I'm reviewing the new Fitbit Edge, Google's follow-up to the 2023 Fitbit Charge 6, one of the best fitness trackers we've tested.

In terms of upgrades, the Edge has a lot going for it, including several important new health and safety features, welcomed design improvements, and enhanced outdoor tracking capabilities.

It's not all lollipops and ice cream, though. The Fitbit Edge comes up short in one key area versus the Fitbit Charge 6; read on to find out which one that is. But first, here are the three biggest reasons why the Fitbit Edge beats the Fitbit Charge 6.

1. A bigger, better screen

The Fitbit Charge 6's 1.04-inch AMOLED touchscreen isn't the smallest I've encountered on a modern fitness tracker, but it's far from the biggest. Translation: interacting with it can be a tad fumbly for those with big fingers, and squint-inducing for farsighted folks.

This is much less the case with the Fitbit Edge, which features a noticeably roomier 1.34-inch AMOLED screen. Roughly twice the maximum brightness output means the Fitbit Edge is also easier to read than the Fitbit Charge 6 in direct sunlight.

2. More advanced health features

Both the 2023 Fitbit Charge 6 and 2026 Fitbit Edge work with Google's recently overhauled Google Health app, which replaces the old Fitbit app. Regardless of which tracker you wear, you'll be greeted with daily insights into your sleep quality, energy levels, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), body temperature trends, and more.

You can also perform ECG readings using either Fitbit, but only the Fitbit Edge supports Google's new insulin resistance and blood pressure trend reports. The Edge additionally has important health safety tools absent from the Charge 6, including Loss of Pulse Detection and Breathing Emergency Alerts.

3. Onboard altimeter for elevation tracking

As a lover of outdoor mountain adventures, including hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, and more, I'm thrilled that Google added a barometric altimeter to the Fitbit Edge, something that was noticeably lacking in the Fitbit Charge 6.

While some fitness trackers without onboard altimeters try to guess elevation gain using GPS insights, this method is far from precise, which is probably why the Fitbit Charge 6 doesn't bother to share the metric at all.

Thankfully, the Fitbit Edge does, but how accurate is the new model's elevation tracking performance? You'll have to wait a few more days until I publish the full review to find out!

But only the Fitbit Charge 6 has NFC

While the new Fitbit Edge handily beats its predecessor when it comes to health and fitness tracking chops as well as overall usability and design, the newer model omits one key piece of tech: NFC for contactless payments.

It's ultimately a bit ironic that the 2023 model supports tap-to-pay but the 2026 model doesn't. On the flip side, perhaps Google needed to nix something from the design to make room for the altimeter. If that's the case, I gladly take precise elevation tracking over the ability to pay for things from the wrist.

What are your thoughts on the Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Edge first impressions: 5 reasons to buy (and 2 reasons to skip) Google's new fitness tracker
• Google Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: smart features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: battery life

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: specs compared

Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: verdict

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

The Apple Watch finally has a dynamic Readiness Score. Based on a scale from zero to ten, the score takes into account your recent sleep quality, physical activity, and vital trends.

Unlocking your dynamic Readiness Score on Apple Watch is fairly straightforward, though you will need to wear the device for seven nights to see your first one.

Apple's Readiness Score is just one of the cool, new features found in the best Apple Watch models in 2026. Others include support for a vastly improved AI-powered Siri, real-time dynamic step count data, an impressively comprehensive at-home wellness assessment, and Live Rewind, an AI tool that transcribes live audio around you.

Of course, I've already covered all of the above at length; here's how to unlock Apple's new dynamic Readiness Score on your Apple Watch in four easy steps.

How to unlock the Readiness Score on your Apple Watch

1. Make sure you have a compatible Apple Watch model
2. Enter your height, weight, and age in the Apple Fitness app
3. Wear your Apple Watch to bed for seven consecutive nights; ensure you get at least four hours of sleep per night
4. After seven nights logged, open the Readiness app on your Apple Watch to see your dynamic score

Read on to see full illustrated instructions for each step.

Readiness Scores break down into four categories: "Recover" (0-1), "Pace Yourself" (2-4), "Ready" (5-7), and "Go for it" (8-10).

Keep in mind, after your initial Readiness Score is generated, it will dynamically update throughout the day as you go about your business. Workouts, movement, naps, and heart rate can all have an impact on your real-time score.

And for easy viewing, there's even a Readiness Score widget you can add to your watch's home screen, right alongside the new Siri AI and dynamic step count widgets.

More from Tom's Guide

• I walked 5,000 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Forerunner 170 — here's the winner
• I tested the Apple Watch 12’s heart rate accuracy vs a chest strap for running, cycling, HIIT and strength workouts — here's my verdict
• Apple Watch Series 12 vs Apple Watch Ultra 4: Which new Apple Watch should you buy?

The Pebble Time 2 doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is exactly why it's one of the most enjoyable smartwatches I’ve ever tested. Supported by an open-source community of developers and wearable tech enthusiasts, this $225 device is pretty much the antithesis of an Apple Watch. And that's a good thing.

I just got my hands on the Pebble Time 2, and after a quick and easy setup — it works with both Android and iOS devices — I became immersed in Pebble's vast library of (mostly) free watch faces, apps, and even games.

Stay tuned for a full review, but in the meantime, here are the five most important things you should know about the Pebble Time 2 smartwatch.

1. Retro design + e-paper display

The Pebble Time 2 features a rectangular-shaped stainless steel and plastic case that very much reminds me of my favorite digital watches from the late 1980s and early 1990s, including the legendary Casio F-91W shown above.

Rather than a power-hungry AMOLED screen, the Pebble Time 2 has a 1.5-inch, 64-color e-paper touchscreen that's always-on and surprisingly easy to read in direct sunlight. That said, in some lighting conditions, it can appear a tad dull or faded.

The case has three physical buttons on the right side and a single "back" button on the left side. They all have ample gnarling, and overall, the Pebble Time 2 feels well-made. Gorilla Glass protects the display; however, because the glass is raised beyond the bezel, I worry about scratches in the long term.

2. Open-source, highly customizable OS

The Pebble Time 2 is ridiculously customizable. For example, users can assign pretty much any action to a long press on the button of their choice. And even though PebbleOS lacks the flashy animations and overall pizzazz of more mainstream smartwatch operating systems like the latest watchOS and Wear OS, it's still quite easy to navigate and personalize.

There are presently more than 10,000 watch faces, apps, and games to choose from in the Pebble store, many of which are free. My first order of action upon completing the setup was to install a Super Mario-like watch face, where the character jumps every time the minute changes.

As a bonus, apps and watch faces take a negligible amount of time to download and install.

3. Insane battery

Since the Pebble Time 2 lacks power-hungry components like a bright AMOLED screen, GPS, or cellular antenna, battery life is seriously impressive. According to Pebble, users can expect up to 30 days per charge. Just think: that's 30x better battery performance than the Apple Watch Series 12, one of the best full-featured smartwatches in 2026.

4. Entry-level fitness tracking

The Pebble Time 2 is not designed to be a fitness or health tracker, but it does offer some basic holistic tech and features on par with a very entry-level tracker. These include a continuous heart rate sensor, an accelerometer for logging daily step counts and workouts, and insights into sleep duration and light vs. deep sleep.

5. Free games galore

While fitness features may be light, I'm seriously blown away by the number of free, genuinely fun games you can play on the Pebble Time 2. So far, "Turbo Drift," a game that reminds me of the 1980s Sega classic "Out Run," has been my go-to. Some others I'm looking forward to trying, based on positive reviews, include "Pixel Miner," "Strike Force," and "Rock Crusher."

As noted in the intro, I'm in the process of fully testing the Pebble Time 2, so stay tuned for my full review. For now, what are your thoughts on the new Pebble Time 2 smartwatch, and what should I test? Also, are you excited to see the return of the Pebble brand, and do you plan on buying one for yourself? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Pebble founder on why he's bringing Pebble watch back — 'Samsung, Google, Apple don't take any risks'
• Pebble is back with two new smartwatches starting at $149 — how to preorder
• The new Pebble smart ring has a built-in mic and costs just $75 — here’s why I can’t wait to try one

The Fitbit Inspire 3 is Google's four-year-old, entry-level fitness tracker. Originally priced at $99, you can easily pick one up on sale for much less... but should you, especially when newer models like the Fitbit Edge exist?

Howdy, I'm Dan, and I lead our wearable tech coverage at Tom's Guide. Not only am I in the process of reviewing the new Fitbit Edge — which seems potentially destined for our best fitness tracker list — but I'm also a long-time owner of the Fitbit Inspire 3. This is to say, I know both wearables reasonably well.

So how do they stack up? Here's a breakdown of the Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3 across six categories, including price, design, display, health and fitness, smart features, and battery life.

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Cost

Even at full price, the Fitbit Inspire 3 is a bargain compared to the Fitbit Edge. Of course, since it's also four years old, you're unlikely to pay anywhere near the $99 launch price. For instance, the Fitbit Inspire 3 is just $88 on Amazon right now.

The Fitbit Edge, meanwhile, is a brand new fitness tracker for 2026 and still in the preorder phase of its launch. With units expected to ship at the end of October, the Fitbit will run you $179 at Amazon and at other major retailers.

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Design

The Fitbit Edge and Fitbit Inspire 3 look surprisingly similar; the cases are almost identical in height and thickness, though the Edge is taller. The newer model is also nearly double the weight of the Inspire 3. However, it by no means feels bulky or uncomfortable on the wrist (I've been wearing one for nearly a week).

In addition to touch displays — more on that below — each tracker has a single button on the side of the case for navigation. Similar to 2023's Fitbit Charge 6, the Fitbit Inspire 3 sports a haptic button that vibrates slightly (sometimes) when you press it. I'm not a huge fan of this type of control, and much prefer the Fitbit Edge's physical button with actual tactile feedback.

Material-wise, the Fitbit Inspire 3 case is primarily plastic, while the Edge case is recycled aluminum and plastic. Both have 50 meters of water resistance, enough protection for showers and surface-level swims.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Display

The Fitbit Inspire 3 has a modest 0.76-inch AMOLED screen that's decently bright and well-saturated, though the touch functionality can occasionally feel clunky/unresponsive. By comparison, the Fitbit Edge offers far more screen real estate, despite a somewhat similarly-sized case.

The Edge's 1.34-inch display is crisp, easy-to-read, and responsive. With greater maximum output than its predecessor, the Edge's screen is bright enough to view in direct sunlight without straining your eyes.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Specs compared

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Health and fitness

The Fitbit Inspire 3 is a four-year-old entry-level fitness tracker, and even though it covers the basics well, like logging common workouts, daily movement, sleep quality, and overall health, it lacks many of Google's latest and greatest holistic tools.

These include the new insulin resistance and blood pressure trend reports, breathing emergency alerts, and loss of pulse detection. The Inspire 3 additionally lacks the hardware to perform ECG readings. On the flip side, the Edge supports all of these features, and more.

The Inspire 3 also lacks onboard GPS and an altimeter, so users have to carry a paired smartphone for accurate location- and elevation-based metrics when logging an outdoor workout like a run, hike, or bike ride. The Fitbit Edge, meanwhile, has both.

Finally, the Edge supports a ton of additional AI-powered health features courtesy of the Google Health Premium (formerly Fitbit Premium) subscription, which is $9.99 a month or $99 a year. These include personalized training plans, nutrition insights, and even deeper dives into sleep and workout recovery.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Smart features

Both the Fitbit Edge and four-year-old Fitbit Inspire 3 work with Android and iOS, with the ability to mirror notifications and control media playback. But that pretty much rounds out the list of smart features on either.

Sadly, unlike the Edge's predecessor, the Fitbit Charge 6, the newer model lacks NFC for contactless payments. That said, it does play nicely with some other Google apps. For example, the Edge will display Google Maps turn-by-turn directions when using the app on your paired smartphone.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Battery life

Google says that the Fitbit Inspire 3 should last up to ten days per charge, and the Fitbit Edge should cruise for up to seven days. In reality, the Fitbit Inspire 3 averages closer to seven or eight days per charge, assuming you're recording one ~45-minute workout a day.

I'm still testing the Fitbit Edge, but if battery performance is anything like the Fitbit Charge 6 — which is also rated at seven days per charge — I expect the Edge to last a little closer to five or six days.

That said, one clear advantage the newer model has is a faster recharge time: 90 minutes for the Fitbit Edge compared to two hours for the Fitbit Inspire 3 (and Fitbit Charge 6).

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Inspire 3: Outlook

Ultimately, while the Fitbit Inspire 3 remains a fairly competent budget fitness tracker in 2026 for keeping tabs on basic workouts, well-being, and sleep quality, the Fitbit Edge is in numerous ways a more capable device in a similar-sized package with a bigger screen and better overall usability.

But if you're still not sold on the Fitbit Edge over the Fitbit Inspire 3, I reccomend taking a look at my Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 comparison. Not only does the Fitbit Air support a lot of the same groundbreaking Google health features as the Edge, but it's also just $99 and even smaller/lighter than the Inspire 3 (though it lacks a screen)

Overall winner: Fitbit Edge

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?
• Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which Google fitness tracker wins?
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which top-performing Fitness tracker wins?

The new Fitbit Edge is a follow-up to 2023’s Fitbit Charge 6, one of my favorite wearables and one of the best fitness trackers of all time. But is the Edge actually a worthy successor?

I’ve been wearing the Fitbit Edge for just over 24 hours, and three things are immediately clear. While I’ll save my hardcore test results and comparisons to the competition for the forthcoming review, here’s why the Fitbit Edge already has me impressed.

1. It borrows the Pixel Watch 5’s best health features

Google's Pixel Watch 5 is one of the best smartwatches for health and safety features thanks to groundbreaking tools like Loss of Pulse Detection, Breathing Emergency Alerts, and monthly insulin resistance/blood pressure trend reports.

Fortunately, you don't need to spend $399+ to unlock them. The new Fitbit Edge offers all these same features in a smaller, lighter, and perhaps most importantly, more wallet-friendly $179 package.

These features are in addition to other essentials, like continuous heart rate and body temperature monitoring, dynamic sleep and readiness scores, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and ECG readings, heart rate variability insights, and breathing rate/quality tracking.

The Edge also supports Google's AI-powered Health Coach for personalized training plans, nutrition insights, and deeper dives into sleep and workout recovery. It's part of the brand's Google Health Premium subscription, which will run $9.99 a month or $99 for the year.

Not sure if Google Health Premium is worth it for you? The Fitbit Edge comes with a three-month free trial, so you can try before you buy.

2. It’s just as comfy as its predecessor, dimensions be damned

Sometimes, specs can be deceiving. For example, on paper, the Fitbit Edge is taller, wider, thicker, and even a bit heavier than the Fitbit Charge 6. But on the wrist, you'd be hard-pressed to tell.

Despite a slight increase in case real estate, the Fitbit Edge is incredibly comfortable, just like its predecessor, and this is coming from a guy who strongly dislikes wearing any wrist-based wearable to bed. (Thank goodness for the best smart rings)!

There's also a good reason for the bigger case: the Fitbit Edge sports a 1.34-inch AMOLED screen, which is noticeably roomier and easier to interact with than the 1.04-inch display on the Charge 6.

3. Physical buttons > haptic buttons

While the Fitbit Charge 6 is one of my fitness trackers of the past three years, there's one design element I still loathe: the haptic button on the side of the case that vibrates (sometimes) when you press it.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who's anti-haptics, because Google ditched it for a proper clickable physical button on the Fitbit Edge, a small but meaningful user interface improvement I'm thrilled to see.

What are your thoughts on the new Fitbit Edge? Do you think it's a worthy replacement for the Fitbit Charge 6? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Edge first impressions: 5 reasons to buy (and 2 reasons to skip) Google's new fitness tracker
• Google Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'

If you’re looking for a smartwatch that’ll double up as a sports watch for your next race, you’re probably choosing between the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. We’ve reviewed both on Tom’s Guide, but to find out more, I strapped both to my wrist and ran a half marathon — read on to see which came out on top.

When deciding between the two, note that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 requires an iPhone, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 works only with Android or Galaxy.

Both have a large case — 49mm for the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and 47mm for the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Both have built-in GPS and track your sleep, stress, workouts, recovery, and more. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 costs $799, whereas the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is $699. But which is most accurate? Let’s find out.

I ran a half marathon with the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Here’s which came out on top

GPS

Let’s start with the basics — if you’re wearing a watch to track a race, you want it to track your GPS pretty perfectly. When putting both devices side by side, the GPS is pretty much spot on for both, and this shows when comparing the recordings to the actual map of the course.

With both watches, I had auto-lap set up, and both were pretty much hitting the distance markers at the right point. Of course, both watches recorded a slightly longer distance than the actual race itself, but this accounts for weaving runners and not ever really being able to stick to the race line. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 recorded the run as 13.23 miles; the Samsung Galaxy Watch 2 recorded it as 13.21 miles.

Heart rate

I didn’t wear a chest strap with the two watches, so I’ll use my Oura Ring 5 as my baseline. According to my Oura Ring 5, my average heart rate was 163 beats per minute, with most of my time spent in zones 4 and 5, showing I was pushing myself throughout the run.

The heart rate graphs on the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 also look pretty similar, with my average heart rate on my Apple Watch recorded as 159 beats per minute and my Galaxy Watch recorded as 160 beats per minute.

Again, this one is pretty much too close to call.

Elevation

One thing that my colleague, Dan Bracaglia, found when testing the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 was that the elevation gain seemed inaccurate during his runs and rides. I didn’t find the same — the official course route has a total elevation gain of 311 feet, and my watch recorded the run as 342 feet. Similar to GPS, a small difference is often down to altimeter sensitivity, GPS drift, or weaving through runners on the course.

Comfort and usability

I’m a pretty petite runner, and both watches felt pretty chunky on the wrist. Design-wise, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 felt a little wider, but it doesn’t have much in it.

Both have those all-important physical buttons that make using the watch with sweaty fingers a little bit easier, and both have bright, beautiful screens that were easy to see, even in direct sunlight. You do see slightly more on the screen of the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which is bigger, but again, there’s not a lot in it.

Which should you buy?

The answer really depends on whether you’re team iOS or Android. If you have an iPhone, don’t buy the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, as it won’t work with your phone. Both are like having an extension of your phone on your wrist, with tonnes of apps at your fingertips.

Both did a stellar job of recording my half marathon, and both are probably the top contenders if you want a smartwatch with the capabilities (but sadly not the battery life) of a sports watch.

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Fitbit Edge or Fitbit Charge 6: which fitness tracker should you buy? While the choice may seem obvious to go with the newer model, several key factors may make the older option the better choice for you.

After all, the Fitbit Charge 6 is arguably one of the best fitness trackers ever made. How much better could the newer model be? We've barely gotten acquainted with the Fitbit Edge, but there's a lot to like, including support for Google's latest health and safety features and a comfortable, familiar design. Translation: It might well nab its predecessor's "best ever" crown.

To better understand the key differences between 2023's Fitbit Charge 6 and 2026's Fitbit Edge, here's a head-to-head breakdown of price, design, display, health and fitness, smart features, and battery life.

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Cost

The Fitbit Edge costs $179 via Amazon and other major retailers, just $20 more than the Fitbit Charge 6's $159 launch price. For what it's worth, $159 in 2023, adjusted for inflation in 2026, is roughly $176.

Of course, you're unlikely to pay $159 for the Fitbit Charge 6 in 2026, especially with the arrival of its replacement. For example, you can buy the Charge 6 right now for just $124 at Walmart. Note: The Fitbit Edge is still in preorder, with units expected to ship at the end of October.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Design

The Fitbit Charge 6 case weighs 15 g, compared to 17.7 g for the Fitbit Edge case. The newer model is also a bit larger and thicker than its predecessor (see exact dimensions in the table above).

Both devices sport a single button on the side of the case; however, they were not created equally. The Fitbit Charge 6 has a haptic button that vibrates when pressed, while the Fitbit Edge has a physical, clickable button, which I much prefer.

Ultimately, while the Fitbit Edge has more presence on the wrist than the Fitbit Charge 6, it still feels comfortable and uncumbersome. As a result, this one is a draw.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Display

This one is easy: the Fitbit Edge has a 1.34-inch display compared to a 1.04-inch display on the Fitbit Charge 6. Both are reasonably bright AMOLED affairs, though the Edge's display appears to offer a higher maximum output, making it easier to view in daylight. This, coupled with the additional screen real estate, makes the Fitbit Edge easier to interact with (less squinting) than its predecessor.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Specs compared

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Health and fitness

The Fitbit Edge and Fitbit Charge 6 support a lot of the same basic health tracking features, like continuous heart rate and skin temperature monitoring, ECG and Sp02 readings, cycle tracking, and daily sleep reports.

However, the newer model has several key advantages over its predecessor, including support for Google's newer insulin resistance and blood pressure trend reports. It also supports important health safety tools like breathing emergency alerts and loss of pulse detection.

Finally, when it comes to logging outdoor workouts, the Fitbit Edge has one more advantage over the Charge 6: an onboard barometric altimeter for precise elevation loss/gain tracking.

Winner: Fitbit Edge

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Smart features

This may come as somewhat of a surprise, but the 2023 Fitbit model actually has more smart features than the 2026 model.

Sure, both the Edge and Charge 6 are capable of mirroring smartphone notifications from paired Android and iOS devices. You can also control media playback from a paired smartphone with either wearable.

However, only the Fitbit Charge 6 has NFC and support for Google Wallet, allowing on-wrist contactless payments. Why Google removed this useful tech on the Edge, I cannot say, but it is a bummer.

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Battery life

Both the Fitbit Charge 6 and Fitbit Edge promise up to seven days of battery life per charge. In reality, the former lasts for close to five or six days. I've yet to test the battery performance of the Edge, but it will be interesting to see whether or not it lives up to its advertised longevity better than its sibling.

A full battery recharge on the Fitbit Charge 6 takes roughly two hours compared to 90 minutes for the Fitbit Edge.

Winner: draw

Fitbit Edge vs. Fitbit Charge 6: Outlook

While the older Fitbit Charge 6 is more affordable and a little sleeker than the newer Fitbit Edge, it lacks support for many of Google's most exciting new health and safety features, like loss of pulse detection, breathing emergency alerts, and blood pressure trend reports.

The Edge also boasts a larger, brighter display than its predecessor, more user-friendly controls, and potentially improved performance when tracking outdoor workouts. Ultimately, the only major advantage the Charge 6 has over the Edge is support for NFC.

Overall winner: Fitbit Edge

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which top-performing Fitness tracker wins?
• Google Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?

It’s been a good year for those with thin wrists, because wearable manufacturers have embraced a smaller form factor on several of the best sports watches to come out so far in 2026.

As a slender-wristed gentleman, I’ve already enjoyed testing the Suunto Run 2, Garmin Forerunner 170 and Apple Watch 12 this year, and even the Coros Pace 4 Pro, which has a large screen, is thin and light enough to sit snugly on my wrist.

On top of all these launches comes the Suunto Race 3S, which brings premium materials and long battery life to a small watch.

Its key improvements on the Suunto Race S (confusingly, there was no Race 2S, despite there being a Suunto Race 2) include a brighter display, longer battery life and better heart rate accuracy.

However, these improvements come with a major price increase, and it’s the high price of the Race 3S that make it a tough sell, especially with strong alternatives like the Coros Pace 4 Pro and Suunto Run 2 coming in cheaper.

Suunto Race 3S review: price and availability

The Suunto Race 3S launched on 15 October 2026 and costs $599 in the U.S. and £435 in the U.K., a significant price rise on the Suunto Race S titanium model, which was $449/£395 at launch, and is currently $329 on the Suunto website.

It’s the same price in the U.S. as the Suunto Race 2, and pricier than the Suunto Run 2, which costs from $349/£265. The Coros Pace 4 Pro is also cheaper at $449/£389, and I do think the price of the Suunto Race 3S will make it a tough sell compared to some rival options.

Suunto Race 3S review: design and display

The S is the watch’s name is a key part of its appeal, because the Suunto Race 3S aims to offer a premium experience in a smaller design, something that is often lacking in sports watches — the pricier and more feature-packed the model, the larger it tends to be.

It has a titanium bezel and sapphire crystal screen and a 2,000-nit, 1.32in AMOLED display that’s three times as bright as the one on the original Suunto Race S. I found this screen bright enough to read easily in all conditions, including bright sunshine.

The 46mm case isn’t as small as some watches, like the Forerunner 170 or Coros Pace 4, but the Suunto Race 3S has a more premium feel and is thin and fairly light at 56g with its silicone strap, and was comfortable to wear 24/7 in my testing.

There are three buttons on the watch, one of which is a digital dial. I sometimes found the watch slow to respond to the dial when rotating it, but mostly the user interface responds rapidly without any lag.

The Suunto Race 3S has an upgraded optical heart rate sensor compared to the one on the original Race, and I’ve found it to be considerably more accurate on this front than its predecessor. It also offers multi-band GPS tracking and can connect to external sensors via Bluetooth.

There is no built-in flashlight on the Suunto Race 3S unfortunately — Suunto only offers this feature on the top-of-the-range Vertical 2 — but there is a flashlight mode that uses the screen.

Suunto Race 3S review: sports tracking and training analysis

Scroll up from the watch face on the Suunto Race 3S and you’ll find a vast array of preset sports modes, and you can also create your own sports modes in the app.

Indeed you’ll need to do the latter if you want to customize the stats on show, as you can’t make changes to default sports modes (something you can do on any other brand’s sports watches I’ve tested), and there’s a limit of three customizable screens when making your own sports mode.

Unlike the cheaper Suunto Run 2, the Race 3S has access to the SuuntoPlus Store, where you can find a variety of extra sports features you can add onto your sports modes.

Some of these are handy additions, though I will say I personally didn’t miss these extras when testing the Suunto Run 2, which also has a simpler approach that allows you to edit default sports modes.

The training analysis on the watch is very heavy on the three-letter acronyms, so it can be quite impenetrable at first, but it does provide a wealth of useful information you can use to judge your training load.

Garmin and Coros do a better job of making their training analysis easier to understand in my opinion, and Garmin in particular has some extra analysis features including a useful training readiness score.

Suunto announced the launch of its new Suunto AI Coach feature alongside the Race 3S and I’ve not been able to test it out yet. It aims to create a conversational-style approach to guided training, and will be a paid-for service, though people who buy the Race 3S can register for three months of Suunto AI Coach for free before 31 December 2026.

Suunto Race 3S review: GPS and heart rate accuracy

I’ve been impressed by the GPS accuracy on the Suunto watches I’ve tested over the past couple of years, and that remains the case with the Suunto Race 3S.

I used the watch in the most accurate multi-band mode and it produced accurate GPS tracks and pace and distance stats in line with other top watches, including the Garmin Forerunner 970 and Coros Pace 4 Pro when testing them all side-by-side.

The heart rate accuracy was also pretty good for me, which hasn’t always been the case with Suunto watches. The improved optical sensor on the Race 3S is much better than the one on the Race S, and also proved more reliable than the sensor on the Race 2 in my testing.

I compared it to the readings from a chest strap on all my runs and during other workouts like indoor bike rides and strength sessions, and it generally matched up closely with the strap throughout.

There was the occasional erroneous spike in the watch’s readings though, and at the start of outdoor runs on colder days it did sometimes take a minute or two to lock into the correct reading, and lag a little behind a chest strap’s readings.

These aren’t uncommon issues with optical sensors and I do think the Race 3S and Run 2 are a considerable improvement on what I’ve experienced in the past with Suunto watches, but I’d say the best Garmin watches and the Apple Watch 12 are a little more reliable on this front.

Suunto Race 3S review: battery life

The Suunto Race 3S offers impressive battery life for a small watch with an AMOLED display, with the brand listing it as lasting up to 12 days in watch mode and offering up to 38 hours of multi-band GPS tracking.

In my testing I had the screen set to high brightness and always-on, and I ran every day with the watch using the GPS. It lasted me five to six days on a charge, which is pretty good going though not as long as the Coros Pace 4 Pro, which hits seven days for me with the same use.

The Race 3S is particularly strong on GPS battery life though, and will handle even extremely long events like ultramarathons easily in its most accurate GPS mode.

You charge the watch with a proprietary puck-style charger, which is the same one as used on the Suunto Run 2 but differs to other Suunto watches, which is less convenient than the systems used by Garmin and Coros where their watches all share the same charger.

Suunto Race 3S review: smart features

The Suunto Race 3S offers some basic smart features including offline music storage for files you drag and drop onto the watch (it doesn’t link up with streaming services like smartwatches or Garmin watches).

This feature was only meant to be available following an update after launch, but I was able to sync music to the watch and listen to it via Bluetooth headphones during testing.

It doesn’t offer NFC payments, but does have access to the SuuntoPlus store, where there are extra watch faces and data screens you can add to the Race 3S. This isn’t nearly as extensive as a smartwatch’s App Store or even Garmin’s Connect IQ store though.

You’re not going to be buying the Suunto Race 3S for smarts, I’d say. If those are important to you then a true smartwatch like the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is a better buy, or at least a Garmin watch with NFC and the ability to link with music streaming services.

Suunto Race 3S review: maps and navigation

With 64GB of storage you can download all the maps you want to the Suunto Race 3S via the Suunto app, and I found it easy and reasonably quick to get the areas I needed onto the watch when I set it up.

I found the maps to be bright and clear during activities and they loaded quickly when panning and zooming.

It’s also simple to create and sync routes to the watch through the partner app. The Race 3S also gives guidance on the elevation you’ll be tackling through an overall plot of your route and alerts when significant climbs and descents are coming up.

The maps on the watch are non-routable, meaning they plot your course over an image of a map rather than actually knowing where you are — Garmin watches do offer routable maps so can create a route for you on the fly, an occasionally handy extra feature.

Suunto Race 3S review: specs compared

Should you buy the Suunto Race 3S?

Suunto has significantly improved its watch line-up over the past couple of years and at first it was doing this while pricing its watches aggressively to undercut its biggest rivals.

The improvements do keep coming with the Suunto Race 3S, but it’s still not perfect and the price has rocketed, making it a hard watch to recommend over cheaper rivals, including some within the Suunto line-up like the Run 2 and original Race S.

I also prefer the Coros Pace 4 Pro myself as a watch that’s easier to use and still feels small on the wrist despite its larger display, and the Coros is cheaper too. You can also grab the old-but-gold Garmin Forerunner 965 in sales for less, though it’s not as small a watch.

Overall, the Suunto Race 3S is a very good smaller sports watch that looks great and mostly works well in my experience, but I think the price will hold it back, at least until it hits the sales.

Screen-less fitness trackers like Oura Ring, Whoop 5.0, and Garmin Cirqa may be the hot accessory in 2026, but I, for one, am thrilled to see Google finally add a new, petite screen-sporting wearable, the Fitbit Edge, to its portfolio.

The Fitbit Edge is a $179 follow-up to 2023’s Fitbit Charge 6, one of the best fitness trackers of all time, and a contemporary sibling to the screen-free Fitbit Air, another top-performing tracker. More advanced than the Air, the Fitbit Edge sits below the Google Pixel Watch 5, which is, you guessed it, one of the best smartwatches in 2026.

I lead TG’s wearable tech coverage, and I’ve been hoping for a Fitbit Charge 6 replacement for years. Now that it’s finally here, it’s time to decide whether or not it truly lives up to my expectations. With that in mind, here are the five biggest reasons to buy the new Fitbit Edge and the two biggest reasons to skip it, based on my initial impressions.

Buy: Onboard GPS

Two major design factors set the new $179 Fitbit Edge apart from the $99 Fitbit Air; the first is onboard GPS. Do you frequently log outdoor workouts, like walks, hikes, runs, and bike rides? If so, the Fitbit Edge will likely be a better choice for you than the Air. Why?

Because the Fitbit Air lacks onboard GPS, users have to carry a paired smartphone when recording outdoor activities if they want accurate location-based data for metrics like distance, pace, and climb. On the flip side, the Fitbit Edge has a built-in GPS antenna, allowing you to log that same data without the extra bulk of your smartphone.

The Edge even sports an onboard altimeter for on-device elevation tracking. As an avid mountain sports enthusiast, this is something I seriously appreciate.

Buy: 1.34-inch display

The second, perhaps more obvious difference between the Fitbit Edge and Fitbit Air is that the former has a display; the latter does not. The Edge’s 1.34-inch AMOLED touchscreen may not be enormous, but it represents a decent upgrade over the Fitbit Charge 6’s 1.04-inch display.

Unlike the Fitbit Air, users can start and stop workouts on the Edge without needing to open the companion Google Health app on their phone. You can also view your post-workout stats, recent sleep reports, current heart rate, mirrored smartphone notifications, and more.

Buy: Comprehensive holistic insights

Speaking of wellness, the Fitbit Edge is positively brimming with state-of-the-art holistic features, including heart rate variability monitoring, AFib detection, blood oxygen saturation measurements, continuous heart rate, breath rate, and skin temperature monitoring while you sleep, women’s health tracking, Loss of Pulse Detection, and even Breathing Emergency alerts.

Buy: Petite case design

I’m positively allergic to bulky wearables, which is why I’m such a big fan of the Fitbit Air. Not only is it one of the smallest, lightest fitness trackers on the market today and super comfy on the wrist, but it barely even looks like a piece of wearable tech.

The Fitbit Edge is a little less discreet, thanks to its 1.34-inch AMOLED screen. It’s also a bit larger and heavier than its stripped-back sibling. That said, the Fitbit Edge is roughly the same size as its easy-wearing, sleek-ish predecessor, the Fitbit Charge 6, and also a little lighter.

Buy: Compatibility with Android and iOS

Unlike the latest Pixel Watch series, the Fitbit Edge (like the Air) plays nicely with both Android and iOS smartphones. Better yet, the Edge supports mirrored smartphone notifications regardless of which OS you use. There are even a handful of basic pre-written quick replies you can use to quickly respond to texts.

Additionally, the Edge supports universal music control from any Bluetooth-connected device.

Skip: Some features are paywalled

While Google offers a lot of impressive wellness features for free, some of the more advanced, personalized insights and tools require a Google Health Premium subscription for $9.99 a month or $99 annually.

Paywalled features include adaptive fitness plans, sleep coaching tips, blood pressure and insulin resistance trend reports, and personalized metabolic recommendations.

Skip: Lacks NFC for contactless payments

All in all, the Fitbit Edge feels like a proper upgrade to the beloved Fitbit Charge 6 in all but one key way: it lacks NFC. So, while 2023’s Charge 6 supports Google Wallet for contactless payments, Fitbit Edge owners will have to carry a credit card or smartphone to pay for their post-hike pint or after-run pick-me-up.

What are your thoughts on the new Fitbit Edge? Let me know below. And stay tuned for my full review, coming soon.

More from Tom's Guide

• Google Fitbit Edge vs Fitbit Air: Which should you choose?
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'
• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model

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

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

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

Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Forerunner 170

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

I’ll let you in on a secret — I never really liked the Fitbit Charge 6. Sure, it’s been one of the most popular fitness trackers on the market for years, and when someone asked me for a Fitbit recommendation (pre-the launch of the Fitbit Air earlier this year), the Charge 6 was the one I’d recommend. But between the slightly boxy look and the tiny screen that was impossible to use with sweaty fingers, I didn’t love it.

Yesterday, Google announced the launch of the $180 Fitbit Edge, coming October 27, and it looks to be replacing the Charge 6 in the brand’s lineup, sitting between the $99 Fitbit Edge and the $399 Google Pixel Watch 5.

Here’s why I’m excited about the new fitness tracker:

1. There's loads of different band options

At launch, Google has shown us tons of different band options coming with the Fitbit Edge. There’s everything from plastic active bands to sleek metal options, and like the Fitbit Air, it looks to be super easy to swap between them.

This makes it easy to upgrade the look of your fitness tracker at the click of two buttons, making it much more versatile. We’re not sure yet how much these extra bands will cost, and at the time of writing, you can only choose between the active band and the Stephen Curry looped band when pre-ordering.

2. It's larger than the Charge 6

While this won’t be a selling point for everyone, I’m pleased that the Fitbit Edge is slightly larger than the Fitbit Charge 6. The dimensions aren’t hugely different: 39.2 x 25.6 mm, compared to 36.7 x 23.1 mm on the Fitbit Charge 6, yet the screen is much bigger.

As mentioned above, I found the screen of the Fitbit Charge 6 difficult to use, especially with sweaty or wet fingers, so the larger, brighter screen is a welcome addition.

3. There's a physical button on the side

If you’ve read any of my articles on Tom’s Guide before, you’ll know that I hate a fitness tracker without any buttons. As well as a bigger, brighter screen, there’s also a physical button on the side of the Fitbit Edge, which seems to be an actual button you can click, rather than the haptic button on the Fitbit Charge 6.

4. Unlike the Fitbit Air, it has an ECG sensor

If you flip the Fitbit Edge over, you’ll see that you’re getting quite a few sensors for $180. The heart rate sensor looks pretty similar to that used in the Fitbit Air, which I’ve found to be extremely accurate. It takes a reading every two seconds, giving you accurate heart rate readings, but the Fitbit Edge takes this further with an ECG sensor, which can detect signs of A-Fib.

There’s also a skin temperature sensor, which can help give you menstrual cycle insights, HRV tracking, and an SpO2 sensor to track blood oxygen saturation. All of these are pretty standard on fitness trackers these days, but you’re getting a lot for your money here.

5. There's built-in GPS

As well as the screen, one of the main selling points of this tracker over the Fitbit Air is the built-in GPS, allowing you to track your runs and rides outside without having to have your phone with you.

Plus, at launch, Google really highlighted the updated automatic activity tracking coming later this month on the Fitbit Edge and Fitbit Air, saying it will be able to recognise exercises like stand-up paddleboarding and yoga, as well as more typical ones like bike rides, walks, and runs.

Of course, with the Edge, you have the option of easily starting a workout from your wrist, but I’m excited to try the new feature, as I’ve never found automatic activity tracking to be all that great.

6. Tracking gets a big upgrade from the Fitbit Charge 6

Finally, if we’re comparing this to the Fitbit Charge 6, it’s a much better fitness tracker in general. You’ve got all of the new features released that were released with the Fitbit Air, including cardio load, VO2 max, and the readiness feature, which tells you how ‘ready’ you are to push yourself.

There’s also Google’s Gemini-powered health coach for Google Health Premium subscribers, which I’ve found one of the best out there. In my testing, rather than just regurgitating your own stats back to you, it’ll give you actionable insights into how to recover smarter.

I’ll be putting the Google Edge to the test once I get my hands on a device in the next few weeks, but it’s shaping up to be a decent option if you’re not after a smartwatch, or you love the sound of the Fitbit Air, but aren’t quite sure if a screenless device is for you.

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

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — the Fitbit Air is one of my favorite fitness trackers to launch this year. At $99, it’s super affordable, it’s extremely comfortable to wear, and the Google Health app is excellent. Yet my one gripe has been that, while it looks a lot more discreet than a Whoop or Garmin Cirqa, I’d still take it off if I was going out with friends.

That is, until now — along with the Fitbit Edge, Google quietly released some new premium metal bands for the Fitbit Air, and they look beautiful. Move over, Oura; there’s a new device that looks like jewelry — read on to find out more.

Fitbit Air Metal Mesh band: when is it coming and what will it cost?

The Metal Mesh band is made from stainless steel and will be available in champagne gold or polished silver. On its own, it’ll cost $70, but you can also buy one that is paired with an Obsidian Fitbit Air for $149. This gives users the option to buy a more expensive-looking version of the tracker, but even with just the band itself, you won’t be able to see the little pebble when it’s on your wrist.

Of course, I’m yet to see the band up close, but they definitely give the Fitbit Air a premium facelift. The finely woven metal bands allow the device to disappear onto the wrist and look more like jewelry than any of the bands it launched with. At first glance, you probably wouldn’t even notice the tracker, making it more like the Oura Ring in terms of discreet fitness tracking.

The new bands will be available on October 27, when the Fitbit Edge launches. I, personally, can’t wait to get my hands on the Champagne gold band, but let me know what you think of the new launches in the comments below, and whether $70 is too much to spend when the tracker itself only costs $99.

Until then, I’ll sit here patiently waiting for Google to release the armband we’ve all been asking for.

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

Fans of the Fitbit Charge 6, listen up—Google just launched the new $179 Fitbit Edge, and it replaces the Charge in the brand’s fitness-tracker lineup.

But where does it fit in Google’s smartwatch lineup? And should you choose the Fitbit Edge or the $99 Fitbit Air? Read on to find out more

What is the Fitbit Edge?

Google hasn’t released a Fitbit Charge since 2023, and at a glance, the Fitbit Edge seems to be replacing the budget fitness tracker.

On paper, it has a lot of the same features as the Charge: a small display, a week of battery life, built-in GPS, and the ability to track your workouts, sleep, and stress from your wrist. It won’t give you as many apps or notifications as a smartwatch, but it will do all the basics when it comes to keeping an eye on your health and fitness goals.

Design-wise, it looks more modern, with rounded edges compared to the Fitbit Charge 6’s boxier look. It’s also slightly bigger at 39.2 x 25.6 mm, compared to 36.7 x 23.1 mm on the Fitbit Charge 6.

The Fitbit Edge costs $180/£160 and comes in four different colors in the active band option: olive green, black, white, or pink.

The olive version has an olive aluminum casing, and the pink Fitbit Edge has a champagne gold casing. Like the Fitbit Air, there’s also a special edition Stephen Curry band, which is more expensive. Like the Fitbit Air, it’s easy to swap between bands, and from the looks of things, there are plenty more options coming soon.

Like the Fitbit Air, if you want to unlock the Gemini-powered health coach, or some of the more advanced sleep features, you’ll need to pay for a Google Health Premium membership.

This is an extra expense, but in my testing, the Fitbit Air has the best AI-powered health coach out there, so if you use it, it’s worth it.

You can pre-order the Fitbit Edge now, for release on October 27.

Should you buy the Fitbit Edge or the Fitbit Air?

Here’s the big question, though: should you buy the Fitbit Edge or the $99 Fitbit Air? The answer really depends on how much you want your fitness tracker to have a screen.

I’m yet to test the Fitbit Edge, but will, of course, be following up with a full review once I get my hands on one. The Fitbit Air, on the other hand, is one of my favorite fitness trackers of 2026.

Part of the appeal when it comes to the Fitbit Air is its low cost and its comfortable design. For $99, you’re getting an excellent fitness tracker that’s seriously comfortable. However, you obviously can’t see any live feedback during your workouts.

The Fitbit Edge seems to be in the middle. It won’t give you all the notifications and apps as the Pixel Watch 5, but it will give you more than the Fitbit Air, which doesn’t have a screen, an ECG app, or built-in GPS.

Unlike the Google Pixel Watch 5, the Fitbit Edge will work with Android and iOS.

We’ll be testing the Fitbit Edge soon, so keep an eye on Tom’s Guide!

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

The Coros Pace 4 and Coros Pace 4 Pro are two of the best sports watches I’ve tested over the past year, and I’ve racked up hundreds of miles of running with both of them during marathon training.

They share a lot of identical features, running the same software and both offering offline maps and the same training analysis features. Both have also proved reliably accurate in my testing.

There are some key differences that make the Pace 4 Pro worth considering over the Pace 4, even though it costs $200 more, with the main ones being its superior battery life and more attractive design.

I’ll dive into those differences below and compare the accuracy of both watches during my testing. For more details on either watch, check out my Coros Pace 4 review and my Coros Pace 4 Pro review.

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: Price

The Coros Pace 4 Pro costs $449 in the U.S. and £389 in the U.K., which is a big jump in price from the Coros Pace 4, which is $249/£229 for the standard watch and $279/£249 for the aluminum model.

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: Design and display

While there are also differences in battery life, the main reason I’d consider upgrading to the Coros Pace 4 Pro is its design.

This is the best-looking Coros watch yet, in my opinion, and it also uses sturdier materials than the Pace 4, with a titanium bezel and sapphire crystal screen.

The screen on the Pro is also noticeably bigger and brighter than the one on the standard Pace 4, and this is done without making the Pace 4 Pro thicker or much heavier.

It’s still a light watch that’s comfortable to wear 24/7, and fits well on my thin wrist. The Pace 4’s even smaller design might still appeal more to some people, though.

Another plus is that the Pace 4’s front has a wider variety of colors. The Pace 4 Pro is currently only available in black and white, whereas the Pace 4 comes in black, white, yellow and ultraviolet, along with a special Jakob Ingebritsen edition that’s black and gold.

The Pace 4 Pro does have a lot more storage than the Pace 4, though, with 32GB compared with 4GB. This is handy if you plan to download a lot of maps or music onto the watch, but 4GB is enough if you just need maps for your local area and any spots you plan to visit.

For me, the Coros Pace 4 Pro’s design makes it a better watch to wear all the time, and the large screen means your stats are clearer and easier to read at a glance during activities, as are the offline maps.

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: GPS & heart rate accuracy

I’ve done a lot of running with both watches, using the Coros Pace 4 for six months, including running the London Marathon and racking up a few hundred miles with the Pace 4 Pro over the past month or so.

During that time, the GPS accuracy on both watches has been nigh-on impeccable. I use both in the most accurate multi-band mode, and even in tricky conditions such as under skyscrapers in city centers, they both produce reliably accurate GPS tracks and consistent distance and pace stats.

I also ran with both watches at the same time, comparing them to the Garmin Forerunner 970 as well, and they produced almost identical GPS tracks and distance stats. I wouldn’t base your decision on picking between them on GPS accuracy.

The same goes for heart rate accuracy; they have been similarly accurate for me over extended testing when comparing their readings to a chest strap heart rate monitor.

Neither is perfect — I find both the Pace 4 and Pace 4 Pro will throw up the occasional incorrect spike in heart rate on runs, and lag behind a chest strap in strength workouts — but both have mostly been very reliable during my training and matched a chest strap during races.

I wouldn’t say either is better than the other, and you could use either to guide your training, but for the most accurate results I’d still pair a chest strap with both watches.

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: Battery life

The larger design of the Pace 4 Pro has been put to good use with regard to battery life. It lasts up to 21 days in watch mode compared to 19 on the Pace 4 (seven days vs. six days with the screen always-on), and offers 30 hours of multi-band GPS tracking compared to 24 on the Pace 4.

I found the difference in battery life to be heightened with my real-world use. I have the screen always on for both and run every day using the most power-intensive GPS mode.

With that usage, the Coros Pace 4 Pro has been lasting me seven days on a charge, whereas the Pace 4 lasts five days.

Both are impressively long-lasting given their small sizes and AMOLED displays, but opting for the Pace 4 Pro might save you a couple of trips to the charger a month.

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: Specs compared

Coros Pace 4 Pro vs Coros Pace 4: Verdict

The Coros Pace 4 is the better value watch of the two, since it matches the Pace 4 Pro on key features and is just as accurate, but the design of the Pace 4 Pro is a noticeable upgrade that many will appreciate.

As someone who wears a sports watch 24/7, the bigger, brighter screen of the Pace 4 Pro and more attractive design feels worth the extra outlay, with longer battery life a welcome bonus. It’s also easier to read stats and use maps during activities on the larger display.

If you only use a sports watch during workouts, or prefer your wearable to be as small and light as possible, the Coros Pace 4 makes more sense, and it comes in a couple more vibrant color options, too.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested the Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro — which should you buy?
• I’ve tested the Hoka Clifton 11 vs Hoka Bondi 9 and this is the one I’d buy
• My favorite trail-running shoe is 34% off for Prime Day, and it’s great for hiking too

Every single running coach I’ve ever interviewed, without fail, says the same thing: whatever you’re training for, easy runs should be easy. Like all runners, I have the tendency to set out at an easy pace and gradually let it creep as the run progresses. Call it ego, call it impatience, but it’s a sure-fire way to overtrain and get injured before you reach the start line.

This is where Zone 2 training comes in. Zone 2 refers to 60-70% of your max heart rate, and it’s an intensity where you burn fat for fuel. These sessions train your body to build more mitochondria, which makes your body more efficient at producing energy. It also means you’re not generating large amounts of lactic acid, so you won’t need days of recovery.

One study published in the Healthcare journal demonstrates how a group of cross-country ski athletes improved their performance by taking up zone two training. It’s not limited to skiing; it's a popular training method used frequently in endurance sports like running, cycling, and swimming.

On a scale of one to 10, where one is sitting at your desk reading this article, and 10 is an all-out sprint, Zone 2 should feel like a three or a four. You should be able to maintain the pace for hours, or easily hold a conversation with someone running next to you.

Yet if you’re running alone, it can be harder to keep things this light, which is where your smartwatch comes in. Keeping an eye on your heart rate zone ensures you’re not working too hard, especially on days when you might be run down, or on a particularly hilly route and your heart rate might be elevated.

Sure, you’ve probably realized you can see your heart rate on your Apple Watch, but I’ve been running with an Apple Watch for years and didn’t know about this simple hack to make my Zone 2 runs easier.

The best part? As you get fitter and stronger, your heart rate zones will change as your resting heart rate drops, and your heart will become more efficient at clearing lactic acid. If you’ve set them to automatic, the Apple Watch will update your zones, helping you increase your pace while still ensuring you’re not pushing yourself too hard.

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

Despite debuting back in 2023, the Fitbit Charge 6 remains one of my favorite fitness trackers on the market today because of its onboard GPS, reliable tracking performance, small but bright display, comfy design, impressive battery life, and support for several handy Google apps.

While 2026’s Fitbit Air is in some ways the spiritual successor to the Fitbit Charge 6, the lack of a screen, smart features, and onboard GPS means it doesn’t quite fill the same shoes as its older sibling.

So, will Google ever launch a Charge 6 replacement, or is the brand too concerned about sales potentially cannibalizing interest in the Pixel Watch 5? Based on a host of recent rumors and links, the former now seems likely.

That’s right, a true-blue Fitbit Charge 6 replacement could debut as early as this year. Better yet, it may combine all the best bits of the Fitbit Charge 6 in a smaller, more Fitbit Air-like package.

Here are the five biggest things you should know about the rumored Fitbit Edge.

1. Unlike the Fitbit Air, the Edge is rumored to have a screen

Screen-free fitness trackers are clearly in vogue at the moment. 2026 gave us the Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, Luna Band, and more. While I’m a fan of the distraction-free promise of these devices, sometimes it’s nice to interact with your gadget without having to open an app on your phone.

Google seems to agree, because the Fitbit Edge is rumored to incorporate a 1.34-inch display that’s likely touch-sensitive, according to a report by Forbes. Leaked images, shared by Android Headlines, also suggest that the device will have at least one physical button on the side of the case.

2. Onboard GPS also seems likely

My biggest gripe about the Fitbit Air is that it lacks onboard GPS, which means you need to carry your paired phone with you for outdoor workouts if you want accurate location-based data.

As someone who frequently makes use of the great outdoors for my recreational enjoyment, I much prefer not being forced to bring my bulky iPhone 16 Plus along for the excursion, especially when going for a run or bike ride.

Fortunately, the Fitbit Edge is rumored to include onboard GPS, just like the Fitbit Charge 6. On the flip side, this probably means that battery life won’t be quite as good as the Fitbit Air, which lasts roughly a week per charge. More likely, it will be closer to five days, similar to the Charge 6.

3. The Edge will probably support basic Google apps

Don’t expect the Fitbit Edge to be jam-packed with smart features; that’s what the Pixel Watch line is for, but you can likely expect it to support some basic Google apps, like Google Maps, Google Music, and Google Wallet.

4. Expect a petite, lightweight design

Again, going by leaked images, the Fitbit Edge appears to be slightly smaller than the Fitbit Charge 6, with a more pebble-like case design. The strap shown appears similar in design to the silicone straps that ship with the Pixel Watch 5.

While I don’t have any concrete specs, I suspect the Edge will weigh less than the ~30 g Fitbit Charge 6 but a little more than the ~13 g Fitbit Air.

With only one physical button shown on the right side of the case, it seems likely that the screen on the tracker will be touch-sensitive. Design-wise, I expect Google to launch the Fitbit Edge with a decent selection of eye-catching color combinations to choose from.

5. It will likely cost between $150 and $200

The Fitbit Air is $99, while the Fitbit Charge 6 launched at $159. How much can we expect the Fitbit Edge to go for? Given the rate of inflation over the past three years, it seems likely that the Edge will cost a little bit more than its predecessor, but I highly doubt it will surpass $200.

What are your thoughts on the Fitbit Edge? Does it sound like a proper replacement for the Fitbit Charge 6? Moreover, cost aside, which fitness tracker would you rather own, the screen-free Fitbit Air or a screen- and GPS-equipped Fitbit Edge? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6 — which top-performing Fitness tracker wins?
• Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3 — which $99 fitness tracker wins?
• I've been using the Fitbit Air for over a week, and my favorite feature has completely changed the way I wake up

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: battery life

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: smart features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: specs compared

Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Coros Pace 4 Pro: verdict

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

I’m the type of person who turns on automatic updates for all of my gadgets, especially my iPhone and Apple Watch, seeing that they go hand-in-hand.

So, when I saw the notification for the official watchOS 27 update pop up, I immediately scheduled it to install overnight. As much as the new software brought critical security updates to my Apple Watch, my excitement was aimed at all the new features it introduced — like the new single-tap gesture control.

Everything went smoothly until the next day, when I realized something was amiss. Normally, I’d see the complication for the Walkie-Talkie app, but it was nowhere in sight. I thought it might’ve reset with the update, so I tried looking through the app list to find it.

However, it was completely gone. After a quick search, I found out that Apple killed off my favorite feature, and I think it’s making a big mistake. Here’s why.

Unlike anything else on another smartwatch

Having strapped nearly every major wearable to my wrist over the years, I can tell you that most smartwatches blur together. Whether they’re running Wear OS, Garmin OS, or proprietary fitness software, they all stick to the exact same playbook: sending notifications, tracking heart rate, and letting you take the occasional call from the wrist.

Yet, when I stumbled upon the Walkie-Talkie app on my Apple Watch several years ago, it quickly became one of the few tools I used religiously. It was truly distinct — a feature you simply couldn't find on rival platforms, and one that made immediate practical sense.

It wasn’t trying to duplicate a standard phone call. Instead, Walkie-Talkie delivered a purpose-built wrist experience, turning the Apple Watch into a genuine push-to-talk communicator. I can’t tell you how many times I relied on it — like whenever my partner and I split up while shopping on opposite sides of a store.

Then there were all the coffee runs where I’d inevitably forget her exact order. With Walkie-Talkie, I could get an immediate answer without the hassle and delays of dialing an actual phone call.

Other alternatives, but they share the same flaw

I’m devastated by Apple’s decision to kill off the Walkie-Talkie app. I’ve read through this Reddit post and understand how some users experienced hiccups using it, but I found it to be pretty reliable. Since finding out it’s been eliminated with the watchOS 27 update, I’ve been looking at my options.

A quick search through the watchOS App Store reveals plenty of third-party push-to-talk options that could fill the void. But none of them capture the magic of Apple’s original feature because they lack native system integration.

Instead of working out of the box using your existing Apple ID and iCloud contacts, these alternatives force you and your recipient to set up accounts and jump through account registration screens. It doesn’t help either when these alternatives all have single reviews, so they really stop me in my tracks from pursuing them further.

I’m back to phone calls and it's just not the same

Without Walkie-Talkie, I’m forced back to standard phone calls, and it’s annoying. The whole thing is a process compared to the push-to-talk simplicity I was used to: I need to find my contact and wait for them to pick up.

The experience pales in comparison because with Walkie-Talkie, I was able to bypass all that and send my message instantly. If you’ve used the Drop-In feature on Amazon Echo devices, you know exactly how Walkie-Talkie felt.

Walkie-Talkie lived in that perfect middle ground between a voice message you might not hear for an hour and an intrusive live call. I really hope Apple reconsiders this and resurrects push-to-talk in a future watchOS update.

Whether it returns as a redesigned system app or evolves into a cross-device tool integrated directly into Messages, the Apple Watch desperately needs that effortless voice connection back.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple issues emergency update for millions of iPhones, iPads, and Macs — update your devices now
• Apple's HomePad reportedly coming Oct. 13 — 7 features you need to know
• 4 new iOS 27 features that turn Apple Notes into a productivity powerhouse

Despite writing about fitness tech for a living, I’m always surprised when devices strapped to my pulse points spot things before I do. A few years ago, I wrote how my Oura Ring spotted I was pregnant weeks before I did a test; this week, the Apple Watch Vitals app knew my toddler had passed on his germs before I felt the rumblings of a cold.

Impressive, I know, but if you’re new to Apple Watch, you might not know a few tweaks can help you get the most out of the Vitals app. This applies to all Apple Watches, not just the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4, which have the new Readiness and Daytime Vitals functionalities.

This week, my overnight vitals told me my resting heart rate and respiratory rate were slightly off — signs that my body was under increased strain. A few days later, I developed a head cold.

Knowing you’re getting sick before you actually get any symptoms not only allows you to prevent spreading germs, but also to get ahead of your recovery, allowing your immune system to fight the virus before it takes hold.

I’m a few weeks out from my seventh marathon, so I've spent this week dialing my mileage back and focusing on rest and hydration to give my body the best chance to shake the illness before race day.

But how can you be sure your watch is tracking your health correctly? Here are some little tweaks to improve the accuracy of the Vitals app on your watch.

1. Ensure your watch fits correctly

This is probably more of an issue if you have wrists as scrawny as mine and you’re wearing an Apple Watch Ultra, but to track correctly, the watch needs to be sitting close to your skin.

Make sure your watch is tight enough to ensure it’s not moving around your wrist when you sleep, but not so tight that it’s cutting off circulation. It should also be sitting above your wrist bone, toward your elbow, not on your wrist bone or leaning toward your hand.

2. Wear your watch continuously overnight

The best way for the Vitals app to spot an outlier is to have enough data to establish your baseline. Make sure you wear your Apple Watch to bed every night so it can collect this data.

If you have a new Apple Watch, the Vitals app will need seven nights of data to establish typical ranges for things like respiratory rate and heart rate.

3. Make sure you turn sleep tracking on

You’ll probably already be doing this if you want a sleep score when you wake up, but to see your overnight vitals, make sure your watch is in Sleep Focus. If, like me, you forget to do this, you can set up an automatic Sleep Focus window.

4. Make sure the required settings are enabled

If you’re not seeing anything in your Vitals app, chances are you need to check that you’ve enabled everything correctly. To do this, head to the Watch app on your iPhone, click on Passcode, and make sure you’ve turned Wrist Detection on. Go to your iPhone and Watch privacy settings and make sure that Heart Rate and fitness tracking are enabled.

It’s also worth keeping your iPhone and Apple Watch updated with the latest software to ensure you’re getting the most accurate health algorithm.

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

2026 is the year of the screenless tracker, and as a health editor, I’m here for it. These discreet devices are designed to sit unnoticed on your pulse points and track your steps, stress, workouts, and cycle, without the constant buzz of WhatsApp notifications or emails.

Two big releases this year are the $99 Fitbit Air, an excellent, affordable tracker that’s comfortable to wear, and the $399 Oura Ring 5, which is the smallest and lightest smart ring on the market. I’ve been wearing both for five months, and below, I’ve broken down which I’d pick based on all my testing.

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Counting calories

One of the main reasons people buy a fitness tracker is to keep track of their health goals. If losing weight is your goal, you’ll know that the best way to do this is to be in a calorie deficit — in other words, burning more calories than you consume.

As a health writer, I’m here to tell you that none of the best fitness trackers are particularly good at this. No wearable can directly measure your metabolic activity, oxygen uptake, or heat production to fully understand your true calorie burn; instead, they take a fairly educated guess.

A lot of the algorithms are based on your age, sex, weight and height, but won’t account for biological differences like your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) and body composition (muscle burns more energy at rest than fat).

I’d take all readings with a pinch of salt and instead look at how active you were week on week, how many workouts you fit in, or whether you’re eating a healthy, balanced diet to fuel the movement you’re tracking.

Winner: It’s a tie

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Counting steps

Again, steps aren’t the best metric for how healthy we are, but they are a good place to start and something a lot of people care about. After five months of testing, I’d say the Fitbit Air is more accurate for my daily step count compared to the Oura Ring.

Ways to make the Oura Ring more accurate in tracking your steps are to ensure you’re wearing the ring the right way — the sensors should be on the bottom of your finger. Your ring should be tight enough to track your data, but not so tight it’s cutting off circulation. It’s also a good idea to connect your ring to the Apple Health app on your iPhone or the Android Health app.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Design and comfort

Both of these devices are extremely comfortable to wear. The Fitbit Air is far smaller and lighter than the Whoop 5.0 or the Garmin Cirqa; plus, unlike the Whoop and Cirqa, it doesn’t stay wet for hours on your wrist.

That said, the winner here is the Oura Ring 5, which really does disappear on your finger. It looks like jewelry, and it would be the device I recommend to anyone who doesn’t want to be seen wearing a fitness tracker. The Oura Ring 5 also comes out on top for hygiene, as it’s really easy to clean and you’re never going to have to worry about the band getting smelly or dirty.

Winner: Oura Ring 5

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Battery life

Again, this one is pretty much a tie. The Fitbit Air gives you seven days of battery life from a single charge. The Oura Ring 5 gives you up to nine days of battery life, depending on the size of your ring. I wear a size 8 and find I get about a week between charges.

Either way, you’re charging both trackers a lot less than your Apple Watch.

Winner: It’s a tie

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Sleep

Far from just being an interesting thing to look at every morning, how well you sleep is actually as important as how much you move. Experts say sleep rivals diet and exercise as a core pillar of longevity; the American Heart Association, for example, uses sleep data as a metric for heart and brain health.

Both trackers do a good job of making it easy to understand how well you’re sleeping. Both give you a sleep score out of 100, a breakdown of the different stages of sleep you’ve entered, and tips on how to improve your quality. That said, Oura goes far deeper, and to get the same level of sleep insights from the Fitbit Air, you have to pay for a Google Health membership.

Winner: Oura Ring 5

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Stress and recovery

Again, this is a tough one, as both devices do a pretty good job of looking at how well your body copes with stress over the day. Neither goes into as much detail as the Whoop, which largely focuses on your overall strain score, but both definitely have a focus on resilience.

I’d say the Oura tips it slightly, but this one is hard to call. I’d also say that if you do subscribe to the Google Health membership, Fitbit’s AI health coach is the best I’ve used. It doesn’t just regurgitate your workouts; instead, it gives you actionable advice based on how well you’ve slept, how hard you’ve pushed yourself, and the recovery data the device has collected.

Winner: It’s a tie

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Female health tracking

This one is easy — the Oura Ring 5. Oura has always been a leader in terms of menstrual tracking, pregnancy tracking, and now menopause features. Heck, my Oura Ring 3 knew I was pregnant weeks before I did.

It’s also compatible with Natural Cycles, allowing you to use the ring with the app to plan or prevent pregnancy. At the time of writing, the Fitbit Air isn’t compatible with Natural Cycles, and while it has the ability to track your skin temperature, it’s not using this data as part of its menstrual tracking features.

Winner: Oura Ring 5

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Price

Another super easy one: for $99, the Fitbit Air is the screenless tracker I’d recommend to most people. If you’re not bothered about the deeper sleep insights or AI health coach, it’s also a one-time purchase, compared to the ongoing subscription you’ll need with the Oura Ring.

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Oura Ring 5: Which should you buy?

So, which should you buy? If you’re on a budget, you don’t really care about wearing a watch and a screenless tracker, and you don’t need female health tracking features, the Fitbit Air is the obvious choice.

You don’t need a subscription to get all you need from the device, and it’s super lightweight and comfortable to wear. If you do pay for the subscription, the Gemini-powered health coach is the best I’ve used.

If you want to wear a beautiful watch to the office, or no watch at all, and still track your health metrics, the Oura Ring 5 is the obvious choice. It looks stunning, it’s easy to clean, and it gives you tonnes of data. If you forced me to choose, I’d still pick the Oura every time, but it is undeniably more of an investment.

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

I’ve tested every model of the Apple Watch to date, and ever since they updated the sensor on the Apple Watch Series 4, I’ve found that it has been one of the best smartwatches for heart rate accuracy during workouts.

The latest models — the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 — now promise the most accurate heart rate sensor on the market, based on an in-house Apple study comparing the Series 12 to other wearables and using the Polar H10 chest strap as a reference.

I was keen to put these claims to the test myself, and along with racing a half marathon while wearing both watches and a chest strap, I’ve done a variety of workouts with the Apple Watch Series 12, comparing its heart rate readings to a Garmin HRM 600 chest strap.

How I tested the Apple Watch 12’s heart rate accuracy

My main sport is running, and I’ve logged over 100 miles with the Apple Watch 12 while also wearing a chest strap. I’ve also done two strength workouts with weights, a bodyweight HIIT session, and an indoor bike ride.

For each test, I paired the Garmin HRM 600 chest strap to the Coros Pace 4 Pro on one wrist and wore the Apple Watch 12 on the other, then checked the graphs of their readings using the DC Rainmaker Analyzer.

I used the Apple Watch 12 with both the silicone and nylon sports bands, and it was similarly accurate with both, but mostly, I used the nylon sport loop as I find it more comfortable and easier to tighten quickly for a snug fit for heart rate readings.

Chest straps are the gold standard for consumers seeking accurate heart rate data because they measure electrical signals directly from the heart, rather than using lights to measure your pulse at the wrist like optical sensors in watches. They're generally more accurate and faster to respond to changes in heart rate as a result.

However, most people find just wearing a watch more comfortable and convenient than putting on a chest strap — especially in winter when putting a cold strap on your chest is no fun, trust me. So if a watch proves to be just as good, it’s a better option for most people.

Let’s dive into the results, starting with how the Apple Watch 12 fared on the run.

Apple Watch 12 heart rate accuracy test: Running

I’ve got a lot of data from my runs with the Apple Watch 12, and the vast majority of it shows the watch to be very accurate with regard to heart rate accuracy during those runs.

One common problem is that the watch would gray out the heart rate reading at the start of a run if it lacked confidence in the reading.

These periods without readings were always short and show on the graphs below as straight lines between readings the watch did take.

As an aside, the Apple Watch 12 has been better than the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which has often grayed out its readings for long stretches of my runs during testing.

Once locked on, the Apple Watch 12’s heart rate sensor has stuck closely in line with the reading from the chest strap on all my outdoor runs, including a lot of easy miles, a half marathon race, and several challenging workouts in training.

I also did one treadmill run comparing it to a chest strap, which did feature a few more minor errors from the Apple Watch 12 that results in a slightly higher average heart rate reading from the watch by the end of the run.

It hasn’t been perfect, with the odd erroneous dip or spike, and it doesn’t respond to fast changes in heart rate quite as quickly as the chest strap, which is common for optical readings, but the Apple Watch 12 impressed me overall during my runs.

It could certainly be used to judge my training based on heart rate, which is the main benefit of it being accurate, in my mind.

Apple Watch 12 heart rate accuracy test: Indoor cycling

I did one indoor bike ride testing the Apple Watch 12 against the Garmin HRM 600 chest strap, cycling for just over 40 minutes total, with most of that done at an easy effort.

To put the Apple Watch 12’s sensor through its paces, I did 30-second sprint efforts every five minutes during the cycle to spike my heart rate quickly — something that can be very hard for optical sensors to track as quickly as a chest strap.

The Apple Watch 12 performed brilliantly during this test, responding rapidly to these spikes and drops in effort and ending up with an average heart rate of 109.97 compared to 109.89 for the chest strap.

While the graph shows it lagged a tiny fraction behind the chest strap when I started an interval — something I could see when looking at the watches during these efforts — the Series 12 captured each and every sprint well, and should be a reliable option if you love spinning sessions.

Apple Watch 12 heart rate accuracy test: Strength and HIIT workouts

In my experience, the hardest test for an optical sensor is gym workouts, because unlike sports like running and cycling, you don’t move in a predictable, consistent way when lifting weights or doing HIIT, which means the watch has more random noise to filter out when trying to detect your heart rate.

It’s such a challenge for watches that when you select a HIIT workout on the Apple Watch 12, a message actually pops up saying you can connect a chest strap to the watch via Bluetooth if you’re not getting consistent heart rate readings from the watch.

I did two strength sessions lifting weights with the watch, where my heart rate was mostly quite low, and a bodyweight HIIT session doing circuits of five exercises, three of which were jumping moves like burpees that get the heart pumping.

In both strength workouts, you can see the heart rate readings from the watch largely rose and fell in line with the chest strap but lagged and were rarely in line. The watch also missed one small jump in heart rate during one of the workouts.

The average heart rate reading was only a couple of beats off from the chest strap overall, though, and most spikes in effort were spotted and logged by the watch, even if it was a few seconds behind the strap.

It was a similar story with the HIIT workout, where I was actually pretty impressed with the Apple Watch 12’s readings. It lagged behind the chest strap, but did catch each of my intervals and rise to the right level.

It did also add in a couple of erroneous spikes, though, and for both HIIT and strength workouts I’d say a chest strap, or even an armband, will still deliver better results than a watch.

Apple Watch 12 heart rate accuracy test: Verdict

The Apple Watch 12 performed well overall in my testing, but I wouldn’t say it’s a marked improvement over other watches I’ve used for heart rate accuracy.

I typically wear a Garmin watch for training and have found the latest Garmin models like the Forerunner 970 that use the brand’s Elevate v5 heart rate sensor very reliable for heart rate accuracy; at least as good as the Apple Watch 12.

I’d say the Apple Watch 12’s heart rate accuracy is up there with the best wearables for me, but if you are relying on heart rate to judge your training, especially in HIIT or strength sessions, a chest strap might still be a worthwhile investment.

More from Tom's Guide

• Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — 5 key differences you need to know
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'
• Fitbit Air (2026) vs Fitbit Flex (2013) — how much has wearable tech actually progressed in 13 years?

If you're looking for a rugged watch and you're reading Tom's Guide then chances are you're thinking about the Apple Watch Ultra 4 or perhaps the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 or even the Garmin Fenix Pro 9.

But those timepieces are kindergarten toys compared to Casio's iconic G-Shock watches. And today the brand has unveiled two new additions to the family — one of which is the most expensive G-Shock ever made, and the other a much more accessible option. As a longtime G-Shock wearer, I need to tell you about these watches.

I'll break the bad news first, the MRG-D5000, known as "The Blue Rose Project" is not something you or I are ever going to be able to buy. Its bezel and outer case are formed entirely from blue sapphire crystal, which gives it clarity, hardness, a distinctive color, and a £67,000 (roughly $88,600) price tag. Moreover, there are only 20 of them being made. So when Casio says it's the "rarest and most valuable production G-Shock to date", it's not kidding.

"The story began with the Dream Project led by G-Shock creator Kikuo Ibe," Casio revealed in a press release.

"In 2018, the project produced the G-D5000, a watch crafted from 18-carat gold while retaining premium shock resistance. The same year, Casio revealed a sapphire crystal concept watch in Basel, Switzerland, that demonstrated the idea’s beauty but could not yet meet G-Shock shock-resistance standards."

"While many thought the challenge impossible, G-Shock’s relentless pursuit of perfection in the search for toughness meant that after years of research, the MR-G engineering team found that dividing the outer case into multiple interacting components could disperse impact more effectively than a conventional single-piece construction. The breakthrough informed the Multi-Guard Structure introduced with the titanium MRG-B5000 in 2022 and, ultimately, the Multi-Guard Structure for Sapphire used in the new MRG-D5000."

These watches will almost certainly be snapped up by collectors and watch fanatics — some of whom have very deep pockets.

As mentioned, it's not like we'll be able to buy it, but the MRG-D5000 boasts 20-bar water resistance; solar power; Multi Band 6 radio control; 1/100-second stopwatch; countdown timer; five daily alarms; full-auto LED backlight.

The Mudman GDG-B100 could beat the Apple Watch to a pulp

With all the glitz and glamour out of the way, let's get down in the dirt with the second G-Shock revealed today — the one we can realistically strap to our wrist while training for the next Hyrox or Ironman.

The G-Shock Mudman GDG-B100 is available from £200 ($264) and has been built with military and first responders in mind. Casio has employed carbon fiber-reinforced resin to increase the rigidity of the case, helping it resist damage and deformation. There's a complete airtight seal on this watch, with gaskets fitted to the button shafts to help prevent mud and dust from entering the case.

The display is a memory-in-pixel (MIP) LCD and, in similar fashion to the Apple Watch Ultra series (and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra), there's also a red LED backlight that kicks in after dark to preserve night vision.

The GDG-B100 measures distance, speed, pace and calories burned in addition to stopwatch timing. It can store up to 100 lap times, offers an interval timer with up to five time settings and counts steps using a built-in accelerometer.

You'll need to use Smartphone Link to connect the watch to the Casio app via Bluetooth where you'll find training and daily activity records. When the watch is connected to your phone, you can also get vibration alerts for incoming calls, emails, social media updates, calendar notifications and reminders. But, if I'm honest, you're not buying a G-Shock to get calendar notifications — you're buying it to survive a weeklong trip into the wilderness.

There are three different styles to choose from: all black, dark green with orange accents or a sand-colored band with a black bezel.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget sit-ups — I did suitcase carries for a week, and my core was on fire
• 'Stop doing overhead presses until you fix these 3 huge mistakes,' says a personal trainer
• Your using your iPhone Action Button wrong — how iOS 27 unlocks three features at once

There are 24 hours in the day but is your wearable capturing all of them? With the launch of the SL-1 smart band, from $199.95, smart ring brand QALO hopes to deliver non-stop health tracking that combines 24/7 data in an understandable, actionable package. No blank spots, no missing hours.

Geared towards intense movement and workouts — but with the capability to track sleep and stress — the QALO SL-1 is the latest wearable aiming to make health tracking more accessible. It joins the FitBit Air and Oura Ring 5 in arguing that the best sleep trackers of 2026 have all been screenless.

I've been hands-on with the SL-1 smart band and yes, when you're lifting a kettlebell, it's more comfortable to wear than a pricey smart ring. But a lot of us don't lift kettlebells that often, so I spoke to Jake Curreri, CEO of QALO, about the SL-1, non-stop tracking and how wearables might change lives.

QALO SL-1 Smart Band: How it works

QALO is best known for its silicone rings (aka the functional wedding ring.) A brand that puts convenience and athletics at the heart of its production, wearables were the obvious next step. That's where Curreri comes in.

"I've founded several startups in the digital health and fitness space, and then on behalf of one of my companies, consulted with Nike Innovation Labs," he explains.

Brought on to steer QALO into the growing wearables market, Curreri asked a simple question: "What do we want to focus our users' attention on?"

The answer came in three parts.

"Sleep was foundational. Vitality was foundational. And movement was foundational."

'Empower you to make a change in habits you otherwise might not have made'

QALO turned three interests into one easy metric; the Q score. QALO's proprietary 1-100 score synthesizes key metrics to form a snapshot of your day. (Think of it as their version of FitBit's popular readiness score.)

"You don't need a ring or a band to tell you your sleep was terrible," says Curreri. "The important part is how that impacts your overall health."

He explains that having that data equips people, particularly those working in high pressure situations, to understand their readiness. "It's one of the ways we built the product to make health tracking fit into people's lives, rather than asking people to change their lives around the wearable."

But, of course, QALO doesn't want you to simply sit back and watch low scores roll in.

"We really want it to be something that you can easily digest, and then make changes based off of," explains Curreri. "For example, going to bed before 10:30 versus after 10:30."

Alongside your score, the QALO app also delivers "optimal zones", based on the data it collects. From your personal baseline, the app can tell you if you're "high, low or in the optimal zone" for a number of metrics.

"[It's] just enough insights not to overwhelm you, but to empower you to make a change in habits today that you otherwise might not have," says Curreri.

"It truly not just changes lives, it saves lives."

'A continuous, always-on, health monitoring experience'

If QALO is looking to deliver data you can use, the release of the SL-1 hopes to increase the tracking that informs that data.

"The smart ring [released September 2025] and the smart band are designed for interchangeability," says Curreri. "The smart ring fits very well for sleep. The smart band fits very well for day to day activities."

He explains that QALO didn't want to be tied down to a "single form factor" but to provide a "continuous, always on health monitoring experience."

This versatility not only increases the data collected, but can also expand the awareness of the user. You might think fitness tracking is your focus, but learning about sleep explains your off days. Or, you might be the Fittest Man on Earth, but you still want to reach your step goals.

Engineered towards high-intensity movement and hands-on work, the SL-1 is designed to take over where a smart ring can't follow. Think construction work and weight training. (Although if you only want to make one investment, the SL-1 can be used all day long.)

I've been testing the Smart Band and it's made me realize how often I take my Oura Ring 5 off. Everyday activities like cleaning and cooking are often done sans-ring, leaving holes in my data. The SL-1 can plug those gaps, giving me the clearest picture of my metrics. Including just how stressed I get when cleaning the oven.

'It's important for us as wearable companies to push the envelope'

The launch of the SL-1 expands the usability and data collection of the wearable system. But the next frontier for QALO might lie less in new types of trackers, more in expanding just what metrics your wearable can gather.

The SL-1 includes women's health metrics, an area historically overlooked by fitness trackers. Curreri describes the "free, fully integrated cycle tracking solution" as the "bridge between fitness and medical."

So what more metrics should our wearables be tracking that they currently aren't? That's not for us to know just yet, but Curreri notes QALO is looking ahead.

"It's important for us as wearable companies and wearable visionaries and leaders at the intersection of health and fitness, to push the envelope."

QALO SL-1 Smart Band: Price and availability

The QALO SL-1 Smart Band is available right now from $199.95 at QALO. This fall, it will be sold from select Walmart stores (the QALO Smart Ring 2 is currently available from Walmart.)

Unusually for a wearable, the QALO smart ring and band are completely subscription free — no extra charge to see your scores.

This subscription-free philosophy is something Curreri describes as important to QALO and notes that expanding access to wearables backs the brands mission to deliver more data to everyone.

"We can do something pretty magical by both pushing the research component of it, but also pushing the business model."

Hang around the Tom’s Guide fitness desk long enough, and we’ll strap a tracker to your wrist and ask you to start counting your steps. Sure, most gadgets on the market these days do more than track steps, but we think if a watch does the basics right, it’s probably doing the bigger things well too.

Next on our list of watches to test is the new Apple Watch Series 12 (starting at $399) and the Garmin Forerunner 570 ($549). Both devices are designed to be worn 24/7 and track your sleep, readiness, activity, and heart rate, not just your steps. Apple says it made its pedometer more accurate in the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4, so I was keen to put the two watches head to head to find out more.

Like all of these walk tests, I strapped one watch to each wrist, and used a $5 clicker tool from Amazon to count my steps as I walked manually. 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.

Read on to find which watch came out on top, and read our Apple Watch Series 12 review and our Garmin Forerunner 570 review here on Tom’s Guide to take a deeper dive into both watches.

I walked 5,000 steps with the Apple Watch 12 vs Garmin Forerunner 570

As with all of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Series 12 still 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, which you can now pin to your home screen. This is 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.

Here’s the results:

As you can see from the results, the Apple Watch Series 12 won in this walk test, only counting an extra 50 steps. That’s not to say that the Garmin Forerunner 570 was inaccurate, however, only overcounting by 72 steps, but the Apple Watch got closer to my manual step count.

It’s worth noting that 50-70 steps is pretty much spot on. The average person takes 2,000 steps a mile, so an extra 50 steps is nothing.

To really put these two watches head-to-head, you’d need to look at a lot more than just how well they count steps. Both are designed to be worn 24/7 and help you track more than just walking workouts. There are some big differences, however: the Garmin Forerunner 570 has a far superior battery life, at 10 days in smartwatch mode for the 42mm version, and 11 days for the 47mm watch.

That said, the Apple Watch Series 12 is like having an extension of your iPhone on your wrist, and with the new heart rate sensor, it’s definitely the best Apple Watch on the market for most people. We’ll continue to compare the two watches head-to-head, so stay tuned for more testing.

More from Tom's Guide

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

Hang around the Tom’s Guide fitness desk long enough, and we’ll probably strap a fitness tracker to your wrist and ask you to go and count your steps. Sure, step counting isn’t the best measurement of how fit you are or how good a fitness tracker is, but our thinking is that if a watch can do the basics right, it’s probably doing the bigger things well too.

Next up on our list of trackers to test was the new $799 Apple Watch Ultra 4 and the $1099 Garmin Fenix 9 Pro. Apple says it made the pedometer more accurate with its new rugged adventure watch, and while both high-spec watches do a lot more than just count steps, I was keen to put them head-to-head.

To find out more, I strapped one to each wrist and used my trusty clicker tool to manually count 10,000 steps. Read on to find out which watch came out on top.

I walked 10,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Garmin Fenix 9 Pro

If you’ve read one of my walk tests, you’ll know we always start with the basics. For this test, I manually click every time I take a step, because counting to 10,000 while navigating traffic and a deaf dog is too overstimulating to describe in words.

I manually click every time I take a step. For this test, I wore the Apple Watch Ultra 4 on my left wrist and the Garmin Fenix 9 Pro on my right. Both trackers count your steps using an internal accelerometer, which measures arm swing.

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 hold a cup of coffee; the accelerometer should still measure your body’s movement.

As with all the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 still 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, which you can now pin to your home screen.

This is 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. Here are my results:

In all my years of doing these walk tests, I think this is the closest one yet. As you can see, there’s only a difference of 32 steps between the two watches, which is unheard of.

The average person takes 2,000 steps a mile, so 32 steps is nothing. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 was ever so slightly more accurate, only missing 43 steps, making it pretty much spot on.

To really put these two watches head-to-head, you’d need to look at a lot more than just how well they count steps. Both are designed to be worn 24/7 and cope with outdoor adventures. There are some big differences, however: even with a bigger battery life of 50-74 hours, the Fenix 9 Pro still offers 29 days in smartwatch mode and up to 54 hours in activity mode. The Fenix also has a built-in multi-LED flashlight and full offline mapping.

That said, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is like having an extension of your iPhone on your wrist, and with the new heart rate sensor, it’s definitely the best Apple Watch on the market for anyone serious about training. We’ll continue to compare the two watches head-to-head, so stay tuned for more testing.

More from Tom's Guide

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

Apple is slowly rolling out a revamped Health app for iPhone and Apple Watch, and you can try it now by downloading the iOS 27.2 public beta; you’ll also need to run watchOS 27 on your Apple Watch.

One of the coolest new features in the overhauled app is a series of at-home longevity assessments designed to be done in your living room using your iPhone’s camera and Apple Watch’s heart rate sensor.

These assessments provide insights into a user’s strength, balance, flexibility, and more. I tried both the balance and flexibility tests, which take about five to seven minutes each, and gained some valuable, surprising insights into my physical health. Here’s what I learned.

How Apple’s at-home longevity tests work

To perform one of these assessments, users are asked to place their iPhone on the ground, lean up against a wall, and then walk back ten to 12 feet, ensuring their entire body is framed within the front-facing camera’s view.

The assessments use a vision-based AI model to track your body movement as you perform each step. However, no video is actually being recorded during the assessment, and all the AI processing occurs on-device.

What I learned from Apple’s flexibility test

Once your iPhone is set up and you're well-framed in the center of the screen, it’s time to start the assessment.

An on-screen trainer demos the movements for each test with more than enough detail to easily follow along. For example, the flexibility assessment involves five different stretches to thoroughly determine your overall upper and lower body flexibility ratings. Ratings fall into one of four categories: Needs Improvement, Fair, Good, and Excellent.

So, how did I do? My upper body flexibility score was ‘Good,’ but my lower body flexibility score was only ‘Fair,’ lower than I expected. I performed the five tests in the assessment twice, just to be sure I properly followed all the instructions, and both times the results were the same.

Was I aware that my lower body flexibility could use some attention? Honestly, no, not at all. Now that I am, I plan to prioritize more workouts and stretches to improve it.

Helpfully, in addition to a rating, the new Health app also provides fairly comprehensive information on the best ways to make progress in either category, including suggested exercises to try.

My balance is better than my flexibility, according to Apple

The balance assessment is even easier than the flexibility one, involving just one test. Users are asked to stand on one foot, with their other foot suspended in the air behind them for as long as they can without touching the ground, for up to sixty seconds. You do this twice, once for each foot.

Once the countdown begins, calming music starts playing, while a voice periodically provides encouraging words. Balance is scored on the same rubric as flexibility.

Fortunately, this time around I scored an Excellent — again, I did the test twice — which was a lovely little ego boost after my mediocre flexibility performance.

Like an at-home physical exam

These are just two of the 17 longevity assessments found in the new Apple Health app. Once all the assessments are complete, the Health app generates a report based on the results to share with your doctor.

Ultimately, Apple’s new longevity assessment might be foreshadowing what the future of healthcare will look like, where users rely on a mix of AI-powered consumer tech and traditional doctor visits to better understand and improve their well-being.

What are your thoughts on Apple’s new longevity tests in the updated Health app in iOS 27.2? Are you looking forward to trying them yourself? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Here's how to enable the new Siri AI on your Apple Watch
• Apple just killed one of my favorite Apple Watch features with the launch of watchOS 27

2026 seems to be the year of the screenless fitness tracker. We’ve seen the success of the $99 Fitbit Air, as well as the launch of the Garmin Cirqa and the Oura Ring 5. And according to new rumors, Apple might be joining the party.

As reported by Bloomberg, Apple is working on a screenless health tracker, set to take on the likes of Fitbit Air, Garmin Cirqa, and Whoop. There have been rumors for months that Apple has been “exploring” the category and developing prototypes, which feature a fabric band attached to a module that rests on the wrist — similar to the Apple Watch, but without a screen.

It’s said that Tim Cook and services chief Eddy Cue are interested in the product. Cue now leads Apple’s health teams and is thought to be pushing to explore wearables with simpler interfaces. Yet as someone who has been writing about wearables for the past decade, I really don’t see this happening any time soon.

With the Apple Watch Series 12 and the Apple Watch Ultra 4, Apple has made two of its best health trackers yet, with an updated heart rate sensor and built-in recovery tools at last. Yet part of their appeal is that they feel like an extension of the iPhone on your wrist. Without a screen, you’re left with the slightly chaotic Health app (though I’ll wait to test the new version launching in the iOS 27.2 Beta with its new user-friendly interface) and the need to check your phone constantly to see the progress of those all-important rings.

Only time will tell, but if you’re a fan of the Whoop, I wouldn’t hold your breath. The report does state that if we do see a screenless tracker from the brand, it probably won’t be till 2028, as Apple is said to be focusing on AI smart glasses and AirPods with cameras first.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple just killed one of my favorite Apple Watch features with the launch of watchOS 27
• How to add Apple's new dynamic step count widget to your Apple Watch

With the Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4, users can now view their total daily step count in real time on the watch face courtesy of Apple’s powerful S11 processor.

While there are a couple of different ways to add the Daily Steps widget to your watch face, below, I’ve explained my favorite way to do it: Using the new Siri Modular watch face in five quick steps.

Don’t have one of the latest Apple Watch models? You can still add a step count widget to the watch face using a third-party option like the Pedometer++ app.

That said, if you do have the Apple Watch Series 12 or Apple Watch Ultra 4, here’s how to unlock Apple’s step count widget in less time than it takes to walk around the block.

How to add the step count widget to your Apple Watch

1. Open the Watch app on your iPhone and tap ‘Face Gallery’ at the bottom, center of the page
2. Select the category ‘New Watch Faces' or search for “Siri Modular’
3. Select your preferred Siri Modular layout and scroll down to ‘Complications’
4. Tap on one of the complications to change it; you’ll find the ‘Daily Steps’ widget toward the top under ‘Activity’
5. With the ‘Daily Steps’ widget added, tap ‘Add to Watch’ to switch to the Siri Modular face

Read on to see full illustrated instructions for each step.

And... that's it! Your personalized Siri Modular watch face with a Daily Steps widget should now appear on your Apple Watch Series 12 or Apple Watch Ultra 4 (the only models that support this feature natively).

Looking for more ways to customize your Apple Watch with the latest watchOS 27 bells and whistles? Here's how to enable the new Siri AI voice assistant on your Apple Watch. Best of all, you don't need one of the latest models – just one that supports watchOS 27.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4 first impressions: 5 reasons to buy and 2 reasons to skip Apple’s new rugged model
• Apple just killed one of my favorite Apple Watch features with the launch of watchOS 27
• 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

Last week saw the full launch of the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Apple Watch Series 12, and both landed on my doorstep just days before I was due to tackle the Shoreditch Half Marathon in east London.

It seemed the perfect chance to test the accuracy of both watches in race conditions, especially as this particular half marathon has to fit its 13.1-mile route into quite a small area of London, so it had a lot of tight twists and turns — ideal for checking GPS accuracy.

I also strapped on a Garmin HRM-600 chest strap heart rate monitor to compare the new optical sensors on the Apple Watches, and I linked this strap to the Coros Pace 4 Pro, one of the best sports watches with multi-band GPS, for another reference point in the race.

I was impressed by the accuracy of both watches during and after the race, but each excelled in a different area — the Series 12 was a bit stronger on heart rate, while the Ultra 4 had the edge on GPS accuracy.

Let’s dive into the details.

GPS accuracy

I don’t think I’ve ever done a race with more turns than the Shoreditch Half Marathon, and while it’s not in an area of London with many tall buildings, the constant changes of direction made it a proper challenge for the GPS tracking on the watches.

The high number of turns also means I definitely ran further than the official half marathon distance of 13.1 miles, which is measured at the tightest racing line. I frequently had to take wide turns and weave around runners, so it’s not surprising that the watches registered a longer distance.

The two Apple Watches were almost in agreement on the total distance, with the Ultra 4 logging 13.31 miles and the Apple Watch 12 logging 13.33 miles, whereas the Coros Pace 4 Pro logged 13.22 miles.

I can’t say anything definitive about which of these distances is the most accurate — the Coros is closest to the official distance, but I did run further than that with all the turns.

However, looking at the GPS tracks, the Apple Watch Series 12 shows more minor errors than the others, veering off the road through buildings and the like. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Coros Pace 4 Pro produced very similar tracks for the race.

This makes sense, because the Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Coros Pace 4 Pro both have multi-band GPS, which tends to outperform the all-systems GPS on the Apple Watch 12 when in tough conditions.

It’s one of the key upgrades on the Ultra 4 over the Series 12, and while I still find the latter generally good enough on GPS accuracy, there is a benefit for opting for the Ultra 4 if you want that extra level of precision.

Heart rate accuracy

The Apple Watch 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 both have Apple’s new optical heart rate sensor, which the company claims is the most accurate available in a wearable based on an internal study comparing several watches to the Polar H10 chest strap.

I’ve tested every Apple Watch and found that their heart rate sensors have been particularly good for watches since the Series 4, but I do notice a difference between the Ultra and the Series models.

Even though they have the same sensor, I usually find the Series watches have more reliable heart rate tracking for me, probably because they are smaller, lighter watches that fit more snugly on my thin wrists than the weightier Ultra.

It’s important to note that if the Apple Watch you’re wearing doesn’t have a high level of confidence in the heart rate it’s sensing, it will gray out the number and not give a reading until it does.

This is what happened for me early in the race with the Apple Watch Ultra 4, which didn’t get a reliable lock on my heart rate until I was about 13 minutes in, which you can see on the graph below, noted as a straight line.

Once locked on, the Ultra 4 stayed in line with the Garmin chest strap I was wearing for the rest of the race, but the Series 12 gets the win in this category because it was in line with the chest strap for the entire race, with no grayed out sections.

Rather than going flat out from the start in the race, I ran it as a progression effort and pushed harder and harder as the race went on, producing the gradual rise in heart rate in the graph.

I quite like this approach from Apple in general — it’s better to have no reading than an incorrect one — but it does mean I couldn’t use the Ultra 4’s heart rate reading to judge effort early in the race.

Verdict

While I’ve highlighted the differences between the watches from the race, the overall performance of both was very good. Both are great sports watches as well as being among the best smartwatches.

The Ultra 4 has some extra strengths on the sports front with its multi-band GPS, longer battery life and more rugged design, but the Series 12 might be a little more reliable for heart rate, especially if you have thin wrists like mine.

I plan to do plenty more testing of both watches to get more of an insight into their performance and accuracy. Hopefully on routes that are a little more straightforward than the Shoreditch Half Marathon.

More from Tom's Guide

• Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — 5 key differences you need to know
• Exclusive: Inside the Pixel Watch 5's breathing emergency detection — and why it's like an 'airbag on your wrist'
• Fitbit Air (2026) vs Fitbit Flex (2013) — how much has wearable tech actually progressed in 13 years?