Apple just announced the Apple Watch Ultra 4 alongside the Apple Watch Series 12, iPhone Duo, and iPhone 18 Pro at the September 9th "Surprise and Shine" event in Cupertino, California.

Boasting loads of new wellness tools, improved heart rate tracking, better battery life, an upgraded processor, and a handful of cool AI features, here's everything you need to know about the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Upgrades cheat sheet

• Price and release: The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is available for preorder starting today and will be available on September 18; the price is $799, the same as the Ultra 3
• Design: The Apple Watch Ultra 4 looks similar to its predecessor; available in Black or Natural Titanium
• Health features: Updated health sensing system; improved heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV) tracking; HRV reflected in Vitals app; new Readiness metric; new Health Age score; redesigned Health app with improved recovery insights and personalized AI health/fitness guidance that updates dynamically; Health app now supports personal health data and lab results
• AI features: Support for Siri AI voice assistant; Live Rewind lets you ‘go back in time’ up to 15 seconds; Sound Recognition can auto-alert users to common sounds like sirens and alarms; Siri Recap takes high-level notes of conversations and generates summaries
• Under-the-hood: Upgraded S11 processor
• Battery life: Improved battery performance lasts up to 50 hours per charge; up to 18 hours when recording a workout with heart rate and GPS tracking

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is a substantial upgrade over the Apple Watch Ultra 3, which is currently one of the best smartwatches you can buy.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Price and availability

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 costs $799 / AU$1,349, the same as all the Apple Watch Ultra models that came before it. Available for preorder on launch day (September 9), the Apple Watch Ultra 4 will be available globally starting on September 18 in your choice of Black or Natural Titanium.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Health upgrades

Improved heart rate tracking

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Series 12 boast “the most accurate heart rate tracking in wearables.” That is, of course, according to Apple’s own internal testing. To be fair, Apple completely overhauled the sensor array on the underside of the watch, making a number of significant improvements to its functionality.

Both the optical and electrical components have been reworked for more precise, efficient performance. More powerful LEDs measure your heart rate every five seconds, a 60-fold increase in sampling frequency over prior models.

Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is now measured every 15 seconds, a 24-fold increase compared to before. Speaking of HRV, users can now view that dynamic metric from the Heart Rate app. HRV is also logged in your overnight vitals report.

Dynamic Readiness score

Apple is finally adding a daily Readiness metric to the Health app, something nearly every other smartwatch brand has long offered. Based on a scale from one to ten, your Readiness Score updates dynamically and is based on recent workouts, sleep quality, training load, and vitals.

The score is accompanied by a brief, actionable, AI-generated recommendation for how to best tackle the day.

Improved step count tracking

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 should be Cupertino’s most accurate step counter, thanks to a completely overhauled pedometer that uses machine learning to more accurately log your steps and distance covered. There’s also a new step count complication to more easily stay on top of your efforts.

Redesigned Health app focused on trends and actionable advice

A totally overhauled Health app is expected to debut later this year with a greater focus on long-term health trends and personalized wellness and fitness advice, courtesy of Siri AI. The refreshed app is expected to offer new Longevity and Insights tabs. The former features a new Health Age feature that compares your physical fitness to others in your age range.

The Insights tab, meanwhile, is where you’ll find dynamic Siri AI-generated health briefings, workout suggestions, and more.

Finally, the updated Health app will better support the integration of a user’s personal health data, including notes from doctor’s visits and lab test results.

Siri AI with Siri Recap

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 supports Apple Siri AI voice assistant, but AI integration powers much more than just that. Siri Recap, for example, can be set up to listen in on important conversations and meetings, and then automatically generate a report with an overall summary along with key talking points. User control when this feature is active, either manually, via a schedule, or based on location.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: New AI features

Live Rewind and Sound Recognition

One of the more exciting new Siri AI features is Live Rewind. Let’s say you just met someone new at a dinner party, but their name “went in one ear and out the other.” With Live Rewind, I can double-tap the digital crown on the Ultra 4 and relisten to the past 15 seconds of ambient audio anytime I like.

It’s worth noting that Apple doesn’t identify people when using this feature or save any recording. Moreover, any logged audio is end-to-end encrypted.

Finally, the Ultra 4 supports Apple’s Sound Recognition feature, which can alert those who are hard of hearing when sounds like fire alarms, doorbells, sirens, or crying babies are registered.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Battery life

Battery life on the Apple Watch Ultra 4 has been increased to 450 hours per charge, up from 42 hours per charge for the Ultra 3. When using the Ultra 4 to log an outdoor workout with continuous GPS and heart rate tracking, users can expect about 18 hours of use.

Extended workout tracking mode bumps that number to 25 hours per charge, while a new Max Extended mode increases battery life to an impressive 45 hours per charge.

The Ultra 4 charges a little faster than its predecessor. Apple says a 15-minute charge should provide up to 18 hours of use.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Outlook

The Apple Watch Ultra 4 isn’t exactly a massive upgrade over the Ultra 3 —externally, the two are identical — but the combination of better health tracking tech, new AI features, improved battery life, and updated holistic tools galore… all for the same price as before, is pretty darn compelling.

Stay tuned for my full Apple Watch Ultra 4 review, coming soon. Until then, what new Apple Watch Ultra 4 features are you most excited about? Let me know in the comments.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)
• I’ve been writing about the Apple Watch for the past decade: Here’s the rumored update I’m most excited about for the Apple Watch Ultra 4
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried

Move over, Apple Watch Series 11; there's a new flagship Apple Watch in town. Apple just announced the Apple Watch Series 12 alongside the Apple Watch Ultra 4 during Cupertino's September 9 "Surprise and Shine" event (we also got the new iPhone 18 series and the iPhone Duo).

Boasting a completely redesigned health sensor array, upgraded processor, and tons of new wellness tools, here's everything you need to know about the Apple Watch Series 12.

Apple Watch Series 12: Upgrades cheat sheet

• Price and release: The Apple Watch Series 12 is available for preorder starting today and will be available on September 18, with a starting price of $399, the same as the Series 11
• Design: The Series 12 looks similar to the Series 11; available in Space Grey, Black, Light Gold, and Dark Bronze (aluminum case); Pearl White and Night Blue (ceramic case); Polished Gold and Polished Silver (titanium case)
• Health features: Updated health sensing system; improved heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV) tracking; HRV reflected in Vitals app; new Readiness metric; new Health Age score; redesigned Health app with improved recovery insights and personalized AI health/fitness guidance that updates dynamically; Health app now supports personal health data and lab results
• AI features: Support for Siri AI voice assistant; Live Rewind lets you ‘go back in time’ up to 15 seconds; Sound Recognition can auto-alert users to common sounds like sirens and alarms; Siri Recap takes high-level notes of conversations and generates summaries
• Under-the-hood: Upgraded S11 processor
• Battery life: Up to 24 hours per charge, same as Series 11

Last year's Apple Watch Series 11 currently tops our best smartwatch list; will the new Apple Watch Series 12 take its place? Maybe! Here's what's new and exciting about the latest model.

Apple Watch Series 12: Price and release

Unlike Google and Samsung, which increased pricing across their respective smartwatch lines this year, Apple kept the pricing of the Series 12 consistent with last year’s model. The Apple Watch Series 12 starts at $399 for the smaller, non-cellular 42mm model.

You can preorder the Apple Watch Series 12 starting today. The device is expected to be available on September 18th.

Apple Watch Series 12: Design

Like the Apple Watch Series 11, the new Apple Watch Series 12 comes in 42mm or 46mm. While the basic design and display remain unchanged, the Series 12 features Apple's Ceramic Shield 2 screen coating, which is 60% tougher than the Ion-X glass used on the Series 11.

Apple has also added some exciting new case options, including two ceramic models in your choice of Pearl White or Night Blue.

The Series 12 is additionally available in Polished Silver titanium and Polished Gold titanium.

Apple Watch Series 12: Health and fitness

The most notable upgrades to the Apple Watch Series 12 are related to health and fitness. Cupertino completely redesigned the sensor array on the bottom of the device for improved accuracy and efficiency.

The electrode surface, used for ECG, has been increased in size for more precise readings. The photodiodes, meanwhile, have been rearranged in a ring, resulting in improved efficiency, and the LEDS, used for monitoring heart rate, are more powerful than before.

The heart rate sensor on the Series 12 now takes a reading every five seconds, day and night, a 60-fold increase in sample frequency compared to the Series 11. Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is now sampled every five minutes, or 24 times more frequently than before.

According to Apple’s internal testing, the brand’s latest smartwatches have the “most accurate heart rate tracking in a wearable.”

Meanwhile, a new Heart Rate Variability meter, which lives in the Vitals app, provides dynamic stress and recovery advice. Apple has also added a dynamic Readiness Score, similar to what the competition offers, based on recent activity, sleep quality, and vitals.

Later this year, Cupertino will also be rolling out an updated Health app with a much cleaner design. It also adds a new “Insights” tab where users can view AI-generated summaries of their recent health trends. Speaking of AI, the app also generates custom-tailored workout and recovery suggestions.

There’s also a new “Longevity” tab where users can follow guided assessments to learn how their physical fitness compares to other users in their age range. Apple is additionally adding a new Health Age metric, similar to Garmin’s Fitness Age, which similarly compares your workout habits, VO2 Max, sleep trends, heart health, and more, to the averages for your age group.

Finally, the updated Health app will support the integration of personal health data, like lab results and medical stats. This feature is, of course, optional.

Apple Watch Series 12: AI features

The Apple Watch Series 12 supports Apple's Siri AI voice assistant, but that’s not all. There are a handful of new audio-based AI features that sound (pun intended) promising, like Live Rewind, which lets you relisten to the past 15 seconds of ambient sound at any moment with a double-press of the digital crown.

I’m admittedly bad with names, so I could definitely see this feature being useful at my next social outing. Like the latest iPhones, the Series 12 also supports Sound Recognition, which is designed to alert those who are hard of hearing to common noises like fire alarms, doorbells, and even a crying baby.

Finally, Siri Recap is designed to listen in on your important conversations and create digestible notes with summaries and key points. Users can set when this feature is active or not, either manually or via a schedule/geolocation.

It’s worth noting that when using these audio AI features, no actual audio is saved, speakers aren’t identified, and everything gets end-to-end encrypted. Unfortunately, you’ll need to wait a while to test Live Rewind and Siri Recap out; they won’t be released until later this year (in beta).

Apple Watch Series 12: Outlook

While improved battery performance or a brighter screen topped my upgrade wish list, the Apple Watch Series 12 still seems to be a noteworthy improvement over its predecessor, thanks to a faster processor, better health tracking tech, new wellness metrics galore, and support for some genuinely useful-sounding AI features. I'm also beyond pleased to see no price increases across the Series 12 line.

Stay tuned for our full Apple Watch Series 12 review. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the new model? Are you excited for its debut, or less than impressed? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)
• I’ve been writing about the Apple Watch for the past decade: Here’s the rumored update I’m most excited about for the Apple Watch Ultra 4
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried

I attended my first IFA trade show in Berlin last week, and between countless helpings of currywurst, I found myself genuinely floored by all the cool new wearable tech on display.

From smarter smart rings with onboard NFC for mobile payments to AI-powered pendants that serve as a "second memory," IFA proved to be a treasure trove for gadget lovers like myself. With that in mind, these are the five most incredible pieces of wearable tech I demoed at IFA 2026.

1. Luna Band

I first saw an early version of the Luna Band at CES 2026 in January, long before the arrival of the Garmin Cirqa and Fitbit Air, two of the most capable (mostly) subscription-free alternatives to the popular screenless Whoop 5.0 fitness tracker.

Boasting similar features and specs to the competition, the new Luna Band splits the difference, price-wise, between the Cirqa ($199) and Air ($99), with a cost of $149.

However, one notable advantage the Luna Band has over the competition is a completely subscription-free approach to wellness. While Google (Fitbit) and Garmin make you pony up extra cash for deeper insights and AI-generated personalized recommendations, Luna does not.

In fact, custom-tailored AI-generated workout and health recommendations are a major selling point of the Luna Band. And rather than being overly focused on a cascade of metrics and charts, the companion Luna app is more geared toward digestible, actionable text-based advice based on your holistic trends and personal goals.

Stay tuned for a full review of the Luna Band, along with head-to-head comparisons versus the competition.

2. Circular Ring 3

The launch of the Circular Ring 3 was easily the biggest surprise of IFA, at least when it comes to wearable tech. The Circular Ring 2 was a mighty fine alternative to the latest Oura Ring 5, aka the best smart ring on the market, but when I reviewed it, a buggy app held back the overall user experience.

Since then, Circular completely overhauled and relaunched the companion app, and more notably, debuted not one but two new smart rings: the Circular Ring 3 Pro and Circular Ring 3 Slim.

Unlike Oura, these smart rings are subscription-free. They also support some unique features, most notably onboard NFC, giving you the power to pay for things with the touch of a finger. They also support haptic feedback for alerts and alarms.

The Ring Pro 3 additionally supports a promising new blood pressure trends feature that I look forward to testing when the wearable ships this winter.

3. Moto Watch Ultra

The Moto Watch Ultra was another pleasant IFA surprise announcement. Motorola's first-ever LTE-capable smartwatch, the Moto Watch Ultra is a direct competitor to the likes of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5, two of the best smartwatches for Android in 2026.

The thing is, the Moto Watch Ultra is priced lower than both of the above, while offering similar features. It runs Google's bug-free and user-friendly Wear OS, and for health and fitness tracking, Motorola partnered with the trusted Finnish smartwatch brand Polar.

A lovely-looking brushed stainless steel case additionally gives the Moto Watch Ultra a more premium look than the competition. Available starting on September 10, the Moto Watch Ultra starts at $349 via Motorola and Amazon.

4. Odyss N1

No, it's not a shark tooth necklace; the Odyss N1 is a small, metal pendant sporting an onboard camera and motion sensor designed to automatically log everything you eat. Still just a concept, the Odyss N1 was unknown to me prior to IFA, but when I spotted the brand's booth in the depths of the Berlin Messe, I was instantly drawn in.

In 2026, the best fitness trackers and smartwatches may be able to automatically log sleep, workouts, and stress, but they drop the ball when it comes to recording food intake without user input. This is where the Odyss N1 comes in. Designed to work alongside other fitness wearables, the N1 takes a few weeks to calibrate and learn your eating habits.

During that time, users are encouraged to manually edit any inaccuracies to help train the AI-powered detection algorithm. Afterwards, the Odyss N1 should be able to log everything you munch on and sip with a solid degree of accuracy. Of course, the one downside of the Odyss N1 is you pretty much need to wear it all the time to make the most of it.

No word on a shipping date.

5. iKarios

Last but not least, we have the iKairos, a peculiar circular-shaped pendant with an animated set of cartoonish eyes. But what purpose does this admittedly cute little wearable, which doubles as a tabletop companion when placed in its charging dock, serve?

The folks behind iKairos say that it's designed to be a "second memory," with an onboard microphone for recording notes, reminders, events, and more. It also has a built-in camera that's deployed by sliding the back half of the iKairos downward.

When active, the camera is meant to capture your most important memories; however, the output isn't a lovely photo slideshow or video reel. Instead, the iKairos translates your precious moments into weird, AI-generated images.

Still just a concept, there's a good chance that the iKairos will ultimately evolve into something more than a goofy-faced eavesdropper. And similar to the Odyss N1, we don't have any indication of when or even if the iKairos will be available to the public.

Of these five new tech wearables, which one are you most excited about? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just went hands-on with the new Circular Ring 3 — and it beats the Oura Ring 5 in 3 big ways
• I just reviewed the Garmin Cirqa — 5 things you need to know about Garmin’s subscription-free Whoop and Fitbit Air alternative
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

One of the strangest pieces of wearable tech I demoed at the IFA 2026 show is the iKairos. Pitched as a “second memory” that captures the most important moments of your life, this AI-powered device doubles as a wearable pendant and a stationary desktop companion.

All that said, I still don’t fully understand the purpose of the iKairos, and frankly, the folks showing it at IFA didn't seem to really know either. To be fair, the iKairos is still very much a concept. Here's what I do know.

A happy, little wearable

I was admittedly drawn to the iKairos because of the cute, animated face that beams from a circular display on the front. But what purpose does this sort-of interactive digital face serve?

Personal note-taking is one of the main advertised features of the iKairos; users can whisper all their deepest, darkest secrets to the happy little guy for safekeeping and transcription.

I suppose, to make these interactions a little less impersonal-feeling, the folks at iKairos gave the wearable a goofy cartoon face capable of blinking and making a handful of vague expressions.

A built-in camera captures your life… sort of

The iKairos also sports an onboard camera that can be deployed by sliding the bottom of the device downward. Don’t like the idea of a camera logging and interpreting your every moment? Slide that sucker back up.

The weird thing about the onboard camera is that the “meaningful memories” it captures aren’t traditional stills or video but weird, AI-generated interpretations of your daily routines and adventures. This, I am not a fan of.

A desktop companion, too

When you’re not wearing the iKairos around your neck, it’s meant to live on a small docking station that sits on your desk or bedside.

Regardless of its position, users can converse with the device and use it for more than just note-taking. Other functions include the ability to set reminders, add events to a calendar, and review summaries of past events.

The design isn't final

It’s worth noting that the iKairos is still a long way off from being an actual product you can purchase online. That said, the company behind it recently secured a hefty amount of investor funding, so hopefully, we’ll eventually see some form of the iKairos come to fruition; it just may look a whole lot different than the product I just demoed.

What are your thoughts on the iKairos? Is this a product you’d seriously consider buying? What existing features do you like or dislike, and what do you feel is missing? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just went hands-on with the Odyss N1 — a sleek AI necklace that automatically tracks everything you eat
• I just went hands-on with the new Circular Ring 3 — and it beats the Oura Ring 5 in 3 big ways
• I just went hands-on with Motorola's first LTE smartwatch — and Google and Samsung should be worried

We've got fitness trackers, smartwatches, and smart rings that can precisely log our sleep, workouts, stress, and more with minimal user legwork, but one holistic tracking pain point that persists is food logging.

Sure, lots of companion apps, including Garmin Connect and the Oura app, let you manually log your calorie and nutritional intake, but what if there was an easier way?

The Odyss N1 AI necklace is aiming to be the missing link. Still a concept, I had the chance to demo the Odyss N1 at IFA 2026 in Berlin, and even though I'm slightly skeptical of its capabilities, I'm seriously intrigued by what it potentially offers.

Odyss N1 AI necklace: design

The Odyss N1 consists of a small, triangular metal pendant with a built-in camera and accelerometer used to track what you eat, when you eat, and how much you eat.

The necklace itself is actually a cable that connects the pendant to a battery module that sits at the back of your neck. This power module also boasts haptic feedback for notifications.

The pendant is constructed of metal and available in three colors: black, silver, and gold. It's also remarkably high-quality and jewelry-like.

A single physical button adorns the top of the pendant. Pressing it turns off all the food logging features. Another privacy feature: the Odyss N1 doesn't save any raw imaging data, ever.

Odyss N1 AI necklace: how it works

The Odyss N1 feeds visual and motion data into an AI-powered algorithm, which also takes into account prior contextual data to try to accurately predict what exactly you're eating, including details on how it was cooked. Users can, of course, edit the details logged at any time. Better yet, the Odyss N1 learns from your edits.

The more you wear the Odyss N1 and/or update the logged info, the smarter it gets. I'm told that users will need to wear it for at least two weeks to fully calibrate the device for accuracy, but after that, it should be good to go.

What happens to all that logged food data? The companion app uses it to track your overall nutritional trends and even make recommendations to help you improve your diet.

In addition to nutrition, the app generates diet analysis reports focused on three key metrics: quality, energy, and rhythm.

While the Odyss N1 is still just a concept, the plan is to make its food logging data accessible to other popular holistic tracking apps. Likewise, the Odyss app is designed to import and analyze health data from other wearable tech and factor it into your nutritional recommendations and insights.

Odyss N1 AI necklace: Outlook

The Odyss N1 is more than a cool idea. It's a potentially groundbreaking piece of wearable tech that truly attempts to solve a problem. Assuming it plays nicely with other popular health apps, isn't too pricey, and actually works as intended, I could definitely see the Odyss N1 catching on.

On the other hand, one downside of the design is that you pretty much need to wear it all the time for the food tracking feature to work effectively. Moreover, battery life appears to be limited to a day or two at best, requiring users to frequently take it off for a recharge.

What are your thoughts on the Odyss N1 AI smart necklace? Is it something you'd consider wearing? Also, how much do you think it should sell for? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget Whoop — 3 major differences between the subscription-free Luna Band and Garmin Cirqa
• I just went hands-on with the new Circular Ring 3 — and it beats the Oura Ring 5 in 3 big ways
• Garmin launches nutrition tracking — but you’ll have to subscribe to Connect+ to get it

2026 has been a massive year for screen-free fitness wearables, with models like the Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa debuting alongside more established players, like the latest Whoop 5.0.

Now, the competition is about to get a little tougher: The $149 Luna Band just officially began shipping worldwide. Not only that, it seems poised to give Garmin, Google, and Whoop a serious run for the money, especially when it comes to free, personalized AI insights.

I initially checked out an early version of the Luna Band back at CES in January 2026. Now, nine months later, the final product is ready for prime time.

Not only that, I just demoed the final Luna Band at IFA 2026 in Berlin, and I have to say, I am impressed. I also had the chance to compare it head-to-head against the Garmin Cirqa (which I was wearing at the time), and even though the two have a lot in common, small but meaningful things set them apart.

With that in mind, here are the three biggest differences between the new Luna Band and the Garmin Cirqa, its closest competition.

1. The Luna Band costs less than the Garmin Cirqa

Unlike the best smartwatches out there, the newest screen-free fitness trackers shouldn't shatter your piggy bank. The Garmin Cirqa, for example, is $199, while the Luna Band is priced $50 cheaper at $149. That said, the Fitbit Air beats them both with a starting price of just $99.

However, both Garmin and Google (Fitbit) place some of their headier training insights and personalized AI-backed features behind a monthly paywall. Luna does not...

2. None of Luna’s features are paywalled

The Luna Band records all the basic holistic data points you expect, like continuous heart rate, sleep quality, workouts, and daily movement, but unlike the Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa, the Luna Band companion app is less focused on metrics and charts and more focused on generating actionable insights and reports based on both your current holistic trends and your overall goals. These are, of course, accomplished with the help of AI.

More simply put: Luna's personalized AI recommendations are part of what you're paying for when you spend $149 on the device... no need to cough up extra dough down the line. Meanwhile, similar custom, AI-driven advice from Garmin and Fitbit requires an additional monthly fee even after purchasing either tracker.

3. Only the Garmin Cirqa has a physical button

Finally, while the Luna Band is more compact and affordable than the Garmin Cirqa — with no subscription costs, optional or otherwise — one feature it's missing is a physical button. On the Garmin Cirqa, users can program the wearable's sole control point to start and stop any workout type of their choosing. It can also be used to broadcast heart rate data to another compatible Garmin device.

Personally, I feel that a similarly customizable physical button would feel right at home on the Luna Band (the Fitbit Air, too).

Stay tuned for my full Luna Band review, coming soon. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the new Luna Band? Would you consider picking it up over the Garmin Cirqa and/or Fitbit Air? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just went hands-on with the new Circular Ring 3 — and it beats the Oura Ring 5 in 3 big ways
• I just reviewed the Garmin Cirqa — 5 things you need to know about Garmin’s subscription-free Whoop and Fitbit Air alternative
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

Forget the Oura Ring 5; I just got my first look at the new Circular Ring 3 Pro and Circular Ring 3 Slim at IFA in Berlin, and they just might be the smartest smart rings... well, ever.

When I reviewed the Circular Ring 2 a year ago, I praised it for great battery life, lots of wellness insights, and heady features like ECG monitoring with AFib detection. However, a buggy app held it back.

Since then, Circular has completely overhauled the companion app and, perhaps more impressively, doubled down on supported smart features for the new rings.

With that in mind, here are the three biggest ways the Circular Ring 3 beats the Oura Ring 5 (the best smart ring of 2026 so far).

1. Haptic feedback

While the original Circular Ring had haptic feedback, the brand ditched the feature in the Circular Ring 2. Well, apparently folks missed it, because it's back in both the Circular Ring 3 Pro and 3 Slim.

Haptic feedback can be used as an alarm, a medication reminder, or to guide you through built-in breathing exercises. You can also set the Circular 3 to vibrate for vital health alerts, like a low heart rate.

Down the road, the list of haptic functions will likely expand to include other customizable options.

How strong are the vibrations? I tested the haptic feedback on the Circular Ring 3 and found it subtle but noticeable; I'm especially curious if it's powerful enough to wake a deep sleeper.

Either way, haptic alerts are a feature that seems to be slowly appearing in more wearables, like the Fitbit Air and RingConn Gen 3, and one I'd love to see Oura knock off.

2. NFC payments

Up until recently, most smart rings didn't offer all that much "smartness" outside of health and fitness insights. Now, Circular is upping the ante with onboard support for NFC payments, another feature I got to demo on the IFA show floor.

Simply hold the ring on an NFC surface and wait for a small vibration to confirm your payment was successful; that's it! Better yet, the Circular Ring 3 Pro and 3 Slim support both Visa and Mastercard.

3. Slimmer, lighter design

Finally, the Circular Ring 3 Slim — which lacks some of the more advanced health features and heady battery life of the Pro — is both narrower and lighter than the Oura Ring 5, which recently set the standard for smart ring comfort.

That said, the Oura Ring 5 is ever-so-slightly thinner than the Circular Ring 3 Slim, but much thinner than the Circular Ring 3 Pro.

What are your thoughts on the latest Circular Ring 3 Pro and Circular Ring 3 Slim? Do you think they give Oura and the competition a run for the money? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve worn the new Oura Ring 5, and it really is tiny: Here’s why I think it’s the wearable to beat in 2026
• We've tested the best Oura Ring alternatives and there's one I'd recommend over all the rest right now
• I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa — Round 2: We have a new champ

There hasn’t been a ceramic Apple Watch since 2019’s Apple Watch Series 5, but that could be about to change. With the Apple Watch Series 12 and Ultra 4 tipped to arrive next week, one notable Apple insider suggests that an optional, elevated ceramic shell could be on the table this year.

In fact, we may get new Apple Watches offered in not one, but two ceramic case choices. Here’s everything you need to know about Apple Watch 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 ceramic case and general design rumors.

No massive Apple Watch design changes for 2026

We’re a little more than a week out from Apple’s big September "Surprise and shine" smartwatch and smartphone launch, and prolific Apple insider Mark Gurman just dropped some juicy details about what we might expect from the Apple Watch 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4.

For starters, it doesn’t sound like either model will look all that different from last year’s Apple Watch 11 or Apple Watch Ultra 3. Instead, Gurman predicts a major redesign for both lines will probably arrive in 2027.

Under the hood, however, there will likely be small improvements, like a faster processor and potentially improved heart rate tracking. However, a much-rumored onboard fingerprint scanner to unlock the Apple Watch doesn't seem to be in the cards, says Gurman.

Apple's first ceramic model in seven years?

Despite Gurman putting the kibosh on some of the more exciting Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 design rumors, he’s fairly certain of one: the return of an optional ceramic case.

Why is a ceramic smartwatch case such a big deal? In addition to being more impact-resistant than stainless steel and aluminum, zirconia ceramic is also more scratch-resistant than the former (though not the latter).

That said, for most folks, the real appeal of a ceramic Apple Watch 12 or Ultra 4 case will come down to aesthetics. For example, the Series 5 in white ceramic (shown at the top of the page) was widely admired for its unique, elevated, pearly appearance.

According to Gurman, new ceramic color options for the latest Apple Watch models might include a similar pearly white and dark grey.

Apple Watch 12 ceramic: price prediction

Here’s the bad news: When the Apple Watch Series 5 launched in 2019, the standard model started at $399 while the ceramic Series 5 started at a whopping $1,299.

I’m not even going to wager how much a ceramic Apple Watch Ultra 4 might go for, as I’m also not convinced Cupertino will offer such a model. The Series 12 ceramic, however, seems much more possible.

I'm already anticipating a potential price increase for the standard flagship Apple Watch 12 (though nothing is confirmed). Let’s assume, for a moment, the new model starts at $449 instead of $399. In that scenario, I could see a ceramic Series 12 starting as high as $1,499. Woof.

What are your thoughts on the possibility of a ceramic Apple Watch Series 12 or ceramic Apple Watch Ultra 4? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked 368 people what they want from the Apple Watch Ultra 4. Here’s the resounding answer (and it’s not AI)
• I’ve been writing about the Apple Watch for the past decade: Here’s the rumored update I’m most excited about for the Apple Watch Ultra 4
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — 2026 is the year of the screenless tracker. It seems that we’re moving away from screens and notifications into a calmer, quieter world of 24/7 health tracking.

This year has seen the launch of the Fitbit Air, Google’s $99 screenless tracker, and more recently the Garmin Cirqa, Garmin’s $199 equivalent. Neither requires a subscription, but I’d argue some of the best features on the Fitbit Air are behind the paywall. Oura also launched its Oura Ring 5 this year — the smallest and lightest smart ring on the market.

You can read my Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5 face-off here, but to find out what you’re buying, we asked over 300 of you which tracker you’d buy. Read on to find out which came out on top.

Which screenless tracker are you buying?

313 Tom’s Guide users answered our poll, and the results are pretty clear: it’s between the Fitbit Air and the Garmin Cirqa. Here’s what you said:

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

When it comes to the apps, both are excellent. With the Fitbit Air, you’ll be using the new Google Health App, which (if you pay for the subscription) comes with the Gemini-powered AI health coach that really is the best I’ve tested.

Garmin fans, on the other hand, will be pleased to hear that the Garmin Cirqa can be synced with the Garmin Connect app, allowing you to seamlessly move between your watch and the screenless tracker.

Which you choose really comes down to your budget and your preference. I personally find the Fitbit Air more comfortable on the wrist, but I do think you’ll need to pay the monthly subscription to get the most out of the device.

The Garmin Cirqa gives you all your data subscription-free (with a Garmin Connect+ subscription, you’ll get additional nutrition and coaching plans), and the side button makes your workout data more accurate. That said, it’s double the price.

We’ll keep putting these two trackers head-to-head over the next few months, so stay tuned. Which are you thinking of buying? Have your say below.

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

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Series 12 rumors — everything we know so far
• 10 Apple Watch innovations that changed the game — from Fall Detection to Hypertension Alerts
• Garmin’s rumored screen-less wearable just might be the subscription-free Whoop rival I’ve been waiting for

We asked Tom’s Guide readers which 2026 full-featured Android smartwatch they prefer, and the winner is crystal clear.

With 830 total votes, one device proved way more popular than the others, but was it the Google Pixel Watch 5, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, or the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? Check out the results for yourself below.

Which full-featured 2026 Android smartwatch would you rather own?

• 1st place: 50%, Google Pixel Watch 5
• 2nd place: 24%, Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2
• 3rd place: 16%, Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

With a total of 418 votes, 50% of respondents said that the Pixel Watch 5 is their preferred current-model Android smartwatch. The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 came in second place with 203 votes, or 24%.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, meanwhile, was the least popular of the three, with just 135 folks preferring it to the other options, or 16% of respondents. And then we have those who prefer something other than the models listed; 74 of y’all selected that option, which begs the question: what would you buy instead?

The Pixel Watch 5 is the clear winner, but why?

So, why did the Pixel Watch 5 decimate the competition in this popularity poll over its peers? I think it simply comes down to the fact that it’s the more exciting model of the three. The Galaxy Watch 9 is a seriously minor update to the Galaxy Watch 8. Likewise, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 adds some cool new features for scuba divers, but little else.

The Pixel Watch 5, meanwhile, is also pretty much a carbon copy of its predecessor, but it does boast some unique and possibly groundbreaking new preventive health and safety tools, including Breathing Emergency Detection, Insulin Resistance Trends, and Blood Pressure Trends.

Bottom line

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 may be the most affordable of its 2026 Android smartwatch class, but the Google Pixel Watch 5 wins prom king by a 2:1 margin versus the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and a 3:1 margin against the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked Tom's Guide readers, 'Which fitness tracking metrics do you trust the least?' Here's the surprising answer
• 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

As fitness trackers like the Fitbit Air become better and better, they are now remarkably good at finding new things to measure.

Open the companion app after a workout or a night’s sleep and you'll be greeted by a dizzying array of stats: steps, heart rate, HRV, sleep stages, VO2 max, calories burned, and many more besides.

Some of that information is genuinely useful, but a lot of it is better treated as (interesting) background noise.

The trick is knowing which numbers can tell you something meaningful about your activity or recovery — and, just as importantly, which ones you can actually do something with.

For most of us, though, that leaves a much shorter list than the dashboard might suggest.

Steps still matter

With all the newer metrics available, step count can feel almost quaint, but it remains one of the most useful numbers going, simply because it offers a clear picture of how much you’re moving during the day.

There’s no need to treat 10,000 steps as a magic target, either. Research suggests health benefits begin well below that figure, with more movement generally bringing greater benefits.

Your own baseline is the best place to start. If you typically manage, say, 4,000 steps per day, regularly getting closer to 6,000 is meaningful progress.

Step counting is also one of the things fitness trackers do reasonably well. It won’t tell you how hard you exercised, which we’ll come to next, but it’s an easy way to spot whether a desk-heavy week has turned into a sedentary one.

Track how hard you’re moving

Step count tells you how much you’ve moved, but it says little about intensity. A brisk walk can add the same number of steps as a much slower one while placing very different demands on your body.

Active minutes help fill in that gap. Most trackers estimate how much time you spend at moderate or vigorous intensity, giving you a clearer sense of whether your week includes enough purposeful exercise alongside general movement.

For reference, the World Health Organization recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity each week — or 75 minutes at vigorous intensity — with more activity bringing additional benefits.

Heart rate zones can also be useful during individual workouts, giving you a quick way to check whether an easy session stayed easy.

Watch your resting heart rate and HRV

Resting heart rate is one of the simpler recovery metrics to understand, showing how many times your heart beats per minute when you’re at rest. Regular aerobic training can gradually bring that number down over time.

Where fitness trackers excel is showing you the trend. A sudden rise above your usual range can sometimes line up with poor recovery or an illness, while a gradual decline can be a sign that your cardiovascular fitness is improving.

Heart rate variability, or HRV, adds more context by measuring the variation in time between heartbeats and can be useful for spotting changes in recovery. It's worth noting that HRV is highly individual, so try not to compare scores.

Focus on better sleep, not a better sleep score

Sleep tracking is most useful when you keep it simple: start with how long you’re actually sleeping and whether your bedtime and wake-up time are reasonably consistent from one day to the next.

Those numbers are easier to interpret than the detailed breakdowns many trackers now provide. Consumer wearables estimate sleep stages from signals such as movement and heart rate, so it’s worth being cautious about treating every minute of deep or REM sleep as exact.

The same goes for proprietary sleep scores; they can be handy as a quick summary, but the underlying habits are usually more useful to watch over time.

I've sometimes found that a low sleep score can trick my brain into thinking I had a bad sleep, which then makes me feel worse, whereas a similar sleep without a tracker leaves me feeling well-rested. Too much information can, in some cases, be a bad thing.

Use VO2 max to track the bigger picture

VO2 max gives you an estimate of how effectively your body can use oxygen during exercise, which makes it a useful shorthand for aerobic fitness.

Most watches calculate it from workout data rather than measuring it directly, so the figure on your wrist won’t be as precise as a laboratory test.

That doesn’t make it useless. If you keep using the same device, the direction of travel can still tell you plenty. For example, a VO2 max score rising over several months indicates improving aerobic fitness.

It’s another metric where the trend is more valuable than the exact number. Whether your watch says 45 or 47 matters less than where that figure is heading over time.

The numbers you can mostly ignore

Plenty of other fitness tracker stats can still be interesting, but they don’t all deserve the same attention.

Calories burned are a good example: estimates can vary considerably between devices, making them a shaky basis for deciding how much to eat or whether you’ve “earned” an extra snack.

Readiness, recovery, and sleep scores can be useful shortcuts, although they’re usually built from the underlying measurements we’ve already covered, so treat them as context rather than definitive judgements.

A good fitness tracker can measure an enormous amount. The trick is learning which numbers actually help you make better decisions – and letting the rest fade into the background.

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

How to watch the Garmin ‘Play Harder’ event

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

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

What watches are likely to launch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

I’ve been writing about fitness trackers for the better part of a decade, and one thing I always do when unboxing a new device is look at how well it does the basics. One of these easy-to-measure basics is how many steps I’ve taken; hence, these Tom’s Guide walking tests were born.

A few weeks ago, I unboxed the Garmin Cirqa — Garmin’s first screenless tracker, which is set to take on the likes of the Fitbit Air and the Whoop 5.0. My first walking test compared the Garmin Cirqa to the Fitbit Air, and it was pretty disastrous. Since then, I’ve customized the button on my Cirqa and worn it continuously for the past few weeks.

To see if things had improved, I strapped it on and walked 12,000 steps with the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3. Of course, I don’t think most people would be trying to choose between these two devices — they are extremely different. But I wanted to see how the $199 Cirqa kept up with Apple’s most expensive and smartest smartwatch. Read on to find out which came out on top.

I walked 12,000 steps with the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 and the $199 Garmin Cirqa

If you’ve read one of these articles from the Tom’s Guide fitness desk, you’ll know that manually counting 12,000 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 Ultra 3 on my left wrist and the Garmin Cirqa on my right. Both trackers count your steps using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arms.

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 Ultra 3 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 beyond a certain point, but annoying for me when writing these articles. For this comparison, I downloaded a third-party Pedometer+ app onto my Apple Watch.

I split this test into three walks, and when I got home, I downloaded all the data and compared the results:

As you can see, this one is incredibly close. The Garmin Cirqa came out on top, but by 100 steps, as it counted 103 steps more than I did manually, whereas the Apple Watch Ultra 3 missed 242 steps.

It goes without saying that when we’re talking about a hundred steps, this isn’t much at all over the course of 12,000. The average person takes 2,000 steps a mile, so missing or overcounting 100 in the grand scheme of things won’t really make a difference to your tracking.

It’s also important to point out, again, that I don’t think many people would be choosing between these two devices, as they are designed for very different consumers. Instead, the test was to see how Garmin’s $199 screenless tracker could keep up with a watch four times its price, and I’m impressed.

One thing I did (which I’m sure made my Garmin Cirqa’s data more accurate) was to customize the activity on the side button. When you unbox the device, it’s automatically set to Timed Activity, and in my experience, these activities don’t give you an accurate step count goal.

Instead, I changed the button to automatically start a walk. To do this, head to your Garmin Connect app and click the Cirqa icon. From there, go to Activity Options and then Edit to change the On Device option.

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Which 2026 smartwatch is the more accurate fitness tracker, the Google Pixel Watch 5 or the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9? I just had to know.

So, I did what any tech geek with access to both devices and two wrists would do: I strapped one to each arm, logged a ~35-minute walk, and then compared the data. As a primary control for accuracy, I manually counted all 4,000 steps.

I also tracked the walk using the Strava app on my iPhone 16 Plus. Find the results of this comparison between the Pixel Watch 5 and Galaxy Watch 9, and key takeaways, below.

I walked 4,000 steps with the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 vs Google Pixel Watch 5

So, which of these flagship Android wearables — two of the best smartwatches around — is the more competent fitness tracker: the Galaxy Watch 9 or Pixel Watch 5? Have a look for yourself.

Google's step count was closer

As you can see, both the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 logged step count totals within 20 steps of my actual count, which is a seriously impressive and commendable result. However, in the interest of friendly competition and this article, the Pixel Watch officially wins in this category.

The Pixel Watch also logged more accurate climb and distance data

Again, both the Google Pixel Watch 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 performed extremely well when it came to accurately logging distance and climb. That said, the Pixel Watch's data was again closer to the control on both counts.

Google's pace data is slower than expected

Despite logging more precise distance, climb, and steps, the Pixel Watch 5 reported an oddly slow average pace for my walk. Not only is it more than a minute slower than Strava's pace, but it's also lower than pretty much every pace metric I've recorded during one of these walk test comparisons (and I've done many).

Samsung's heart rate data is lower than expected

Speaking of strange results, Samsung's heart rate data for this comparison is way lower than expected. Again, I've done lots of these comparisons, and from the cumulative results, I generally expect an average heart rate of around 125 bpm and a max of around 160 bpm.

That may seem high, but keep in mind I am a brisk walker and purposely take steep, hilly routes to thoroughly assess elevation-tracking accuracy. That said, Google's average heart rate is also strangely high, even if its max heart rate metric appears to be on the money.

The Google Pixel Watch 5 wins

Ultimately, in this fitness tracking accuracy comparison between the Google Pixel Watch 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, the Pixel Watch takes home the trophy, with more accurate step count, distance, and climb data.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 also performed well at tracking most of my key metrics, with the exception of its questionably low heart rate recording, which I plan to investigate further as I work toward publishing a full review. Stay tuned for that!

In the meantime, what smartwatches, fitness trackers, or other wearables should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 5,000 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin Cirqa — Round 2: We have a new champ
• I’ve been wearing the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 for nearly a week — 5 things I like and 1 thing I don’t
• I’ve tested over 100 fitness trackers head-to-head — 3 workout stats I trust the least

It’s official: 2026 is the year of the screenless tracker. In a world of constant buzzing and non-stop notifications, it seems that more people than ever are embracing the silence of the screenless fitness tracker.

In this article, I’ll look at three new screenless devices launching this year: the Garmin Cirqa, Fitbit Air, and Oura Ring 5, as well as the popular Whoop 5.0. Which deserves a spot on your wrist, bicep, or finger? Read on to find out more.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5: Price

Let’s start with the price of the trackers and their subsequent subscriptions. The easiest way to see this data is in this table:

Winner: It goes without saying that the Fitbit Air is the most affordable of all the screenless trackers at $99, with an optional subscription. I would argue that some of the best features of the Fitbit Air, including the Gemini AI Health Coach and advanced sleep tracking, require the $10 monthly subscription, but it’s still far cheaper than the other options on this list.

The next best option from a price point of view would be the Garmin Cirqa, which gives you almost everything without the need to pay a monthly subscription. In fact, Garmin Connect+ will only give you nutrition and coaching plans; Garmin gives you access to all your health and fitness data under the free plan.

With Whoop and Oura, you’re committing to a monthly subscription to the respective platform if you want to use the tracker.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5: Design and fit

From a design standpoint, the key difference to note is that the Garmin Cirqa, Fitbit Air and Whoop 5.0 are all screenless bands designed to be worn around the wrist or bicep, whereas the Oura ring is, obviously, a ring.

The Fitbit Air is the smallest and lightest of the screenless trackers, with 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.

While the Garmin Cirqa and the Whoop 5.0 are bulkier on the wrist, they are both still comfortable; however, I found that both material bands stayed wet for ages after a swim or shower. It’s not enough to put me off completely, but it’s not the most comfortable.

Both Garmin and Whoop sell bicep bands for their trackers: the Garmin Cirqa bicep band costs $60, and the Whoop band is $50. Google doesn’t make a specific bicep band for the Fitbit Air, but there are plenty of options from third-party retailers.

One thing that really sets the Cirqa apart from the competition, design-wise, is the inclusion of a single physical button on the side of the tracker used to start and stop a workout.

Users can customize exactly what that workout is in the Connect app. When pressed, an onboard vibration motor provides haptic feedback confirming that your workout has begun. Another buzz happens when you end a workout. The button has additional functions: A triple-press forces the Cirqa into pairing mode, while a press-and-hold turns on the broadcast heart rate feature.

The Oura Ring 5 is the smallest and lightest smart ring on the market and is extremely comfortable to wear. The width of the ring has dropped to 6.09mm from 7.9mm, and the thickness is now 2.28mm, with the ring weighing 2 grams. The exact weight and size of the Oura Ring 5 will depend on the size you’re wearing. The Oura Ring 5 comes in sizes 6-13.

Battery-wise, you’re getting more than a week between charges with all of these devices. The Fitbit Air has the lowest battery life at 7 days; you’ll get around 9 days with the Oura Ring 5 (depending on ring size); the Garmin Cirqa gives you 10 days between charges; and finally, the Whoop 5.0 has a battery life of 14 days.

One thing to note is that the Whoop 5.0 is the only screenless device on this list that you can charge without taking it off — a handy feature if you’re desperate not to miss out on any data whatsoever.

Winner: This one really depends. I personally find the Oura Ring 5 or the Fitbit Air the most comfortable out of these four, but I have really petite wrists and prefer a fitness tracker that disappears. None of them are uncomfortable, and if you don’t mind a bigger tracker, there’s not much between the Cirqa and the Whoop.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5: Apps

A screenless tracker is only as good as its compatible app. All of the respective apps are available on both Android and iOS. The main differences between all of them are how easy they are to understand when you log in.

Let’s start with the Garmin Cirqa, which uses Garmin’s Connect app. If you’re familiar with Garmin, you’ll already know your way around the Connect app, which makes it easy to see your data once you know where to find it. I’d argue it’s not quite as user-friendly for beginners as the Fitbit or Oura app, but Garmin does a great job of giving you a lot of data and information, should you want it. You can also pair multiple trackers to the app and easily switch between them.

The Fitbit app has had a complete redesign and is now called Google Health. Again, I’ve found this app really easy to use and have found the Gemini Health Coach to be the best AI coach on the market right now. It breaks down your data into actionable advice, which is handy for beginners and more experienced users alike. The downside is that it’s locked behind the subscription.

I always say the Whoop app is best suited to athletes, as the amount of data you get is unprecedented. Feedback seems to be mixed — dedicated users love drilling down into the app, which focuses on how well your body has recovered; others find it overwhelming.

The Oura app has three main sections: Today, Vitals, and My Health. The first gives you a snapshot of your readiness, sleep, and activity scores from the day. Vitals go a step further and include things like your daytime stress and heart health. Then, My Health is an overview of the past 90 days.

Winner: It’s a tie. All of these apps will make it easy to make changes to your health once you’ve gotten to grips with them. They are designed to give you feedback and track your activities, sleep, stress levels, and menstrual cycle.

One thing to note from a women’s health perspective is that, at the time of writing, Oura, Garmin, and Whoop are compatible with Natural Cycles, which uses the devices' skin temperature sensors to predict your fertile window.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5: Health and fitness tracking

All of these trackers are designed to be worn 24/7 to give you an overview of your health. None of these devices have built-in GPS, so for accurate GPS tracking, you’ll need to take your phone with you.

All of the devices support multiple workout types, including most of the most common ones you’d expect. The Fitbit Air has the least amount of supported workouts, but there are still 71 to choose from, so it’s unlikely you’ll be lacking here.

All of the devices use autodetect to predict when you’ve started a workout, and in my testing, this can be sketchy for the first few months of wearing the device. With all of the trackers, you can manually start a workout in the app, but the Garmin Cirqa makes this a little easier, as you can start and stop a workout of your choosing using the device’s button. By default, the button logs a basic timed workout with limited metrics. However, users can change that via a setting in the Connect app.

The Garmin Cirqa, Fitbit Air, Whoop 5.0 and Oura Ring 5 will all do more than just count your steps and calories burned. You’ll get continuous heart rate tracking, sleep tracking, women’s health tracking, stress monitoring, skin temperature and more. The most advanced of the bunch is the Whoop MG, which has a medical-grade ECG sensor on board.

As mentioned before, Whoop’s health tracking is extensive, but the level you receive depends on your subscription package (read more about this in my Whoop review). The more expensive packages give you access to Whoop’s Healthspan feature, with the idea being that it can offer deep insights into your long-term health.

There are two different parts to it — Whoop Age and Pace of Aging. Whoop Age updates gradually over time, whereas Pace of Aging is a score ranging from -1x to 3 based on the immediate impact of your lifestyle choices.

I personally loved Whoop’s stress tracker, which showed me just how stressed I was getting about work or my toddler emptying the kitchen cupboards throughout the day.

From a testing perspective, I found all the devices to be pretty similar for tracking things like steps and sleep. The differences between them often sit with calorie burn (Whoop always seems to predict the lowest calorie burn; Fitbit the highest). All the devices were pretty similar in tracking my heart rate, and it’s worth noting that the Garmin Cirqa, Fitbit Air, and Whoop can all be used as external heart rate monitors.

While you can’t use your Oura Ring as a heart rate monitor, you can now use it to see your live workout data on your phone. When starting a live activity from your Oura app, you can see your live data from a lock screen widget on your phone. This can track your pace and distance during workouts like runs, cycles, and strength training sessions. I've been testing the Live Activity Tracking alongside Garmin and have been impressed.

Winner: Again, this one is too tough to call, as all of these devices track your health and workouts really well. From a fitness perspective, being able to start and stop a workout manually on the Garmin Cirqa gives it a slight edge. From a health-tracking perspective, if you want medical-grade ECG readings, the Whoop MG takes the top spot.

For most people, however, all of these devices will help you better understand your body and keep track of your fitness goals.

Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop 5.0 vs Oura Ring 5: Which should you buy?

The answer to this question really depends on your budget and your preference. If you don’t want to pay an ongoing subscription fee, it’s between the Garmin Cirqa and the Fitbit Air.

When looking at these two devices side-by-side, I’d say if you don’t want to pay the monthly Google Health subscription, go for the Garmin; you’re getting more data for free. That said, if you prefer a smaller tracker that really does disappear, the Fitbit Air is lighter and more comfortable in my experience.

If you don't want to wear a sports watch, or a watch in general, I’d say your best options are the Fitbit Air or Oura Ring 5. The former is the smallest and lightest screenless tracker on this list, and the latter looks like jewelry.

Either way, if screenless tracking is the future, all of these devices do it really well. Whichever you decide on, you’ll be getting tons of data without the updates from that WhatsApp group you really should leave.

More from Tom's Guide

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

The Pixel Watch 5 is Google’s most accurate smartwatch ever for tracking outdoor activities. Google even benchmarked its performance against pricier wearables, including the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Garmin Fenix 8 Pro, two of the best smartwatches available for fitness tracking, but can it really compete?

I decided to find out by strapping the Pixel Watch 5 to one wrist and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to my other and walking seven miles around Seattle, Washington.

Google says that the latest Pixel Watch is twice as accurate at route mapping in environments with obstructed skies like “urban canyons,” so I made a point of cruising around the Emerald City’s denser neighborhoods, like South Lake Union, which is jam-packed with gleaming corporate skyscrapers.

I also made my way through several expansive parks, meandering beneath enormous canopies of old-growth trees.

So, how did the Pixel Watch 5 do? Check out the results below.

I walked 7 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 5

Note: I split my walk into two separately tracked legs and ran Strava on my iPhone 16 Plus as a control for distance, pace, and climb.

The Pixel Watch bested the Apple Watch at tracking my distance

For distance-tracking precision, the Google Pixel Watch 5 proved slightly more capable than the Apple Watch Ultra 3 during this demo, assuming, of course, Strava's data is correct (which it generally is).

That said, both devices did pretty well at logging my miles — well within a reasonable margin of error — but the latest Pixel Watch did just a little better.

Elevation tracking is a toss-up

Things get a little trickier when we look at elevation. For the first leg of my walk, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 proved more accurate, with a total climb tally that's just 18 feet less than the control. Google was more generous with my uphill efforts, to a fault, logging 41 additional feet of gain compared to the control.

During the second leg of my walk, though, the Pixel Watch beat the Apple Watch with a total climb that was just 11 feet greater than Strava's measure, compared to 24 feet over for the Ultra 3.

Both watches noted similar paces

Strava tends to log slightly quicker pace data than most modern smartwatches I test, and the same is true here, even if Strava's data isn't that much faster.

That said, for each of the two legs of my walk, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Google Pixel Watch 5 calculated remarkably similar paces, a result I love to see.

Heart rate data is also a near-match

The same is true for heart rate data: Both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Google Pixel Watch 5 measured strikingly similar averages and maxes during each of the two portions of this test. I know this article is mainly about GPS performance, but I would be remiss not to mention this impressive outcome.

Ultimately, this comparison has left me feeling downright cheery about the state of modern smartwatch fitness tracking, with each device performing incredibly well across the board.

Which begs the question: Can the Google Pixel Watch 5 keep up with the pricier Apple Watch Ultra 3 when it comes to logging outdoor workouts using onboard GPS in tricky environments? I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.

Which of these two smartwatches would you be more likely to use to track an outdoor workout? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Pixel Watch 4 XL — I walked 6,000 steps, and the winner is clear
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'

The Google Pixel Watch 5 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 arrived mere weeks apart, and I can already tell there’s a good chance one or both will end up in our list of the best Android smartwatches of 2026.

As I work toward completing reviews of each, I thought it might be helpful to call out the five biggest differences between the Google Pixel Watch 5 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, two fairly evenly spec'd full-feature smartwatches with lots in common.

Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9: key differences

Price

Both Samsung and Google upped their pricing compared to last year’s models. While 2025’s Galaxy Watch 8 started at $349, the new Galaxy Watch 9 starts at $379.

Likewise, 2025’s Pixel Watch 4 started at $349, but the Pixel Watch 5 now starts at $399. If you’re looking to save some money, you can always go with an older model, as they’re pretty similar to the latest crop.

However, if you’re more of a “latest model or bust” kind of person, the Galaxy Watch 9 is ultimately the (slightly) better value compared to the Pixel Watch 5.

Case design

The Pixel Watch 5, like those before it, is a perfect circle. Available in 41mm or 45mm, the case is primarily constructed of aluminium and boasts a 50-meter water resistance rating.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 case is more of a squarish-circle (Samsung calls it a “cushion” case), a design update introduced with last year’s model. Users can choose 40mm or 44mm, and like the Pixel Watch 5, water resistance is 50 meters.

In terms of construction, the Galaxy Watch boasts a mix of aluminium and composite materials. That said, durability-wise so far, the two feel equally well-built.

Screen design

On paper, it may seem like the Pixel Watch 5 and Galaxy Watch 9 have fairly comparable screens, and in terms of brightness and panel size, that’s pretty much true. The 41mm Pixel Watch 5 has a 1.2-inch AMOLED screen while the 40mm Galaxy Watch 9 has a 1.34-inch AMOLED.

The bigger Pixel Watch 5, meanwhile, has a 1.4-inch AMOLED compared to a 1.47-inch panel for the larger Galaxy Watch 9. Max brightness is 3,000 nits across the board, enough for easy viewing in direct sunlight, but that’s where the similarities end.

While the Galaxy Watch 9’s glass is completely flat and surrounded by a thick recessed bezel, the Pixel Watch 5 screen is domed with some slight distortion around the edges and a much smaller bezel.

Which is better? That’s truly a matter of personal preference, but I will say this: the Pixel Watch screen does take a little getting used to. On the other hand, it’s also reminiscent of the domed acrylic crystals of some of my favorite classic mechanical watches, like the Omega Speedmaster, which makes the horology nerd in me smile.

Safety features

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 each support basic safety features like fall detection and emergency SOS. However, each device offers some safety features not found on the other.

For example, only the Galaxy Watch 9 offers FDA-cleared sleep apnea detection. On the other wrist, only the Pixel Watch 5 supports Loss of Pulse Detection and Google’s new Breathing Emergency Detection feature, both of which can send for help when triggered, similar to fall/cash detection.

Personalized fitness and training tools

Finally, both the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 are bursting with features to help you improve your physical fitness, including personalized training plans and AI-backed coaching.

However, Samsung’s are free — though you need a Samsung phone to unlock them — while Google’s are paywalled behind the brand’s Google Health Premium plan, which is $10 a month or $100 for the year.

Stay tuned for more comparisons between the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 as I work on complete reviews of both.

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

As someone with the attention span of a goldfish, I’m all for the screenless health tracker trend. Being able to keep track of all of my health and fitness goals without the buzz of notifications on my wrist is a must, and I’ve been wearing Garmin’s new $199 Cirqa for the past three weeks to do just that.

You can read my colleague Dan’s full Garmin Cirqa review here, but below, I look at how well I think the Cirqa compares to the Google Fitbit Air or the Oura Ring 5. Here are three things I like, and three things I wish Garmin had done differently.

3 things I like

Part of Garmin’s ecosystem

A screenless tracker is only as good as its app, and I really love the Garmin Connect experience. Sure, it’s not perfect (I still find it confusing that Garmin hides a lot of its tracking in the ‘more’ tab — that’s why we’re here, Garmin!), but having used it for years, it’s familiar, and it gives you an awful lot of data.

It’s also handy if you already have a Garmin device, as you can sync the Cirqa and still keep track of scores like Body Battery and sleep, even if you’re not wearing your main device.

Garmin has made it, and will continue to make it, super easy to connect more than one device to the Connect app. Plus, compared to the Fitbit Air, you don’t really need to pay for Garmin Connect to get all of your data.

I personally think one of the most impressive elements of the Fitbit Air is the Gemini-powered health coach, which really is one of the best I’ve tested, but this feature will cost you $9.99 a month. The Oura Ring 5 also has an excellent app, but comes with an ongoing subscription fee of $5.99 per month.

The physical button

One thing that sets the Cirqa apart from the Fitbit Air or the Oura Ring 5 is the physical button on its side. At the launch event in London, Garmin said this design decision came back to Garmin’s DNA — Garmin knows its users don’t want to miss a minute of health tracking, and this includes the seconds it can take for a tracker to auto-detect your workout.

This button is automatically set up to start and stop a ‘timed activity’, but you can customize which workout type it starts in the app.

Heart rate accuracy and health tracking

Our resident heart rate expert, Nick Harris-Fry, was impressed with the Heart Rate accuracy of the Cirqa in his testing. While it may not be as precise as a dedicated chest-mounted heart rate sensor, it comes pretty close. I’ve always found chest-mounted bands super irritating to wear with a sports bra, so this is music to my ears.

The Cirqa also measures your skin temperature, which can be used for female health tracking, plus the Garmin Cirqa is compatible with Natural Cycles, one of the most popular women's health apps for tracking fertility, postpartum health, and perimenopause. While the Oura Ring also works with Natural Cycles, the Fitbit Air does not support it at this time.

3 things I don’t like

The strap itself

I have pretty petite wrists, and my main issue with the Garmin Cirqa compared to the Fitbit Air or Oura Ring 5 is that it’s pretty bulky on the wrist and not all that comfortable. If I’m wearing a screenless tracker, I want it to disappear, and the Cirqa just doesn’t.

Plus, while I love the color of my purple band, I find it stays wet for a long time. If I’m wearing it for a swimming workout, fine, but I’ve resorted to taking the Cirqa off for a shower, as having a wet fabric band around my wrist when I sit down at my desk is not fun.

The price

At $199, the Cirqa is $100 more than the Fitbit Air, which is a lot of money. Sure, you don’t need the ongoing subscription with the Cirqa in the same way I think you do with the Fitbit Air, but it’s still double the price. I’d personally spend $50 more and buy the Garmin Forerunner 70 and have a screen and onboard GPS, but I get that these are aimed at different users.

That said, the Cirqa is far cheaper than the likes of Whoop or Oura.

Lack of on-board GPS

As mentioned above, there’s no on-board GPS on the Cirqa, so you’ll have to take your phone with you if you want a map of where you’ve walked or run. That said, this isn’t really a fair criticism, as at the time of writing, none of the screenless trackers, including the Whoop 5.0, Oura Ring 5, or Fitbit Air, have built-in GPS.

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin's step count was closer

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

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

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

The Fitbit Air continues to struggle with climb data

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

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

All three tracking methods noted similar distance and pace

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

Garmin failed to record any heart rate data

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

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

Fitbit burned more battery and calories

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

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

Which of these two fitness trackers would you be more likely to use? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

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

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

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

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

1. Blood Pressure Trend reports

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

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

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

2. Insulin Resistance Trends

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

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

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

3. More to come?

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period tracking often doesn’t integrate with broader metrics

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

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

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

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

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

Smartwatches are still bulky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Cirqa vs Oura Ring 5

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

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

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

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

The results

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

Fortunately, I encountered no cougars while researching this story.

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

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

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

Samsung lacks a dedicated e-bike mode

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

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

Garmin’s elevation data appears more accurate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Garmin Cirqa = Battery life also splits the difference

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

4. Garmin Cirqa = Deeper holistic insights than Fitbit

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

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

5. Garmin Cirqa: One button to rule them all

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Apple Watch vs Galaxy Watch vs Garmin: hike data compared

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

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

1. Garmin's elevation data is the most accurate

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

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

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

2. The Instinct 3 used way less battery

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

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

3. The Garmin is lighter and comfier

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Specs

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Price & availability

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

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Design

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Fitness features

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

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Health & sleep features

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

Health

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

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

Sleep

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: App

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Battery life

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

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

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

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 review: Verdict

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

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

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

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

Perfect.

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

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

I’ve been tracking everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the experts think

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticing the pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Why launch a screen-free tracker?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A valuable companion to your Garmin Watch

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

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

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

How to train your Cirqa

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

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

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

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

On the lack of onboard GPS

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

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

More screen-free trackers to come?

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

It disappears on your wrist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For most people, the Fitbit Air is enough

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Fitbit vs new Apple Watch: Walk test results

1. Fitbit's step count tally is closer

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

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

2. Apple's climb data is far more accurate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Fitbit burned through way more battery

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

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

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

5. The Charge 5 still outperformed my expectations

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

1. Better battery life: 42%

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

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

2. Thinner, lighter case: 20%

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

3. New health/fitness tracking tools: 20%

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

4. New unlock method: 6%

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

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

5. Something else: 5%

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

6. Brighter screen: 3%

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

7. Siri AI: 3%

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

Do you agree? Have your say and vote here:

More from Tom's Guide

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