution of the entry-level Inspire line. Sure, Google could’ve slimmed down the Inspire 3 case, slightly expanded the screen size, and even given the Inspire 4 physical controls, but I’m glad that didn't happen, especially since the Fitbit Charge 6 still exists.

Instead, Google took the screen-free, distraction-free approach, mimicking the experience you might get with a Whoop 5.0 and Oura Ring 4, but without the recurring subscription costs.

I applaud this because with each passing year, it feels harder and harder to escape the siren sounds of our hyper-connected world. Was that the case in 2022 when the Inspire 3 debuted? Sure, but in 2026, folks (including yours truly) seem more eager than ever to disconnect from the endlessness of information inundation.

And thanks to the lack of a screen or buttons, the Fitbit Air encourages just that, letting you tune out the digital noise, all while still tracking essential wellness and fitness metrics.

It's worth noting that the Fitbit Air and the Fitbit Inspire 3 boast similar health tech, consisting of an optical heart rate sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, blood oxygen sensor and skin temperature sensor. Smart features are also all but non-existent on either, though the Inspire 3 does mirror smartphone notifications.

Those similarities aside, the Fitbit Air has the advantage of being more comfortable on the wrist thanks to a smaller and lighter footprint. It’s also built around customization; the tracker pops out of the straps with a firm push, letting you change up the vibe and re-accesorize at a moment’s notice. A huge number of strap options are already available, starting at $34.99 via Amazon.

Of course, comfort and customization aren't nearly as big selling points as the Fitbit Air’s distraction and control-free disposition. Stay tuned for my full Fitbit Air review, coming soon!

More from Tom's Guide

• Garmin’s screen-less Whoop competitor could cost five times as much as the Fitbit Air
• Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170 — what are the main differences between Garmin’s two new running watches
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

Garmin is rumored to be working on a diminutive, screen-less, potentially subscription-free fitness tracker to rival the popular Whoop 5.0. Sound familiar? Google just launched a similar product in the form of the Fitbit Air.

However, unlike the $99 Fitbit Air, the forthcoming Garmin Cirqa could be anything but wallet-friendly, if recently leaked pricing information turns out to be true. Here’s everything we think we know about the Garmin Cirqa so far.

Garmin Cirqa could be 5x the cost of the Fitbit Air

According to a recent leak from a Ukrainian retailer and first reported on by Notebookcheck, the forthcoming Garmin Cirqa will cost 22,399 Ukrainian hryvnia, or roughly $500 USD when it debuts.

That’s five times the cost of the Fitbit Air for a device that’s rumored to offer a similar set of health and fitness tracking features. That’s also pricier than the Whoop 5.0, which costs between $199 and $239 per year, depending on your membership tier. Those prices include the device itself.

Garmin Cirqa potential features and specs

Rumors of a new Garmin fitness tracker called the Cirqa began popping off when the device briefly appeared on one of the brand’s regional websites. Initially spotted by the5krunner, concrete details are frustratingly limited. Even still, a recent filing for the ‘CIRQA’ by Garmin with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seems to confirm the wearable’s existence.

That filing suggests that the rumored Cirqa, if that even is its name, could come in two sizes and feature a heart rate sensor. However, we don’t know what other onboard tech it may offer. Given its likely small/lightweight design, an onboard GPS seems unlikely. Then again, for $500, perhaps Garmin will manage to squeeze one in.

Other potential onboard tech could include a blood oxygen and/or body temp sensor. I also expect battery life to be good for at least a week or more per charge, given the Fitbit Air is rated for seven days of battery life and the Whoop 5.0 lasts for 14 days per charge.

Garmin Cirqa launch date prediction

With no credible launch date rumors to go off of, the best we can do is guess when the Garmin Cirqa might debut. Given the brand just launched two new devices this week, the entry-level Forerunner 70 and mid-tier Forerunner 170 running watches, we may have to wait a little while for another new Garmin.

With that in mind, a summer or fall debut for the Garmin Cirqa screen-less fitness tracker seems entirely possible. Here’s hoping that Garmin manages to knock the launch price down by a few hundred dollars before then.

More from Tom's Guide

• I ran a 5K with the Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 and although the pace data matched up perfectly, the Garmin’s exercise load metric and detailed vertical ratio analysis made it the clear winner
• Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170 — what are the main differences between Garmin’s two new running watches
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

Take a look at our best Garmin watches guide and you'll probably find exactly the kind of sports watch or fitness tracker you're looking for. Unless, of course, you want one without a screen.

Screenless fitness trackers like the Whoop 5.0 and Oura Ring 4 seem to quietly be on the rise — Fitbit has just unveiled the Fitbit Air, and now it seems Garmin isn't far behind.

A Ukrainian retailer appears to have accidentally leaked the upcoming "Garmin Cirqa" screenless tracker. Spotted by Notebookcheck, this leak suggests the black tracker will be a low-key screenless fabric band available in two sizes: S/M and L/XL.

As expected, the Garmin Cirqa will monitor heart rate and passively document metrics like steps and calories, as well as sleep quality. So far, so good. But let's talk about that price.

A high price for minimalism

According to the listing (which, at time of writing, is still live), the most eye-catching thing about this minimalist piece of fitness tech is the price. It states the Garmin Cirqa will be available for 22,399 Ukrainian hryvnia, which roughly translates to $507 / £379. That's already more expensive than either the Oura Ring 4 ($349) or the Fitbit Air ($99). And if you throw in a $6.99 per month Garmin Connect+ membership, it gets even more pricey.

Whoop, which arguably started the screenless trend, doesn't charge up front for the band, but users still need to pay between $199 and $359 a year for an active subscription. So if this listing does prove to be true — and the pricing is carried across — Garmin is planning to release the most expensive screenless tracker on the market.

The natural caveats are all in place: this is an unconfirmed leak, and pricing could easily change in different regions. But at a time when many of us are trying to save as much as possible when it comes to our tech, it would be a bold move for Garmin to launch with a price so much higher than market rivals.

More from Tom's Guide

• Upgrade your run with these 12 best running apparel picks on Amazon under $100
• Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Garmin Forerunner 170 — what are the main differences between Garmin’s two new running watches
• Forget the Whoop 5.0 — The new Fitbit Air is a screen-less, subscription-free fitness tracker for the masses

It’s been nearly three years since we got a new Fitbit model (excluding the kid-centric Fitbit Ace LTE). That all changes today with the introduction of the Fitbit Air, a $99 screenless and subscription-free tracker with a simple-to-use disposition, a week of battery, and basic sleep, workout, and holistic insights.

While the popular, screen-less Whoop 5.0 tracker is targeted toward hardcore athletes, the Fitbit Air is designed to appeal to just about anyone.

Here’s everything you need to know about the new Fitbit Air, including availability, onboard tech, features, and outlook.

Fitbit Air: price and availability

The Fitbit Air is available for preorder starting today for $99, with units expected to ship by the end of May. That price includes the tracker itself and one swappable band. Additional bands — they come in a huge range of styles — start at $34.99.

Google is also offering a special edition Stephen Curry strap for the Fitbit Air that’s designed for “increased airflow,” and looks pretty darn snazzy.

The $99 Fitbit Air additionally includes a 3-month trial to Google Health Premium (previously called Fitbit Premium).

It’s also worth noting that the Fitbit Inspire 3 and Fitbit Charge 6 will remain in the Fitbit catalog for now.

Fitbit Air: Design

The Fitbit Air has no screens or buttons, but an onboard motor provides haptic feedback for alerts; it can also be used to gently and silently wake you up via Fitbit’s Smart Wake feature. The polycarbonate housing sports only a status lamp, which illuminates when the device is charging.

With dimensions of 1.4 x 0.7 x 0.3 inches and a weight of just 12 g (sans strap), the Fitbit Air truly lives up to its name. Google says it’s the brand's smallest tracker ever, with a footprint that's 25% smaller than the Fitbit Luxe. Despite the plastic housing, water resistance is a respectable 50 meters.

Designed so that you can easily swap one band for another, the selection of strap options at launch is seriously vast, with a wide range of both silicone and textile options to choose from.

Fitbit Air: Health and fitness features

The diminutive Fitbit Air sports an optical heart rate sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, SpO2 sensor, and skin temperature sensor. It’s worth noting, however, that the latter is less sophisticated than the skin temperature sensor found in the latest Pixel Watch 4.

The Air can detect several potentially deadly conditions, including atrial fibrillation (AFib). It also monitors heart rate variability and can autodetect a small selection of common workout types, like walking, running, cycling, and swimming.

In addition to the auto-tracked workouts, the Fitbit Air supports a wide range of other exercises. You’ll just need to manually select those prior to your workout using the companion app.

There’s no onboard GPS in the Fitbit Air, so you’ll need to bring along a paired smartphone for location and elevation data when working out outdoors.

When it comes to sleep tracking, the Fitbit Air provides all the insights you’d expect, like how much time you spent in each sleep stage, your total sleep time, any signs of restlessness, and a numerical sleep score out of 100. It can also autodetect naps as brief as 20 minutes.

Fitbit Air: Battery life

Google says that the Fitbit Air battery should last for up to seven days per charge, which is impressive. Charging the device from 0% to 100% takes just 90 minutes, and users can get a full day of juice from just a five-minute charge.

Similar to other Fitbit models, a magnetic charger with metal contacts attaches to the underside of the device.

Fitbit Air: Outlook

I predict the Fitbit Air appealing to lots of folks, given its $99 price tag and the fact that the core features are completely subscription-free. While it lacks some of the higher-end sensor tech found in the Whoop 5.0, namely onboard GPS and an altimeter, I don’t think that will be a dealbreaker for most users.

I also love the fact that Google is prioritizing the ability to quickly and painlessly swap out one strap for another to match your mood or outfit. While $34.99 is a tad pricey for a watch strap, I’m confident that cheaper third-party options will become available sooner or later.

Google is also making it easy for Pixel Watch owners to seamlessly swap back and forth between their smartwatch and a Fitbit Air for tracking purposes. So, if you’re like me and hate wearing a smartwatch to bed, the Fitbit Air could be an excellent nighttime tracking alternative to the chunkier Pixel Watch 4.

One more thing: The Fitbit app is now the Google Health app

One more thing! In addition to debuting the Fitbit Air, Google is now officially changing the name of the Fitbit app to the Google Health app. Similarly, Fitbit Premium is now Google Health Premium, which still costs $9.99 a month or $99 for the year.

This change will begin rolling out on May 19th via an app update. Current Fitbit app users won’t need to download a new app; rather, the update will automatically change the name of the app, import all of your data, and present everything in a new, slicker format.

Available for both Android and iOS, the new app is built around four core tabs: Today, Fitness, Sleep, and Health, with a major emphasis on user customization. It also plays nicely with tons of other popular fitness apps, including Nike Run Club, AllTrails, MyFitnessPal, and the Oura app.

A new feature lets users securely upload medical records to the app for an even more complete view of health. For peace of mind, all health data is encrypted end-to-end.

Additionally, a new “Leaderboard” feature in the app lets you compete with friends and family in fitness challenges, like who can get the most steps in a given timeframe.

Finally, Google is bringing its AI-powered, personalized fitness training tool, the "Coach," out of beta and making it available to all premium users. The Coach can help you set fitness goals, generate workout plans, improve sleep quality, and even custom-tailor daily workouts based on the weather.

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit is exiting the cheap smartwatch race — and this brand could replace it
• The Oura Ring 5 is coming — and these are the 5 biggest upgrades I’m hoping to see
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch

I tested the Amazfit Active 3 Premium earlier this year and loved it. It's definitely one of the best affordable fitness trackers you can buy. But it got me thinking: how does this $169 fitness tracker hold up against the Apple Watch SE 3 at $249-$329?

Investing in one of the best fitness trackers is an important part of your fitness journey, and you don't want to waste that money on a smart watch that can't keep up. There are three essentials when it comes to fitness trackers: ease of use (including durability and battery), fitness features and sleep tracking.

Things like appearance are nice, but I would rather have a functional-but-a-little-ugly fitness tracker over a gorgeous but useless watch. I'm sure most people agree with me!

So, to figure out which fitness tracker is worth your money, I wore the Amazfit Active 3 Premium for one month and the Apple Watch SE 3 for a month, and here are my findings. Spoiler alert: save your money.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Specs compared

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Price

The Amazfit Active 3 Premium is $169 from Amazon U.S. and £169 from Amazon U.K.Comparatively, the Apple Watch SE 3 is $249 from Amazon U.S. and £219 from Amazon U.K. for the non-cellular version.

If you want cellular, the price goes up to $299/$329 for 40mm/44mm + cellular and £289/£319 for the 40mm/44mm + cellular version. Your watch's mobile carrier must be the same as your iPhone for data to work.

Obviously, the winner here is the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. It's $80 cheaper than the cheapest (smallest) Apple Watch SE 3, and $160 cheaper than the biggest cellular model.

Winner: Amazfit Active 3 Premium.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Design

The Apple Watch SE 3 comes in two size options: 40mm and 44mm. As I have wrists best described as "spindly," I opted for the smaller size. It fit my wrist perfectly — didn't look too big or too small, and felt weightless.

The model I tested weighs just 23.6g, which is more than double lighter than the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. The A3P weighs a pretty hefty 54.6g. When I was wearing the A3P, I didn't think it was overly heavy until I put on the SE 3. Whether or not this is an issue for you will depend on your preference.

If, like me, you have spindly or weak wrists, you'll probably get on with the design of the SE 3 over the A3P. Personally, the Apple Watch felt better to wear. The A3P bordered on being too big for my wrist, but anyone with normal-sized wrists should be fine with the 45mm case/1.32-inch screen.

Yes, the Apple Watch case is 40mm, but it has a 1.57-inch screen. Effectively, this means the watch body is smaller, but the screen is bigger, resulting in smaller bevels. Both the A3P and the SE 3 have a durability rating of 5 ATM, which means you can swim with either.

I prefer the look and feel of the Apple Watch SE 3, but the A3P is still a good-looking watch — especially for just $169. I would happily sacrifice the Apple aesthetic for those $80+ savings. Even though I'm giving this win to the Apple Watch, the Amazfit is still a worthy competitor.

Winner: Apple Watch SE 3.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Fitness features

You can get tons of Apple Watch apps in the Watch app store, but for the purpose of this comparison, I used Apple's built-in apps.

I loved how the Apple Watch linked perfectly with my Fitness app, and I loved how the A3P linked perfectly with my Zepp app (which you can sync with Apple Health). I also love how both apps give you medals and awards, which helps with motivation.

Both the Fitness app and Zepp app have a comprehensive analysis of running cadence, vertical oscillation, ground contact time and stride length. I found it easy to analyze my heart rate zones in both Apple's Fitness app and Zepp's app.

If you're a runner, I think you'll get on just fine with either the Apple Watch or the Active 3 Premium. Both have detailed, digestible and clear data. There's little difference in terms of functionality and clarity.

However, there's one major difference between the Apple Watch SE 3 and the Amazfit Active 3 Premium: BioCharge.

BioCharge is a Zepp feature that analyzes your sleep, exertion and fatigue levels to provide you with a readiness score. BioCharge helps you figure out if you are in shape to push yourself or you should take a rest day. Things like HRV, interrupted sleep, or prolonged fatigue affect your BioCharge. Surprisingly, Apple has no such feature without downloading third-party apps.

I would honestly buy the A3P just for BioCharge. I go to bed excited to see what my BioCharge will be in the morning, and for this reason, Amazfit wins.

Winner: Amazfit Active 3 Premium.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Sleep tracking

I'm going to caveat this section by saying I know you can get third-party sleep tracking apps for the Apple Watch, but as I was testing the core functionality of the Apple Watch, I used the built-in sleep tracker.

In terms of scannability — how quickly you can glance at sleep data and glean meaning from it — the Zepp app wins. Take a look at some example data. On the left is Zepp, and on the right, you'll see Apple Health.

You can tap on both graphs, which displays more data.

Of course, you can also show weekly, monthly and even yearly data on both apps. Both the Apple Watch SE 3 and Amazfit Active 3 Premium have detailed, comprehensive sleep tracking.

However, I think the Amazfit Active 3 Premium just ekes out the win here due to its HRV tracking.

Apple Health only takes "snapshots" of HRV, while the A3P continuously tracks HRV for more accurate numbers. Zepp makes HRV a much bigger deal.

Above is a comparison of how Apple Watch and Zepp track HRV. As you can see, the Zepp app has comprehensive HRV data. This really helps me understand what might interrupt my sleep, and what I can do to improve my rest (the answer is to not drink alcohol).

Winner: Amazfit Active 3 Premium.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Battery

I'm just going to put two numbers here and let you do the math.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium: 288 hours.

Apple Watch SE 3: 18 hours.

Which watch do you think wins this round?

Yes, it's the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. The battery life on the Apple Watch SE 3 actually makes me physically angry. I hate how it tells me I haven't achieved my hourly standing goal — yes, because I had to charge the watch halfway through the day, hence I wasn't wearing it. Having an 18-hour battery life in 2026, when Amazfit can manage 12 days, is ridiculous.

Apple can't even justify it by saying the Apple Watch SE 3 does much more than the Amazfit Active 3 Premium, because it doesn't.

The only thing the SE 3 can do that the A3P can't is better Apple ecosystem integration. You can get a cellular watch, so theoretically you could leave your phone at home and rely completely on your watch. You can also reply to texts with Siri and the watch keyboard, and use Apple Pay.

Everything else? Yeah, the A3P can do it. Amazfit even has a daily readiness score — BioCharge, which I discussed earlier — that beats the Apple Watch. I really don't understand how Apple lags so far behind on the battery front. There's no excuse for it.

Winner: Amazfit Active 3 Premium.

Apple Watch SE 3 vs Amazfit Active 3 Premium: Verdict

I would buy the Amazfit Active 3 Premium, and it's not even close. Sure, I'd miss the delightful design of the Apple Watch SE 3, but I would rather spend my personal money on the Active 3 Premium. You get so much more for your money.

On top of better sleep tracking, equally as accurate (or inaccurate) heart rate tracking and workout tracking, you get a daily BioCharge and fatigue tracking.

While serious Apple lovers might want to get the Apple Watch purely for ecosystem integration, aesthetics, or status, I think most people would be better off saving their money and grabbing the A3P. If you weren't planning on getting the cellular Apple Watch anyway, the Amazfit does (almost) everything the SE 3 does.

So, I'd be buying the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. Which fitness tracker would you get?

More from Tom's Guide

• The caterpillar walk is considered the 'gold standard' for lower body mobility and flexibility — here's how to do it
• You don't need heavy weights — here's a 5-move ab workout using a yoga block instead
• How Adidas made the shoe used to smash the two-hour marathon barrier — I spoke to the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3's creators

Fitbit has been a Google brand for roughly five years, and in that time, the big ‘G’ has shuttered the Fitbit smartwatch range, killed some of the best Fitbit community features, and even removed useful apps, like Google Assistant, from still-support devices.

Outside of the Fitbit Ace LTE — a wearable designed with kids in mind — there hasn’t been a new Fitbit since 2023’s Fitbit Charge 6. That could all change in the next few months, as rumors of a new Fitbit model reach a fevered pitch. There is, however, a slight catch.

Here’s everything we know so far about the rumored Fitbit Air, including possible features and design, a potential launch date, price, and more.

Fitbit Air — Biggest rumors

• First teased in early April 2026 by U.S. basketball star Steph Curry
• Rumored to be a screen-less wearable similar to the Whoop 5.0
• Images suggest a lightweight design, possibly available in a range of colors and strap types, including a woven material
• Likely to offer basic workout, movement, and sleep tracking features
• Battery life could exceed two weeks
• Tipped for a mid-May 2026 debut
• Possible $99 launch price; likely subscription-free for core features

Fitbit Air — Possible price and release date

According to an insider report from 9to5Google, the Fitbit Air could debut as soon as May 16th with a launch price of $99. That's the same cost as the entry-level Fitbit Inspire 3.

More importantly, unlike the biggest player in the screenless, wrist-based tracker market, Whoop, Google will likely offer most of the Fitbit Air's core features without a subscription fee.

By comparison, the Whoop 5.0 is either $199 to $349 annually, depending on how extensive you want your training insights. That said, the device itself is technically free with a subscription commitment.

Fitbit Air — Rumored design

Based on the images shared on Steph Curry's Instagram, the Fitbit Air appears to be a diminutive tracker on a woven cloth strap, and a somewhat similar design to the Whoop 5.0.

According to retail info first reported on by DroidLife, the Fitbit Air could be available in a wide range of strap types and styles, including both cloth, silicone, and mesh metal options, with colors like 'Obsidian,' 'Lavender,' and 'Berry' on offer.

Fitbit Air — Possible features

Given the rumored $99 price tag, the Fitbit Air will probably offer fairly basic fitness and health tracking insights, including a range of workout tracking modes, sleep and recovery insights, daily movement tracking with reminders, heart health insights, and women's health tracking.

That said, given the fact that it's being backed by a famous pro athlete, it's entirely possible that the device is capable of more advanced fitness training tools, advice, and metrics. Those, perhaps, will be locked behind some sort of monthly Google Health subscription.

No word on battery life, but the lack of a screen should result in solid longevity. The Whoop 5.0, for example, lasts for two weeks per charge. I reckon Google will aim to match or beat this rating with the Fitbit Air.

Fitbit Air vs Garmin ‘Cirqa’ vs Whoop

Google isn't the only major consumer tech brand evidently hungry for a piece of the Whoop pie. Reports suggest that Garmin is also working on a subscription-free fitness tracker to rival the Whoop 5.0, possibly named the Garmin Cirqa.

Like the Fitbit Air, the Garmin Cirqa is also tipped for a summer 2026 debut. The question is, will these likely budget-friendly wearables be direct competitors to the seemingly pro athlete-level Whoop? Or, will they be more targeted to the traditional fitness tracker crowd?

My money is on the latter. However, the fact that Google is clearly going to launch the Fitbit Air with the endorsement of a world-class athlete throws a bit of a monkey wrench into that prediction.

Ultimately, I can't quite get over the fact that in 2026, the biggest innovation we're talking about in wearable technology is the lack of a screen. It's almost as if 2015 called and wants its fitness trackers back.

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit is exiting the cheap smartwatch race — and this brand could replace it
• The Oura Ring 5 is coming — and these are the 5 biggest upgrades I’m hoping to see
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch

Garmin hasn’t launched a new fitness tracking band since 2022, but that could change soon if recent rumors and leaks pan out. In fact, the Garmin ‘Cirqa’ could prove to be a Whoop killer for one major reason.

It’s also worth noting that Garmin has yet to launch any new wearables in 2026, so a Garmin Cirqa, or even a replacement for the beloved entry-level Forerunner 55 running watch (also launched in 2022), could also be right around the corner.

Garmin and Google want a piece of the Whoop pie

Garmin’s new, rumored screen-less fitness tracker first showed up on one of the brand's own regional websites earlier this year, initially spotted by the5Krunner. While details are limited, the listing for the Cirqa said it will be available in ‘four to five months,’ making an April launch date entirely possible.

A separate filing by Garmin for a product called ‘CIRQA’ with the U.S. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), also initially uncovered by the5Krunner, only adds fuel to the fire for a spring/summer 2026 launch.

Of course, Garmin isn’t the only wearables giant hungry for a piece of the Whoop pie. Google is also rumored to be launching a screen-less Fitbit-branded wearable to take on the latest Whoop 5.0.

Garmin Cirqa rumored features and specs

According to details gleaned from the FFC filing, the new Garmin Cirqa fitness tracker might come in two sizes and feature at least an optical heart rate sensor. However, it could also sport body temperature, sweat, and SpO2 sensors, and track everything from heart rate variability to sleep quality.

It also seems possible that the Cirqa won’t have an onboard GPS, likely to keep costs down. This would mean that users will need to carry a paired phone for location data while working out.

Beyond that, we know little about what the rumored wearable will look like, cost, or how long it will last.

Garmin is overdue for a new fitness band

The Garmin Vivosmart 5 — the last Garmin fitness band to debut — might as well be a vampire; it’s so long in the tooth. Launched all the way back in 2022, the model is still technically current (Garmin lists it on the U.S. site), but retirement seems likely soon.

Garmin isn’t alone in neglecting its most entry-level wearables, and there’s no denying the fact that traditional fitness trackers have somewhat fallen out of style over the past four years. Google has similarly largely neglected its Fitbit portfolio, choosing to instead focus on the flagship Pixel Watch series.

Might screen-less fitness trackers be the next wave for both of these wearable tech powerhouses? It sure seems that way.

A subscription-free approach could whoop the competition

While Whoop may be the market leader in screen-less wrist-based fitness trackers, the brand suffers from the same complaints as Oura, maker of the best smart rings in 2026. Simply put, lots of folks aren’t keen on choosing a device that comes with recurring subscription costs.

The Oura Ring 4 subscription is $69.99 a year, and a Whoop subscription ranges from $199 to $349 annually. This could prove a liability for Whoop if Garmin or Google launch competing products without subscription costs.

Garmin presently offers the vast majority of fitness and wellness tracking metrics and insight for free. That said, the brand also has a paid subscription tier, Garmin Connect+, for $6.99 a month. The plan unlocks premium features like nutrition tracking and a personalized AI training coach.

Ultimately, if/when the Garmin Cirqa debuts, I’m guessing that most of the features will be free of charge, just like they are on the best Garmin watches of 2026.

Of course, even if Garmin and Google drop subscription-free Whoop alternatives, they'll still have to compete with the likes of the wallet-friendly Amazfit Helio Strap and the Polar Loop band, both of which also lack recurring costs.

More from Tom's Guide

• 10 Apple Watch innovations that changed the game — from Fall Detection to Hypertension Alerts
• Your Google Pixel Watch now has earthquake alerts — here’s why that's a big deal
• Exclusive: Ultrahuman CEO says smart rings will 'become a computer on the body' with the ability 'to at least micro-think'

Google has trailed the launch of a new screenless fitness tracker, with Steph Curry giving us a sneak peek of the new device on his Instagram account.

In the video, Curry is seen wearing the screenless grey and orange band, which he describes as the ‘first of its kind’ before saying he won’t spoil it.

Bloomberg reports that the band will come with basic features and that you’ll need a Fitbit Premium subscription to unlock its full capabilities.

That the new tracker will be launched under the Fitbit brand is interesting because Google has seemingly been winding down Fitbit products over the past couple of years.

This would be a major new launch that leans on Fitbit’s background in fitness tracking, and it could be the first screenless band to really rival Whoop, which has been dominant in this area of the market.

Why Fitbit can take on Whoop

Several screenless bands have hit the market over the past year, with the most notable Whoop rivals being the Amazfit Helio Strap and the Polar Loop band.

Neither has really dented Whoop’s popularity as yet. The Helio Strap is a good budget alternative but lacks the name recognition of Whoop, while the Polar Loop is undermined by poor software and hasn’t proved to be that accurate in my testing either.

Whoop has also been successful in blocking the sale of some rivals, like the Lexqi band, and has sued Polar for ‘copying’ its design, something Polar firmly denied when we asked them for comment.

A Google/Fitbit band wouldn’t have any problems with name recognition or its app. Fitbit remains one of the biggest names in fitness tracking tech, and the Fitbit app is easy and enjoyable to use, which is vital with a screenless band when you rely on the app to see all your data.

Showcasing the band on the wrist of Steph Curry is also a notable move because Whoop has always benefited from having a lot of partnerships with elite athletes across a range of sports.

Athletes don’t get much bigger and more recognizable than Curry, and if Google is smart, they’ll have other pros lined up to show off wearing the band.

It promises to be a big year for screenless trackers, with rumors of a Garmin band continuing to swirl as well. We’ll test any new bands as soon as we can to see if they really are a compelling Whoop alternative.

More from Tom's Guide

• Not the Fenix 9 — this is the new Garmin watch I want to see in 2026
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

I’m a fitness editor and marathon runner, and I’ve been wearing the Apple Watch for the past decade and I’m here to tell you about the simple feature you’re probably not using — Heart Rate Zones. When used correctly, they can transform your watch from a simple heart rate monitor, to a far more sophisticated tool that can help you train smarter, and avoid injuries.

Apple introduced heart rate zones onto its watches in September 2022, giving wearers the option to track exercise intensity in real-time across five different zones. These zones are calculated automatically based on health data, or you can adjust them manually — read on to find out how.

How to adjust your heart rate zones

If you’re already wearing one of the best Apple Watches, your watch will already have been collecting data to estimate your heart rate zones, based on your current fitness level. This is generally more accurate than the “220-age” formula, but if you’ve done tests to find your specific Max Heart Rate, you can enter your own data to make your data more reliable.

To find your heart rate zones during a cardio workout, use the digital crown to scroll upward, and the heart rate zones will appear. You’ll see your current BPM, your current color-coded zone, and how much time you’ve spent in each zone so far.

To manually adjust your heart rate zones, head to the Watch App on your iPhone, click My Watch in the bottom left, then scroll to Workout, then Heart Rate Zones. From here, switch from Automatic to Manual, and tap on each zone to enter your specific BPM ranges.

What are the benefits of using the Heart Rate Zones when training?

‘Zone 2’ training

You’ve probably heard about the magic zone 2, but it is not just another fitness fad, it's a scientifically proven method utilized by athletes and fitness enthusiasts alike to enhance cardiovascular fitness and endurance. For example, one study published in the Healthcare journal demonstrates how a group of cross-country ski athletes improved their athletic performance by taking up zone two training. It’s not limited to skiing, it's a popular training method used frequently in endurance sports like running, cycling and swimming.

Training in zone 2 can improve the body’s mitochondrial efficiency, meaning your body is more efficient at burning fat for fuel. By keeping an eye on your Apple Watch during your training you can ensure you’re not pushing yourself too hard during ‘easy’ runs.

Prevents overtraining

It’s a common pitfall many runners fall into — pushing too hard on days that are supposed to be ‘easy’. The Apple Watch color-codes the different zones, so if you see yourself pushing into the red zone 5 on a recovery cycling session, it’s a signal to slow down. This helps prevent injuries in training blocks.

Teaches you about effort awareness

If you’re run down, exhausted or getting ill, your heart rate will tell you. Training to your heart rate will help give you a better idea of how to “feel” your intensity. Most running coaches will stress the importance of being able to hold a conversation in a Zone 2 jog, but if you’re running alone, it can be tricky to gage how to pace your run. Using your heart rate is a great indicator.

What’s more, as you get fitter and stronger, your heart rate zones will change as your resting heart rate will drop, and your heart will become more efficient at clearing lactic acid. The Apple Watch will update your zones automatically, helping you to increase your pace, while still ensuring you’re not pushing yourself too hard.

More from Tom's Guide

• 5 Apple Watch settings you should change right now for more accurate heart rate tracking
• 7 hidden Apple Watch features I swear by
• I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — and the winner was nearly too close to call

If you're the proud owner of one of the best Garmin watches and you've mastered how to use Garmin Connect, then you may have started clocking up some points and earning badges – perhaps even some of the more challenging Garmin Connect badges. But there's a vast library of badges available to win, and some that you may or may not be familiar with.

We've compiled the below fun multiple choice Garmin Connect badges quiz, where you'll be asked to guess the names of each of the 10 badges that are pictured. There's no time limit, so have fun with it (but no cheating!) and hopefully you'll even discover some new badges to lust after. You're welcome!

How did you do? Let us know what you think in the comments below. Too hard? Too easy? I love to hear from you and welcome all constructive feedback. I'll admit that I may have made this one a little challenging, as even our fitness writers (some of whom have worn Garmin watches for years) didn't score 10/10. 😬

Find out about more lesser-known Garmin Connect badges on this Garmin blog post.

If you enjoyed this quiz, then check out our other puzzles and quizzes. And don't forget to register to save your score, reveal hints for any clues you're not sure of (though I'm sure you won't need that) and secure your spot on the competitive Tom's Guide leaderboard.

And if you're thinking of upgrading your Garmin smartwatch, there are currently some discounts on our top-rated models in the Amazon Big Spring Sale.

Shop Garmin watches

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve been wearing a Garmin for 10 years, and these are the 5 hardest Garmin badges to earn — how many do you have?
• Can you beat us at our own game? New Tom’s Guide jigsaw puzzles are a great way to kill time between Wordles
• Forget Wordle, you need to play Tom's Guide games right now

I just spoke one-on-one with Mohit Kumar, the founder and CEO of Ultrahuman, one of the best-known smart rings brands not named Oura.

Our conversation touched on everything from mitigating the wrath of other brands' legal departments, whether or not the Ultrahuman Ring Air will return to the U.S. market, how Ultrahuman plans to stay largely subscription-free, the promise of new, ground-breaking biomarker tracking tools, the massive benefits of on-chip processing, and the future of Ultrahuman ten years out.

We also discussed the new flagship Ultrahuman Ring Pro — now officially available for preorder in the U.S. — which promises 15 days of battery, a unique and durable unibody design, and improved heart tracking tech.

Check out my full interview with Ultrahuman CEO and founder, Mohit Kumar, below.

The Ultrahuman Ring Pro is coming to the U.S.; are you anticipating any legal action from your competitors? And are you confident that the design changes from the Ultrahuman Ring Air to the Pro are substantial enough to keep the device on store shelves in the U.S.?

Mohit Kumar: We are pretty confident, and that's why we went through the [U.S.] customs procedure 177 to get the device approved. We took the right path to make sure that the design is approved by customs, and they officially issue an order that says 'this is a design which is unique and non-infringing, for the patent which Oura holds.' That's why we are pretty confident, I think even more than that, we're confident in our ability to build and create like engineers in this space.

So, behind the scenes, from an engineering standpoint, you figured out workarounds to avoid the wrath of Oura's legal department?

Kumar: Yeah, I think even more now, we believe that Ring Air is unique [from the Oura Ring design] and different. There was a negative order from the International Trade Commission (ITC), but we're still fighting that in the Federal Circuit. But the Ring Pro obviously takes it to another level.

The [Ring Pro's] unibody design is pretty unique in this category; it's never been done, and it's basically a completely different kind of engineering.

Is there a chance we'll eventually see the Ultrahuman Ring Air return to the U.S.?

Kumar: I can't predict this, but our intent is to fight on the right grounds to make sure that the Ring air and every model that we have is allowed to be sold everywhere.

What are the biggest differences between the Ultrahuman Ring Air and the Ultrahuman Ring Pro?

Kumar: The Ring Air is more comfort-first. [The Ring Pro] is more about robustness and battery life; we intend to continue both versions.

What was your primary aim when developing the Ultrahuman Ring Pro, besides avoiding Oura's patents?

Kumar: The biggest focus from an engineering perspective was to get a fifteen-day battery life. We prioritized this above everything else.

The Ring Pro is also capable of handling on-chip machine learning tasks. Explain why that's a big deal.

Kumar: If you remember, we were the first company in the world in the ring space to introduce AFib detection. [This feature previously] required us to extract the AFib signals, or the PPG signals from the ring, send the signals to the phone, the phone syncs the signals to the cloud, and then we have an Afib validation service which runs the machine learning model on the cloud and then sends the feedback back to the phone and then back to the device itself, the ring.

Now, naturally, you would question the robustness of this entire integration, which depends a lot on how much data you're able to transfer. Then the data transfer becomes a critical step of this AFib detection.

Now, what if you don't need to transfer so much data? What if you could actually compute on the chip itself? This changes the game because if you don't need to transfer so much data, you save battery. At the same time, you're able to look into so much more raw signal.

If you were to send so much raw signal, you would dissipate a lot of battery, it would take a lot of time, and require a stable connection. Whereas if you do all the processing on the device, you could process all that you want.

That was a core motivation behind adding more computing power to the device. Instead of just a tracking device, [smart rings] should become a computer on the body in the future. It should have its own brain, it should have its own ability to at least micro-think.

And I think that's the direction that we're heading into, and that's why it's such a big deal. There could also be like tons of new signals that you could derive, potentially blood pressure or signs of women's health issues like PCOS, etc.

You offer a largely subscription-free model where core features don't cost anything, but more advanced add-ons do. How do you ensure that Ultrahuman remains subscription-free, and how do you determine which tools go behind the paywall?

Kumar: Those are two different questions, I think. The first one is how do we make money in the future? Close to to 20% of our users do subscribe to a paid capability.

The number has been growing over time, but that really obviously helps us make money, but at the same time, they're looking for something deeper, and that's the core philosophy of the platform: that the base features like sleep, activity, movement, there's no reason why anyone should be charging you for that data.

Where do you see Ultrahuman as a company ten years from now?

Kumar: There are two ways, two journeys for this company. One is selling the most rings. It's a great business, we are the market leaders, but it's still not too exciting. Like, it's not the best outcome for the company.

I think where we want to be, apart from just selling more devices, is where we are able to discover a whole new biomarker for help. If you visit us and our engineers and meet them, they're obsessed with finding new markers.

What you will see in the next few months is a potentially completely new marker of heart health, which has never been tapped from the human body. But not in the ring form factor, just to be clear, it could be a new form factor.

Does this mean that Ultrahuman is moving away from smart rings?

Kumar: We are a health data company, we don't care about the form factor, and, well, it might seem that we're competing in the ring form factor and pretty fiercely. However, all that we care about is basically how do we help people generate more data so that we can actually deliver on helping improve their health.

So it doesn't need to be a ring, always. But if the ring is the best form factor, obviously, we'll build the ring. In the spectrum of companies you could relate us to, we are more like Garmin, with multiple devices, multiple form factors, and unconstrained by hardware or software engineering.

In 2026, what are the factors you feel most set the Ultrahuman platform apart from the competition?

Kumar: Transparency and control: you own your own data, and you only pay for what you want to pay for. This is the theme that we have been building for the last few years because we believe that this is a super early space. [Smart rings are] like computers in the 1980s right now.

On the subject, if a major tech player like Apple were to jump into the smart ring space, would you see this as a good or bad thing for Ultrahuman?

Kumar: I think a net positive, if you look at the 10-year spectrum, because how many ring devices get sold every year? Five or six million at max, all players included. How many watches get sold every year? ~300 million.

So if a large player makes an entry, you would imagine that the space would reach 100 million devices annually pretty soon. Obviously, that'll help make us happy financially, but from an impact perspective as well.

More from Tom's Guide

• Google Exclusive: How the Pixel Watch got a life-saving feature the Apple Watch can't match
• Exclusive: Oura VP hints at a future where ‘complementary wearables’ assist your smart ring
• From garage startup to USB peripheral darling — here’s how US-based Plugable plans to take on Anker

I reviewed the Amazfit Active 3 Premium a couple of weeks ago, and given that it's not left my wrist since, I'd say it's definitely one of the best fitness trackers. It does everything I want and more: great sleep tracking, accurate activity tracking — all while looking great and lasting up to (and sometimes over) 12 days on one charge!

I also have an Apple Watch SE 3, which is Apple's newest budget fitness tracker. The Apple Watch SE 3 will set you back $249 compared to the Amazfit Active 3 Premium's $169.

You'd think loads of features would've been scrapped to save that extra $70, but you'd be wrong. I think the Amazfit Active 3 Premium actually beats my Apple Watch SE 3 in some key ways — affordability, sleep tracking, and the all-important battery life. Here's why.

Budget fitness trackers in all flavors

1. Amazfit Active 3 Premium is $70 cheaper

Of course, price is the biggest hurdle when choosing new gadgets. Case in point: I've wanted a Kobo e-reader for about five years, but I can't part with my precious $250. If it were $100, I'd probably have bought it ages ago.

Amazfit, however, seems to have mastered premium-on-a-budget. Its gear is gorgeous, functional, and wildly affordable. The Active 3 Premium is just $169 — $70 cheaper than the Apple Watch SE 3's MSRP of $249.

And there really aren't many sacrifices for that saving. Sure, you have to download a separate app, whereas my Apple Watch feeds data into my phone's native Health app. But at the end of the day, the products do the same thing.

The Active 3 Premium doesn't integrate with my iPhone 16 Pro quite as seamlessly — sometimes it takes a moment to sync to the app — but this doesn't affect the overall functionality of the A3P. It's literally a second or two.

2. Amazfit Active 3 Premium sleep tracking is better

This might ruffle some feathers, but I think the Active 3 Premium is a better sleep tracker. Last night (as in, the night before I am writing this), I wore both the A3P and the SE 3. These screenshots are from that night. I remember waking up at around 4 for at least 10 minutes. Take a look to see which tracker picked up on this.

As you can see, it was the Amazfit, not the Apple Watch, that tracked this entire wakeup. I was surprised to see this.

Another major disappointment is the Apple Watch's inability to track sleep HRV continously. Apple will say this is a feature, not a bug — the watch is only intended to capture "windows" of HRV and will extrapolate data from said windows — but the A3P tracks HRV 24/7.

Take a look at the two results below. Remember, this is just from one night, so you won't be able to see historic data.

With the Amazfit, you get a graph of your entire sleep HRV. Please ignore my terrible score — maybe I was subliminally stressed about getting good sleep data last night or something — but you can see from the images how much more detailed the Zepp app is.

For this reason, I'm choosing the A3P when it comes to sleep tracking.

3. Amazfit Active 3 Premium battery life... need I say more?

It goes without saying that Apple really needs to do something about the battery life on its smartwatches and fitness trackers. We've been asking — nay, begging — for improved battery life for years.

The Apple Watch SE 3 taps out at just 18 hours. As I'm writing this, it's exactly 12:00pm midday, and my watch is at 25% — I charged it yesterday evening before bed.

Comparatively, my Amazfit Active 3 Premium lasts a whopping 12 days between charges. According to the Zepp app (Amazfit's health tracking app), I last charged my A3P 7 days ago, and it's still at 53%.

One could argue the discrepancy between battery lives lies in the power usage of each product, but honestly... the A3P does everything the SE 3 does. And more.

The Amazfit takes body temperature, blood oxygen, stress levels, gives you hourly stand reminders, tracks sleep with minute detail, can track for hypopnea, monitors respiratory rate, and even monitors HRV all the time.

As I mentioned in the "sleep tracking" section, the Apple Watch does not monitor HRV continuously. It takes "windows" of data.

I really don't get why the Apple Watch's battery still trails this far behind the budget competition. For these 3 reasons, I think I'm sticking with my Amazfit.

More from Tom's Guide

• Start running for as low as $30 this spring — 19 Adidas running shoe deals with up to 50% off
• Asics just dropped a huge spring sneaker sale — 13 running and walking deals from $59
• This 'gold standard' sleep tracker is the closest I'll ever get to a real sleep study — 3 ways it has already improved my sleep, from sleeping longer to sleeping deeper

The Amazfit Active 3 Premium is unbelievably good value. This fitness tracker is just $169/£169, which is a whopping $230 cheaper than the Apple Watch 11. Is this ridiculous(ly good) price enough to make the Active 3 Premium one of the best fitness trackers around?

Totally. I was a little apprehensive when I first started testing Amazfit gear — budget wearables get a bad rap in the fitness world — but the Active 3 Premium holds up just as well as the other Amazfit gear: the Whoop-dupe Helio Strap, Fitbit disruptor Band 7, and Apple Watch SE competitor Bip 6.

With a plethora of premium fitness features, including blood oxygen readouts, skin temperature monitoring, a lactate threshold test, vertical oscillation, and so, so many more, the Active 3 Premium is in a league of its own. This price is crazy. Want to find out more? (Why wouldn’t you?) Keep reading this Amazfit Active 3 Premium review.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Cheat sheet

• What is it? A budget fitness tracker with premium functionality
• What does it cost? $169 / £169
• Who is it for? Amazfit told me mostly women due to the small size, but I think it’s for everyone — beginners and intermediates alike
• What do we like? Everything: sleep tracking, fitness functions, and in-app analysis
• What are its weaknesses? I’d like a few more (or cuter) strap or color options

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Specs

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Price & availability

The Amazfit Active 3 Premium is $169 from Amazon U.S. and £169 from Amazon U.K, or £169 from Amazfit direct. This is an incredibly reasonable price for a fitness tracker of this caliber — the Apple Watch Series 11 is a mind-boggling $399, the almost four-year-old Garmin Forerunner 55 is $199, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 starts from $349, and even the Apple Watch SE 3 is $249.

As with every other Amazfit watch I’ve tested — this is number four now — the Active 3 Premium is almost unbelievably good value. For well under $200, you get a bright touchscreen that looks way more pricey than it is, offline maps, in-depth fitness tracking including 200+ activity types, adept sleep tracking, and a huge variety of features in the companion app.

I’m really not sure why you’d spend $350-$400 on an Apple or Samsung watch when the Active 3 Premium is right there. I know I wouldn’t.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Design

The Amazfit Active 3 Premium is the first fitness tracker Amazfit has designed specifically with women in mind (yay!). As a result, it’s considerably smaller than other models — a 1.3-inch screen as opposed to the 1.5-inch display on the Amazfit Active Max.

Weirdly, though, the colorways don’t really reflect the target demographic. The watch is available in black, navy, and white. As a woman who also likes to keep active, I want a fitness tracker that can be worn for work or play. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Active 3 Premium — in its current state — necessarily has the aesthetic oomph you might expect from Apple Watches or Garmins.

Amazfit could easily rectify this by launching new colorways — think rose pink, champagne, lilac, pistachio, baby blue, yellow — so I hope this comes in the future. I received a navy model to test (as you can see from the photos), so when I found out that the Active 3 Premium is actually aimed at women, I was surprised. This definitely looks like a “manly” watch. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t inherently a bad thing: women can wear masculine clothes and vice versa, but if this watch is intended to separate itself from the rest of the fitness tracker landscape, it needs a few more colors.

Garmin’s Lily 2 has mastered this combination of functionality and style, so I’d like to see more Lily 2-adjacent styles in the Active 3 Premium’s future.

Style — or lack thereof — aside, the Active 3 Premium certainly looks premium. The scratch-resistant glass screen is bright and visible even in sunny weather. The buttons on either side of the face are tactile and responsive.

Although the women-focused style needs a little finesse, Amazfit has still mastered the premium-appearance-but-no-premium-price-tag vibe.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Fitness features

As the Active 3 Premium is aimed at beginners, I was happy to find that the fitness tracker is incredibly user-friendly and jargon-free. Every feature is explained thoroughly in the Zepp companion app.

On the watch itself, you can: start a workout, see workout history, BioCharge, stress level, blood oxygen, activity, Zepp coach, and heart rate.

Non-fitness-but-still-useful features built into the watch are: maps (you can download offline maps, too), sleep, PAI, HRV, and meditation.

If you’re into orienteering, you can access features like a barometer, sunrise/sunset times, and a compass. There are literally a hundred workout types — including chess and driving.

Hey, my heart rate gets pumping when whoever’s driving the car in front of mine does something stupid. Why not let that count for something? Yes, increase my PAI because someone just cut me off. Sign me up!

There are even more features in the Zepp app, which is Amazfit’s mobile app, like Fatigue, thorough BioCharge data, and Exertion. I’ll go through those in detail in the ‘BioCharge’ section below.

The most detailed activity type present on the Active 3 Premium is running. There are so many running features that I’m not sure where to start. You can track heart rate zones, cadence, stride length, and average contact time. Here’s a screenshot from Zepp so you can see this level of detail for yourself.

As you can see from the screenshot, Zepp offers a massive amount of tracking information. You can even do a Lactate Threshold test now, so you can learn your max effort level. If you’re not too sure what this means, it’s basically how long you can run at full pelt for without hurting or fatiguing yourself. I tested this, and here are my results.

As I’m a beginner runner, I’m sure my results aren’t as impressive as an intermediate runner’s. Even so, it’s interesting to see the pace at which the lactate in my blood exceeds my clearance level.

You can also look into features like vertical oscillation and ground contact time, which can help you understand your running form on a deeper level. For example, if your vertical oscillation is over 13, you’re moving forward and back too much. Take a look at my data.

If you’re not sure what any of this means, don’t worry — Zepp has you covered. Each metric tells you what you should be aiming for and how to improve in the app itself. I’ve learned that my ground contact time is too high, but my vertical oscillation is optimal, so I know where I need to improve and where I can give myself a pat on the back. Thanks, Zepp!

Unlike the Helio Strap, the Active 3 Premium doesn’t have an automatic workout detection function. I didn’t miss this feature at all — I actually find myself getting quite frustrated with the Amazfit Helio Strap’s wonky auto detection, so I’m glad to start workouts manually myself now.

If you’re familiar with Amazfit gear, you might already know about PAI. This is basically a rating, between 0 and 100, that tells you how fit you are. This is calculated using your heart rate zones — if you spend a lot of time in Anaerobic/Vo2 max, your PAI will go up, indicating better long-term health, but if you are very sedentary, your number will go down.

As with the Amazfit Helio Strap, Band 7, Bip 5, and Bip 6, the Active 3 Premium works out your PAI without you needing to do anything. I found myself getting quite mesmerized by this. I managed to get it up to 142, which is much higher than on previous Amazfit watches. I hope this means Zepp has tuned the PAI, as previously, it was nearly impossible to get high scores. Or I’m just more fit. Who knows!

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Extra features

Despite primarily being a fitness tracker, the Active 3 Premium has a plethora of non-activity-related features, which I’ll get into now.

Sleep

I found the Amazfit Active 3 Premium excellent for sleep tracking. I’ve used three other Amazfit fitness trackers — Bip 5, Band 7, Helio Strap — and I find the Active 3 Premium just as good as the Helio Strap.

The Active 3 Premium remembers all my little wakeups, even the ones I forget, and has great sleep zone tracking. It even tracks hypoapnea and sleeping respiratory rate. Here are some screenshots from the Zepp app so you can see for yourself — make sure you scroll through them all!

If you have a bad night’s sleep, the Zepp app tells you how to rectify this with pre-bedtime relaxation and stress-reducing music. I tend to get more stressed when I have a bad night’s sleep, or when I sense I’m going to have a bad night’s sleep, so this little reassurance is a sweet touch.

The Active 3 Premium is just as accurate as the Helio Strap, so it's a joint-winner of the “Most Accurate Sleep Tracker I’ve Used” title.

BioCharge/Fatigue/Exertion

Amazfit/Zepp has this funky proprietary metric called “BioCharge”. This is basically like a readiness score you’d get on a Fitbit, Oura Ring, Whoop, and everything else on the market.

BioCharge combines your previous exertion, overall fatigue, HRV, sleep, and workout trends to give you a score out of 100. If you’re at 100, well done, you’re ready to hike Mount Everest, run an Ultra Marathon, or compete in an Iron Man!

I jest, but I find BioCharge a really digestible way to understand my readiness at a glance. Obviously, if my watch tells me “50” but I feel good, I’m not going to listen to it — but it can be nice when the watch backs me up after I’ve spent the last week feeling like microwaved cat vomit.

Here are some examples of my BioCharge. If you look at the second screenshot, you’ll see my average BioCharge for the past five months — how cool is this!

Also in the Zepp app are the kind-of-similar Fatigue and Exertion metrics. I won’t go into too much detail about these as they’re self-explanatory, really.

You can see my Fatigue increase as my Exertion increases. It doesn’t take a genius here: if you exert yourself, your tiredness level will go up. If you’re relaxing, your fatigue will go down.

If you have a uterus, you can also use the skin temperature function to track cycles naturally, and also input your cycle data into the watch manually.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: App

I really like the Zepp app. The Active 3 Premium is my fourth Amazfit product, and I can’t really see myself using any other brand now. The app is super easy to set up, very self-explanatory, and perfect for beginners or self-professed technophobes. You can see this evidenced in my many, many screenshots above.

I genuinely have nothing bad to say about the app, other than one tiny thing: I’m not sure if the watch faces are AI-generated images or not. I wish the app would clarify either way because I wouldn’t pick an AI-generated one ever and would be super embarrassed if I were caught out by it. Some of the watch faces look a little… AI-possible, so I’d appreciate a little flag saying “AI-generated” or “human-created”.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium review: Battery life

Amazfit says the Active 3 Premium lasts for 12 days on a single charge, but I’m not convinced. I wore mine for 8 days, and it went down to 6%. This was with excessive use, though: activity every day, testing all the features, downloading maps, etc etc. I then recharged, and 48 hours later, it had gone down to 80% again.

Even so, this is much, much better than the Apple Watch 11’s pathetic 18-hour battery life, so a charge that lasts over less than one day is a winner in my eyes.

Should you buy the Amazfit Active 3 Premium?

Yes, yes you should buy the Amazfit Active 3 Premium. This fitness tracker is ridiculously underpriced. I feel like everyone should buy it before Amazfit realises its typo and hikes the price back up to something like $299. I would happily pay $300 for a watch of this caliber.

If you want your first fitness tracker, or you want to upgrade from the Amazfit Band 7 or Bip 6, then you should definitely check out the Active 3 Premium. It does everything you’d want it to and more: sleep tracking, activity tracking, and health insights with the depth of the Apple Watch ecosystem.

Although I wish it came in a few more colors, this is something I can overlook in favor of saving me money and performance. And, heck, does the Active 3 Premium do both of those things. I love this fitness tracker with all my heart.

Have you ever wanted to play Tetris directly on your eyeball? To be honest, the thought never occurred to me. But after seeing a demo of such a usecase via Xpanceo’s next-gen smart contact lenses at Mobile World Congress 2026, Europe’s biggest tech show, I can’t get the thought out of my mind.

Xpanceo is one of the most notable players in the smart contact lens space — I spoke to the founders last year at length about the future of wearable tech — and the brand isn’t just pursuing one concept or application for the technology, but a whole array of them.

From a consumer point of view, the Xpanceo's device that’s most likely to come to market in the next few years combines on-lens displays with 24/7 blood glucose monitoring, making it both a smart and wellness device in one. Don’t worry, in-eye comfort is also a top priority.

But how will it be powered? For now, Xpanceo is relying on a companion over-the-ear device to provide power via wireless charging to the smart contact lenses. However, a teeny-tiny battery built into the lenses themself will ensure that users can still utilize the basic features, even when companion power isn’t within range.

The companion device will also handle all of the computational processing needed to operate the smart contact lenses.

While a bulky accessory worn along the side of your face to power Xpanceo’s smart contact lenses isn’t ideal, brand reps assure me that the ultimate goal is to make the lenses a stand-alone device that can be worn without much thought (or additional tech), just like normal contacts.

Harvesting a user’s body heat to power smart contact lenses is one possibility; however, such technology is still likely several years away. Solar-powered contact lenses are another option.

In addition to the over-ear power accessory, Xpanceo is also working on a companion power accessory that takes the form of a helmet, which could make it an appealing option for everyone from extreme sports athletes to astronauts (Xpanceo has already partnered with one space agency).

In addition to consumer-oriented smart contact lenses, Xpanceo is also exploring a range of medical-specific use cases, including lenses that can help detect signs of glaucoma early, which could greatly increase a patient’s chances of preserving their vision.

Another concept under active development is a set of smart contact lenses that monitor drug levels in a patient’s system with a level of precision not currently available. This could help, say, cancer doctors, ensure that they're providing just the right amount of treatment to help a patient’s condition without causing unnecessary harm.

Ultimately, with the promise of a working consumer-oriented prototype set for 2027, Xpanceo's smart contact lenses could be in your eyeball before you know it. Which begs the question: Do you really even need a pair of smart glasses?

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget a smart mirror — this new app predicts how well you’re aging in just 30 seconds using only your phone
• I walked 15,000 steps with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 at Europe's biggest tech show — 5 things I learned
• I just tried the world’s first smartphone for pets — and I can’t wait to call my dog