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

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

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

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

Maps within activity screens

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

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

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

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

A built-in flashlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

The Coros Pace 4 impressed from the moment I first strapped it to my wrist, and after using it for several months of marathon training I liked it even more.

One of the very few complaints I had about the watch was that it didn’t offer offline maps. Guess what just got added to the Coros Pace 4 via a free software update?

You can now download maps to the Coros Pace 4 and use it to follow routes with turn-by-turn directions, making it one of the most affordable sports watches to offer this feature.

Coros has always done a great job of adding value to its watches with software updates long after they launch, but this is a particularly big upgrade and one I wasn’t expecting. There is, however, a minor catch with the new feature…

You only have 4GB of space to play with

The 4GB of storage on the Pace 4 is a lot less than the minimum of 16GB you usually get on watches with maps, and it limits how much you can download to the watch, especially if you also store your music on the Pace 4.

It’s also important to note that a lot of that 4GB is already taken up with system data, so you can’t manage it — I only have 1.6GB left on my Coros Pace 4 without any music on the watch.

I consider this a fairly small drawback though, because there is still comfortably enough space to download your local area and you can add and remove maps easily through the app, so you can download places you plan to travel to.

For example, the size of two areas around me that cover London and the south east of the U.K. is 151.2MB, and two large areas that cover New York and Philadelphia is 122.4MB, so you should have room to download your local area and anywhere you visit regularly.

You can’t download the whole world and if you do use the music feature you might have to delete some tracks to make space for maps, but I consider that a minor inconvenience to add such a useful feature to the watch.

How to get maps on the Coros Pace 4

To start using the new feature on the Pace 4 you first have to update the watch in the partner Coros app — this should come up as an option when you log in and sync your watch, or you can find the option to update in the watch section of the app.

Once the update is done you then have to choose and add the areas you want maps for on your watch, which are shown with their file sizes so you can plan how to use your storage accordingly.

Rather than breaking the world down into areas that fit directly with countries or major cities, in the Coros app you select preset squares that each cover an area of the world. Once you’ve picked your squares, hit download and your watch will connect to Wi-Fi and download the maps.

It’s a pretty fast process in my experience, and once on your watch you can see your maps during outdoor activities by using the action button on the Pace 4 to toggle between your stats and your map.

To use routes with the maps you can create them directly in the Coros app in the Explore tab and sync them to your watch.

The Coros Pace 4 doesn’t have the largest display, but the bright AMOLED screen means it’s still easy to see your maps and routes during activities.

This is a big update for an affordable sports watch, and it will be interesting to see if Garmin in particular responds, because downloadable maps have always been a feature restricted to Garmin’s most expensive watches.

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

I've been wearing the latest Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 for over a month — collectively, the TG fitness team has been wearing it even longer than that — and it's ultimately a very minor upgrade over 2025's Galaxy Watch 8.

The design, display, and battery life all remain unchanged, but the Galaxy Watch 9 supports a handful of useful new features, a slightly faster processor, and a comfier strap. It also costs more than its predecessor.

Here's everything you need to know about the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

Galaxy Watch 9 cheat sheet

• Price: $379 for 40mm (no LTE) or $409 for 44mm (no LTE); add $50 to either for cellular
• Design: Same design and size options as Galaxy Watch 8; 40mm is available in Cream or Graphite; 44mm comes in Graphite or Silver
• 'Classic' model: Samsung did not announce a Galaxy Watch 9 Classic with a clicky bezel
• Screen: Same max brightness, 3,000 nits, as Galaxy Watch 8
• Health features: New 'Vitals' dashboard with key metrics including heart rate, HRV, Sp02, body temp, and breath rate in one place; new 'Heart Health' score
• Fitness features: New 'Cardio Load' insights, new 'Fitness Index' score out of 100 and based on factors like daily step count average, V02 Max, average heart rate, BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis), and average workout recovery time
• Battery life: Slight increase in battery capacity, but battery life remains unchanged from the Galaxy Watch 8: 30 hours for the 40mm model and 40 hours for the 44mm

Galaxy Watch 9: Versus the competition

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 value: 3.5/5

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 was announced on July 22, 2026. It is available worldwide now.

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

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

Fortunately for Samsung (and Samsung alone), Google also raised prices across the Google Pixel Watch 5 lineup, which means the Galaxy Watch 9 is technically the most wallet-friendly 2026 full-featured smartwatch for Android (by $20).

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

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 design and display: 3.5/5

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

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

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

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

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 wellness tools: 4.5/5

Samsung already offers an impressive suite of completely free wellness tracking insights, and they only get better with the Galaxy Watch 9. Better yet, important health info is now more visible in the companion app thanks to a new "Vitals" tab. There's additionally a greater focus on long-term trend reports and preventive health.

The newly introduced Vitals dashboard in the Health app brings your most important wellness metrics into one easy-to-view panel. It displays your current heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen saturation percentage (Sp02), body temperature, and breath rate.

To keep you looped into your cardiovascular well-being, the Galaxy Watch 9 boasts a new Heart Health score based on a scale from one to 100. You'll need to wear the device for at least four consecutive nights to generate your initial score. Ultimately, what makes this tool valuable is its long-term insights, which can clue you in to how your day-to-day choices may be impacting your heart health for better or worse.

Note: As of writing, Samsung's Heart Health score is exclusive to the latest 2026 models.

When it comes to sleep tracking, not much has changed from the Galaxy Watch 8. Users are still presented with a daily sleep score and energy score, both out of 100, along with a breakdown of time spent in each of the various sleep cycles, total time spent asleep, sleep disturbances, the consistency of your bedtime, and more.

I wore both the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 and Google Pixel Watch 5 to bed for a week and discovered that both of these flagship Android smartwatches calculated surprisingly similar sleep data.

Finally, one major advantage the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 has over the Google Pixel Watch 5 is an FDA-cleared sleep apnea detection feature. On the flip side, the newest Galaxy Watch lacks some of the heady health safety tools found on the latest Pixel Watch, like Breathing Emergency Detection and Loss of Pulse Detection.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 fitness tracking: 4/5

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 is a fairly reliable fitness tracker for both indoor and outdoor workouts. When I tested it against the Pixel Watch 5, the Google smartwatch proved slightly more precise, but the Galaxy Watch 9's performance wasn't far behind.

I also pitted the Galaxy Watch 9 against the Garmin Instinct 3, my go-to smartwatch for logging outdoor adventures, and a model that costs roughly the same. During my seven-mile hike, the Samsung watch again performed pretty well, but ultimately struggled to accurately log my climb.

The Galaxy Watch 9 also lacks some of the more common workout tracking modes offered by the competition, like e-biking and skateboarding (two of my faves). That said, the auto workout tracking feature works quite well, a finding my colleague Sam also found impressive.

The new Galaxy Watch also boasts several new fitness-focused metrics, including Cardio Load and a Fitness Index score. While Cardio Load will be supported by older Galaxy Watch models, the Fitness Index Score is, for now, exclusive to the Galaxy Watch 9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

Based on factors like daily step count average, V02 Max, average heart rate, BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis), and average workout recovery time, the Fitness Index score is on a scale from zero to 100.

As of writing, mine is an 82, or "average." The Health app further breaks that score down into five individual categories, each with its own score: Body Composition, Cardio, Endurance, Strength, and Flexibility. These scores, along with the overall Fitness Index score, are calculated by comparing your fitness levels to other users in your age range.

For example, from my score breakdown, I can glean that my endurance is solid (rated 93/100) while my overall strength could use attention (rated 63/100).

For high-cardio athletes, the new Cardio Load metric is designed to help you train more effectively. It takes seven days to fully calibrate, i.e., establish a baseline for your maximum training capacity. Once complete, users get a daily cardio intensity rating ranging from "under target" to "over." This rating is calculated by analyzing how much time you spent doing activities that pushed your heart rate into Zone 3 or higher.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 AI features: 3/5

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 ships with Google's Gemini AI voice assistant built in, and it's easily the best smartwatch personal assistant I've tested. Even better, the Galaxy Watch 9 now supports a wrist raise gesture control to unlock Gemini, something first introduced in last year's Pixel Watch 4.

As of writing, the Galaxy Watch 9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 are the only two Samsung models that support using Raise to talk to unlock Gemini.

In terms of usefulness, Samsung's Google AI assistant does a reasonably good job answering random, hyper-specific questions like, "How many adult penguins can I fit in a 1995 Ford Taurus?"

It's also good at context-specific tasks. For example, Gemini was helpful when I was searching for new restaurants within walking distance of my house to order for dinner. The Gemini AI assistant additionally correctly named the opening acts and start time for an upcoming concert I was seeing (The Strokes).

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 battery life: 3/5

Both the 40mm and 44mm Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 models see tiny battery capacity increases. The smaller model jumps from 325 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 8 to 390 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 9. The bigger model has increased from 435 mAh on the Galaxy Watch 8 to 445 mAh for the Galaxy Watch 9.

Unfortunately, these bigger batteries don't result in any tangible longevity improvements. The 40mm is still rated at 30 hours per charge, and the 44mm is still rated at 40 hours per charge, just like last year's model.

In real-world use, the 40mm Galaxy Watch 9 averaged about 32 hours of use per charge. That's behind the Pixel Watch 5, which averages closer to 48 hours of use per charge in my testing.

The Galaxy Watch 9 also recharges a little slower than its Google rival. Again, testing the smaller model, a full recharge took about 90 minutes for the Galaxy Watch 9, compared to closer to 60 minutes for the Pixel Watch 5.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9: Verdict

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 is easily one of the best smartwatches for Android, but that doesn't mean you should buy one, especially if you already own the Galaxy Watch 8. Aside from a faster processor, a softer strap, and a couple of exclusive health metrics, the Galaxy Watch 9 is pretty much the same as the Galaxy Watch 8, just pricier.

It does support a handy new (for Samsung) raise-wrist gesture for unlocking the excellent onboard Gemini AI assistant. However, battery life remains unchanged compared to its predecessor. More notably, the Galaxy Watch 9 doesn't last as long per charge as its biggest rival, the Google Pixel Watch 5. It also lacks the Pixel Watch's impressive suite of safety tools.

That said, Samsung, unlike Google and Garmin, provides all of its wellness and fitness insights without forcing you to pony up for a monthly/annual subscription. That I like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Samsung overcounted my climb and undercounted my distance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Heart rate and calorie data matches up nicely

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

Winner: Garmin Instinct 3

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 is easily one of the best smartwatch models in 2026 and Apple’s best smartwatch for battery life, but a new Ultra model could be here before we know it.

I’ve been tracking all Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumors ever since the arrival of the Ultra 3 last fall, and there are quite a few juicy ones to chew on, including hints of a redesign, new health tech, and even better battery performance.

Here’s everything we think we know (and think we know) about the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Rumors in brief

• Price and launch date: The Apple Watch Ultra 4 is expected to arrive on Wednesday, September 9th, with preorders available later in the week and units shipping the following week; it may also be the first Ultra model that costs more than $799
• Design: A slimmer case design is possible; a fingerprint reader for Touch ID, located under the display or on the digital crown/action button, is also rumored but far from guaranteed; a ceramic-case Ultra 4 is also possible
• Holistic upgrades: There's a small chance the Ultra 4 will support on-wrist blood pressure readings, but more likely, we'll see an expansion of Hypertension Alerts (possibly blood pressure trend reports); Apple may finally bring all your health, fitness, and medical data under one app; the Health app is tipped for a redesign to better surface long-term health trends
• AI upgrades: The Ultra 4 is expected to ship with watchOS 27 installed, which supports Siri AI; a personalized AI-powered wellness concierge feature is rumored
• Battery life: An updated processor could make the Ultra 4 more power-efficient than its predecessor; little else is known about battery life

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Possible price and launch date

If the Apple Watch Ultra 4 debuts in 2026, September 9th will almost certainly be the date. Apple has confirmed its "Surprise and shine" event for that date, where we'll also likely get our first look at the Apple Watch Series 12 and new iPhone 18 smartphones.

In terms of price, Cupertino has kept the cost of the Ultra series consistent ever since the first model debuted in 2022. Unfortunately, given inflation — $799 in 2022 is roughly equivalent to $885 in 2026 dollars — there’s a good chance we will see some sort of price hike for the Ultra 4, in my humble opinion.

Pricier smartwatches aren't unprecedented either: Garmin sells numerous models that cost more than the Ultra 3, including the excellent Garmin Fenix 8.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Design rumors

The Apple Watch Ultra case design has remained essentially the same, going back to the first model. Could a major redesign be on the horizon? According to a report from Digitimes, it’s totally possible.

What might that entail? Rumors suggest a thinner case, at the very least, while a deep dive done by 9to5Mac hints at the addition of a fingerprint scanner on the Ultra 4 as an alternative to passcodes to lock your device.

Unfortunately, for those of us with smaller wrists, like myself and many of my colleagues here at TG, it doesn't sound like a shrunken-down Ultra 4 model is in the cards.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Possible health upgrades

Significant health tracking upgrades are also rumored for the Apple Watch Ultra 4, including new and improved high blood pressure monitoring tech, according to a report in Digitimes.

Like Hypertension Alerts on the Ultra 3, this new bit of tech is rumored to use the optical heart rate sensor to track how your blood vessels react to individual heartbeats. Presumably, it will do so with better accuracy than currently available, but it’s unlikely that it will be able to provide a numeric blood pressure reading like a traditional cuff.

It also doesn’t seem likely that non-invasive blood glucose monitoring — a holy grail for the wearables industry — will be ready in time for the Ultra 4’s launch, but we know Apple is hard at work on such a feature.

Digitimes also reports that the number of sensors in the Ultra 4 will be double that of the Ultra 3, but we don’t know whether that refers to holistic sensors, fingerprint reading sensors, or both.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: AI upgrades

Apple has already confirmed that Siri AI, powered by Gemini, will be supported by watchOS 27, which means that both the Ultra 4 and Series 12 should ship with the feature ready to roll. Rumors also hint at a more personalized, AI-powered wellness concierge being added to the Health app to help users set and maintain holistic goals.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Battery life predictions

Battery consumption improvements are always welcome. Unfortunately, the jump in battery life from the Apple Watch Ultra 2 to the Ultra 3 was pretty minimal: 36 hours vs 42 hours. Might the Ultra 4 boast even better longevity?

Here’s hoping. While little is known about the physical battery in the forthcoming watch, the Digitimes report suggests that the new device will see at least modest improvements in power efficiency, which could potentially lead to substantial longevity gains… or not.

Interestingly, when we polled TG readers about their Apple Watch Ultra 4 wishlist, better battery performance was the top result, with 41%. "Better health features" and "a slimmer case" came in second, each with 20% of the total vote.

Apple Watch Ultra 4: Outlook

As of publication, I rate the chances of an Apple Watch Ultra 4 arriving in September as pretty likely. That said, despite all the leaks and rumors, much is still unknown about key specs and tech, like battery capacity, case dimensions, and screen size/type.

This makes it hard to gauge whether or not the Ultra 4 will be an iterative update, should it launch in 2026, or something more substantial. Another massive unknown: the cost. Apple has always sold the Ultra for the same price, $799, but with both Google and Samsung upping their smartwatch pricing across the board for 2026 models, there's a solid chance Apple will too.

What are your thoughts? What new features/specs would the Ultra 4 need to offer to convince you to upgrade?

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

Apple's "Surprise and Shine" event is confirmed for Wednesday, September 9 at 10:00 a.m. PT / 1:00 p.m. ET. And according to rumors, we can expect a new Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 to be unveiled.

Whether these watches appear and what they look like remains to be seen (I’ll be in Cupertino keeping you updated), but for now, this is the Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumor I’m most excited about.

This is the Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumor I’m most excited about

I’ve been writing about the Apple Watch for the past decade, and without a doubt, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is the best Apple Watch for runners, cyclists, and fitness fanatics. I wore the Apple Watch Ultra 3 alongside this Garmin for the London Marathon in April, and was impressed with the GPS accuracy, even through the mile 20 Canary Wharf skyscraper dead zone. Yet I have one pretty big issue with the Ultra, and every model that has been released so far: it’s huge on my wrist, and pretty uncomfortable, especially at night.

According to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, this year the big news regarding Apple Watches will be what’s inside. In his Power On newsletter, Gurman wrote, “None of this year’s watches is expected to get a major design overhaul, I’m told. Apple is more focused on what’s inside: There will be health and fitness-tracking improvements, along with a long-awaited bump in chips and speed.”

It’s thought that these health and fitness improvements will include a new high blood pressure notification, but other than that, it’s unclear. I predict vast updates to Workout Buddy, or Apple introducing an AI health coach, similar to the Gemini coach used in the Google Health App.

Yet elsewhere, reports have hinted at a slightly thinner and smaller design for the Apple Watch Ultra 4, a rumor I’m really hoping is true. One day, I’d love to see two different size options for the Ultra 4 to suit different wrist sizes, but this is probably a long way off. Time will tell, but one thing is for sure — we don’t have long to wait.

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

Grab a grain of salt and join me; it's time to chew on the biggest Apple Watch rumors of 2026 (so far). With not one but two new models possible on September 9th — the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 — there's a lot to cover. So, let's focus on the flagship.

As is often the case this time of year, leaks and "insider" reports are plentiful, ranging from believable to, well, not. With that in mind, here's everything we think we know about Apple's next flagship wearable, the Apple Watch Series 12, including whether or not it has a chance of making our Best Smartwatch list.

Apple Watch 12: Rumors in brief

• Price and launch: Expected to launch mid-September, possibly on Tuesday the 8th; preorders will likely open during launch week, with units shipping the following week; a price increase is possible following
• Health and fitness: Support for wrist-based blood pressure readings is rumored but remains unlikely; an updated Health app focused on long-term trends is possible; Apple may also (finally) bring users' health, fitness, and medical data under the roof of a singular app
• Design and display: A more efficient LTPO display is possible; a fingerprint scanner for Touch ID is rumored but less likely; an upgraded ceramic case option is possible
• AI features: The Series 12 is expected to support Apple's new Siri AI voice assistant; a personalized wellness concierge is also rumored
• Battery life: A larger capacity battery is possible; the S12 processor could bring efficiency improvements, too

Apple Watch 12: Price and launch predictions

Apple tends to hold an annual launch event in the second week of September, and this year is no exception.

Apple has confirmed a "Surprise and Shine" launch event for Wednesday, September 9th, where we'll likely get our first look at the Apple Watch Series 12, Apple Watch Ultra 4, and iPhone 18. That said, with the U.S. Labor Day holiday falling the Monday before, Apple may push the event to Wednesday, September 9th or the following Tuesday, September 15th.

How much will the Apple Watch 12 cost? With both Samsung and Google increasing pricing across their respective smartwatch lineups — the Pixel Watch 5 now starts at $399, and the Galaxy Watch 9 starts at $379 — a price bump for the Apple Watch 12 is possible. Put another way: a $399 starting price for the flagship smartwatch is far from guaranteed.

There are also rumors of a ceramic Apple Watch Series 12. The last time Apple offered such an upgrade was in the 2019 Apple Watch Series 5. That model started at $399 for the standard version, but jumped to $1,299 for the ceramic model. So, yeah, if a ceramic Series 12 does exist, it will surely cost a pretty penny.

In terms of availability, Apple usually opens preorders on the Friday after a Tuesday product announcement, with units hitting store shelves in the weeks that follow; I suspect this will be the case for the Series 12, too.

Apple Watch 12: Health and fitness rumors

The Apple Watch Series 12 could arrive with an updated health sensor array. According to a report in DigiTimes (via Wccftech), such an upgrade might unlock new holistic metrics or trend reports.

We could also see an expansion of Apple’s groundbreaking Hypertension Alerts feature. According to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, one of the more trusted Apple insiders, Cupertino is hard at work on a wrist-based blood pressure monitor that provides readings similar to a traditional cuff. The question is, when will it be ready? I'm not convinced 2026 is the year.

On-wrist blood glucose monitoring is another focus for the Apple Watch team, but according to Gurman, that tech is even further out than blood pressure monitoring.

You can also expect an overhaul of the onboard Health app, with key metrics better organized in one location and a greater emphasis on long-term wellness trend reporting.

In fact, according to Bloomberg's Gurman, there's a possibility that Apple will finally bring all of a user’s health, fitness, and medical data under the roof of a singular app.

Apple Watch 12: Design and display rumors

The Apple Watch Series 12 is rumored to sport an updated processor (likely dubbed S12), which could make it both faster and less power-hungry than the S10 chip in the Series 11. Less likely but still possible: the Series 12 arrives with an LTPO display, which would be more power-efficient than the OLED panel in the Series 11.

I’d also like to see Apple increase the screen brightness on the Series 12 to 3,000 nits or more (from 2,000 nits) to keep up with the latest Google Pixel Watch 5 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 9.

Changes to the case dimensions and button layout seem unlikely. The Series 10 ushered in an updated case in 2024, and Apple only tends to switch up the design every four-ish launch cycles. Moreover, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman also thinks a major design shift is unlikely.

One design-related rumor I'm hoping doesn't come true is the introduction of a new strap attachment system. Such a change would render all previously acquired Apple Watch straps useless, a move that would no doubt annoy longtime customers far and wide.

Some insiders think the Series 12 will sport a front-facing camera hidden beneath the display, not for taking pictures, but for unlocking the screen with Face ID or for AI-backed visual scene and object recognition. The best iPhone models already have a similar Visual Search tool that uses the camera. Perhaps Cupertino is bringing the tech to the Apple Watch next. Either way, this rumor doesn't seem all that likely.

On the other hand, the addition of a long-retired iPhone feature, Touch ID, seems a tad more plausible. According to a report from Macworld, Apple has at the very least explored adding this much-asked-for feature, which would eliminate the need to punch in a passcode every time you want to unlock the watch.

Apple Watch 12: AI features

Apple has already confirmed that the next-gen watchOS 27 operating system will support the company's AI-powered Siri voice assistant. While some older models will also get this feature via a free firmware upgrade, the Apple Watch 12 will likely ship with watchOS 27 pre-installed.

The real question is, will the new Siri AI be ready to roll right from the start when the Series 12 arrives? I'm optimistic it will. Other new AI tools could come in the form of a more personalized wellness concierge that helps you set and maintain goals, sort of like an expansion of Workout Buddy for your overall health.

Apple Watch 12: Battery life predictions

The Apple Watch Series 11 received a nice battery life increase over the models before it, from 18 hours per charge to 24 hours. Might the Apple Watch 12 last even longer? It's certainly possible! But the stars will have to align.

While a more efficient processor and display technology could meaningfully reduce power consumption, a larger-capacity battery — which a handful of insiders have suggested — could mean that the Series 12 lasts substantially longer than the Series 11. But don't get too excited; most of the bigger-battery reports have come from less-than-reliable leakers, so this upgrade is far from guaranteed.

Apple Watch 12: Outlook

Last year’s Apple Watch Series 11 represented a fairly minor upgrade over the Series 10, with the primary benefit being better battery performance. This makes me hopeful that the Series 12 will be an even bigger jump in performance and features.

For example, a next-gen sensor array that unlocks new wellness trend data would be a welcome advancement, while support for on-wrist blood pressure readings would be the ultimate holistic upgrade (and a major flex on the competition), even if it's less likely.

Toss in a fingerprint scanner for unlocking the Series 12, a more power-efficient display, and a larger-capacity battery (why not?), and Apple's new flagship smartwatch starts to look like a legit upgrade over last year's model, rather than an iterative one.

What do you think? Is the Apple Watch Series 12 something you're excited for, and if so, what features are you hoping for the most? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

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

If you weren’t following along with our Garmin ‘Play Harder’ live blog (where were you?), you might have missed Garmin’s latest announcement: the Garmin Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro just dropped.

Below, we’ve rounded up all the information about Garmin’s latest high-end outdoor watches.

Garmin Fenix 9: Specs

The Garmin Fenix 9 will be available to pre-order on August 28, starting at $999. It’s available in three different sizes: 43mm, 47mm, and 51mm. Here are the key stats:

• Up to 29 days of battery life in smartwatch mode on the 51mm version of the watch; this drops to up to 16 days on the 47mm version and 10 days on the 43mm version.
• The Fenix 9 has an AMOLED display that is double the brightness of the Fenix 8.
• It has a scratch-resistant sapphire lens and is dive-rated up to 40m.
• The watch now has 64GB of memory built-in, which equates to around 7,000 songs. It also means you can download twice as many maps as you could on the Fenix 8.
• Both the Garmin Fenix 9 and Fenix 9 Pro have new CustomFit accessory bands available: this is a fabric band designed for a comfortable fit.

Garmin Fenix 9 Pro: Specs

The Garmin Fenix 9 Pro is also available to pre-order later this week, on August 28, and starts at $1099. Here’s what you need to know:

• The Fenix 9 Pro is available in three different sizes: 43mm, 47mm, and 51mm.
• When it comes to battery life, you can get up to 31 days of battery life in smartwatch mode with the 51mm AMOLED display. Solar charging models can get up to 57 days of battery life.
• The Pro models are available with or without inReach connectivity. For the first time, it is available on all Fenix 9 Pro size options.
• The 9 Pro is the first Fenix to feature a titanium watch case, which is thinner than its predecessor.
• The Fenix 9 Pro AMOLED display has 3,000 nits of brightness.
• The 51mm Pro includes Garmin’s first 1.5-inch AMOLED display, which is 15% larger than the Fenix 8.
• The integrated LED flashlight now has a green mode.

What else was announced today?

Two new features were also announced along with the Fenix 9 range. First up, a free Garmin Epic feature, which allows you to turn multiple activities into a cohesive story in the Garmin Connect app. You can group activities recorded over several days, weeks, or months to see your health and performance data during that time. You can also add notes and photos to create an ‘Epic’ that you can share with friends and family.

There were also some new stamina tracking features announced today — stamina zones and stamina curve. The stamina zones will now be available in the post-activity summary.

There's also a new stamina curve feature, which is an easy-to-understand visual representation of your fitness and how aerobic and anaerobic workouts alike contribute to your improving stamina.

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

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 was unveiled at the Galaxy Unpacked event alongside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

To read the full lowdown on what you can do with the latest Galaxy Watch model, my wearables expert colleague Dan Bracaglia discusses the 5 things you need to know about the Galaxy Watch 9 in more detail. However, as a trainer and fitness editor, I'm more concerned about whether it's the type of watch I want strapped to my wrist during workouts.

Recently, I attended BXR to get first-hand experience with the watch on behalf of Samsung; we hit the treadmills, did some strength training and even stretched it out in a 20-minute yoga class. But for me, that wasn't enough. Thankfully, I got to spend more time with the model, training at home, in the gym and in my yoga classes, to really see what it's about.

Here are three things I like so far, and three that I'm really not a fan of if you're looking to purchase one of the best smartwatches in 2026.

Like 1: Aesthetics

Retailing at $379 for 40mm (no LTE, which is $50 extra) or $409 for 44mm (no LTE) compared to $349 for the Galaxy Watch 8, the 9 is no doubt a good-looking smartwatch-fitness tracker with a premium price tag.

I like how easy it is to set up and pair with the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8, and the sleek sports strap and screen design are right up my alley; I don't like having garish fitness trackers or fussy smartwatches on my wrist, especially when lifting weights. 40mm is available in Cream or Graphite; 44mm comes in Graphite or Silver.

We'll get on to size (one of my dislikes) below, but in terms of design, you get pretty much the same aesthetics, screen brightness and size options as the 8. However, the 9 boasts a faster processor and up to 20% better battery life. You can also customize your sports bands with various color options, too.

I highly recommend leaving the always-on option enabled so you can glance during workouts. I didn't do this at first and it caused me some very high cortisol levels and extra faff.

But let's focus on the real MVP: new health and fitness tracking tools.

Like 2: Swipeable health features upgraded

Samsung Health offers a wealth of fitness and health tracking and insights, without locking it all behind a paywall. There are plenty of sports and activities to choose from, and an array of sensors means you can pick up pretty detailed data.

Some of the latest upgrades include a Vitals dashboard with metrics for heart rate, HRV, sp02, body temperature, breathing, and Heart Health Score. Alongside this, you get fitness features such as Cardio Load and Fitness Index (a score out of 100 based on activity levels, VO2 max, recovery time and more).

The idea is to be preventative, which means more of a holistic focus on wellbeing and useful insights. The Vitals dashboard features one easy-to-view panel with information on heart rate, blood pressure and ECG. It's handy to swipe left and right to catch a quick glance while on the go. You can also swipe to use quick features such as Running Coach, Body Composition and Sleep.

By swiping twice to my left, I could quickly access the Fitness section, where I could select from a list of activities or add my own via my Samsung Galaxy phone or on the watch itself. You can set up your watch to suit your preferences, but note that you'll need to sleep with it on to access some of the longer-term trends and vitals, particularly sleep, of course.

I’ve worn the Coros Pace 4 alongside the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 on several occasions. Not because it's a totally fair comparison, but if I'm exploring what I like and don't like about a watch during exercise, I'm doing it with my favorite one on my wrist, too.

The Coros Pace 4 has proved reliable for workouts for me and my colleague Nick Harris-Fry, who runs regularly wearing it alongside other wearables because of dual-band GPS tracking and top sports features.

Throughout testing, the Galaxy Watch 9 has been fairly consistent with my trusty Coros Pace 4, though the Watch 9 tends to track more time spent in heart rate zones 1, 2, and 3 during my running efforts than the Pace 4. The Watch 9 also tends to overestimate calorie burn, but I don't pay too much attention to calorie burn on fitness trackers anyway, as so many variables impact how many active calories you can burn.

That aside, distances and paces have been around the same, and the Galaxy Watch 9 is intuitive at picking up workouts through auto-detection. And it's useful to remember that the Pace 4 is a sports watch, after all, not a smart one, so those who are most likely to purchase this smartwatch-come-fitness tracker will be looking at a lot more than just workouts.

Like 3: Auto activity detection

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 can automatically track exercises, including walking, running, cycling, swimming, rowing, and elliptical, using its BioActive Sensor and accelerometer. That means you don't need to rely on manually starting some activities, which I found really handy.

The watch automatically picked up when I walked and paused when it detected I was stationary. I found this to be pretty accurate for time and distance, and it's good to know that this data feeds into my overall activity levels, trends and insights. I'd like this feature to roll out across more activities, but it's great that the basics are there.

I could view duration, pace, distance and time of day at a glance, and I found the watch particularly good for tracking running data. That said, if you take your running seriously, you'd be looking more at the best running watch anyway.

Dislike 1: Hard to use on the go

I recently became emotionally dependent on my Coros Pace 4 sports watch, which is easy to wear, tight-fitting, rugged, very easy to use on the go and tracks everything I need during exercise. It also has excellent battery life without overwhelming me.

While this is not a head-to-head comparison, using both watches has given me a strong sense of what works and doesn't work for me personally during exercise.

I've worn both watches for yoga, Pilates, strength training and running, and I find the Galaxy Watch 9 "faffy" to use. The screen is extremely sensitive (but yes, it is fast), and I find it hard to navigate the tiles and swipe left-to-right quickly while running and walking.

I'm a button girlie, and while the swipeable screen is handy, I will always prefer navigating settings primarily with buttons. There are two on the watch on the right side, but I couldn't use them as much as I wanted to.

I'm also not a fan of overcomplicated screens and having to swipe this way and that to see a handful of the metrics I find most important. I recommend spending some time setting up your Galaxy Watch 9 by configuring the layout and features you need most, plus choosing a clean watch face via the Galaxy Wearable app, if you're a bit like me with tech overwhelm.

You'll also need to go into the Samsung Health app to enable various health and fitness tracking features, which aren't automatically set up; be warned, there are many, and it takes a little time.

Dislike 2: Sizing

As a female with small wrists, I have this issue with sports and smartwatches all the time. It's one of the areas where my colleague Jane McGuire says fitness trackers still fall short for women.

I don't need bulk on my wrists when I lift weights or run; it is distracting and creates more weight and fuss when I'm trying to position weights along my forearms for exercises like front rack squats or cleans.

For me, the Galaxy Watch 9 feels heavy, even with the aluminum casing, which is supposed to help make the watch lightweight. I was given a M/L wrist strap, so I highly recommend picking a S/M strap if you have small wrists like mine, as the watch slid around even on the tightest strap setting.

For those who get sweaty during workouts, I'd also consider the fabric band instead of the sports band that came with my watch.

While I do like how the watch looks and I enjoy the understated design, I'm not a fan of the sizing overall, even for the smaller 40mm model. I still think brands need to think more about their female customers when designing smartwatches and sports watches in general.

For that reason, I wouldn't want to wear this watch to bed. But that said, I generally don't like having anything on my wrist at night and rely on my Oura Ring 5 to track sleep instead. If this is a problem for you, note that some features rely on you sleeping in your watch.

Dislike 3: Battery life

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

This, coupled with up to 15% more efficient processing, should mean that the Galaxy Watch 9 lasts longer than the average of roughly 30 hours per charge (for the 8) with the always-on enabled.

I'd say I'm very active, and mine has lasted roughly 24 hours on a charge. Compare that with watches like the Pixel Watch 5, which should last around two days, and the Coros Pace 4, which I usually wear and can last me about a week, and the battery life could be better.

I'm a little disappointed, as battery life is one of the features most celebrated with the Galaxy Watch 9. if I were taking it away on a trip, I'd need to charge it every day, though it does charge quickly when you do juice it up.

Verdict

For me, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 looks great, is fast, offers a wealth of health and fitness features and pretty accurate tracking across the activities I tested, but would I switch out other trusty watches in favor of it for exercise alone? No, I wouldn't.

That said, I will be spending some more time wearing it, and I plan to update you here with more long-term feedback.

More from Tom's Guide

• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker
• An ‘iPhone moment’ for your eyes — why Xpanceo is betting big on smart contact lenses as the future of AR
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free

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'

Google's on-wrist safety features go above and beyond your standard fall and crash detection. In fact, I'd argue that the new Pixel Watch 5 offers better safety tech than other brands on the market, especially with the introduction of Breathing Emergency Detection and Blood Pressure Trends, not to mention 2024's Loss of Pulse Detection (which no brand has yet replicated).

But what's Google's end-game with this ever-growing list of just-in-case features? I wanted to find out. So, I sat down with Pramod Rudrapatna, a Google product manager, and Jake Sunshine, a Google researcher, both of whom worked closely on the latest Breathing Emergency Detection tool.

Our conversation touched on how Google tests such a potentially lifesaving piece of tech to ensure true positives are logged, and false positives aren't. We also discussed Google's changing view on the benefits of wearable tech, and whether holding your breath might trigger Breathing Emergency Detection (it won't, but don't try).

I additionally learned which other Google wearables support these shiny new safety tools (and it's not just older Pixel Watches).

'Like an airbag on your wrist'

Google may not have invented fall/crash detection; that was Apple, but in 2026, Google has expanded the safety toolkit far beyond the competition, with features like Loss of Pulse Detection and now Breathing Emergency Detection (which is still waiting for FDA approval in the U.S. as of publication).

"The Pixel portfolio has been many 'firsts of its kind.' Loss of pulse was a first in the wearable category, and breathing emergency joins that family," says Rudrapatna. "We're looking at population-level problems," he adds.

Smartwatch makers have been incredibly focused on expanding fitness and training tools over the past few generations of product launches. Google is still focused on helping you work out, but that's perhaps no longer the brand's main focus.

"We're really trying to shift the Overton window about what these devices can do —moving beyond just fitness and wellness to really build them with potentially life-saving capabilities," says Sunshine.

Put another way, Sunshine says that the Pixel Watch is "conceptually, like an airbag on your wrist. A lot of testing has to go into it to make sure that it's performant for both true-positive and false-positive scenarios."

Like your vehicle's airbag, the aim is to never actually need Loss of Pulse or Breathing Emergency Detection. But the fact that it's there provides peace of mind.

Tackling an 'invisible' health crisis

Breathing emergencies are, unfortunately, pretty common, and similar to loss of pulse emergencies, response time is everything. Like fall and crash detection, Loss of Pulse and Breathing Emergency Detection automatically send for help and/or contact a loved one when triggered.

That's important because a lot of the time, these health crises are "invisible," meaning they occur without warning and often when no one else is around to help. This is where Google comes in.

"Breathing emergency detection solves a population-level problem. There are hundreds of thousands of people impacted by these breathing emergencies, which can be caused by various reasons, including accidental drug overdose, severe pneumonia, and choking," says Rudrapatna.

Balancing true-positives from false ones

But how does Google ensure the feature actually works when a breathing emergency occurs? Likewise, what has Google implemented to minimize false positives?

"We're looking for a signature that really shouldn't be present in otherwise healthy individuals: sudden drops in blood oxygen levels where it was normal in the recent past, combined with an inability to respond as well as if they are not moving," says Sunshine.

Okay, but how does Google actually test such a feature? Are test subjects holding their breath in a lab?

"These events are, by definition, rare and quite dangerous, so we have to work with specialized labs where people can be made safely hypoxic — basically having their oxygen levels drop rapidly but in a controlled environment," confirms Sunshine.

On the flip side, "We don't want to annoy users [and] we don't want to overburden our emergency medical services, which are precious public assets. We bring together algorithm innovation and user-centered design to minimize false positives," adds Rudrapatna.

One of these design implementations is a thirty-second countdown timer that begins if/when a breathing emergency or loss of pulse is detected. Users simply need to cancel the alert before the countdown finishes; otherwise, the Pixel Watch will automatically contact emergency services on your behalf.

What Google's Health Guardian tools are, and are not

There are, of course, limitations to Google's suite of on-wrist "Health Guardian" tools. For example, there's no guarantee that the Pixel Watch 5 will pick up each and every instance of a cardiac or breathing emergency.

Rather, Google's goal is to make a meaningful dent in the number of these emergencies that go unnoticed or aren't responded to.

Similarly, other new features like Blood Pressure and Insulin Resistance Trends aren't a replacement for a proper blood pressure cuff or a blood glucose test. Instead, they are meant to clue users to important holistic trends that they may not otherwise be aware of.

"What it's not is that it's not meant to screen, diagnose, or be used for conditions like hypertension or diabetes, or to change your medication pattern. It's meant to tackle issues that are invisible in nature — things people don't know are happening," says Rudrapatna.

'Our goal is to bring it to as many devices as possible'

While Google's lifesaving tech, including Loss of Pulse and Breathing Emergency Detection, may not be as ubiquitous as car airbags in 2026, its purpose is the same.

"If you invent the airbag, you don't want your loved one to ever have to use it. But still, we know that given a large enough population, there are going to be people who do need these systems," says Sunshine.

So, outside of the Pixel Watch 5, which other Google wearables support these groundbreaking new safety tools?

"Our goal is to bring it to as many devices as possible," says Rudrapatna, "but our focus now is to bring these capabilities to our premium line of Pixel watches... we're also bringing that to the Pixel Watch 4."

Got a Pixel Watch 4 and live somewhere where Breathing Emergency Detection is live? You can switch the feature on right now. Blood Pressure and Insulin Resistance Trends are also live on the Pixel Watch 4.

No word on whether the Fitbit Air will support Breathing Emergency Detection, but Google has confirmed that Blood Pressure and Insulin Resistance Trends will both be supported by the $99 screen-free tracker.

Ultimately, brands like Apple, Garmin, and Samsung have their work cut out for them if they want to keep up with Google when it comes to on-wrist safety. And I suspect Google will remain at the head of the pack for the next several launch cycles.

More from Tom's Guide

• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker
• An ‘iPhone moment’ for your eyes — why Xpanceo is betting big on smart contact lenses as the future of AR
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free

When Google unveiled Loss of Pulse Detection in 2024’s Pixel Watch 3 — a feature that’s still unique to the Pixel Watch lineup — I began to suspect that the brand might be pulling ahead of the competition when it comes to on-wrist health and safety tools. The new 2026 Pixel Watch 5 further supports that.

I’ve been wearing the Pixel Watch 5 for over a week, and while it’s easily the best Google smartwatch ever, it’s also a fairly minor upgrade over its predecessor. That said, a handful of new features shine, most notably Breathing Emergency Detection, Blood Pressure Trends, and Insulin Resistance Trends.

The Pixel Watch 5 is also a little faster and smarter than the Pixel Watch 4, in terms of processor power and AI prowess. With that in mind, here’s everything you need to know about Google’s latest and greatest wearable, the Pixel Watch 5.

Google Pixel Watch 5: Upgrade cheat sheet

• Price: The Pixel Watch 5 sees a price increase across the lineup versus the Pixel Watch 4; the 41mm starts at an increase of $50, and the 45mm starts at $30 more
• Sizes and colors: 41mm and 45mm; same as Pixel Watch 4 and Pixel Watch 3; new colors include Obsidian, Fog, Olive, and Canyon; Olive features a Satin Pyrite casing
• Design: Same design and dimensions as Pixel Watch 4
• Limited edition model: Similar to the Fitbit Air, the new Pixel Watch 5 is available in a Stephen Curry limited edition model with an upgraded strap for better breathability and moisture-wicking capabilities; the cost is $579 USD
• Screen: Same 3,000-nit max-brightness AMOLED touchscreen as Pixel Watch 4; comparable to the Samsung Galaxy Watch 9
• Health features: New Blood Pressure Trends + Insulin Resistance Trends with monthly reports on each (also available on Pixel Watch 4 and coming to Fitbit Air); more accurate sleep stage tracking; new sleep Breathing Quality Trends metric that tracks min-to-min SpO2
• Safety features: New Breathing Emergency Detection feature that works similarly to Loss of Pulse Detection; only available in the EU and other select markets at launch; Note: also available on Pixel Watch 4
• Fitness features: Improved GPS route mapping for workouts in “tough” environments (like cities and forests); new strength training workout builder feature coming in September
• Processor: Pixel Watch 5 should be 20% faster than the Pixel Watch 4 thanks to a 12% more powerful processor and 50% more RAM
• Battery life: Same 30 to 40-hour battery life rating as Pixel Watch 4

Google Pixel Watch 5: Versus competition

Google Pixel Watch 5 value: 3/5

• The Pixel Watch 5 is pricier than both its predecessor and the latest Samsung Galaxy Watch 9, its closest competitor
• Google is selling a limited-edition Stephen Curry Pixel Watch 5 model (45mm) with an upgraded strap for $579 (U.S. only)
• The Pixel Watch 5 will start shipping at the end of August and should be available in-store and online by early September

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

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

Google is also selling a limited-edition 45mm Stephen Curry model Pixel Watch 5 with a sportier strap for $579. Like the Steph Curry Fitbit Air release, the strap features a more breathable, sweat-wicking design than the standard-issued one.

• 41mm (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi): $399 / AU$649
• 45mm (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi): $429 / AU$699
• 41mm (LTE): $499 / AU$829
• 45mm (LTE: $529 / AU$879
• 45mm Stephen Curry (LTE): $579

Pixel Watch 5 Design: 4/5

• Same exact design as the Pixel Watch 4, in your choice of 41mm or 45mm
• Same bright AMOLED touchscreen as its predecessor; on par with the Galaxy Watch 9's display
• 50 meters of water resistance is also a match with the competition

The Pixel Watch 5 has the same circular design and control placement as the Pixel Watch 4, featuring both a rotating/pressable digital crown and a standard button on the side of the case.

It also sports the same domed, 3,000-nit max brightness AMOLED touchscreen. The panel is still 1.2 inches for the smaller model and 1.4 inches for the larger one. I had no trouble reading the screen on the larger model I tested, even in direct sunlight. That said, the 60 fps screen refresh rate can sometimes make graphics and animations look a little choppy.

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

Pixel Watch 5 fitness tracking: 3.5/5

• Improved GPS route tracking compared to the Pixel Watch 4
• Overall, accurate/reliable fitness tracking with detailed post-workout reports
• Lots of supported workout types, but some popular activities, like e-biking, are missing
• Workout recovery insights are somewhat lacking compared to the competition, namely Garmin

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

The Pixel Watch 5 still uses L1 and L5 satellite data to track, similar to the Pixel Watch 4, except now, when you finish a workout, that data gets sent to a server for analysis and adjustment. Basically, Google creates a 3D model of your efforts that compensates for factors like building reflections, tree cover, and atmospheric anomalies, including heat haze and other aberrations.

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

I walked seven miles total around Seattle, Washington — beneath old-growth canopies of Cedar and Fir and shiny rows of cookie-cutter corporate towers — with the new Pixel Watch 5 on one wrist and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 on the other to find out.

Using Strava as my control, the Pixel Watch 5 proved slightly more accurate than the Apple Watch Ultra 3 at tracking my total distance for each of the two legs of the walk. Meanwhile, in elevation tracking, the Apple Watch and Pixel Watch each chalked up a win.

Back when I tested the Pixel Watch 4 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3, the Google wearable held its own against the competition in most regards, but failed to report accurate climb data. The newer Pixel Watch 5, meanwhile, seems to do a much better job at logging upward efforts, which is a win for folks who enjoy being active in the mountains, like me.

Users with a Google Health Premium plan have access to the “Coach,” a personalized AI health and fitness chatbot that suggests workouts and provides training advice based on your goals. It’s a great feature, in theory; however, I’ve found the Coach a little too hung up on the fine details of the initial “induction” conversation I had with it last fall.

Back then, I mentioned getting my legs in shape for the upcoming snowboard season, and now I can’t go a day without the Coach bringing that up…. Hey buddy, newsflash: it’s still the middle of the summer!

When it comes to fitness tracking modes, I’d love to see Google expand the list of activities on offer. For example, last week, I went for an 11-mile ebike ride while running errands and figured I’d track it with the Pixel Watch 5. Unfortunately, there’s no ebike mode, just outdoor cycling and mountain biking.

One final area of the new Google Health (formerly Fitbit) app I’d like to see expanded is the workout recovery advice. Sure, the Pixel Watch 5 tracks a variety of “recovery signals,” like your resting heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV).

The Coach also recommends easier/lighter workouts if you’ve recently been pushing yourself harder than normal. However, workout recovery time suggestions — like those offered on the best Garmins — might ultimately be more useful for everyday users.

Pixel Watch 5 sleep and health tracking: 4/5

• Digestible and meaningful morning sleep reports to inform your day
• New respiratory health monitoring tools track your blood oxygen levels while you sleep
• Unlike the latest Samsung watches, the Pixel Watch 5 still lacks FDA-cleared sleep apnea detection

Like the competition, the Pixel Watch 5 provides a daily sleep report that includes a sleep score (from one to 100) and a sleep quality rating, along with a breakdown of your sleep stages, your total sleep duration, and more. The sleep quality score is based on factors like restlessness and interruptions, time spent asleep, and the percentage of your sleep that Google classifies as “sound."

Users are also greeted with a daily “Readiness Score” that takes into account both sleep quality and recent physical activity.

Google says that the Pixel Watch 5 should be 15% more accurate than its predecessor at identifying and tracking sleep stages. However, without a sleep lab and a team to monitor my rest, it’s pretty difficult to test whether or not this is true.

That said, I found the sleep insights from my week of testing to be useful. Moreover, I’ve been wearing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 to bed too, and by and large, the reports from each wearable match up sufficiently.

A new “Bedtime” watch face mode effectively keeps the display from randomly blinding you at night, which I appreciate. And like the Fitbit Air, the Pixel Watch 5 now supports a Smart Alarm function that promises to wake you less groggy. Users enter a wake-up window, and the device starts vibrating at the optimal time within that window, based on where you are in your sleep cycles.

Does it work? It’s hard to say. My brain is apparently so programmed to get up at certain times on weekdays that I don't really need an alarm. That said, the beauty of wrist vibrations versus an audible alarm is that I don’t risk waking my sleeping partner or pup when the former goes off.

Sleep Breathing Quality Trends metrics are also new on the Pixel Watch 5. This feature works by continuously tracking your blood oxygen level (SpO2) and looking for any variations.

Part of Google’s newly minted “Health Guardian” suite of proactive health tools, Sleep Breathing Quality doesn’t just provide nightly insights; it builds trend reports so you can keep tabs on your respiratory health in the short and long term.

Pixel Watch 5 safety tools: 5/5

• Google's on-wrist suite of safety tools beats the competition, including unique features like Loss of Pulse Detection and Blood Pressure Trends
• Breathing Emergency Detection is still awaiting FDA approval and is not yet available in the U.S.
• The Pixel Watch 4 also supports Blood Pressure Trends, Insulin Resistance Trends, and Breathing Emergency Detection (where available)

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

Using the onboard heart rate sensor, SpO2 tracking, accelerometer, and barometric altimeter, the Pixel Watch 5 is programmed to look out for signs of a breathing emergency and, if triggered, automatically send for help via 911 dispatch and/or messages to friends/loved ones.

Breathing Emergency Detection joins Loss of Pulse Detection, Fall/Crash Detection, Blood Pressure Trends, and Insulin Resistance Trends under Google’s new “Health Guardian" suite of safety features, as noted above.

Pramod Rudrapatna, a Google wearables product manager who worked on the project, refers to these tools collectively as “an airbag for the wrist.” And frankly, in 2026, Google leads the pack in terms of on-wrist safety, besting Apple, Samsung, and Garmin.

Unfortunately, for now, Breathing Emergency Detection is awaiting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, so, state-side users can't access it just yet. This is a similar scenario to two years ago when Google debuted the Pixel Watch 3 with Loss of Pulse Detection, but U.S. users had to wait six-plus months for access.

Blood Pressure and Insulin Resistance Trend reports are available for U.S. customers. However, you’ll need to wear your Pixel Watch 5 (or Pixel Watch 4) for a solid stretch to produce truly useful trend data. Trend reports are generated monthly, and users need to rock the device for at least five continuous nights during that period to generate a report.

It’s worth noting that the Blood Pressure Trends feature doesn’t provide an actual blood pressure reading, but instead tracks how your blood pressure changes over time using a combination of metrics. To ensure the accuracy of this tool, Google built the analysis algorithm using 60 billion hours of 24/7 heart rate monitoring data from half a million individuals.

Likewise, the Insulin Resistance Trends feature is not the same as a continuous blood glucose monitor. It similarly predicts changes by tracking factors like your average sleep time, heart rate, workout routines, and more.

Users must wear the Pixel Watch 5 for seven or more nights and days per month to generate enough data for analysis. This all gets fed into an algorithm that Google separately tested using a large sample group to ensure accuracy.

This is to say, it’s going to take more than a week for me to fully test these two new potentially valuable health monitoring tools. With that in mind, please stay tuned for a future article on the subject, as I plan to continue wearing the Pixel Watch 5 for many months to come and report back.

Finally, Google has confirmed with Tom’s Guide that Insulin Resistance Trends and Blood Pressure Trends will be coming to both the Fitbit Air and are already available on the Google Pixel Watch 4. The Pixel Watch 4 also supports Breathing Emergency. No word on the Pixel Watch 3, though.

Pixel Watch 5 AI features: 3/5

• Google's Gemini AI assistant for Pixel Watch 5 remains best-in-class, yet it still occasionally struggles with fairly rudimentary inquiries
• The AI watch face generator is fun but limited/generic in its results

I’ve praised Google’s Gemini AI assistant as the best of its kind on a smartwatch, but while testing the Pixel Watch 5, I found myself bumping up against its limitations more frequently than expected.

For example, when I asked, “How might El Niño impact weather in the U.S. Pacific Northwest?” Gemini had no issue dropping heady knowledge. However, when pressed for ski mountain recommendations based on the provided El Niño info, the AI assistant came up short.

I stumped Gemini again later that night when I asked for a list of new restaurants within a 20-minute walk of my location.

Finally, I’m a big fan of swapping between my favorite watch faces on a whim using the Pixel Watch 5. The process is pretty simple: press and hold the current face to launch the library and make your selection, but could AI make it even easier? Sadly, no. Gemini can’t change watch faces via voice or even open your watch face library, an odd limitation IMHO.

One new Gemini feature (that no one really asked for) is the ability to create custom watch faces via a simple text or audio prompt. The Create Watch Face app runs right on the device, though an internet connection is required.

Somewhat limited in its capabilities, the results range from fairly uninspiring to straight-up bizarre. That said, I did use it to create a few fun watch faces, including a side-splitting (to me) deli meat-inspired one. Meanwhile, my prompt for "Teddy bears and laser beams" was less successful.

More usefully, Gemini is now trained to surface relevant real-time information and display it at a glance on its own. For example, you might receive a notification on your Pixel Watch 5 if your flight is suddenly delayed or there’s a last-minute road closure that might impact your driving route.

Better yet, users can expand these bits of relevant information or dismiss them using one-handed gesture controls for added convenience.

Pixel Watch 5 battery life: 4/5

• Battery life surpasses listed rating but falls short of Pixel Watch 4
• Still, best-in-class battery life for a full-featured smartwatch, especially the 45mm model
• One hour = a full recharge

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

I tested the 45mm Pixel Watch 5 and averaged 48 hours of use per charge, better than its official rating, but a little behind the tested battery performance of the 45mm Pixel Watch 4, which consistently lasted up to 60 hours.

Recharge time is impressively speedy. It took just under one hour to bring the Pixel Watch 5 from 5% battery back to 100%, with the power draw averaging between 4 and 6 watts.

Google Pixel Watch 5 Verdict

The Google Pixel Watch 5 represents a relatively minor update over the Pixel Watch 4. Still, the impressive list of new health tools hints at where Google wearable tech is headed. Moreover, it proves that the big G is truly besting the competition when it comes to on-wrist features that could save your life.

For Pixel Watch 4 owners, there’s no real reason to upgrade to the Pixel Watch 5. It looks the same, has similar battery performance, and supports all the latest health and safety features, but costs more.

For those considering the Pixel Watch 5 against some of the other best smartwatches out there, I’ll say this: For hardcore fitness folks, I prefer the sheer depth of Garmin’s training insights to Google's, even if the Pixel Watch has way more smart features.

Versus the latest Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — which I’m reviewing now — it’s really a toss-up. Both watches are top-of-class, and the better option for you may truly come down to your design preference.

Ultimately, the Pixel Watch 4 was a fantastic smartwatch with a time-tested design. Instead of fixing what wasn't broken, Google made small but meaningful tweaks, resulting in a slightly faster, smarter, and more reliable health and fitness tracker.

This all adds up to the Pixel Watch 5 not just being one of the best full-featured smartwatches of 2026, but also the smartwatch to beat when it comes to on-wrist safety.

Apple's annual iPhone event has been officially confirmed to take place on September 9, and it could easily be the biggest Apple event in years. We're expecting a slew of new devices to be unveiled as John Ternus takes the reins as Apple's new CEO.

And all of that is before we discuss the launch of the long-rumored, much-hyped foldable iPhone Ultra — Apple's first attempt at a foldable phone. It's not clear when the device will actually launch, but at the very least, its reveal is almost certainly right around the corner.

In all, Apple is expected to launch up to eight different devices, from the expected new iPhones and upgraded Apple Watches to several new smart home-focused products.

Here's what we expect to see at Apple's 'Surprise and shine' September event, and when it's kicking off

When is the iPhone 18 event?

Apple has officially confirmed its "Surprise and shine" event will be held on Wednesday, September 9 at Apple Park. Although Apple normally holds its events on a Tuesday, the Labor Day weekend means it's being moved forward to Wednesday.

This has happened in the past, and the reasoning is that Apple doesn't want to ask attendees to travel on a holiday weekend. For example, the iPhone 14 launched on Wednesday, September 7, following Labor Day on Monday 5, and that'll likely be the case this year too.

The event is set to take place at 10am PT / 1pm ET / 6pm BST and will livestreamed on various social media platforms as well as Apple's own site.

iPhones usually go up for pre-order the Friday following the Apple event, but this year that's September 11. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has reported that pre-orders will be pushed to Saturday, September 12.

This year's edition will be hosted by incoming CEO John Ternus, and it looks like his tenure will start with a bang.

New iPhones

iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max

This year, Apple is expected to launch only its iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max models. The entry-level iPhone 18 and iPhone 18 Plus reportedly won't debut until next spring alongside the iPhone 18e model.

The iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are both tipped to feature Apple's new 2nm A20 Pro chip, a smaller Dynamic Island and Apple's new C2 modem. And both phones should get larger batteries.

However, the iPhone 18 Pro Max might have some exclusive upgrades, including a variable aperture camera and longer zoom. For more see our iPhone 18 Pro vs Pro Max comparison.

Unforutnately, analysts have predicted that the new iPhone 18 Pros could cost between $200 and $350 higher than the iPhone 17 Pro family.

iPhone Ultra

The biggest announcement of the Apple event is sure to be the debut of the foldable iPhone Ultra.

Leaks have suggested that it will have more of a wider shape, similar to the Galaxy Z Fold 8, with a 7.8-inch foldable display and a 5.5-inch cover screen. It could measure between 4.5 and 4.8mm when unfolded, making it one of the thinnest iPhones ever.

It's rumored to sport a 4,883 mAh battery, the A20 Pro chipset, Apple's in-house C2 modem, and a Touch ID fingerprint scanner in the power button. The rear is expected to come with a pair of 48MP cameras, horizontally positioned like the back of the iPhone Air, alongside two separate 24MP selfie cameras — one for each screen.

Apple reportedly delayed releasing a folding iPhone until it could eliminate the crease in the display, but whether it's accomplished this remains to be seen. Even Samsung and Oppo, despite their long lead time, have only had moderate success.

One downside is that the iPhone Ultra could be very expensive, costing anywhere from $2,000 to 2,500. And a recent leak suggests that iPhone Ultra may not be immediately available, with only "extremely limited" availability.

Just keep in mind that the iPhone Ultra could have a number of trade-offs versus the iPhone 18 Pro, including the lack of a telephoto zoom.

AirPods Ultra

These ones are a little surprising as based on a previous Gurman report, we weren't expecting the AirPods Ultra until 2027 at the earliest. However, rumor aggregator AppleTrack just reported this week that the Ultra version of AirPods will launch at the iPhone event.

The big change with these headphones is they will allegedly feature a camera that will feed into Siri to allow it to "see" the world.

It would utilize a version of Visual Intelligence to let you ask Siri questions about your surroundings or get turn-by-turn directions from the more powerful AI Siri releasing this fall.

The AirPods Ultra has also just appeared in a leaked video buried within the macOS Tahoe 26.7 release candidate, and it shows how they'll help you identify objects in the real world.

Apple Watch 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4

Unlike the iPhones, we know a bit less about the next Apple Watches. We are expecting two new models in the Apple Watch Series 12 and the Apple Watch Ultra 4.

The leaks have been sparse, but Apple is reportedly not bringing many upgrades this year. The biggest change might be a new kind of band attachment. This does mean that your old bands might not be compatible with the new watches.

Reportedly, Apple could offer a ceramic case option for the first time in years. It should also sport new health and fitness-related upgrades. We already know that watchOS 27 will bring new AI features, an updated Workout Buddy and more useful data tracking. Plus, it should feature better integration with the upgraded Siri AI which we've already seen in the iOS 27 beta.

Smart Home

Apple's smart home ambitions and the rumors surrounding them need to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Leaks have suggested Apple is planning on introducing a suite of smart home devices starting with a revamped HomePod and an AI-powered Apple TV 4K streaming device.

Those rumors have existed for more than two years and largely feed into the company's promises around the AI-powered Siri.

However, this year with iOS 27, Apple may finally have the chatbot that was promised. If it actually releases and works as pitched, this year could actually be the start of Apple Home.

HomePod Home hub

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, long a reporter of the rumored HomePod updates, believes that a new HomePod mini could launch this September alongside the rumored HomePod Home hub.

Several different iterations of this device have been rumored, including one with a $1,000 robot arm. The most common version involves a wall-mounted touchpad or a HomePod speaker with a touch display about the size of an iPad mini.

This device would have a FaceTime camera for video calls and presence sensors to initiate smart home routines.

HomePod mini 2

A new HomePod mini might also debut, but it might not be as big of an upgrade as the Hub. Most rumors suggest that it will feature a new chip and audio improvements.

To be clear, this one feels even more far-fetched than the Hub; the HomePod mini 2 has been on our rumor radar since at least 2023. The current version debuted in 2020, and like the next device, is long overdue for an update.

Apple TV 4K 2026

Like the HomePod series, Apple hasn't released a new version of the Apple TV 4K since 2022. We're long overdue for an upgrade — even if it's only a more powerful chip for stronger performance.

Previously, it was suggested that a new Apple TV could feature the A17 Pro chip, but it's more likely it'll get the new A20 or, to save some money, last year's A19. The device should also get the rumored N2 chip for better Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity.

Outside of chips, the big upgrade would be Siri AI, which could let you connect the Apple TV as a hub for smart devices. One rumor suggested that Apple might release a set-top box with a camera, which would allow for FaceTime calls and gesture-based controls.

Will you be tuning in to Apple's event next month? Let me know which device you're most hyped for in the comments.

What we don't expect to see

Even with a huge event like this, there are still going to be devices that won't make an appearance. Due to staggered release schedules and supply-chain timing, Apple is spreading its hardware roadmap across multiple release windows over the next year. As a result, the following devices are unlikely to make any sort of appearance at the event.

• iPhone 18: Apple is reportedly holding back the base model until early 2027 to drive early demand toward the Pro models.
• AirPods Ultra: Rumored AirPods with cameras for Siri AI context are reportedly delayed until 2027 due to software and supply-chain bottlenecks.
• New Macs: Upgraded M6 MacBooks and touchscreen models are typically saved for dedicated computing announcements in October or later.
• OLED iPad mini: The next refresh of the compact tablet is slated for an October arrival rather than competing for stage time with the new iPhones.
• Apple Watch SE (4th gen): The entry-level wearable update will sit out this event, with Apple likely to focus on the Series 12 and Ultra 4 instead.

More from Tom's Guide

• iPhone Ultra leakers reveal new details around release and 'extremely limited' availability
• The 5 accessories that transformed my iPhone 17 Pro Max for under $50
• Ultimate back to school guide 2026: Laptops, Chromebooks, headphones and more

I’m testing the latest Google Pixel Watch 5, and one new feature (no one really asked for) is the ability to generate customized watch faces via generative AI using your voice or a text prompt. What could possibly go wrong?

This feature is, of course, underpinned by Gemini, but is it actually any good? Well, uh, that really depends on how creative you’re feeling and your overall aesthetic preferences/sensibilities (or lack thereof).

“Teddy bears and laser beams”

Generating a customized AI watch face using the Pixel Watch 5 is surprisingly easy. You simply open the “Create Watch Face” app and tap “create your own” using either text input or voice transcription. A cellular connection or Wi-fi connection is required.

Once you submit a prompt, the process takes anywhere from ten to thirty seconds to complete. Note: In my experience, one out of five times the app rejects your prompt, especially if it is hard to understand, overly complicated, or the internet connection is weak.

The first prompt I entered was “Teddy bears and laser beams.” The results are... You decide. To me, it looks more like Pink Floyd-inspired Cheerios than what I entered. Moreover, it seems the app overly prioritizes the first bit of text you've entered as the basis for any textures that appear in the watch face.

Post-generation, the Create Watch Face app provides six options to choose from, along with the ability to create additional versions of the original prompt or start over. As of this writing, there isn’t much variety among the six initial choices.

“Raging river with jumping salmon”

The next prompt I entered was “A raging river with jumping orange salmon.” This resulted in a slightly more visually appealing result, even if it looks more like clip-art koi fish.

Ultimately, I was hoping the feature could generate a watch face with movement, like fish slowly swimming around, but it can’t. Generated watch faces are entirely static, no matter what prompt you enter. (I also tried "Fish actively swimming in a stream" to no avail.)

Should you generate a custom AI watch face on the Pixel Watch 5?

Maybe! But be prepared for slightly underwhelming, generic results... or maybe something a bit more unsettling; my third prompt, "Deli meats," resulted in the masterpiece at the intro of this article

Ultimately, in my opinion, Google already offers a ton of really amazing free watch faces that are far more feature-rich than anything the Create Watch Face app can come up with.

That said, for special occasions — like a koi fish convention — an AI watch face might be fun. Maybe just avoid the prompt “teddy bears and laser beams.”

More from Tom's Guide

• Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — 5 key differences you need to know
• I just reviewed the Garmin Cirqa — 5 things you need to know about Garmin’s subscription-free Whoop and Fitbit Air alternative
• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike

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