I biked 11 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Strava — and there's a clear winner

Close-up of the Apple Watch Ultra 3 in a user's hand with the Outdoor Cycle workout tracking mode shown; a lime green bike is out of focus in the distance
(Image credit: Dan Bracaglia/Tom's Guide)

I biked around Seattle’s most famous glacial lake this weekend, a roughly 11-mile ride past houseboats, seaplane docks, gleaming corporate tech offices, rusting industrial remains, and grunge-era strip malls. The big finish is a captivating yet challenging 200-foot ascent that twists and turns for 1.5 miles through a towering, emerald-encrusted innercity forest.

To log my journey, I recorded a biking workout on the Apple Watch Ultra 3 using Apple’s native Workout app and on my handlebar-mounted iPhone 16 Plus using the Strava app. After comparing the data from each post-workout report, these are the five biggest takeaways.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Weekend bike ride results
Header Cell - Column 0

Apple Workout app

Strava app

Device

Apple Watch Ultra 3 (worn)

iPhone 16 Plus (handle-bar mounted)

Distance

10.71 miles

10.79 miles

Workout duration

56 mins 26 secs

52 mins 58 secs

Average speed

11.3 mph

12.2 mph

Max speed

19.9 mph

25.8 mph

Elevation gain

680 feet

677 feet

1. Both apps recorded similar distances

Give or take a tenth of a mile, both the Apple Watch Ultra 3 running the Apple Workout app and the iPhone 16 Plus running the Strava app noted similar total distances for my Sunday bike ride, just shy of 11 miles.

Article continues below

It's worth noting that the Apple Watch Ultra 3, unlike some older models, doesn't piggyback off your iPhone's location or elevation data while tracking a workout.

2. Strava noted faster speeds overall

This isn't the first time Strava calculated not just a faster maximum speed for a bike ride against Apple's Workout app, but also a faster average speed. When I biked 12 miles last fall with the Apple Watch Series 10 versus the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, using Strava as my control, the Apple Watch similarly had slower speed data than the other methods.

The results were also similar when I cycled 11 miles with the Apple Watch 10 versus the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Strava.

3. Apple and Strava measured nearly the same exact climb data

a hand holding a phone with the Strava app displayed on the screen

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

When it comes to elevation gain, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 running Apple's Workout app noted nearly the same exact total as Strava running on the iPhone 16 Plus.

This is a particularly refreshing result, as climb data is one of the primary metrics I use to assess the difficulties of my rides through Seattle, a notably hilly city.

To be honest, I somewhat expected the Ultra 3 to inflate my uphill efforts based on similar performance in recent walk test comparisons against the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra and again versus the Garmin Forerunner 570. Then again, those examples were walking; this is cycling.

4. Apple doesn’t provide a ‘moving time’ metric

Apple's Workout app doesn't provide a 'moving time' metric like the Strava app does for bike rides, which is a bit of a bummer. I find moving time to be a more useful metric, especially when you get stuck halfway through the ride at a raised drawbridge. Suddenly, your 55-minute adventure is closer to 75 minutes.

That scenario didn't play out this time around, but it's all too common when cruising around Seattle's Lake Union in the warmer months.

For what it's worth, Strava's elapsed or total time calculation for the ride was 54 minutes, 36 seconds, which is a little closer to Apple's measure. Note: I tried my best to synchronize each app's start and stop.

5. Strava remains my overall choice for biking

Ultimately, I'll continue to rely on Strava from the comfort of my handlebar-mounted phone as my primary bike workout tracking method. Not only does Strava provide more nuanced workout duration data, but I trust its speed data over that of the Apple Workout app, which consistently claims I'm moving slower than most other means of tracking.

Another notable reason I prefer Strava on the iPhone has nothing to do with data accuracy; rather, I simply find it easier to view my ride progress when it's displayed on a large screen almost directly in front of me, versus on a smaller, wrist-based one.


Google News

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

Dan Bracaglia
Senior Writer, Fitness & Wearables

Dan Bracaglia is the Tom’s Guide editorial lead for all things smartwatches, fitness trackers and outdoor gear. With 15 years of experience as a consumer technology journalist testing everything from Oura Rings to instant cameras, Dan is deeply passionate about helping readers save money and make informed purchasing decisions. In the past year alone, Dan has assessed major product releases from the likes of Apple, Garmin, Google, Samsung, Polar and many others. 

An avid outdoor adventurer, Dan is based in the U.S. Pacific Northwest where he takes advantage of the beautiful surroundings every chance he gets. A lover of kayaking, hiking, swimming, biking, snowboarding and exploring, he also makes every effort to combine his day job with his passions. When not assessing the sleep tracking and heart rate accuracy of the latest tach gadgets, you can find him photographing Seattle’s vibrant underground music community.

You must confirm your public display name before commenting

Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.