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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Cheat sheet

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

Garmin Cirqa: price and availability

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Design

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

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

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Health and fitness

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

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

Garmin Cirqa: Battery

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

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

Garmin Cirqa vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air

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

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

Stay tuned for my full Garmin Cirqa review.

More from Tom's Guide

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

The Apple Watch is absolutely packed with features, and while that’s undoubtedly a good thing, it also means there are a lot of menus and apps on the watch, which can slow down your navigation and make it harder to get straight to the things you want to do.

Fortunately, there are a lot of clever shortcuts available on the watch to speed up your usage, and two I use all the time when wearing the watch make it faster to navigate the menus and fire up a workout.

I use these shortcuts on an Apple Watch Series 11 because one of them is essentially a replacement for the Action button on the Apple Watch Ultra 3, so it is only needed on Series watches, but the first hidden feature is one that applies to all of the best Apple watches.

Tip #1 — tap the time to jump to the top

If you’ve ever found yourself down at the bottom of a very long Apple Watch menu, knowing that you now need to scroll all the way back to the top to find the setting you need, this tip’s for you.

Simply tap the time in any native Apple Watch app, and it will teleport you back to the top of the menu instantly.

This works in apps like Mail, Workout and Settings, and I find it saves me time every day when I’m working my way around the various menus and options in those apps.

If you just want to head back to your watch face from wherever you are in an app, you can also cover the Apple Watch with your palm for a second, and it will transport you there.

Tip #2 — create one-tap shortcuts to your favorite workouts

I’m a keen runner and often use the Apple Watch Ultra 3 instead of the Series 11, partly because the Action button is a handy way to start a run quickly.

With this feature, you can create a similar feature on any Series Apple Watch, adding a shortcut to starting a run or any workout to your Control Center.

Here’s how to do it:

1. In the Shortcuts app on your iPhone, create a new shortcut to start a run (or any workout type)
2. Long-press this shortcut and tick "show on Apple Watch"
3. You can also customize the icon for the shortcut in the iPhone app and rename it
4. Press the side button on your Apple Watch to open the Control Center
5. Scroll down to edit, then hit the "+" icon to add your shortcut
6. Find your new shortcut and position it where you want in your Control Center

Now when you hit that shortcut in the Control Center, it will immediately open the Workout app and start your chosen training session, almost as quickly as if you’d used the Action button on an Ultra.

You can also add your shortcut directly to a watch face if you have one with complications, meaning you don’t even need to open the Control Center.

I have shortcuts for outdoor run and functional strength training workouts set up on my watch, so I can fire them up with just one or two taps.

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

The three fitness tracking stats I trust the least

1. Elevation gain

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

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

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

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

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

2. Pace

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

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

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

3. Calories

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Read on for the results!

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Walk test results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch Ultra 3: Winner

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Earlier this year, Garmin CEO Cliff Pemble tipped that 2026 was set to be a big year for its outdoor division, which would be “driven by a significant number of new product introductions” likely to land in the second half of the year.

One of those new products is expected to be the Garmin Fenix 9. Garmin’s flagship watch is refreshed each year and will probably be the most eye-catching launch to come this year.

However, I’m just as excited by the idea of a successor to the Garmin Enduro 3. This is another adventure watch that sits in Garmin’s outdoor division, and since the Enduro 3 came out in 2024, the line is due for an update this year.

While the Fenix line has long been the best Garmin watch for adventurous athletes who spend a lot of time in the wilderness, there are a couple of reasons I think the Enduro 4 might be the watch to beat in this area by the end of 2026.

The Enduro has the battery life to beat

Across the Garmin line-up, battery life is generally getting shorter with the brand’s latest models, as brighter and brighter AMOLED displays become the norm.

For the most part, I’m not against this move myself — I can charge my watch easily most days, Garmins still last way longer than smartwatches, and I like a bright display.

However, when it comes to spending days or weeks in the great outdoors, you want a long-lasting watch, and the Enduro is the best Garmin option on this front.

The Enduro 3 lasted me around 18 days on a charge even with heavy use, running every day, and it can last up to 90 days in sunny conditions thanks to its solar panels and power-saving memory-in-pixel display.

In contrast, the 47mm Garmin Fenix 8 Pro AMOLED lasts me more like four or five days with similar use, and even the 51mm watch can last a maximum of 27 days, or 15 days if the screen is always-on.

If the Garmin Enduro 4 can maintain the long battery life of its predecessor, or even exceed it, it’s almost certain to outlast the forthcoming Fenix 9.

Garmin’s satellite connectivity could come to the Enduro 4

The biggest update Garmin brought to the Fenix 8 Pro compared with the Fenix 8 was LTE and satellite connectivity, which allows you to stay in touch even when you're without your phone or when you're off the grid entirely.

This feature is likely to start spreading to other Garmin watches in the coming years, and the obvious place to start would be the adventure-focused Enduro line.

It’s a watch built to handle long expeditions in the wilderness, so satellite connectivity to send SOS messages and the like would be a natural addition to the Enduro 4.

MIP fans might only have the Enduro option

The Garmin Fenix 8 was the first Fenix to offer both MIP and AMOLED options — previously the AMOLED watches fell under the Epix barrier.

However, the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro series dropped the MIP option and added an innovative Fenix 8 Pro MicroLED to the lineup.

This MicroLED tech is very impressive, but MIP watches still have a dedicated fanbase that loves the long battery life they offer when always-on, and their excellent visibility in bright sunlight.

There’s no guarantee the Fenix 9 series will have a MIP option, so the Enduro 4 could become the go-to option for those who want a top Garmin with this display.

It’s notable that thus far it’s only MIP Garmins that have offered solar panels on the face, which extends the battery life even further, so that could be another plus to the Enduro 4.

Of course, Garmin could choose to make the Enduro 4 an AMOLED watch as well — there are some incredibly long-lasting AMOLED watches now, like the Suunto Vertical 2 — but that would bring it too close to the Fenix line in my opinion.

The Enduro is now cheaper than the Fenix

The Enduro line was initially more expensive than the Fenix line, but the Enduro 3 was cheaper than the Enduro 2 and fell well below the prices of the Fenix 8 and Fenix 8 Pro.

Given it’s a titanium watch with a sapphire display and most of Garmin’s top features, including offline maps, it was a bit of a bargain for those who didn’t want an AMOLED display.

If this price hierarchy continues with any new models launched in 2026, the new Enduro could offer better value to people seeking a resilient, long-lasting adventure watch.

More from Tom's Guide

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

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 is one of the best smartwatches you can buy. And even though it’s less than a year old, Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumors are plentiful; some even hint at a fall 2026 release.

I test a lot of wearables here at Tom’s Guide, and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is easily my favorite rugged, full-featured smartwatch; I’d also argue that it’s the most advanced smartwatch on the market today. However, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

From physical upgrades to battery life improvements to new AI features, here are the five biggest Apple Watch Ultra 4 upgrades I’m hoping for.

1. A brighter display

Without an increase in screen brightness, Apple risks falling behind the competition, namely, Samsung, Google, and Garmin. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 maxes out at 3,000 nits, the same brightness as the Apple Watch Ultra 2. This is bright enough to see in direct sunlight, in most cases, but not nearly as bright as the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro LED, which goes up to 4,500 nits.

The Google Pixel Watch 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, both significantly cheaper than the Apple Watch Ultra 3, also boast 3,000-nit max brightness, and there’s a good shot that the Galaxy Watch 9 and/or Pixel Watch 5 will push that spec another 1,000 nits.

So, without an equal or greater bump in display output, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 risks feeling dated on arrival.

2. A thinner, lighter case

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 case is reasonably lightweight and thin, but I think Apple can go even slimmer. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 already wears way more comfortably than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra, its Android-friendly equivalent, but Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 rumors hint that a slimmer case might be in the cards.

To keep the competitive advantage of a comfier design, I’d love to see the Apple Watch Ultra 3 boast a thickness under 10 mm (a reduction of ~2 mm). Given that the Apple Watch Series 11 is 9.7 mm, I have no doubt that the fine folks in Cupertino can get this done.

3. Three days of battery (or more)

Battery life is arguably Apple’s Achilles heel when it comes to wearables, and even though the Ultra 3 is Apple’s longest-lasting smartwatch, battery life is only good for about 42 hours per charge without power-saving options enabled.

By comparison, the Galaxy Watch Ultra lasts for closer to 48 hours. Meanwhile, the Google Pixel Watch 4 in 45mm, though not a “rugged-style” smartwatch, is good for about two days per charge. Moreover, I suspect the successors to both models will see a battery life bump.

This is all to say, Apple has its work cut out when it comes to power consumption in the Watch Ultra 4.

4. An easier way to unlock the screen

Passcodes never seemed like a great way to unlock an Apple Watch, which is why two separate Apple Watch 12/Ultra 4 rumors have me excited. One suggests that Apple's next-gen smartwatches will get forward-facing cameras for Face ID. The other hints that an under-the-display fingerprint scanner could make an appearance.

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

5. Siri AI assistant

Last but not least, the Apple Watch Ultra 4 needs to debut with a ready-to-use, no-excuses version of Siri AI that’s on par with or better than Google’s implementation of Gemini AI as a virtual assistant on the latest Pixel Watch and Galaxy Watch models.

This not only means a Siri AI capable of answering complex, context-specific questions with ease, but also one that can be unlocked with a simple gesture control, similar to the Pixel Watch 4’s ‘raise wrist” gesture.

What upgrades or new features do you want to see come to the Apple Watch Ultra 4? Let me know below.

More from Tom's Guide

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

Samsung’s answer to the Apple Watch Ultra series, the uniquely named Galaxy Watch Ultra, debuted almost two years ago exactly, and if recent Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 rumors prove to be true, we should get our first look at its successor in just a few weeks; Samsung has a Galaxy Unpacked event scheduled for July 22nd.

The original Galaxy Watch Ultra remains one of the best smartwatches for Android users in 2026. It’s the leader of the pack in display size, battery life, and durability, but there is room for improvement.

I’ve tested both the Galaxy Watch Ultra and Apple Watch Ultra 3 extensively, including in a head-to-head fitness-tracking showdown. OS and holistic tech aside, I prefer the design of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 to the Galaxy Watch Ultra for several key reasons.

With that in mind, here are three improvements that would make the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 more competitive against — and even beat — the Apple Watch Ultra 3.

1. Slim down the case size

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is one chunky smartwatch. While the specs would lead you to believe it’s essentially the same thickness as the Apple Watch Ultra 3 (~12 mm), that official measurement isn’t telling the whole story.

Sure, the Galaxy Watch Ultra is about 12 mm thick at the very edge of the case; I just measured it using a caliper. However, at the center of the case, where the sensor array protrudes, the Galaxy Watch Ultra is closer to 16 mm thick. The Apple Watch Ultra 3, meanwhile, measures a little over 14 mm thick at the center of the case.

Both watches weigh about the same, but the Galaxy Watch Ultra wears significantly larger on my 6.5-inch wrist. This is not only due to the extra ~2 mm of thickness but also to its square case shape, which makes it roughly 3 mm wider than the Ultra 3. That said, the Apple is a little taller.

Ultimately, a slimmer, narrower case design would go a long way toward convincing me to consider the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 over the Apple Watch Ultra 3; shave off a little weight, and I’m even more sold.

2. Bump up battery life to three days or more

In full smartwatch mode (i.e., with no battery-saving options enabled), the Galaxy Watch Ultra lasts roughly two days per charge in our testing. The Apple Watch Ultra 3, on the other hand, lasts about 42 hours per charge, on average, just under the two-day mark.

For the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Samsung would be wise to double down on its battery life advantage and push the advertised rating to three days or more per charge. After all, Apple Watch Ultra 4 rumors also hint at a potential battery life bump, though we don't know for certain if such a model will debut this fall or not.

3. Improve water resistance for diving

Whether you’re a hardcore watersport enthusiast or not, the fact that the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is rated for scuba diving, with all sorts of tools to boot, definitely gives users some unique bragging rights.

Sadly, despite having the same 100-meter water-resistance rating, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is explicitly not designed for extended underwater use. This means deep-sea diving and even snorkeling are out of the question.

It also means that high-impact water sports, like water skiing or riding jet skis, are also ill-advised. Bummer!

There is, of course, only one way to correct course: Samsung needs the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 to be fully dive-ready, water-resistance-wise, while also including a set of comprehensive dive-friendly tools equal to or better than Apple's.

What are your thoughts on the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? Is there one feature or upgrade in particular you’re hoping for the most? Let me know in the poll or comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• 3 Apple Watch settings I always turn off to maximize battery life
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

Most people buy an Apple Watch for two reasons: tracking exercise and checking notifications. But if that’s all you’re using it for, you’re only scratching the surface of what’s on your wrist.

Beneath the standard watchOS interface lies a powerhouse of hidden tools designed to save you time, streamline your daily routines, and even protect your peace of mind.

Here are five deeply underrated Apple Watch features that will fundamentally change how you use your wearable every single day.

More from Tom's Guide

• How to use Apple Watch hypertension alerts — the life-saving feature you need to turn on
• Get more from your Apple Watch — hidden Control Center features worth knowing
• 5 hidden settings that extend your Apple Watch's battery life

Google should capitalize on the recent success of the screen-free Fitbit Air fitness tracker and launch a Fitbit-branded smart ring to take on the Oura Ring 5, Samsung Galaxy Ring, and other major players in the space.

I review wearable tech for a living, and Google has never been in a more prime position to debut a finger-based holistic wearable to rival the best smart ring out there. Here are the three biggest reasons why.

1. Screen-free wearables are having a moment

The $99 Fitbit Air debuted just a few months ago to mostly positive reviews, including from me; I even picked it as one of the best fitness trackers in 2026. Not only that, I’m wearing one as I type this. That’s how much I dig Google’s latest tracker.

Moreover, Fitbit isn’t the only major tech brand doubling down on screenless wearables. Oura just refreshed its flagship model with the Oura Ring 5; Garmin is rumored to be imminently launching a Fitbit Air alternative, potentially called the Garmin Cirqa; and the Whoop 5.0 remains a super-popular tracker for hardcore and pro athletes.

IMHO, Google should take everything that makes the Fitbit Air great — the affordable price, comfortable design, solid battery life, easy-to-digest holistic insights, etc. — and reconfigure it into a smart ring.

The Fitbit Air already significantly undercuts the competition, Whoop, by a massive margin in terms of cost (an annual Whoop membership starts at $199). A Fitbit smart ring could potentially do the same versus Oura (the Oura Ring 5 starts at $499).

2. Google wearables are already subscription-optional, unlike the Oura Ring

Another major advantage Google has over both Oura and Whoop is a subscription-optional approach to health and fitness tracking. Take the Fitbit Air, for example: $99 gets you the device and access to all the tracker’s core holistic data via the Google Health app for no additional charge.

Want next-level AI-backed insights? Google Health Premium is optional at $9.99 per month or $99 per year. The premium service also includes access to “The Coach,” Google’s personalized AI trainer. Not sure if these insights/tools are right for you? Most Google wearables come with a free Premium subscription demo to try before you buy.

3. Fitbits work with Android and iOS, unlike the Galaxy Ring

This one applies less to the Oura Ring, which plays nicely with both Android and iOS devices. However, the Samsung Galaxy Ring — which is arguably the next-best smart ring to anything named Oura — is Android-only.

The fact that Fitbit wearables also work with both operating systems — and presumably, a Fitbit Ring would too — gives Google a potentially major advantage over Samsung in terms of acquiring new customers.

Then again, recent rumors suggest that a Samsung Galaxy Ring 2 is in the works, and that iPhone compatibility isn’t out of the question. That said, a refresh of the Galaxy Ring in 2026 seems unlikely, which is all the more reason for Google to roll out a Fitbit Ring sooner rather than later.

What do you think? Would you be interested in a Google/Fitbit Ring? Let me know in our poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Oura vs Whoop vs Fitbit Air — 5 questions to ask yourself before buying a screen-free fitness tracker
• Exclusive: Google design director says Fitbit Air reception proves they 'made the right decision' going screen-free
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

Withings ScanWatch 2: Review in brief

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

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

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Price

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Design and Comfort

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Sleep tracking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Health and fitness tracking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Performance

Set up

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

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

App

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

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

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

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

Battery life

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Should you buy?

Buy the Withings ScanWatch 2 if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withings ScanWatch 2: Alternatives

Apple makes some of the best smartwatches money can buy. However, battery life has never been the Apple Watch’s strong suit. The Series 11 lasts an average of 24 hours, the SE 3 lasts roughly 18 hours, and the Ultra 3 lasts about 42 hours per charge.

Looking to squeeze a little more juice? Apple’s low-power mode is one option. For example, on the Series 11, it can extend your battery life up to 38 hours per charge. The trade-off is that the handy features you paid for, like the always-on display and continuous heart rate monitoring, get disabled.

Rather than losing essential Apple Watch features, what follows are three settings you can change that won’t impact the user experience much but will noticeably improve your device’s battery life.

Best of all, you don’t need to own one of the best Apple Watches, i.e., the latest/greatest model. These battery life tips work for older models, too.

1. Turn off 'Background app refresh'

The apps on your Apple Watch are constantly updating and/or refreshing with new content behind the scenes, which can lead to faster-than-normal battery drain, especially if you have loads of third-party ones.

For example, an app like AP News pulls in updates throughout the day so that when you open it, you see the newest headlines. Switching off background app refresh means that you may need to wait a few seconds for the freshest news to appear, but that’s a worthwhile trade-off for improved battery performance as far as I'm concerned.

To switch background app refresh off, head to the settings menu > general, and scroll down.

2. Turn on 'Reduce motion'

Apple wants your experience operating the Apple Watch to be as smooth and seamless as possible. As a result, the user interface is chock-full of quick animations that make transitioning from one app to another, for example, a more visually appealing experience.

However, these animations are far from essential. Reduce motion switches them off, saving you battery. Moreover, I find the difference between motion on and off hardly noticeable, and I’m guessing you will too.

The reduced motion setting is located under the settings menu, followed by accessibility. Scroll about halfway down to toggle it.

3. Turn off 'Optimize charge limit'

Last but not least, to ensure I get the best possible battery life out of my Apple Watch, I always turn off the “optimize charge limit” setting. This feature is designed to prevent your smartwatch from overcharging, which should in turn extend its long-term battery life.

However, optimizing the charge limit also cuts off charging at 80%, which isn’t ideal. To turn off the optimize charge limit setting, head to the settings menu > battery > battery life.

One note of caution: If you take my advice and switch it off to get that extra 20% juice, get in the habit of keeping an eye on your Apple Watch while it recharges. Leaving it unattended on a charger, especially overnight, could result in the need for a premature battery replacement.

Moreover, while older smartwatches take a few hours to fully juice up, the latest generations recharge from 0% to 100% in about an hour... so no excuses.

What are your favorite Apple Watch battery-saving tips? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• I manually counted 5,000 steps to test the Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air, and Apple wins the accuracy battle while offering superior elevation data

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: fitness tracking accuracy compared

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

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

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Walk test results

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Pixel Watch 4: Winner

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

1. Onboard GPS

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

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

2. Wide-ranging, reliable auto-workout detection

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

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

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

3. Two weeks or more of battery

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: tech compared

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

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

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

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

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Walk test results

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

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

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

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

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

Apple Watch 11 vs Fitbit Air: Winner

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

1. Is distraction-free the way to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Smart features? What smart features?

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

4. No GPS, no problem?

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

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

5. Am I big on battery life?

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Here's how I tested both trackers side by side

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit needed a few nights before the data made sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit's app actually won me over

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

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

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

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

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

Verdict

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

July officially kicks off what I like to call “the summer of smartwatch launches.” Samsung tends to get things started with a new slate of Galaxy Watches toward the end of the month, then Google answers with fresh Pixel Watches sometime in August, before Apple closes things out in early September with the latest Apple Watch debuts.

This schedule is, of course, not set in stone, but based on the recent past, it seems likely that the summer of 2026 will look a lot like 2025 and 2024, in terms of launch timing.

While an Apple Watch Ultra 4 and/or a replacement for the budget-friendly Apple Watch SE 3 are far from certain, we’ll almost certainly lay eyes on the Apple Watch Series 12 in just over two months. After all, Cupertino has shown off a new flagship Apple Watch series every single year for the past 11 straight years.

As a smartwatch reviewer with no shortage of Apple Watch 12 rumors to go off of, these are the three upgrades — that actually have a chance of coming to fruition — I’m hoping for most, plus one I desperately don’t want to happen.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.1: Touch ID

Punching in a passcode on the Apple Watch 11’s modest-sized display is a pain in the butt, which is why I keep the security feature turned off, even though I know better. One way to improve things? Add Touch ID support.

Not only would Touch ID make unlocking the smartwatch a breeze, but it could also be used to confirm purchases via Apple Pay and/or app downloads.

According to a report in Macworld, Touch ID on the Apple Watch Series 12 is a real possibility. Then again, separate leaks suggest that Face ID could also be in the cards. Both of these upgrades would require additional onboard hardware, in the form of either an under-the-display fingerprint scanner or front-facing camera. I'd ultimately be pleased with either.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.2: A brighter display

The Apple Watch Series 11 display maxes out at a respectable 2,000 nits of brightness, which is enough output to view the screen in most lighting conditions. However, both the Google Pixel Watch 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 boast displays with 3,000 nits of max brightness, and their successors might push that output even further.

To both stay competitive and to ensure optimal viewability, even when lounging on white sand beaches under clear blue skies, I’m hoping the Series 12 at least matches the screen brightness of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and the above-mentioned watches, 3,000 nits.

Apple Watch 12 upgrade no.3: AI-powered Siri

It’s not even close: Google’s Gemini AI voice assistant for Pixel Watches and select Samsung Galaxy Watches is a zillion times better than the same-old Siri that’s been offered in every Apple Watch for more than a decade.

When I reviewed the Pixel Watch 4, I was genuinely impressed by the onboard AI assistant’s ability to answer genuinely complex questions with helpful, accurate replies.

Of course, we know Apple has partnered with Google to power Siri 2.0 with Gemini, and we've already had a taste of what that looks like on iPhone. The question is, will this be ready in time for the fall? I sure hope so, particularly if it debuts alongside a new dedicated gesture control to wake it, similar to Google's "raise to wake" gesture for Pixel Watch 4.

Apple Watch 12 — what I don’t want: A redesigned band system

One Apple Watch 12 “upgrade” rumor I’m hoping doesn’t come to pass, though it's been widely reported on, is a redesigned case with a new system for attaching straps. Apple has used the same band system ever since the original Apple Watch debuted.

One of the nicest things about upgrading from an older Apple Watch to a newer model is the ability to bring your band along with you, assuming you're sticking with a similar case size.

For example, I’ve got four or five favorite Apple Watch bands, and I’d be seriously annoyed if none of them worked on the Series 12.

Apple Watch Series 12: What do you want?

So, now that you know my three biggest Apple Watch Series 12 wishes, I’m curious to hear your thoughts. What are you most hoping to see in the next flagship Apple Watch model? Let me know in the comments or survey below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Your Samsung Galaxy Watch now supports blood pressure tracking — but it’s not the same as Apple’s Hypertension Alerts
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Snapdragon Reality Elite is here, and I’ve already tested it without realizing in Xreal’s Project Aura — its a giant step towards the future of smart glasses

Apple Watch rumors are a dime a dozen, so getting bent out of shape about one in particular isn’t advisable. Then again, the vast majority of Apple Watch leaks suggest positive improvements to Cupertino’s range of wearables, not potentially negative changes.

This is why one particular Apple Watch 12 rumor has me a bit, shall we say, perturbed, particularly as someone who’s invested heavily over the years in accessories for the best Apple Watch models, namely, a large collection of Apple Watch straps.

A new case design could mark the end of an era

Ever since the first Apple Watch launched over a decade ago, Apple has consistently used the same strap attachment system. Sure, it's proprietary, and an old-fashioned spring bar works just as well, but now, nearly eleven years later, many of us have acquired a sizable array of compatible bands.

I know I have my favorite Apple Watch straps, which I frequently shift between the Apple Watch Series 11, SE 3 and Ultra 3, depending on what I’m testing/writing about (I’m quite partial to the Nike Sport Loop).

Well, if a recent report from the known leaker Instant Digital proves to be true, Apple could be moving away from the strap attachment system we’ve all come to know and, well, tolerate. Such a move would surely irritate Apple Watch owners everywhere, myself included.

Apple is already in hot water with some smartwatch owners

With the recent debut of watchOS 27 beta, Cupertino has already thoroughly irked a wide swath of the Apple Watch faithful. Why? The next-gen operating system for the watch — which fully launches this fall — will only support the very latest Apple Watch models.

That list includes the Series 11, Series 10, Series 9, Ultra 3, Ultra 2, and SE 3. Basically, unless you purchased your Apple Watch in the past two to three years, you’re out of luck, software-wise.

Now owners of the Series 8, SE 2, Ultra, etc., have to decide whether to upgrade to a newer Apple Watch model or bail on the form-factor/move to a competitor like Garmin. What better way to convince them to stay than by making their existing collection of straps obsolete? Heck, Apple might as well introduce a newer charger while it's at it (Dear Apple: Please, don't).

What are your thoughts on Apple potentially switching to a new band attachment system for the Apple Watch Series 12 or Ultra 4? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• The end of an era: Apple is quietly ditching one of its iconic Apple Watch features with watchOS 27
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

There’s no doubt about it: Garmin makes some of the best running watches on the market, but they’re really good at hiding some of the watch's best features. Whichever model you choose, I’d estimate you’re still probably only using about 15% of the tools on board.

I’m here to change this with simple tips and tricks to help you get the most out of your tech (check out how to use Garmin’s Body Battery feature and HRV status here).

One feature I use all the time on my long marathon training runs, where I lose the will to live, to plot complicated routes and just head to the Thames Path, turning around at the halfway point, and whenever I’m running anywhere new, is the Turn Around alert.

Read on to find out how to use this hidden but helpful tool.

How to use the Garmin Turn Around alert

Garmin’s Turn Around Alert is exactly what it sounds like. It’s an out-and-back navigation feature that will notify you when you reach the halfway point of your planned run, whether that be time or distance.

As mentioned above, I typically head out to follow the River Thames for my long marathon training runs and will simply turn around when I reach the halfway point. This might be mind-numbing for some, but it saves me having to plot complicated routes and lets me focus on my run.

This alert works on most Garmin watches, including the current Forerunner lineup of the Forerunner 70, Forerunner 170, Forerunner 570, and Forerunner 970. Here’s how to set up the alert.

If you’re running somewhere new and don’t have the time to sit and plot a new route, this alert allows you to lace up and start running, then turn around and finish exactly where you started.

Be sure to keep an eye on Tom’s Guide for more Garmin tips and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

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

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

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

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

Inspired by his children's friendship bracelets

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

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

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

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

A Whoop alternative for you and me

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

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

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

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

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

No GPS, no problem... for most people

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

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

On the longterm outcome of Google’s Fitbit acquisition

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

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

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

What’s next for Fitbit?

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Cast your mind back to 2018. The world was pre-COVID, offices were things we actually went to, and I sat on a health desk not all too dissimilar to the one I’m at now, surrounded by colleagues dressed head to toe in athleisurewear. Naturally, we spent our entire day frantically Walkie-Talkie-ing each other from our Apple Watches like we were Navy SEALs on a high-stakes tactical mission, rather than people just asking who wanted a coffee.

The Walkie Talkie feature on the Apple Watch is one of the things I was most excited about when I unboxed my first watch. And while it’s a feature I barely ever touch eight years later, I’m nostalgic for this far simpler time, and bummed that Apple is killing off the Walkie Talkie with watchOS 27.

End of an era. Over.

Sure, it was a feature that rarely worked all that well, but it was still pretty neat. One Reddit user compared the removal of Walkie Talkie to Blockbuster shutting down, and I feel the same — it’s not really going to change my life, but I feel sad all the same.

The first developer beta of watchOS 27, which will roll out this fall, shows that the Walkie Talkie app has disappeared from both the app list and control center. Walkie Talkie launched with watchOS 5 back in 2018, and allowed users to send push-to-talk voice messages to one another over Wi-Fi or cellular. Unlike Walkie Talkies you played with at school, there was no distance limitations to the feature.

The app’s removal hasn’t been officially confirmed by Apple, but users running the first watchOS 27 beta have reported that Walkie Talkie is nowhere to be found, and there is no option to redownload it.

Of course, this might change before watchOS 27 officially launches later this year, but seeing as though Apple haven’t really touched the feature since watchOS 5, it seems more likely that this is just one that will quietly be removed. Over and out, Walkie Talkie, thanks for the memories.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra is one of the best smartwatches for Android, but it's nearly two years old. Will 2026 deliver a replacement? Leaks and rumors suggest the answer is yes. In fact, the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 could arrive as soon as the end of July.

As TG's resident smartwatch expert, I've sifted through all the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 gossip and insider reports so far so that you don't have to. Here's what you can likely expect from the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, from cost to features, design tweaks to battery life.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Price and launch predictions

Samsung tends to hold a "Galaxy Unpacked" launch event annually toward the end of July, and this year should be no different. In terms of wearables, I expect to see a Galaxy Watch 9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 debut; a Galaxy Ring 2 seems much less certain.

The Galaxy Watch Ultra launched in late summer 2024 for $649, which is $159 less than the Apple Watch Ultra 2/3. However, the Galaxy Watch Ultra frequently goes on sale for $100 off or more.

I expect the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 to either cost the same as its predecessor, $649, or see a modest price increase of $50. Might it see a greater hike than that? With all this talk of inflation, it's possible. However, it seems highly unlikely that the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 will cost as much as its nearest Apple Watch counterpart.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Design rumors

Regular tech gadget leaker Evan Blass just shared a set of Galaxy Watch 9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 renderings that appear to be the real deal. That said, as with anything leaked, it's best to take these developments with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, changes to the design of Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 appear to be minimal. The case shape and button placement all match the current model. However, a new blue colorway could be added to the fold.

Upgrades to the display, from an increased refresh rate to improved brightness, are possible, but given the Galaxy Watch Ultra already sports one of the brightest displays of any smartwatch out there, maxing out at 3,000 nits, it's far from guaranteed.

I'd personally like to see the case design slimmed down slightly. Of all the smartwatches I've tested (dozens upon dozens), it's among the chunkiest and heaviest.

Another possible design upgrade: improved water resistance. While the current Galaxy Watch Ultra boasts 100 meters of water resistance, Samsung advises against scuba diving with it. It'd be nice to see this warning disappear with the debut of the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Other possible upgrades

It seems likely that the Galaxy Watch Ultra will make use of the latest Snapdragon Wear Elite processor, which should make it both faster and more power-efficient than its predecessor (more on that below).

I also expect improvements to the onboard Gemini AI voice assistant and likely an expansion of the health tracking tools and AI-backed wellness insights. However, this is just speculation. As of writing, concrete details on new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 features are few and far between.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Battery rumors

Okay, here's where you can get excited. With battery life being the number one thing holding back full-featured smartwatches in 2026 (IMHO), any advancements in longevity will be greatly appreciated.

According to a report from SamMobile, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 could sport a massive 800 mAh battery, a serious upgrade over the Galaxy Watch Ultra's 590-mAh battery. In our testing, the Galaxy Watch Ultra lasts a respectable two days per charge.

If the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 battery rumors turn out to be true, it could potentially offer as much as three days per charge, especially when you factor in a more efficient processor. Now that's a big deal!

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2: Outlook

Ultimately, it sounds like the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 will look the same as its predecessor. However, under-the-hood improvements to processing efficiency and speed, along with battery capacity, could make it a meaningful overall upgrade over the original Galaxy Watch Ultra.

We should know more in 30 days or less. Stay tuned.

More from Tom's Guide

• Your Samsung Galaxy Watch now supports blood pressure tracking — but it’s not the same as Apple’s Hypertension Alerts
• 5 reasons why I sometimes still wear a 'dumb' watch
• Snapdragon Reality Elite is here, and I’ve already tested it without realizing in Xreal’s Project Aura — its a giant step towards the future of smart glasses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. When tracking outdoor workouts, always bring your phone

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Amazon Prime Day, excuse me, week, is hit or miss when it comes to the best tech deals, and this time around is no exception. That said, as a smartwatch and wearables expert, I’ve scoured Amazon far and wide to hunt down the five best deals so far.

For my beginner runners, the easy-wearing, feature-packed Garmin Forerunner 165 is nearly 50% off on Amazon. Meanwhile, the latest Apple Watch Series 11 is on sale for 30% off.

Find all details on these deals and my other favorites below.

Quick Links

• Fitbit Inspire 3: was $99 now $66 @ Amazon
• Fitbit Charge 6: was $159 now $85 @ Amazon
• Garmin Forerunner 165: was $249 now $129 @ Amazon
• Apple Watch Series 11: was $399 now $279 @ Amazon
• Garmin Instinct 3: was $449 now $299 @ Amazon

Best Prime Day 2026 smartwatch deals

We're tracking all the best Prime Day smartwatch deals

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

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

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

Quick Links

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

Best Garmin deals

We're tracking all the best Prime Day smartwatch deals

As a wearables expert, I’m often asked what the best smartwatch is. When it comes to logging outdoor adventures, the answer is easy: The Garmin Instinct 3. Rugged and reliable, it’s my go-to when hiking, snowboarding, snowmobiling, cycling, kayaking, swimming, and so much more.

Normally priced at $449, the Garmin Instinct 3 AMOLED is on sale for just $299 for Amazon Prime Day. That’s a savings of 33%.

Need some convincing? Here are the five biggest reasons why I highly recommend the Garmin Instinct 3 right now.

1. Rugged design with serious waterproofing

The Garmin Instinct 3 is designed for folks who enjoy extreme activities, but that doesn’t mean you need to be a daredevil to rock one. That said, it boasts 100 meters of water resistance; more than the Apple Watch 11 or Galaxy Watch 8. This is enough for high-impact watersports and even scuba diving.

The Instinct 3 is also shock and drop-proof with a generously sized metal-reinforced bezel for ample screen protection. For cold-weather sports enthusiasts, the buttons are grippy and large enough to use with gloves on.

2. Rock-solid GPS and heart rate tracking

I spent a lot of time testing the Garmin Instinct 3 in the mountains, on the trails, and even while "urban hiking." GPS performance is rock-solid when compared to other proven tracking methods. The same is true for elevation data.

Of course, the Instinct 3 is much more than just a GPS watch; it also tracks your heart rate 24/7, records extensive sleep data, and provides actionable post-workout insights.

3. Epic battery life

If there’s a longer-lasting smartwatch in the universe, I’m not aware of it. The standard Garmin Instinct 3 (AMOLED) models last for up to 18 days (45mm) or 24 days (50mm) per charge. Meanwhile, the Instinct 3 Solar can cruise for over 100 days for the smaller model and 150 days for the larger one before you’ll need to plug in.

4. A handy onboard LED flashlight to light your way

One of my favorite design elements on the Instinct 3 is a high-power LED flashlight tucked into the case at the top. You can adjust the power output and even switch the output to red during activities like stargazing or photo developing.

I seriously use this small but mighty light all the time, from illuminating my way during late-night dog walks to locating a lost phone under the bed.

5. It's 33% off

The best reason to buy the Garmin Instinct 3 right now? It’s on sale for 33% off (45mm AMOLED), which is just about the lowest price I’ve seen it go for. Of course, if you prefer the larger model, the 50mm Instinct 3 AMOLED is also on sale for 30% off at Amazon.

The 45mm Instinct 3 Solar, meanwhile, is reduced 25% at Amazon, and the 50mm Instinct 3 Solar is on sale for 22% off on Amazon.

Want more epic smartwatch savings? Here's a list of all the best Garmin Prime Day deals worth your attention.

SMARTWATCHES

We're tracking all the best Prime Day smartwatch deals

As someone who lives in the UK, it’s true to say I don’t often have to worry that much about sunburn, at least when I’m not on holiday.

However, heatwaves do occur — the UK is currently melting thanks to 100+℉ temperatures, and as a keen runner I spend a lot of time outdoors all year round, so I do keep an eye out for risky conditions.

Recently I came across the free ConnectIQ SunAlert app, which gives very precise advice about your risk of sunburn at any time, based on the current UV index, the activity you have planned and the strength of sunscreen you’re using.

I downloaded it to my Garmin Forerunner 970 to use during the UK heatwave, and the SunAlert app is available on almost all of the best Garmin watches.

Helpful advice based on conditions and your skin type

The app is naturally only to be used for advice — it’s not definitive guidance and doesn't claim to be — but it does give a set amount of time you can spend in the sun before you risk burning.

This advice is based on the UV index, as reported by the weather forecast on your Garmin watch, as well as the skin type you have set in the SunAlert app, which is based on the six Fitzpatrick skin types.

The app shows how long it will take before you burn, along with an estimate of how long it will take before you start tanning, for those in the sun for that purpose.

If you’re outside for a certain activity, like swimming or snow sports, you can set this in the app, along with the SPF of your sunscreen from 15-100, and this will then adjust the estimated time to burn.

Once you’ve got everything set up, you can start your session in the sun and then get notified when you’ve hit the predicted time that you will start burning.

The app also logs how much vitamin D it thinks you have taken in while outside and gives a target to work towards each day, which will be a useful tool for the long UK winter.

Sunburn comes on faster than you think

Perhaps the most useful aspect of the app for me has been that it shows how little time you actually need to spend in the sun to risk burning, especially if you have a fairer skin type like mine.

If I’m only going out for a 45-minute run and it’s late morning, I’ll usually not bother with sunscreen, but the app shows that even with a moderate UV index of 5, I’d risk sunburn during that run if I was exposed the whole time.

Once the UV index gets into the high or very high range, even half an hour outdoors is risky without sunscreen, so the app has pushed me to be more diligent in applying it before all my runs.

I find it just helps to have the numbers so plainly laid out, even if they are estimates, and you can set the Sun Alert app up as a widget on your watch to get info on the risk of sunburn quickly.

It’s a completely free app and works with most Garmin watches — there are a couple of new models it’s not on yet, like the Garmin Forerunner 170 — so it’s definitely one I think is worth adding even just to survive the current UK heatwave, or to use all the time if you live in sunnier climates.

We're tracking all the best Prime Day smartwatch deals

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Cost

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

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: design

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

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

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

Winner: draw

Fitbit Air vs Charge 6: Health and fitness tracking

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

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

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

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

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Smart features

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

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

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

Winner: Fitbit Charge 6

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Charge 6: Battery life

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

Winner: Fitbit Air

Verdict

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

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

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

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: key differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Winner

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

The wait is over as Android 17 officially rolls out today, hitting Pixel phones first with additional features that weren’t previously revealed at Google I/O 2026 or The Android Show: I/O Edition. Eligible Pixel devices will be the first to experience the upgrade, followed by a broader rollout to other compatible devices throughout the year.

Gemini Intelligence was one of the biggest reveals, though users will have to wait a smidge longer to access it, with a rollout slated for later this summer. Even without it, the Android 17 update is packed with plenty of new features to tide people over. Pixel owners are also getting a double dose of updates today, courtesy of the June 2026 Pixel Drop and new optimizations landing on Wear OS 7.

Here's everything you need to know about Google’s latest ecosystem upgrades.

More new features with Android 17

Android 17 is officially rolling out to Pixel devices first, with this update introducing massive productivity, gaming, and security overhauls. Here's all the new Android 17 features you can expect to tap into after installing the update.

• Bubbles: If you're a power multitasker, then you'll love the Bubbles feature in Android 17 that allows you to turn any app into a compact, floating window. It's the alternative to simply closing an app and going back to it because Bubbles on larger screen devices will show up as at the bottom of the screen for easier access.
• Screen Reactions: This one's really helpful for users who love to record themselves because Screen Reactions revamps the screen-recording toolbar to let you capture your device's display and your selfie camera simultaneously.
• Foldable Gaming Mode: Gamers who prefer on-screen controls can now opt for a virtual, on-screen gamepad they can use with the new foldable gaming mode specifically for devices like the Pixel 10 Pro Fold. When enabled you get a dedicated 50/50 layout with the game on top and controls on the bottom.
• Biometric "Mark as Lost": It's nerve wrecking when you lose your phone, but the new "Mark as Lost" feature with Android 17 can let you lock it using your biometrics via the Find Hub. Even if a thief knows your passcode, they can't access your data or disable tracking.
• Granular Privacy & Anti-Theft: You can now grant apps temporary access to your precise location or share specific contacts rather than your whole book. Additional options like PIN guess limits and longer wait times have been added to stop brute-force entry.

June 2026 Pixel feature drop

Google's known for frequently releasing Pixel Feature Drops throughout the year, and its June 2026 one is no exception. The latest update is packed with new AI features, creation tools, and global expansions for supported Pixel phones, tablets, and watches. Here's just some of the most popular features coming out.

• Gemini Omni: For Gemini Pro users, you can now type a text prompt into the Gemini app to generate a custom, high-quality video by just telling it what you want.
• Lyria 3: Create original tracks from scratch. Just prompt Gemini with text or images, customize the vocals, style, and tempo, and share the track.
• Conversational Editing: Pixel users in Germany, the U.K., France, Spain, and Italy can now execute complex, multi-step photo edits simply by talking to their phones.
• AirDrop expanded support: Android Quick Share expands its cross-platform capabilities, allowing Pixel 8a and 9a users to easily share files globally with AirDrop-enabled devices.
• Ecosystem Emergency Detection: Select Pixel watches (from Pixel Watch 2 to 4) now integrate Emergency Sharing directly into Car Crash, Fall, and Loss of Pulse detection, automatically alerting emergency services and custom contacts if a severe event happens.

Refreshes your wrist with Wear OS 7

Rounding out the massive wave of updates is Wear OS 7, which officially begins its rollout to eligible Pixel Watch devices today. This latest wearable platform update prioritizes seamless cross-device utility and smarter, real-time tracking directly on your wrist. There's also new personalized help features with Gemini Intelligence, which will be coming later.

• Live Updates: Never miss a moment like the score of a World Cup game or waiting on an Uber ride with Live Updates that give you glanceable, real time details directly from your watch face.
• Cross-Device Control: Manage media playback across headphones or home speakers with a new media output switcher. For example, you can preview photos taken on a pair of smart glasses right from your wrist.
• Battery Boost: Deep, system-level power optimizations will give users upgrading from Wear OS 6 up to a 10% bump in battery life.
• Gemini Intelligence: Later this year, select Wear OS 7 devices will get a massive upgrade courtesy of Gemini Intelligence, transforming your smartwatch into a deeply personalized AI assistant. You'll be able to use natural language to build custom dashboards through Create My Widget.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested the new AI photo Clean Up on iOS 27 vs iOS 26 — and it's shockingly better
• iOS 27 beta has new and improved dictation software — I tested it by writing this whole article with my voice
• iPhone Ultra and MacBook Ultra teased in iOS 27 and macOS 27 — here's what we know so far

When I first started testing the best running watches over a decade ago, the cheapest models on the market were pretty basic. They offered simple tracking with mixed levels of accuracy, and pretty much no training analysis or extra features.

These days, entry-level watches like the Garmin Forerunner 70 and Coros Pace 4 are absolutely packed with features and easily good enough to cover the essentials for runners of all levels, not just beginners.

I’ve been testing the Coros Pace 4 for over six months now, having used it for the London Marathon, and I’ve been comparing it directly to the Garmin Forerunner 70 since it launched recently, including using both for a 10K race.

Both are outstanding options for runners at a great price, but the Pace 4 offers more to triathletes and has some extras like multi-band GPS and a barometer; the Forerunner 70 offers better training analysis and a more polished design and user interface.

I’ve outlined what I consider the key differences between the two watches below, and there’s more detail on each in our full Coros Pace 4 review and Garmin Forerunner 70 review.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Price and availability

The Coros Pace 4 launched in November 2025 and costs $249 / £229 for the standard version of the watch, and $279 / £249 for the aluminium model, which has a metal bezel.

Garmin launched the Forerunner 70 alongside the Garmin Forerunner 170 in May 2026. The Forerunner 70 costs $249 / £219 and sits below the Forerunner 170 (from $299 / £259) in the Garmin line-up, lacking some of the smart features and extra sensors that are on the Forerunner 170.

The Pace 4 and Forerunner 70 both sit at the bottom of their respective brand’s line-ups, but are still packed with useful sports tracking features and are among the best value sports watches you can get right now.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Specs

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Design and display

The Coros Pace 4 and Garmin Forerunner 70 are both small, lightweight watches with plastic designs (aside from the aluminum bezel on the more expensive Pace 4 model). I found both very comfortable to wear for long periods, and they fit well on slim wrists.

Despite the small designs, the 1.2” AMOLED displays are clear and easy to read on both in all conditions, even during runs where I usually show five or six stats at a time.

The Pace 4 has three buttons, one of which is a digital dial, whereas the Garmin has five buttons. I prefer the five-button design myself, as I find it more reliable than the dial on the Coros, which I often set off accidentally.

Both watches have optical heart rate monitors, but the Pace 4 has more sensors than the Forerunner 70, with a barometer, altimeter and compass. It also offers multi-band GPS tracking, whereas the most accurate is all-systems on the Forerunner 70.

The Coros Pace 4 can also connect to more sensors than the Forerunner 70, like cycling power meters, whereas the Forerunner 70 is much more focused on running.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Sports tracking and training analysis

The main difference with sports tracking is that the Pace 4 is a full multisport watch with a triathlon mode where you can transition between swimming, cycling and running.

This isn’t available on the Forerunner 70, and it also doesn’t have an open-water swimming mode, which the Pace 4 does.

You get a little more training analysis on the Forerunner 70, most notably Garmin’s Training Readiness stat, which gives a rating out of 100 based on factors like recent sleep, stress and workouts.

Both watches offer training load analysis along with race predictions and VO2 max estimates, with enough data to satisfy even very keen runners.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: GPS & heart rate accuracy

Both watches have proved reliably accurate for me with GPS throughout my testing, which has included races with both. The Coros Pace 4 even produced a pretty accurate track during the Canary Wharf section of the London Marathon, which is notably difficult for watches.

In theory, the multi-band GPS option on the Pace 4 should be more accurate than the all-systems mode on the Forerunner 70, but in practice, Garmin’s all-systems mode is so reliable I’ve not seen any differences between the two watches in my testing so far.

Both logged almost exactly 10.00km in the 10K race I did, and the GPS tracks were essentially identical, as they have been on other runs with both watches.

When it comes to heart rate accuracy, both have been good, but the Garmin has tended to be a little more reliable than the Coros, especially at the start of runs.

In the 10K race, along with other runs with both watches, the Forerunner 70 heart rate reading has been accurate throughout, whereas the Pace 4 often reads high for a few minutes before locking onto my heart rate correctly.

My main takeaway here, though, is that these are both very accurate watches overall and match up well with devices that cost twice their price or more.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Battery life

Battery life is always a strong area for Coros watches, and that’s the case in this comparison as well. The Pace 4 lasts up to 19 days on a charge, or six days with the always-on display, and offers 24 hours of multi-band GPS tracking.

The Garmin Forerunner 70 lasts up to 13 days in watch mode or five days with the screen on always-on mode, and offers 16 hours of all-systems GPS tracking.

In practice, I found that with the watches set to always-on running every day, I tend to get around 4.5 days out of the Forerunner 70 and just over five from the Pace 4. It’s not a major difference, but the Coros certainly lasts longer with normal use and also outstrips the Garmin for one ultra-long individual activity.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Smart features

Garmin kept its best smart features for the Forerunner 170, so the Forerunner 70 doesn’t offer NFC payments or music storage, though it does offer more customization than the Coros Pace 4 and has access to more apps and widgets through the Garmin Connect IQ app store.

The Coros Pace 4 doesn’t have NFC payments either, but does offer music storage for MP3 files, which you can drag and drop onto the watch. It doesn’t link with streaming services though, so if you really want smart features, the Forerunner 170 is worth considering.

Neither watch has offline maps, but both offer breadcrumb navigation with turn-by-turn directions and a back-to-start pointer, which I always find handy if I get myself lost.

Garmin Forerunner 70 vs Coros Pace 4: Verdict

Both of these watches are excellent and accurate options that have impressed me throughout testing, but the Coros Pace 4 has a few important extra features, especially if you’re a triathlete.

It has better battery life, more sensors and also music storage, though this feature isn’t useful unless you have a lot of MP3 files on hand.

The Garmin has a nicer design in my opinion, and the user interface is more customizable with more smart widgets, like sports scores and stocks. It also has better training analysis for me, including the handy Training Readiness.

I don’t think there’s a clear winner here if none of those features sound vital to you, but one factor that could swing it in the future is the fact that Garmin does usually reduce its watches in big sales periods, whereas Coros doesn’t, so the Forerunner 70 could end up being cheaper.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Biggest differences

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Why the focus on perimenopause and menopause now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Cup fever is a serious condition, and symptoms include a Google search history that contains questions like "Who is Curaçao’s best player?" and "Where to buy Curaçao home shirt 2026?"

If you, like me, have been afflicted by World Cup fever, then you’re going to want to stay on top of the competition closely in the coming weeks, and given how large the group stages of this particular World Cup are, that’s not going to be the easiest thing to do.

Luckily for Garmin users, an indie developer has created a free watch face that shows all the details you need at a glance, including upcoming fixtures and live scores.

The WC2026 Live Pro face from GR_apps is available for free on the Connect IQ app store, and it will be my go-to for the next few weeks on my Garmin Forerunner 970.

If you have one of the best Garmin watches and are excited about the World Cup, I heartily recommend giving it a go.

Upcoming fixtures and group standings at a glance

The top half of the watch face is devoted to showing the upcoming schedule for the World Cup, so you can see all of the day’s matches easily, with kick-off times shown in your local time zone. (If you want to know the best way to watch each game, be sure to check out Tom's Guide to the World Cup.)

Along with showing the matches with team flags, there is also information on the standings in each group, so you can see the points and goal difference for each side.

If you select a favorite team in the settings available in the Connect IQ app store, their next match will also be shown even if it’s not on that day, with a gold star to highlight it.

You can also set the always-on version of the screen to show the day’s matches and kick-off times, so you don’t even need to wake your display to see what’s coming up.

Live scores during matches

During the games themselves, the watch face will update automatically to show the minutes played and the score, so you don’t miss any goals.

I’ve been using the face before the tournament actually starts, so I can’t say how well this works yet, or indeed if it’s very taxing on the battery life of your watch, but even if it is, I’m happy to charge my Garmin a bit more regularly to keep up to date with the World Cup.

Complications to show your activity stats

The bottom half of the watch face shows the time (broken up by two soccer balls instead of standard dots, which is adorable), plus the date, temperature and two complications that you can customize in the Connect IQ app.

There’s not a lot of choice — if you normally have a very sporty watch face with stats like your weekly mileage and training readiness, you can’t do that here — but you can show your activity stats like steps and calories, or the battery life on your watch.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

The Garmin Forerunner 170 just launched, and it has immediately established itself as one of the best running watches available thanks to its lightweight design, accurate tracking, and handy smart features.

It’s one of the more affordable Forerunner models in Garmin’s current line-up, offering some extra features compared with the entry-level Garmin Forerunner 70 and coming in substantially cheaper than the mid-range Garmin Forerunner 570.

However, perhaps the most potent intra-Garmin competition actually comes from older watches, like the Garmin Forerunner 265. While the Forerunner 265’s software isn’t as up to date as the Forerunner 170’s, it offers almost all the same features plus a few upgrades, and is often close to the Forerunner 170’s price in sales.

I’ve tested both watches extensively and compared them directly on a half-marathon run; here are the key differences you need to know about.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: price

The Garmin Forerunner 170 comes in two models, one with music storage and one without. The standard Forerunner 170 costs $299/£259, while the music model is $349/£299. I’ll mostly be comparing the music model to the Forerunner 265 in this article, because the Forerunner 265 has music as standard.

While the Garmin Forerunner 265’s list price is much higher than the Forerunner 170’s at $449/£369, it’s almost always on sale somewhere, and tends to cost around $349-$379, though it has dropped to $299 in the past.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: specs

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: design and display

The Garmin Forerunner 170 Music comes in four colors and one size, with its 43mm case sitting between the two sizes of the Forerunner 265 available, which are 42mm and 46mm.

Both watches have bright AMOLED displays that I found easy to read in all conditions. You get a 1.2in display on the Forerunner 170, which is again in between the sizes on the Forerunner 265, which has a 1.1in display on the 42mm watch, and a 1.3in display on the 46mm.

You get the same Elevate Gen 4 heart rate monitor on both watches, which is not Garmin’s latest Elevate Gen 5, which is on models like the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970.

Both are lightweight watches with five buttons, and I found them both very comfortable to wear 24/7. I tested the larger Forerunner 265, which is noticeably bigger than the Forerunner 170, but with two size options in the 265 line-up, you can pick the one that suits you.

They mostly have the same sensors under the hood, with a barometric altimeter and compass, but the Forerunner 265 offers Garmin’s most accurate multi-band GPS mode, whereas the Forerunner 170 only offers all-systems GPS — this is still very accurate, but more on that later.

Both watches have the same 5 ATM water resistance rating and can pair with external sensors via both Bluetooth and ANT+, including cycling power meters.

The Forerunner 170 runs Garmin’s latest OS, which it shares with the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970. This isn’t just a visual upgrade on the Forerunner 265, but also means the Forerunner 170 gets access to new widgets like Garmin’s Sports Scores, Battery, and Stocks widgets.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: sports tracking and training analysis

One of the main differences between the two watches is that the Forerunner 265 is a full multi-sport watch with a dedicated triathlon mode, something that the Forerunner 170 lacks.

You can still track all kinds of cycling and swimming workouts with the Forerunner 170; it just doesn’t have the triathlon mode, which allows for transitions within a single activity.

Both watches offer the same useful training analysis, including Garmin’s Training Readiness and Training Status features, but the Forerunner 170 has an extra in Garmin’s new Quick Workout feature.

You can use this to create a running workout in seconds, picking an intensity level and duration that suits then following the instructions from the watch during your sessions.

I gave the Quick Workout a try, and although it can set rather optimistic targets, it’s a good way to vary your training when not following a dedicated plan.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: GPS & heart rate accuracy

Both watches have the same heart rate sensor on board, and during my extended testing comparing them to a chest strap, they have been similarly accurate.

That is to say, both are pretty reliable, especially in warm weather, and just sometimes lag behind the chest strap’s readings during intervals. Both were right in line with a chest strap during the half-marathon run I did, when I had the Garmin Forerunner 970 linked to the Garmin HRM 600.

With regards to GPS accuracy, the Forerunner 265 offering multi-band GPS means that it should be more reliable overall, especially when tracking activities in city centers where tall buildings can scramble signals.

In practice, the Forerunner 170’s all-systems GPS tracking has been as accurate as a multi-band Garmin during all of my testing to date.

I’d prefer to have a multi-band watch for peace of mind, but both watches are very reliable, and it’s unlikely to make a practical difference unless you always run among skyscrapers.

On the half-marathon run, I compared both watches with the Forerunner 970 in its multi-band mode, and the GPS tracks and overall distance and pace stats were nigh-on identical.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: battery life

The Garmin Forerunner 265 wins on battery life. With the screen set to raise-to-wake, the 46mm model lasts up to 13 days in watch mode, while the smaller 42mm watch lasts 15 days. Both offer five days of battery in always-on mode.

In comparison, the Forerunner 170 offers 10 days in watch mode with the screen set to raise-to-wake, and just four days when always-on.

The Forerunner 170 offers 14 hours of GPS tracking in all-systems mode, while the Forerunner 265 46mm offers 14 hours of multi-band tracking, and the Forerunner 42mm offers 15 hours.

These are all the on-paper numbers, so how do the watches fare in the real world? With the screen always-on, running every day, I have to charge the Forerunner 170 every 3.5 days on average, while the larger Forerunner 265 lasts me 4.5 days on average.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: smart features

If you opt for the Forerunner 170 Music model, you get the same key smart features as on the Forerunner 265, such as Wifi connectivity, music storage, including being able to link the watch with streaming services, and NFC payments.

The standard Forerunner 170 doesn’t offer WiFi or music storage, but does have NFC payments, so if you always carry your phone with you, it could be a cheaper option.

There are some extra widgets on the Forerunner 170, like Sports Scores and Stocks, and as a new watch, it will also continue to get software updates for the foreseeable future, whereas the Forerunner 265 won’t be getting new features anymore.

Garmin Forerunner 170 vs Garmin Forerunner 265: verdict

If you’re a triathlete, there’s a clear reason to upgrade to the Forerunner 265, especially if it’s close to the price of the Forerunner 170, and the two size options of the Forerunner 265, longer battery life, and multi-band GPS are all good reasons to look at the older watch as well.

The Garmin Forerunner 170 has proved to be an equally accurate and capable running watch in my testing, though, and having a new model does futureproof you for the next couple of years with regard to new software updates.

If you’re a runner, I wouldn’t pay extra for the Forerunner 265 unless you want the bigger screen of the 46mm model, and if you’re not bothered about music storage, the standard Forerunner 170 is the best value of all.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Specs compared

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Cost

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

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

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: design

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

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

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

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: customization

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

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

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

Winner: Fitbit Air

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Health and fitness

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

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

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

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

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Smart features

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

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

Winner: Draw

Fitbit Air vs Fitbit Inspire 3: Battery life

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

Winner: Fitbit Inspire 3

Verdict

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

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

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

Overall winner: Draw

More from Tom's Guide

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

Next month, Samsung is expected to hold its annual summer edition of Galaxy Unpacked, where at least two new Galaxy Watches should launch alongside the Galaxy S27 Ultra smartphone.

Recently, SammyGuru discovered both the Galaxy Watch 9 and the Watch Ultra 2 in China's 3C certification database. However, there's something missing: Apparently, we won't be seeing a new version of the Classic model.

The 3C certification does appear to list at least one spec for the two watches. The listing confirms that both watches will support 10W charging, which is the same as the Ultra Watch and the Galaxy Watch 8.

No Classic model?

A lack of a Classic model isn't too surprising, since Samsung typically releases it on a two-year schedule. So after last year's Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, we likely won't see it again until the Galaxy Watch 10 Classic next year.

However, at the end of May, Android Authority did find development codenames including one, 'wise9', which seems to indicate that a Classic model is in the works. "Wise9" would seem to signify the Watch 10 Classic, as the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic was codenamed wise8.

Currently, we lean toward trusting the certification listing, but it's possible Samsung could surprise us on July 22, when the launch is rumored to occur.

Jam-packed event

Galaxy Unpacked 2026 is likely going to be a full event in July.

Not only are we expecting the next Galaxy Watches, but at least three foldable phones. The usual iterative Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 should be accompanied by a new Galaxy Z Fold Ultra, a wider version of the Z Fold that's meant to rival the rumored iPhone Fold.

We could also potentially get another look at Samsung's 'Intelligent Eyewear' Glasses, which were previewed at Google I/O in May, though Samsung has confirmed that they won't actually release until the Fall.

More from Tom's Guide

• Leaked Galaxy S27 Ultra specs reveal a long overdue major upgrade
• Inside the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: features designed for productivity and everyday life
• Certification listing appears to confirm Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra as Samsung's third flagship foldable: what we know

Apple’s overhauled, AI-powered Siri experience debuted at WWDC 2026, and best of all, it will be available on Apple Watch via the forthcoming watchOS 27 software. However, there’s a catch: Not all Apple Watch users will be able to access the latest release.

As a refresher, Apple teamed up with Google to help power its latest Apple Intelligence features, including Siri AI. The upgraded personal assistant promises a more conversational experience, with the ability to pull relevant information from compatible apps and a database of broad, timely world knowledge, to deliver a richer and more useful experience.

Here’s everything you need to know about support for Siri AI on Apple Watch via watchOS 27.

watchOS 27 support is limited to six models

Apple watches that will support WatchOS 27

• Apple Watch Series 11
• Apple Watch SE 3
• Apple Watch Ultra 3
• Apple Watch Series 10
• Apple Watch Ultra 2
• Apple Watch Series 9

While last year’s watchOS 26 software was supported by smartwatch models as old as 2020’s Apple Watch Series 6, watchOS 27 is compatible with a far smaller selection of models.

All of the 2025 Apple Watch models will be eligible to upgrade to watchOS 27, including the Apple Watch Series 11, Apple Watch SE 3, and Apple Watch Ultra 3. The Apple Watch Series 9, Series 10, and Ultra 2 are additionally supported.

And… that’s it.

It's unclear whether AI features also require the latest iPhone

When Apple first announced watchOS 27, the marketing materials suggested that, in addition to owning one of the best Apple Watch models, you’ll also need to ensure your smartwatch is paired with an Apple Intelligent capable iPhone (15 Pro, Pro Max, or newer) to access the wrist-based AI features.

However, updates to the watchOS 27 page now suggest that Apple's latest smartwatch software will work with any paired iPhone running iOS 27, including models as old as the iPhone 11.

watchOS 27 also brings these AI enhancements

In addition to Siri AI, watchOS 27 also unlocks all sorts of other useful AI-powered features, like a new Dynamic App Grid that auto-populates with your most-used apps, Call Context to display relevant information when mentioned during a phone conversation, and a smarter Smart Stack that automatically populates the Stack with useful apps based on context.

Plus, a new single-tap gesture control makes it even easier to open an app or information via the Smart Stack.

watchOS 27: Outlook

While I’m genuinely excited to take Siri AI for a spin, I’m equally annoyed by the platform's super-limited compatibility with older Apple Watch models. After all, shouldn’t a smartwatch like the Apple Watch Series 8, which isn’t even four years old, be supported by the latest operating system? I sure think so.

Ultimately, I’m hopeful (though not optimistic) that Cupertino will eventually roll out a separate version of watchOS 27 without all the AI features for folks with slightly older, yet still relevant, Apple Watch models.

What are your thoughts on watchOS 27 and the new Apple Watch AI features? Let me know in the poll or comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• Apple Watch Series 12 rumors — everything we know so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner

Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) just kicked off, and there's a lot to unpack, including all sorts of new Apple Watch features coming later this year via watchOS 27.

Many of these new features and enhancements are powered by Apple Intelligence, including a new Siri AI personal assistant. However, there are some noteworthy limitations to watchOS 27.

Here's everything you need to know about Apple's forthcoming Apple Watch operating system, watchOS 27, including all the upgrades, launch timeframe, and compatibility.

watchOS 27: Key upgrades

• Only six Apple Watch models will support watchOS 27: Apple Series 9, Apple Watch Series 10, Apple Watch Series 11, Apple Watch Ultra 2, Apple Watch Ultra 3, and Apple Watch SE 3
• watchOS 27 delivers a more powerful Siri AI voice assistant
• A dedicated Siri AI app in watchOS 27 lets you access all conversations, even those started on another device
• A new single-tap gesture lets you open Smart Stack widgets
• Improved motivational guidance in Workout Buddy based on past and present fitness data
• Support for tracking perimenopause and menopause in the Health app
• New Dynamic App Grid for quick access to most-used apps
• Wallet app now supports custom passes for anything with a QR code; users can pin a pass to the Smart Stack for quick access

watchOS 27: Apple Watch compatibility and release date

While the latest iOS 27 software will be supported by a record number of iPhone models, going as far back as the iPhone 11, the newest watchOS 27 release is one of Apple's least compatible.

The following Apple Watch models will support watchOS 27: Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch Series 10, Apple Watch Series 11, Apple Watch Ultra 2, Apple Watch Ultra 3, and Apple Watch SE 3.

While developers can access watchOS 27 starting this week, the rest of us will need to wait at least a month for the beta to drop. The full release, meanwhile, is set for the fall, when we'll likely see a new Apple Watch Series 12 and possibly an Apple Watch Ultra 4.

watchOS 27: Apple Intelligence updates

The most noteworthy new features introduced in watchOS 27 revolve around Apple Intelligence, which is now partially powered by Google's Gemini AI.

For starters, watchOS 27 will support a custom-tailored version of Siri AI designed for smaller screens. This long-awaited update to Apple's much-maligned voice assistant should prove far more useful than today's Siri.

Siri AI will use personal context from supported apps, along with broad world knowledge, to answer questions and take actions. Better yet, all your Siri AI chats are saved to iCloud and accessible on any supported device.

AI processing in watchOS 27 is handled by private cloud computing rather than on-device. Apple is emphasizing the fact that search queries are completely private, inaccessible even to Apple, and especially to third parties.

Users can call upon Siri AI via voice or access the feature via a new standalone app in the watch's redesigned app grid.

As noted above, you'll need one of the latest/best Apple Watch models to access all of these Apple Intelligence features in watchOS 27, but will you also need an Apple Intelligent-compatible iPhone?

When watchOS 27 was first announced, Apple's marketing materials suggested the answer was yes. However, it now appears that smartphones as old as the iPhone 11 will do.

watchOS 27: New health and fitness features

Not a whole lot has changed in terms of health and fitness features in watchOS 27. The two biggest improvements are related to women's health tracking and Workout Buddy.

First, the Apple Watch Health app's period tracking function now alerts users to potential signs of perimenopause and menopause. It can also be used to log symptoms and monitor trends.

When it comes to working out, Apple's personalized fitness coach, Workout Buddy, has been tuned to deliver more useful/data-backed motivational insights and messages based on insights from current and past workouts.

watchOS 27 also promises improved distance accuracy when tracking indoor workouts, along with better step count syncing between your Apple Watch and iPhone.

watchOS 27: Design improvements

For quicker access to your five most-used apps, watchOS 27 features a new Dynamic App Grid that automatically populates.

watchOS 27 additionally brings a smarter Smart Stack that automatically populates relevant apps based on context. Lastly, for those taking calls from the wrist, Apple's new Call Context feature for Apple Watch can automatically display relevant info when mentioned, like flight times for an upcoming trip.

Meanwhile, the Find My app has been refined visually for a more straightforward, map-centric user experience.

Finally, last year's Liquid Glass update didn't have that much impact on the look and feel of the Apple Watch. Nevertheless, watchOS 27 delivers some tweaks, including better separation between current apps or content and the background.

watchOS 27: Other upgrades

In addition to all of the above, watchOS 27 unlocks faster open times for the Music app, quicker step count syncing between Apple Watch and iPhone, new battery optimization suggestions, and a promising new single-tap gesture control to open items saved to the Smart Stack.

What do you think of the watchOS 27 announcements? Are you excited to upgrade, assuming you have a supported device? How do you feel about its limited compatibility? Let me know in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• I tested the $79 Amazfit Bip 6 vs the $249 Apple Watch SE 3 — and the cheaper smartwatch is a lot better than I thought

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

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

3 reasons to buy the Fitbit Air

It’s distraction-free

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

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

It’s extremely comfortable

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

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

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

It’s affordable

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

3 reasons to skip the Fitbit Air

Bugs

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

Subscription cost

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

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

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

Screenless devices won’t be for everyone

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

Samsung just announced a major update to the Samsung Health app for Galaxy Watch that launches on June 8. The announcement says the update will highlight "key health features" that will be included in the forthcoming Galaxy Watch 9.

“Samsung Health is evolving to connect health data measured by Galaxy Watch with AI-based insights, enabling users to understand their physical and mental condition more easily and intuitively,” said Hon Pak, Samsung's Senior VP and head of Digital Health Team for Mobile eXperience said in the announcement. Here's what's coming and they do.

Vitals

The biggest updates appear to be features that combine multiple data points for a more holistic look at your health. That starts with the new Vitals feature.

According to Samsung, Vitals analyzes five "key overnight bio-signals": blood oxygen, heart rate, heart rate variability, respiratory rate and skin temperature. These are measured against your resting baseline and the app will only send notifications if it detects "meaningful deviations," which could indicate that you need more rest or are fighting an illness.

There are supposed to be fewer notifications so that you're not overwhelmed.

Heart Health Score

Like Vitals, the new Heart Health Score tracks multiple data points and combines the information into a single daily metric. The data comes from the Vascular Load tracking introduced with the Galaxy Watch 8 last yaer.

Vascular Load monitors vascular stress via insights found in sleep, stress and activity monitoring. It's not combined with body composition data to create the Heart Health Score. This should give you a better idea of your heart health.

Samsung does stress that these features are for wellness and not for diagnosis or treatment.

Daily Cardio Load and Fitness Index

The next two features are fitness focused. Daily Cardio Load is supposed to help you understand accumulated cardiovascular strains. It can recommend training targets and rest times to help you train without risking burnout or injury.

Fitness Index "ensures exercise routines are working." It analyzes heart rate, V02 max, and daily steps against your peers. This is supposed to deliver personalized content and goals so that you can make targeted improvements.

Updated Interface and capabilities

To make these new features easier to understand Samsung says that the Health app introducing a streamlined layout that focuses on five "core pillars": Sleep, Activity, Nutrition, Mindfulness and Vitals. The update is supposed to let you quickly access daily wellness tips and your Energy Score from the home screen.

Additionally, Samsung is introducing a new "Hearing Health" feature that lets the Galaxy Watch monitor surrounding ambient noise to help protect your ears by determining if it's too loud.

Availability

Several times the Samsung announcement seems to indicate that these features will be a major part of the next generation of Galaxy Watches.

"The newly announced health features will first be available on the upcoming Galaxy Watch."

Confusingly, that seems to indicate that people using older Galaxy Watches won't be able to use anything in this update yet. We reached out to Samsung for clarity on this.

“The features announced today are part of an upcoming Samsung Health update. Availability of specific features may vary by device and market," a Samsung spokesperson told us in a statement.

I'm not sure that clears things up, especially in regard to what's coming to currently available Galaxy Watches.

Meanwhile, the Samsung Health app update starts rolling out on June 8. You do need have Android 11 or higher and Samsung Health app version 6.30.2 or higher to access these new features.

More from Tom's Guide

• Leaked Galaxy S27 Ultra specs reveal a long overdue major upgrade
• Certification listing appears to confirm Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra as Samsung's third flagship foldable: what we know
• Samsung Galaxy’s new ‘Inactivity Restart’ locks out thieves and keeps you safe — here’s how it works

WWDC 2026 is just a few days away, and this year's Apple event is almost certainly going to be a busy one. It's rare that Apple's developer conference doesn't involve a smorgasbord of software news and reveals, but this should be the year Apple finally starts catching up to the competition — and fulfills promises it made two whole years ago.

That's right, after it felt like Apple's AI took a year off in 2025, we're expecting Apple Intelligence to be at the forefront of WWDC 2026. Siri's long-delayed AI upgrade is likely at the forefront of this, and if all goes well, it could even be the star of the show. But that's not the only big announcement we expect to see at WWDC 2026. Here are 9 of the biggest announcements we expect to hear about during the keynote address.

Gemini-powered Siri

The project designed to upgrade Siri with AI smarts has easily been one of Apple's biggest blunders of the last several years. What started as a way to try to upgrade Siri quickly and catch up with existing AI-powered rivals turned into a two-year quest that only ended after Google Gemini (reportedly) rode in to save the day.

The new AI-infused Siri is expected to be powered by Google Gemini, and should come with all the features you'd expect from a bona fide AI chatbot. That includes contextual awareness, conversational abilities, improved natural language support, and so on. Given Google's push towards multimodality and agentic AI, it's likely we'll see those same capabilities come to Siri as well.

So expect a Siri that is altogether smarter and more understanding, with the ability to do more and control different areas of your phone without constant intervention from you.

Siri is also expected to power Apple's long-gestating smart home platform, which has been codenamed "charismatic." The platform was reportedly delayed specifically because it was so reliant on Siri, meaning the AI-Siri release can come with some bonuses.

More chatbot support in iOS 17

ChatGPT has been built into iOS for the last two years, as part of Apple Intelligence. But, word has it that iOS 27 will free iPhones from that pseudo-monopoly and give you the ability to choose which AI chatbot you want to utilize.

Unlike the Gemini-powered Siri upgrade, this would be a way to access other AI features via Siri and Apple Intelligence. So if you want to generate images or get writing assistance from Claude or Gemini without having to switch to the official app, then iOS 27's new "Extension" tool will reportedly make it happen.

The best part is that this doesn't sound like something Apple is restricting to specific regions, as a result of local legislation. This means more choice for users, and that's something we can all get on board with.

Improved AI features

With the Siri-shaped elephant firmly out of the room, WWDC 2026 is the perfect opportunity for Apple to unveil some much-needed upgrades to Apple Intelligence. We don't know the full extent of Apple's plans at this point, but we have heard rumors of some helpful-sounding upgrades that are apparently coming to Apple devices later this year.

The big one that we're expecting to see is the long-rumored AI health coach. That was originally rumored to arrive last year with iOS 26, as part of a feature that had been dubbed "Health Plus." The original plans to offer some sort of AI doctor have apparently been watered down, and the focus is now on general health and fitness rather than anything that could be construed as medical advice.

This is said to include health reports and assessments, which will be used to offer new recommendations about training plans and wellness routines. Information about medical conditions is also said to be included, though I suspect it will feature prominent disclaimers that AI is not a substitute for talking to a qualified medical professional.

It's also been rumored that Apple will offer more AI-powered image editing features in iOS 27. Reports suggest this will include features called Extend, Enhance and Reframe. The first two are fairly self-explanatory, while Reframe is designed to change the perspective in spatial photos seen in 3D.

It's not clear whether we'll get more features, but considering how prominent a role Gemini will have in the new software, it would be surprising if we didn't get something similar to Google's conversational editing. This lets you tell an AI what kind of edits you'd like to see, either with voice or text prompts, and it will do everything for you.

Clues about iPhone Fold & MacBook Ultra

The next 12 months are going to be huge for the iPhone and Mac lineups, with new kinds of products that we've never seen before. I am talking about the foldable iPhone Ultra and the touchscreen MacBook Ultra.

We're not expecting any hardware announcements at WWDC 2026, because it's not that kind of event. We're not even expecting any teasers, especially since the MacBook Ultra may not be arriving until early 2027. That said, both iOS 27 and macOS 27 are going to have to accommodate both devices, and that means there may be hints at what Apple is planning in both updates.

Apple isn't likely to make a point of mentioning them, but eagle-eyed nerds might be able to pick up some of those hints during the keynote address — or after installing the beta versions that are typically released during WWDC.

Customizable options for Liquid Glass

Liquid Glass is not going anywhere, despite how much people might like to complain about it. However, reports have suggested that Apple will offer more customization options as part of the iOS 27 update. Specifically, it's been claimed that Apple will add a system-wide slider for adjusting Liquid Glass effects across the entirety of iOS 27.

It's said that this feature was originally planned for iOS 26, but various technical challenges meant it would only ever work on the lock screen clock — which is far from ideal. This time it will apply to app folders, home screen elements, navigation bars and more. However, this new feature should offer more fine-tuning beyond the existing "clear" and "opaque" options that are hidden in iOS's accessibility settings.

So if you've been frustrated with Liquid Glass, and the effect it has on your iPhone's interface, this could be the feature that solves most of your problems.

Upgrades for major apps

WWDC covers more than just the operating systems, and we've Apple routinely reveal big updates to its essential apps and services. In this instance, we've heard rumors about both the Camera and Wallet apps, and how they might change with iOS 27.

The iPhone camera app is set to get a big overhaul thanks to a customizable interface and new professional controls that let you tinker with different camera settings like depth-of-field and exposure. This means that, not only will you be able to make all your favorite settings more accessible, you should gain better control over the photos you take — and without having to pay for a third-party camera app.

Apple Wallet is also expected to get a new bill-splitting feature, which scans receipts and generates payment requests for everyone at the table. That's on top of a new digital pass system, which lets you convert physical passes into digital ones — whether they be membership cards, event tickets or something else entirely.

Major software performance improvements

iOS 27 is not expected to be a very meaty update, in terms of features and design changes, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't going all in on the software. A Bloomberg report from last year claimed that Apple is pushing to improve the "software quality and underlying performance." The report specifically named iOS 27, but other operating systems like macOS and watchOS will likely receive similar treatment.

This move has been likened to the release of Mac OS X Snow Leopard back in 2009, which saw Apple engineers work to refine the features and experience that launched two years prior. So Apple has apparently tasked its engineering teams to cut bloat, eliminate bugs and make sure they explore every opportunity to "meaningfully boost performance and overall quality."

Why does this matter? Cleaner, more efficient software will enhance the user experience across the board. A less cumbersome OS should be able to run faster and more efficiently, which will in turn improve overall performance and (hopefully) reduce power consumption in the process. At the very least, cleaning junk out of the software should reduce the amount of storage space system files require and offer a little bit more space for your files and photos.

Speedier macOS

There's a minor redesign expected with macOS 27, and it looks like Apple is aiming to fix the Liquid Glass shadow and transparency quirks that plagued macOS 26 Tahoe. In certain situations, those visual elements made text incredibly difficult to read — so this cleanup is a welcome change.

Overall, this update is shaping up to be a spiritual successor to Snow Leopard. Instead of piling on flashy new features, macOS 27 is focusing heavily on under-the-hood performance improvements to make Macs running Apple Silicon feel even faster.

Simpler Ultra-style look in watchOS 27

The watchOS 27 update that Apple's rumored to intrude is a new Modular watch face, which features a large clock centered right at the top with three complications tucked neatly below it. It’s essentially a stripped-back, simpler version of the Modular Ultra face that we've seen on the Apple Watch Ultra — making it perfect if you want that functionality without the clutter.

Beyond the new face, the updated software also brings several under-the-hood improvements to heart-rate monitoring and fitness tracking to help keep your workouts even more accurate.

More from Tom's Guide

• The iPhone Fold doesn’t stand a chance unless Apple includes these 3 features in iOS 27
• How to watch the Apple WWDC 2026 keynote live
• Apple's foldable iPhone Ultra just leaked in new photos — and we have a release date update

Today is the day to lace up your best running shoes and get out for a run. Why? It's Global Running Day 2026, and if you happen to be wearing one of the best Apple Watches or best Garmin watches, you can earn yourself a special award.

This is a little extra incentive to notch up a run — whether it's outside or on one of the best treadmills at the gym — it all counts. And you get a nice digital souvenir to add to your collection. I personally love collecting Apple's limited edition badges, so if I can get out the door for a quick 5K today, I definitely will.

If you're a determined Apple or Garmin wearer (or you just want a little bit of extra motivation today), then you're going to want to know how to earn these limited edition trinkets.

The good news is that in both cases, it couldn't be any simpler.

An extra bonus from Strava and Runna

There's an added bonus up for grabs today if you happen to use Strava. Recording a run of 5K or more today will give you free access to Runna Premium for two weeks. Runna is our number one pick for the best running apps and a former Tom's Guide Fitness Awards winner.

The app offers a personalized training plan that uses AI to calibrate itself based on your workouts. As your performance increases, so does the plan. If you want to know more about how this works, check out our in-depth Runna review.

If you do decide to head out for a run, whether you want to attempt a PR or just grab one of the aforementioned awards, have fun. I'm coming back from an injury that prevented my marathon attempt this season, so it's slow going for me, but I still can't help wanting to earn those badges.

More from Tom's Guide

• The best treadmills I've tested with hundreds of indoor miles
• I tested the Garmin Forerunner 70 for two weeks — and it’s my favorite running watch for the money in 2026
• I'm a weightlifting coach — 3 exercises I prefer over lunges for building strong, stable legs and knees over 40

The Garmin Forerunner 70 ($249 as tested) is the brand’s latest entry-level running watch. It’s basically a Garmin Forerunner 170 with fewer smart features and slightly less impressive under-the-hood tech for $50 cheaper.

However, the Forerunner 70 is positively bursting with training insights, recovery advice, and race-day metrics for runners. It also boasts a bright AMOLED screen, a comfortable case, and impressive battery life.

I’m a newbie runner, and I wore the Garmin Forerunner 70 for two weeks. In that time, I compared tracking performance against the competition while running and walking, tested battery life claims, analysed sleep insights versus other popular wearables, tried out the few smart features on offer, and ultimately, put it through hell (I’m hard on my smartwatches).

Here’s everything you need to know about the Garmin Forerunner 70.

Garmin Forerunner 70: Versus the competition

The Coros Pace 4 is the nearest non-Garmin competitor to the Forerunner 70. Both cost about the same, but the Pace 4 offers more precise multi-band GPS, an altimeter for elevation tracking data, superior battery life, and support for multisport workouts.

That said, the Forerunner 70 has a more polished user interface — both on the watch and in the app — better physical controls, and valuable metrics, like Training Readiness Score, which are absent on the Pace 4.

Another option at $249 is the Suunto Run, which also has some advantages over the Forerunner 70 — like dual-band GPS and onboard music storage — but it lacks the level of training insights and refined user experience of the Garmin.

In terms of the Garmin Forerunner 70 vs 170, the latter sports an altimeter and an onboard temperature sensor for advanced women’s health tracking. The Forerunner 170 additionally supports NFC for mobile payments, and if you pony up extra cash for the ‘Music’ edition, you even get onboard storage for saving Spotify/Amazon Music/Deezer tunes for offline enjoyment.

Finally, the jump from the Forerunner 55 to the Forerunner 70 is a big one, with the newer model gaining a bright AMOLED screen, an updated user interface, and lots of new advanced training insights for runners.

Garmin Forerunner 70 value: 3/5

• The Garmin Forerunner 70 is $249 and available now
• The Forerunner 70 is the same cost as the Coros Pace 4, its closest competitor
• Garmin's new entry-level watch is $50 more than its predecessor, the Forerunner 55, at launch, but the price will likely come down

The Garmin Forerunner 70 is priced at $249.99, which is $50 more than the launch price of its predecessor, the Forerunner 55. However, $199 in 2021 dollars — when the Forerunner 55 first debuted — is equivalent to roughly $240 in 2026 dollars, accounting for inflation. This makes the price hike a bit more digestible.

Moreover, I fully expect the Forerunner 70 to see a price drop, perhaps even by the holiday season. After all, the Forerunner 55 regularly sells for $149.

The Garmin Forerunner 70 is available now in your choice of Tidal Blue, Soft Pink, Cool Lavender, Citron, Whitestone (shown), and Black.

Garmin Forerunner 70 design and comfort: 5/5

• Lightweight, comfortable case design with five buttons and a bright AMOLED touchscreen
• There's only one size: 42mm
• 50 meters of water resistance is enough for surface-level swims and showers

The Garmin Forerunner 70 is nearly identical in case size, weight, and button placement to its predecessor, the Forerunner 55, and exactly the same as its higher-end sibling, the Forerunner 170.

Unlike the Forerunner 55, which has a somewhat dull, Memory in Pixel (MIP) display that isn't touch sensitive, the new Forerunner 70 sports a bright and well-saturated 1.2-inch AMOLED touchscreen, which I found responsive, and had no issue reading in direct sunlight.

Made from fiber-reinforced polymer, aka plastic, the case is delightfully lightweight and easy-wearing. There's only one size available, 42.6mm, which some users might find a tad larger than their liking, especially if you have smaller wrists.

Water resistance is a respectable 50 meters, which is enough to survive surface-level swimming, sweaty workouts, showers, etc.

Garmin Forerunner 70 fitness tracking: 4/5

• New, high-end training tools for runners compared to its predecessor
• Onboard GPS provides location data without a smartphone, but no onboard altimeter for elevation tracking

Even though the Garmin Forerunner 70 is an entry-level model, it's positively brimming with high-end running metrics, insights, training tools, and recovery advice.

For example, unlike its predecessor, the Forerunner 55, the new Forerunner 70 supports Garmin's Training Load, Training Status, and Training Readiness metrics, all of which I find highly useful when planning what types of workouts to do... or not, on a daily basis to avoid overexertion.

You also get hardcore running dynamic insights to help you train and ultimately improve your form, like ground contact time, vertical oscillation, vertical ratio, and stride length. In terms of cardio and performance, the Forerunner 70 measures your running power, VO2 Max, Heart Rate Variability (HRV), and blood oxygen saturation levels.

Prepping for an upcoming event, like running your first 5k? The Garmin Coach feature on the Forerunner 70 can generate custom, adaptive training plans to help you make it across the finish line with grace and style.

Despite being a running watch, the Forerunner 70 supports over 80 workout types. Fitness tracking accuracy is solid overall, but the lack of an onboard barometric altimeter led to less than precise elevation gain data in my testing.

For example, when I pitted the Forerunner 70 vs the Apple Watch SE 3 in a 5,500-step tracking comparison, both devices performed extremely well across the board, from step count to total distance to heart rate to pace. However, Garmin's climb data was considerably lower than Apple's and the control.

Garmin Forerunner 70 health tracking: 3/5

• Impressive daily sleep reports with sleep score and Body Battery metric
• Limited women’s health tracking tools; no thermometer
• Accurate heart rate tracking with SpO2 readings

Modern Garmin watches offer comprehensive and digestible sleep insights, and the Forerunner 70 is no exception, with details on your sleep cycles, disturbances, a numeric sleep score, and rating. The Forerunner 70 also supports Garmin's handy body Battery metric, which provides the best overall gauge of your well-being, taking into account sleep, recent workouts, stress, and more.

Finally, the Garmin Forerunner 70 lacks an onboard body temperature sensor, unlike the higher-end Forerunner 170, so women's health tracking insights are, well, lacking. While the pricier model offers period predictions, the Forerunner 70 does not.

Garmin Forerunner 70 smart and safety features: 2/5

• Smart features are limited; for NFC support and onboard music storage, get the Forerunner 170 Music
• The Forerunner 70 supports mirrored smartphone notifications and media control for both Android and iOS
• Safety features include incident detection and Garmin's LiveTrack location-sharing

If you're looking for smart features like NFC payments and onboard music storage, the Garmin Forerunner 70 probably isn't the watch for you. Instead, consider the Forerunner 170 or 170 Music.

However, neither of these Garmin running watches offers anything near the level of smart features you get from the best full-featured smartwatch models, like the Apple Watch Series 11 and Pixel Watch 4. Then again, the Forerunner series wipes the floor with those models in terms of advanced running metrics and insights.

The Forerunner 70 plays nicely with Android and iOS devices, supporting mirrored notification and media control. You can also enter a destination in Google Maps on your smartphone, and the Forerunner 70 will provide turn-by-turn directions on the screen.

Garmin's new entry-level watch also supports two important safety features: Incident Detection, similar to Apple's fall and crash detection, and LiveTrack location sharing.

Garmin Forerunner 70 battery life: 4/5

• Solid battery performance: 13 days in smartwatch mode or up to six days when using the always-on display
• GPS battery life is good for between 16 and 23 hours, depending on your tracking mode

Battery life on the Garmin Forerunner 70 is fairly good. In smartwatch mode, Garmin promises up to 13 days of use. However, I tested the Forerunner 70 with the always-on display setting engaged. Under these circumstances, Garmin says the watch should last up to five days per charge, but I consistently got six days, even with lots of use and 24/7 wearing.

When tracking an outdoor workout with all-system GPS engaged, you can expect around 16 hours of use, or 23 hours if you switch out of all-system GPS. The watch also recharges quite quickly; it took roughly 90 minutes to go from ~10% to 100% in my testing.

Garmin Forerunner 70 review: Verdict

The Garmin Forerunner 70 is a near-perfect smartwatch for folks who crave Garmin's best running tools and training insights but don't want to break the bank. Sure, smart features are all but non-existent, but that's why Garmin also sells the Forerunner 170 and 170 Music.

With a comfortable and sporty design, bright display, refined user interface, solid battery performance, and reliable fitness tracking accuracy (aside from climb data), there's a lot to like about Garmin's new entry-level model. However, it's not the only appealing running watch at this price point.

The Coros Pace 4 is also $249 and offers a lot of the same tools as the Forerunner 70, in a similarly-sized package, but with better battery performance, more accurate GPS, and support for multisport tracking.

That said, I prefer the Forerunner 70s' user interface and greater number of physical controls. Garmin's entry-level model also offers metrics I've come to rely on, like Training Readiness, which you won't find on the Coros.

Garmin Forerunner 70 final score: 21/30

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: The main differences

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Run test

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Garmin Forerunner 70: Verdict

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

Third place: Fitbit Active Band

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

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

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

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

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

Second place: Fitbit Performance Loop

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

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

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

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

Fortunately, my favorite Fitbit Air band solves this issue.

First place: Fitbit Stephen Curry Loop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Price and subscriptions

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Design

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Whoop: The apps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, on to the test results!

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Walk test results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3: Winner

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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

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

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

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

No smart alerts or distractions… except this one

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

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

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

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

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

The brilliance of ‘Smart Wake’

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

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

Some room for improvement

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

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

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

More from Tom's Guide

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