The 7 Best Fitness Trackers of 2025

Best Overall Fitness Tracker

Apple Watch 9

Get the Apple Series 9 if you prioritize accuracy in tracking and heart rate monitoring and you want a fitness tracker that will integrate into your lifestyle and suite of Apple products. This is the fitness tracker that will do everything you need. And it will most likely exceed your expectations! When we scrutinized the heart rate monitoring capability of fitness trackers, we were impressed by how accurate the Series 9 is. As one tester said, “For years, the only way to measure heart rate accurately during sports was with a chest strap, but I recorded over 99% accuracy with the Series 9, proof that excellent heart rate monitoring can be obtained from a wristband.” Previous iterations of Apple Watches, including the SE Gen 2, are still excellent fitness trackers, but the Series 9 is a cut above and it weighs 3.3 ounces less. The fact that it offers much of the functionality of an iPhone while also being an exemplary tracker makes it the clear top performer in our lineup of fitness trackers.

Measured Display Diameter	34.0 mm
Measured Weight	1.69 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	1.6
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	Up to 18 hours Up to 36 hours in Low Power Mode
Built-In GPS Tracking	Yes

There are a few downsides, namely cost and battery life. So, if you are shopping around for a fitness tracker and aren't sure whether you want to invest a lot of hard-earned cash, this probably isn't a good choice for you. And our tester noted that, “If I was a long-distance athlete chasing 10-hour plus adventures, I'd choose another option with more battery-life while using GPS.” With these two caveats in mind, if you like the idea of having an Apple fitness tracker but the price of the Series 9 is too high, take a look at the less expensive Apple SE Gen 2. If you are a serious athlete and want the best tracking capability and battery life, you'll love the Garmin Forerunner 965.

Read more: Apple Watch Series 9 review

Best Fitness Tracker for Athletes

Garmin Forerunner 965

The Garmin Forerunner 965 is our premier recommendation for serious athletes, particularly those who venture beyond cellular coverage and for extended periods. This advanced fitness tracker excels in delivering precise metrics while also providing robust navigation capabilities. It has exceptional battery life, with one tester writing, “I was so impressed. This tracker outlasts every other tracker in our lineup.” It also has excellent GPS accuracy that helps ensure performance throughout extended workouts and instill confidence in the wearer that, come what may, they will always be able to find their way back home. The device distinguishes itself during challenging circumstances, maintaining reliable tracking and performance analysis even when the going gets technical at high elevations. Simply put, the Forerunner is an invaluable training companion for dedicated athletes seeking professional-grade performance monitoring.

Measured Display Diameter	41.8 mm
Measured Weight	1.89 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	1
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	up to 23 days in Smart Watch mode
Built-In GPS Tracking	Yes

While the Forerunner excels at providing sophisticated performance monitoring and real-time feedback for athletes exploring their limits, it does not prioritize lifestyle integration or diet tracking. Also, it is important to note this device is a significant investment, and you might find that a device like the Garmin Vivoactive 5, which offers many of the same excellent functionality as the Forerunner, is better suited to your budget. Though the Forerunner provides superb sleep-tracking analysis, our tester noted, “The Forerunner has a big wrist-print, which I found to be slightly uncomfortable while sleeping.” It is only two-tenths of an ounce heavier than the Apple Watch Series 9, but its screen is almost 8 mm larger in diameter, and the bezel has a penchant for tangling with the sleeves and cuffs of your shirts, sweaters, and jackets. For devices that are also great at sleep tracking and less territorial with anything that comes near your wrist, the Oura Ring Gen 3 at 0.11 ounces or the Whoop 4.0 at 1.03 ounces deserve consideration, as these devices are so unobtrusive you might forget you're wearing them--even as they continuously monitor your health data. Nevertheless, our lead tester, who particularly valued the Forerunner's specialized features, became so attached to the device during testing that she described it as “becoming like a best friend” and purchased one herself.

Read more: Garmin Forerunner 965 review

Best Value for Athletes

Garmin Vivoactive 5

The Garmin Vivoactive 5 delivers core performance for athletes without unnecessary complexity and without the high price of a premium fitness tracker. The bright AMOLED screen provides real-time monitoring of heart rate, pace, distance, and duration, along with industry-leading accuracy, thanks to the built-in GPS and onboard accelerometer. At 1.26 ounces, it isn't featherweight by any measure, but it is 29% lighter than the Apple Watch Series 9, and it is comfortable enough to wear to bed and record reams of sleep data (the Garmin app offers excellent sleep analysis). However, the tracking features are where the Vivoactive excels. “The customizable autodetection was excellent. It never failed to recognize when I started a walk or run,” wrote one tester. It is not unlike having a workout buddy who keeps track of all of your stats while you are focusing on the mileage or the reps in the gym and then shows them to you afterward with analysis and some suggestions for next time.

Measured Display Diameter	38.0 mm
Measured Weight	1.26 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	4.4
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	Up to 11 days 5 days display always-on
Built-In GPS Tracking	Yes

Although we loved the Vivoactive overall, our tester said, “I wish the elevation tracking was more accurate, and it was shown on screen.” Elevation can be calculated by the Garmin app (via the digital map of your route), but it isn't highly accurate, and elevation gain and loss are as important metrics as distance for mountain athletes. A barometric altimeter is included in the Garmin Forerunner 965 and the Apple Watch Series 9, but it comes at a much higher price. The other aspect of Vivoactive that felt limited was the ability to review old workout data and track diet. You could probably live with just using the app to review past workouts, but if nutrition tracking is a priority, you'll want to look at another option. The Fitbit Charge 6 or the Oura Ring Gen 3 have good diet tracking features, and the latter includes effective AI to make the process even easier.

Read more: Garmin Vivoactive 5 review

Top Pick for Light and Simple

Fitbit Charge 6

After spending so much time testing fitness trackers and doing workouts with multiple units strapped to our wrists, we developed a profound appreciation for the Fitbit Charge 6, which has a built-in GPS and monitors our health and fitness 24/7 yet is uncomplicated and comfortable. We feel that the Charge 6 is a device that balances the need for reliable tracking technology without being overwhelming. We also appreciated the excellent battery life, the diet tracking features, and the autodetection feature for runs. You really can just head out on a jog, and the Fitbit will start tracking without you needing to tell it to do so. It is also comfortable to wear while sleeping. Our lead tester said, "It's so comfortable that I quickly forgot I was wearing it!"

Measured Display Diameter	19.4 mm
Measured Weight	1 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	15.4
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	7 days
Built-In GPS Tracking	Yes

The traits of simplicity and approachability that make the Fitbit Charge 6 a great choice for many casual users are also the reasons it may not meet the needs of a serious athlete. For example, our testers observed that although the app offers clarity, it doesn't go deep on data analysis. However, the main issue they had was that the heart rate tracking lagged behind our actual heart rate, sometimes by up to 10 seconds, so it missed recording our peak heart rate during HITT sessions. We were also frustrated when the Charge 6 didn't record our heart rate data during a manually tracked workout, with our lead tester writing, “I want all my stats like max and average HR regardless of whether I started tracking or if Fitbit started the tracking.” If recording accurate heart rate is critical to you, we recommend the Garmin Vivoactive, which, although it is more expensive, offers superior heart rate and GPS tracking. The Vivoactive screen is also nearly twice as wide as the Charge 6, so you can easily monitor stats, like heart rate, during a workout. At the same time, there is the appeal of a fitness tracker that truly fades into the background, which is why we also recommend looking at the Whoop 4.0. Even though it is 3% heavier than the Fitbit, the Whoop offers excellent health-tracking features in a very comfortable band.

Read more: Fitbit Charge 6 review

Top Pick for Minimalist Lifestyle Tracking

Whoop 4.0

The Whoop 4.0 is innovative; this slender little tracker is an original take on the fitness tracker concept, and it contains advanced technology for monitoring your lifestyle and health. We also loved how comfortable it was to wear. Speaking of comfort, we are super intrigued by the Whoop clothing line that has little pockets sewn into the garments for holding the Whoop device. We didn't test their clothing, but we think the concept has a lot of merit. The strengths of Whoop are its excellent sleep tracking and recovery analysis. It may take thirty days to accumulate enough data to calibrate, but once you get there, it provides a ton of insight. With respect to training load, Whoop assesses things a little differently than other fitness trackers, but the “Strain” score it calculates is easy to learn and compare with other workouts. Our lead tester noted, “I don't love it for tracking activities in the moment, but it does provide a different lens for interpreting what does and doesn't work for my body.” We also loved how effective it was at auto-detecting outdoor activities and overall heart rate tracking. It is also legitimately designed to be worn 24/7; the device battery, which lasts between four to five days, recharges from a secondary battery that slides onto the device, so you never really have to stop (although it does take about 2.5 hours to hit 100%).

Measured Display Diameter	28.0 mm
Measured Weight	1.03 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	11.2
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	4-5 days dependent on usage
Built-In GPS Tracking	No

The fact that the Whoop doesn't have a screen is a fantastic feature. We are all for fewer distractions during workouts or even in the day-to-day, but there is a drawback to not being able to view your fitness data, or your heart rate for that matter, without your smartphone. Our other major issue with the Whoop is that it requires a subscription. You get a lot of features with a subscription, but the additional monthly cost is something you have to factor in with the price. We would also like to point out that even though the Whoop is 39% lighter than the Apple Watch Series 9, it is more of an extension of your smartphone rather than a stand-alone device: the Whoop doesn't have a built-in GPS or an altimeter. Ultimately, we recommend the Whoop for people who are most interested in tracking lifestyle metrics, like daily activity, sleep, and various health metrics such as blood oxygen and stress, but our lead tester says “I would choose another option if you are interested in real-time monitoring for running, bike rides, or gym workouts.” If those sports are your priority, we recommend you consider the Garmin Vivoactive 5 or the Apple Watch Series 9. However, if you are shopping for a fitness tracker on a tight budget, we suggest you take a look at the Amazfit Band 7, which is also lightweight but is available at a fraction of the cost.

Read more: Whoop 4.0 review

Best on a Tight Budget

Amazfit Band 7

Despite the affordable price point, the Amazfit Band 7 doesn't compromise on essential features, such as reliable tracking and excellent battery life. We recommend it to anyone who is shopping for a fitness tracker on a tight budget. We also think that it is a good option for anyone who is on the fence about whether a fitness tracker would work for them and doesn't want to overspend. We have tested previous versions of the Amazfit Band and were pleased to see that this model has increased the screen size by 112% while still keeping its low profile. The screen is also bright and easily visible in the sunlight. However, it is the battery life (12-18 days with typical usage), the step counting (with only a 4.67% margin of error), and the distance tracking (4% margin of error) where this little band sings. Our tester said, “The app provided me with useful feedback on my sleep habits without diving into hard-to-interpret data.” Most people who shop for fitness trackers prioritize these features, so it is great to see an option that honors those priorities while keeping the price down.

Measured Display Diameter	21.9 mm
Measured Weight	1 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	15.9
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	Heavy Usage: 12 Days Typical Usage: 18 Days Battery Saver Mode: 28 Days
Built-In GPS Tracking	No

Even though the Amazfit is leagues ahead of the Apple Watch Series 9 or the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 in terms of battery life, the heart rate monitoring is poor, taking up to 30 seconds to register our heart rate during test trials. It does follow general heart rate trends, but it isn't useful for monitoring heart rate during interval sessions when heart rate spikes and dips dramatically. Additionally, our lead tester noted, “I found the band difficult to put on and adjust. It also created a slight pressure point from the sensors while wearing it.” We did like the Personal Activity Scoring Intelligence (PAI) for scoring our fitness, but the analysis of workout data on the app is quite basic. In order to access more features, you have to sign up for a subscription. For these reasons, an athlete who wants to achieve specific goals might want to look more closely at the Garmin Forerunner 965, even though the Garmin is 91% bigger and 89% heavier. If you want a more minimal band, we also recommend the Fitbit Charge 6, which is more expensive, but it has great diet tracking options, built-in GPS, reliable auto tracking, and it weighs the same as the Amazfit.

Read more: Amazfit Band 7 review

Top Pick for a Lifestyle Tracker Ring

Oura Ring Gen 3

The Oura Ring Gen 3 is the health and fitness tracker for the discriminating sartorialist. Very few people will know you are actively tracking your health data every moment of the day. This feature makes it a compelling option for professionals and health-oriented individuals who want insight into their health but prefer to do so without the bulk of a fitness watch or band. It also offers superb sleep tracking and step-counting accuracy. After we had completed our testing, Oura Ring released the Gen 4, which we were able to briefly use, although not fully test, before publishing this review. Our lead tester concluded, “The fourth-generation model made significant improvements in comfort, style, weight and app features, but I think this tracker is missing a few features that the best dedicated fitness trackers have.”

Measured Display Diameter	na
Measured Weight	.11 oz
Heart Rate Average Beats Per Second Off	NA
Manufacturer Stated Battery Life	Up to 7 days dependent on usage
Built-In GPS Tracking	No

At 0.11 ounces, it is one of the lightest fitness and health devices we tested, but it is important to think of the Oura Ring as an extension of your smartphone--a discrete hub of sensors--rather than a stand-alone device, like the Garmin Forerunner 965. We think the device has a lot of merit, but we also acknowledge that it is limited as a fitness tracker. “To me, the biggest drawback is that I can't see real-time data during exercises, even with my phone out,” said our lead tester. Although it can store health information in the band, it needs a tethered smartphone to determine geolocation and track a route. Heart rate tracking is also limited to five activities (indoor/outdoor running, indoor/outdoor cycling, and walking). If you want to be able to monitor your fitness data during a workout, we recommend the Apple Watch Series 9, which is an elegant device that is also incredibly powerful. It may be 15 times heavier than the Oura Ring, but it can also send and receive texts, emails, and calls and is nothing short of being a supercomputer on your wrist.

Compare Products

Compare select up to 5 products to compare

	Score	Product	Price
	84	Garmin Forerunner 965 Best Fitness Tracker for Athletes	$600
	82	Apple Watch 9 Best Overall Fitness Tracker	$399
	79	Garmin Vivoactive 5 Best Value for Athletes	$300
	75	Apple Watch SE Gen 2	$279
	73	Fitbit Charge 6 Top Pick for Light and Simple	$160
	72	Fitbit Versa 4	$200
	71	Whoop 4.0 Top Pick for Minimalist Lifestyle Tracking	$239
	69	Samsung Galaxy Watch 6	$450
	68	Amazfit Band 7 Best on a Tight Budget	$50
	67	Fitbit Inspire 3	$100
	67	Garmin Vivosmart 5	$150
	65	Xiaomi Band 8	$50
	64	Oura Ring Gen 3 Top Pick for a Lifestyle Tracker Ring	$299
	55	Ultrahuman Ring Air	$349

Why Trust GearLab

We invested a lot of time into researching trackers, comparing specifications, and talking to everyone from serious athletes to recreational fitness enthusiasts about fitness trackers. We then reviewed our testing regimen and made some adjustments to our procedures to reflect new technologies and to emphasize the metrics that matter most to our readers. Our tests were then performed in meticulous side-by-side tests, where accuracy was compared in heart rate monitoring, step counting, elevation tracking, and distance tracking. We also talked to a diverse panel of judges at GearLab to gain perspective on comfort, appearance, and general wearability.

We tested fitness trackers using five performance metrics:

• Fitness Impact (30% of overall score weighting)

• Health Impact (30% weighting)

• Ease of Use (20% weighting)

• Battery (10% weighting)

• Fit (10% weighting)

GearLab has been rigorously testing fitness trackers through hands-on reviews since 2017. Our reviews are regularly updated with new releases, and we purchase all products independently, ensuring unbiased evaluations without any financial influence. Our fitness tracker team is led by the boundless energy of Genaveve Bradshaw , who personally saw to putting each tracker through marathon days in the mountains, whether running, climbing, biking, or paddling. She also accumulated many miles on treadmills, the local paths near our office, countless laps on the climbing wall, and many HITT sessions to ascertain which fitness trackers were most accurate and worthy of our coveted awards. Austin Palmer and Jessica Riconscente have also contributed their experience with and perspective on fitness trackers from previous GearLab reviews of trackers, smartwatches, and hundreds of other tech and smart home products. Jared Eastlickk is another invaluable member of the team. He has a background in software testing and is an ISAA-certified fitness trainer. Brian Pidduck served as the writer for this project; his work involved synthesizing the spreadsheets and reams of data produced by the testers and shaping it into this review.

Analysis and Test Results

Fitness trackers work on a simple but powerful principle: when we can measure and record our fitness and health metrics, we gain the insight needed to make meaningful improvements in our habits and our workouts. So, to test their measuring ability, we devised a testing process based on five distinct metrics: Fitness Impact, Health Impact, Ease of Use, Battery, and Fit. Ultimately, these metrics will help you find the best fitness tracker for your needs. Each tracker model received a score in each metric, and these scores were combined to determine the overall score. Our discussion of these scores and specific observations from our team are included below.

What's the Best Value?

We think the Amazfit Band 7 is a great option if you are looking for the best bang for the buck. While it does have a limited set of functions compared to the top models, it counts your steps and tracks the distance traveled quite well, all for a low price. For those who want a higher degree of accuracy and functions tailored towards athletes, we recommend the Garmin Vivoactive 5, which combines many features seen in Garmin's high-end line of fitness trackers but at a more accessible price.

Fitness Impact

We rated each product on the quality of community and social features, as well as what activities and workouts each device could track and how accurate they were. While health and fitness are closely related, we focused on how well each tracker recorded physical activities in this metric.

In our rigorous assessment of fitness trackers, we employed both lab and field-based tests. These included manually counting steps on a one-mile course and comparing it to each tracker's counter, testing their accuracy, measuring distance, and testing effectiveness in monitoring high-intensity cardio and cycling workouts.

The Apple Watch Series 9 truly impressed our test team with its exceptional step-tracking accuracy. When compared to a manual counter, it only deviated by an absolute average of 3.7 steps (that is a 0.185% error rate). This level of accuracy makes it the top performer in the test group, with only the Fitbit Inspire 3 (average deviation of 6.3 steps) and the Xiaomi Band 8 coming close to this level of precision.

The Series 9 is also superb at generating data analysis from all kinds of workouts, whether on foot, on the bike, or in the gym. Furthermore, the included functions for interval training, hill repeats, and other specific training modalities are well-suited to athletes seeking to maximize performance. There are also eighty-one trackable activities, and if none of those match your needs, there are options for customization. The Oura Ring Gen 3 offers a similar number of trackable activities (eighty-two, in fact), but it is important to note that you can only track heart rate in five activities (indoor/outdoor running, indoor/outdoor cycling, and walking.

Accuracy in measuring distance also factored prominently into the overall score of each tracker. In this respect, the Apple Watch Series 9 is also a top performer and is bested only by the Garmin Forerunner 965. The Series 9 had an error rate of 5.67% in our distance trials, while the Forerunner was nearly perfect, with an error rate of only 0.33%.

Fitness trackers can employ different sensors for determining distance, which include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, cellular signal (via a tethered smartphone), or built-in GPS or GPS in a tethered smartphone. Trackers that have a built-in GPS scored the highest since not only does GPS offer superb accuracy, but it also means that a tracker can operate as a stand-alone unit. The Garmin Forerunner was at the top of the heap in this metric, considering its notable GPS capabilities, preloaded maps, distance-to-destination tracking, ability to create courses, LiveTrack feature (so friends and family can see your location as well as speed, pace, etc. during an activity), back-to-start tracking, and all around navigation capability. Garmins are well-known for their strength in this area, and the less expensive Vivoactive 5 is no exception. The Apple Watch Series 9 also scores well in terms of overall GPS and navigation capabilities (it can also lead you back to your starting point).

Elevation tracking was another sub-metric we emphasized. It can be measured directly via a barometric altimeter, or the tracker app can estimate it using a digital map. As you might imagine, direct measurement is much more accurate. However, we took testing a step further by evaluating the trackers during rock climbing sessions. We were the most impressed (actually, we were super pumped!) to see that the Garmin Forerunner 965 could accurately track our laps at the climbing gym. The Apple Watch Series 9 also does a great job of tracking elevation overall on runs, hikes, and rides, but it doesn't track rock climbing.

In terms of suitability for cycling, the Forerunner 965 was again the best device we tested. During rides, it is possible to view data, such as heart rate, speed, and total ascent, on the large, bright screen. There are also separate features for using a power meter to analyze cycling performance (although we didn't test that feature). The Apple Watch Series 9 is also a good tracker for cycling and was the next best performer.

Next, we looked at the ability of trackers to auto-detect walks, runs, rides, or other activities. In this area, the Forerunner 965 is underwhelming since it requires a button press to start tracking. The Series 9 was one of the best trackers in this sub-metric, followed by the Fitbit Charge 6. It “did a great job of consistently detecting runs, although it was less consistent for detecting walks and not reliable for detecting bike rides,” shared our lead tester.

We then evaluated the general workout tracking features of each tracker. We did various running workouts, HITT workouts, and strength training sessions to evaluate which units recorded our data effectively. We also evaluated any workout features, workout programs, or unique fitness analysis features. The Fitbit Charge 6, Garmin Forerunner 965, and Apple Watch Series 9 were all excellent trackers in this area. When discussing the Forerunner, our lead tester reported that "when you're doing one of the workouts, this tracker is your built-in coach and buddy!"

Next, we looked at the companion apps for each manufacturer and assessed the opportunities for community engagement. Many people we talked to extolled the value of connecting with and interacting with other fitness aficionados, so we evaluated apps for the features that provide opportunities to share goals or join groups or challenges. Our prolonged testing and general use of the apps revealed that the Whoop 4.0 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 are the best in this sub-metric. Some trackers have emphasized this feature in the past, like those from Fitbit, but recent changes in community features on the app (as of spring 2024) have disappointed some users.

Health Impact

The health impact score of each tracker carries similar weight to the fitness impact score. To assess health impact, we started by testing heart rate accuracy against a chest strap heart rate monitor that is highly accurate. Then, we looked at the diet-tracking features in each model and how well each tracked sleep. Lastly, we assessed health features and monitoring (such as blood oxygen concentration and stress).

Important Health Impact Submetric Scores

Product	Heart Rate	Sleep Tracking	Diet
Fitbit Versa 4	6.5	7	10
Samsung Galaxy Watch 6	8.5	7	8
Fitbit Inspire 3	7	6	10
Apple Watch SE Gen 2	10	7.5	5
Apple Watch 9	10	7.5	5
Oura Ring Gen 3	7	9.5	6
Fitbit Charge 6	5	7	10
Whoop 4.0	6	9.5	6
Garmin Forerunner 965	10	9	2
Garmin Vivoactive 5	9	8	2
Garmin Vivosmart 5	8	7	2
Ultrahuman Ring Air	5.5	8	3
Xiaomi Band 8	7	6	3
Amazfit Band 7	4	8	2

The Apple Watch Series 9 and Garmin Forerunner 965 were the top performers for our health impact metric. The Garmin excels in athletic performance metrics, while the Apple Watch is better suited to tracking lifestyle and health. Both offer approximately 15-20% more comprehensive health tracking capabilities compared to the next tier of devices.

To test heart rate accuracy, we compared each watch to a chest-mounted heart rate monitor. Below are the results, with the Apple watches and the Garmin Forerunner 965 as the most accurate.

The Series 9 and the Forerunner offer excellent real-time heart rate tracking. The Forerunner has a color-coded HR zone visualization that our lead tester appreciated during HITT workouts as well as during running workouts when she wanted to keep her heart rate within a specific zone (the Garmin also provides subtle vibrations and cues to alert you to when you drift out of the intended zone).

The Charge 6 scored low in our heart rate tests. It doesn't follow rapid heart rate change, but it does a fairly good job of recording average heart rate. So, it is fine for general fitness tracking, but it isn't accurate enough for someone who needs to know exactly where their heart rate is during a workout.

Despite not being as accurate with heart rate tracking, the Fitbit Charge 6 is the best tracker in the lineup for diet and nutrition tracking. The app provides barcode scanning, detailed nutrient breakdown, and precise portion adjustments, and it is straightforward to implement in the day-to-day.

Sleep tracking was the next sub-metric we focused on. We determined the accuracy of each tracker by comparing the data between different trackers (we wore multiple trackers at night during the testing period) and cross-checking it with our impression of sleep quality. The Whoop 4.0 and Oura Ring Gen 3 were the best at logging our Zs. It is interesting to note that these trackers are also some of the least cumbersome to wear in bed. The Whoop excels with detailed sleep debt tracking and behavior correlation, while the Oura has automatic nap detection and suggests personalized bedtimes for optimizing sleep.

In other health metrics and features, the Forerunner and the Apple Watch Series 9 offer the most extensive health tracking. Garmin has the athletic department covered with its “Training Readiness” and “Body Battery” scores, while the Apple Watch provides insightful walking metrics analysis and environmental sound monitoring.

In terms of data presentation and overall usability of the app, both the Forerunner 965 and the Vivoactive 5 score the highest for data interpretation and analysis. However, the Apple Watch Series 9 is close behind with the intuitive ring system and clear visualization of health metrics. An honorable mention in this sub-metric goes to the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6, which provides good data accessibility but less detailed analysis.

Ease of Use

Considering how a fitness tracker is meant to be worn all day and every day, we analyzed how easy each tracker is to use. This involved comparing the effort it took to set up each device, how well data synced from the device to the app, what it was like to put the tracker on in the first place, and how difficult it was to sync data from the device to the app.

Ease of Use Submetric Scores

Product	Phone App	Wearability	Display	Connectivity
Apple Watch 9	7.5	8	10	9.5
Fitbit Versa 4	9	8	7.4	10
Apple Watch SE Gen 2	7.5	7	9.4	9
Fitbit Charge 6	9	9	5.8	7.5
Garmin Forerunner 965	8	5	9.3	8
Garmin Vivoactive 5	8	8.5	6.8	7
Fitbit Inspire 3	9	9	4.1	7
Samsung Galaxy Watch 6	5	5	8.1	10
Garmin Vivosmart 5	8	6.5	4.6	7
Whoop 4.0	9	9	2.4	5
Amazfit Band 7	8	3.5	6	7
Xiaomi Band 8	6	4	6.5	7
Oura Ring Gen 3	9	8	1	5
Ultrahuman Ring Air	4	8.5	1	3

The Apple Watch Series 9, Garmin Forerunner 965, and Fitbit Charge 6 were our top scorers in overall ease of use. We emphasize daily usability and interface navigation, but there are some key points to discuss regarding these top performers.

First of all, we love the buttons, display, and overall usability of the Forerunner. But we have to warn potential users that this device is going to attract attention from people around you, and it also makes itself known to every article of clothing or backpack strap! The screen can display multiple metrics simultaneously, which we love when out on the trail, but it is 23% larger and 11.5% thicker than the Apple Watch Series 9. The Fitbit Charge 6 is even better at fading into the background (43% smaller than the Series 9).

At the culmination of our testing, our team had accumulated a ton of mileage with various apps (to say nothing of previous rounds of testing!). Their experiences led them to score the Apple apps (Watch, Fitness, Health) at the top of the heap, but the Garmin Connect app was close behind and appreciated for the “clean, data-driven interface and minimal 'fluff' content.” The Fitbit app was also identified as having clean organization and a customizable home screen. It will probably come as no surprise that the device with the best connectivity and smart features was the Apple Watch Series 9--it almost isn't fair to compare it to other trackers in this respect. This little thing is highly capable of messaging, placing calls, video and images, and otherwise seamless Apple ecosystem integration.

Some of the apps take a lot more time to set up, but that factor requires some discussion: the length of time it takes for the tracker to calibrate to the user is also correlated with heightened detail, such as with heart rate variability, stress scores, and overall health scores. We appreciated the trackers and apps that were the speediest to spit out health and fitness data, but we also know that more data, which takes time to record, typically yields more insight.

In terms of screen responsiveness, we observed up to a 90% difference between top performers (i.e., Apple, Garmin) and the more basic trackers in our lineup. The top performers also have up to 75% more overall interface features.

All of the devices in our lineup are rated to 5 ATM or fifty meters except for the Whoop, Oura Ring, and the Ultrahuman Ring Air, which can sustain 10 ATM (or one hundred meters). In short, all of these devices are cleared for showering, swimming, surfing, paddling, and just about any water-based activity you can dream up.

Battery

We tested battery performance by assessing the measured time to charge, how long the battery lasted during our testing trials, and our experience with the various cables and charging ports of each device. Our lead tester also took each tracker on a three-day weekend adventure to see if it could last without recharging.

It is interesting to note that our overall top-performing fitness tracker, the Apple Watch Series 9, cannot match the battery life of two of the least expensive trackers in our lineup, the Amazfit Band 7 and the Xiaomi Band 8. Both of these devices charge quickly (the Xiamoi takes less than an hour to hit 100%) and last between 16-18 days under normal use. They also have strong magnetic connections between the cord and the charging port.

We also want to point out that the Series 9 is probably not the best choice for an ultramarathon athlete due to the battery life, but the Garmins do have sufficient battery life for this kind of use.

Fit

Fit was a much simpler test for these products, but it nonetheless yielded distinct favorites. The Oura Ring Gen 3 and Ultrahuman Ring Air were the top performers in this metric and are both ultra-lightweight (0.11 oz and 0.10 oz, respectively). However, the Ultrahuman Ring Air “is noticeably more comfortable,” shared our lead tester. Additional key observations from our test team indicated that even though the two rings have a great fit, our testers were always aware of them. However, the Fitbit Charge 6, which scored lower overall in terms of fit, was deemed to be more comfortable. This is also the case with the Whoop 4.0, which earned a perfect score in Comfort.

Our lead tester reported that the Whoop feels like a (soft cloth bracelet you can forget about." However, she also sustained some cuts from the metal clasp when she wore it during a crack climbing session at the local crag. She was also a fan of the Forerunner, but she pointed out that the Vivoactive 5 was “way more comfortable than the Forerunner.”

Conclusion

With so many fitness trackers available, finding the ideal model for your needs can be a daunting task. This review aims to assist you in narrowing down your search by providing invaluable insight into each tracker's strengths and weaknesses. While all of us at GearLab love to test technology and share our perspectives with you, we are all active people, so testing fitness trackers was particularly meaningful. After logging countless miles, workouts, and sleep sessions with these devices, we genuinely hope that our work helps you find a fitness tracker that allows you to achieve your fitness goals. We'll see you out there!