I walked 4,000 steps with the Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 — and we have a new Android champ

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

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

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

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

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

Google's step count was closer

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

The Pixel Watch also logged more accurate climb and distance data

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

Google's pace data is slower than expected

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

Samsung's heart rate data is lower than expected

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

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

The Google Pixel Watch 5 wins

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

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

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

Follow Tom's Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds.

More from Tom's Guide

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